Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-12-2015 - 3 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT May 12, 2015 Meeting Date: Action Agenda 3 Item No. SUBJECT: Private Road and Access Standards No DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT: A.Emergency Access to Trail Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Systems at Orange County Parks – Planner, 245-2567 Draft Goal and Objectives Michael Harvey, Current Planning B.Planning Board CommentsSupervisor, 245-2597 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 245-2579 Craig Benedict, PlanningDirector, 245-2592 PURPOSE: To receive an update and provide guidance on options for addressing various private road access concerns. BACKGROUND: The 2014 Work Plans forboth the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) and Planning Boardidentifiedthe need to review private road and access standards.This review was predicated on addressing concerns, as identified by emergency service personnel and various advisory boards, related to the accessibility of public and private property in the event of an emergency. On May 20, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) authorizedPlanning staff to proceed with this multi-department/advisory board review of private roadaccess and trail system standards and develop optionsfor consideration. On December 9,2014, staff providedtheBOCC with a summary ofstakeholder input and requestedto place this item on an upcomingagenda for presentation and prioritization of possible actions. A summary of the issues and possible regulatory changes are contained within Attachments A and B. Current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Regulations – Road Development The County’s private road standards arefoundwithinSections 7.8.4 and 7.8.5 of the UDO summarizedas follows: 1.The standards and specifications for private roads apply to subdivision in the County depending on whether it is a Class A or B road: 2 T7.8.5.D BSS ABLEASICTANDARDSANDPECIFICATIONS FPR ORRIVATEOADS CACB LASSLASS Max.Number ofLots12235 Right-of-WayWidth50ft.50ft.50ft.50ft. Travel-WayWidth18ft.NoStandard12ft.12ft. RoadMaintenance YesYesYesYes AgreementRequired MaintenanceProperty Property Property OwnersProperty Owners ResponsibilityOwnersOwners Notes: a. Class B private roads serve 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units; however, subdivisions with two lots or dwelling units may be served by a shared driveway. b. Class A private roads serve 6 to 12 lots or dwelling units. c. Both Class A and Class B private roads may be graveled. 2.Roads constructed to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) standards for all subdivisions having 13 or more lots. NCDOT’s Minimum Construction Standards for Subdivision Roads may be found at the following link: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/Transport/NCDOT_Subdivision_Man ual.pdf The County’s two-tiered approach to requiring private roads was originally intended to allow an affordable development option for small subdivisions of no more than 5 lots. It should be noted North Carolina General Statutes exempt certain types of subdivisions from the County’s subdivision review process: 1.The combination or recombination of portions of previously subdivided and recorded lots if the total number of lots is not increased and the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County, including private road justification standards, as detailed within the UDO. 2.The division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication is involved. 3.The public acquisition by purchase of strips of land for widening or opening streets. 4.The division of a tract in single ownership of the entire area of which is no greater than two acres into not more than three lots if no street right-of-way dedication is involved and if the resultant lots are equal to or exceed the standards of the County, as detailed within the UDO. Lots created viathe exemptprocess do not have to comply with established road development standards as detailed herein regardless of the number of lots proposed. Summary of Concerns:Problems have been reported by the County’s Emergency Services Department and the Volunteer Fire Departments regarding emergency vehicle access on private roads. The narrow width of the Class B road has presented public safety issues asit does notprovide adequate access for emergency services vehicles, and thus impacts response times.There have also been issues for emergency vehicle access on roadways 2 3 serving exempt subdivisions due to road width issues,and admittedly theregulations cannot address the issue because of the exemption. NCDOT Public Road Construction Standards: Long-term maintenance costs of private roads have led to many requests for NCDOT to accept these roads into the State-maintained system. The construction standards for NCDOT acceptance are higher than the County’s private road standards and are typically prohibitively expensive to overcome. Subdivision roads with a right-of-way dedicated, recorded, or with preliminary approval from a county planning board dated after September 30, 1975 will not be added to the State system unless the road is built to the minimum construction standards of the Division of Highways. The minimum State construction standard is 18 feet of pavement, depending on the classification of the roadway,within a 50-foot right-of-way. Additional information regarding NCDOT construction standards can be found at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/Transport/NCDOT_Subdivision_Manual.pdf Possible Options for addressing Issues withinthe UDO:In reviewing the various issues, the OUTBoard, Planning Board, and Emergency Servicespersonnel recommended the following options. These suggestions are groupedinto 2 categories, specifically those best handled through a UDO amendment and those not. To provide an appropriate level of service for emergency services vehicles and ensure the provision of adequate public safety protection,Planning staff believes the following options for revisions to the standards of the UDO should be considered: 1.Do away with the Class B private roads and allow only the Class A private roads, which requires a minimum 18-foot travel-way. STAFF COMMENT: we have no particular concerns associated with this possible amendment option. 2.Allow subdivisions withup tothreelots or dwelling units to be served by a shared driveway, subject to provision of a minimum driveway width, maximum driveway length, and a turnaround area that can accommodate Emergency Services vehicles. (The UDO currently allows two lots or dwelling units to be served by a shared driveway.) STAFF COMMENT: staff hasno particular concerns associated with this possible amendment option. 3.Develop a requirement that all newly created lotshave access to a complying road (either private or public). STAFF COMMENT: There arepotentially negative consequences, most notably for lots created via the exempt subdivision process, related to this option including: a.Individual property owners will bear the brunt of the cost for roadway improvements rather than the developer, b.The following scenario must be kept in mind: 3 4 i.A property owner takes their 200 acre tract of land and creates, through the exempt subdivision process, a total of 20individual lots all10 acresin size accessed via a private roadway 12 feet in width. ii.Lots are sold or otherwise conveyed. iii.Individual property owners will be required, if this standard is adopted, to upgrade the roadway to secure zoning permits authorizing construction on their property. This would include upgrading the roadway to a publicstreet once certain development thresholds are met based on number of existing homes served by the respective road. iv.Individual property owners will have to rely on their neighbors’willingness to ‘dedicate’ the necessary right-of-way/easement to accommodate roadway improvements.If they fail to do so the road cannot be improved tothe appropriate standard and Planning staffwould be required to deny permits authorizing development. The effect of the standard may mean some lots become undevelopable due to County regulations and, it could be argued, that ataking of property development rights has occurred without ‘just compensation’. Fire Council commentsthat couldalso be addressed through UDOamendments (Planning staff has no particular concerns associated with any of the following amendment options): 1.Cul-de-sacs: Increase theminimum clearing width for all proposed cul-de-sacs to accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging within Section 7.8.5 (D) (10) of the UDO. There is currently no ‘minimum clearing width’ separate from the development of the actual, improved, travel area. This is something staff would verify before the subdivision is recorded. 2.Drainage pipes under driveways: Section 7.8.5 (D) (9) could be amended to establish a minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet, to address the concern of trucks being ‘hung up’ when attempting to access/leave a property. 3.Gates/Walls: With respect to required widths and setbacks for gates/privacy walls, regulations could be adopted to require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to accommodate the Fire Council’s concerns. Staff would need to determine where such regulations would best fit within the UDO. 4.Pull-over Areas: Private road standards could be amended to include emergency pull off areas as suggested by the Fire Council. Staff will have to take into consideration the impact such a requirement would have on current impervious surfacepolicies, as such a standard would increase the impervious surface area on a site and could possibly impact overall developability. 4 5 5.Private Bridges: There are currently no existing standards governing the development of a ‘bridge’/stream crossing. Such crossings are permitted in accordance with Section 6.13.6 (C) (4) of the UDO. Staff is still reviewing this request. 6.Tree Clearance on Driveways: While the County may need a reference to a tree clearing requirement for subdivision projects to ensure emergency vehicular access, and reference such requirements in recorded road maintenance agreements for all subdivisions, the UDO may not be the most appropriate location for a County standard. (Also see #2 in next subsection.) Possible Options for addressing Issues outside the UDO:Several comments do not appear to have either a land use component or lend themselves to a landuse enforcement proceeding. Although possibly beyond the purview of the Planning and Inspections Department, staff reports these additional items as follows: 1.Locked gates: There is no land use issue related to a property owner choosing to secure his/her property. There is, however, a public safety concern. A separate policy/ordinance within Chapter 14 Emergency Services of the Orange County Code of Ordinancescould be written. 2.Tree Clearance on Driveways: As with locked gates, there is no clear land use issue associated with this matter. Aseparate policy/ordinance as indicated in #1above could be established to address this issue. 3.Road Identification: There is already a road naming policy enforced by the Land Records division of the Tax Administration office that could be reviewed and revised to address this matter. 4.District Issues with Road Conditions: This issue is beyond thescope of any one department or agency. From staff’s perspective there couldbe a County policy for addressing access and maintenance in those circumstances where there is an older development that does not comply with County and/or NC DOT regulations. The biggest concern Planning staff hears, with respect to this issue, is from residents of older subdivisions, with no home owners association, trying to address road maintenance issues and/or lack of financial participation amongst neighbors. Staff Options for Addressing Comments Regarding Emergency Access for Trail Systems: 1.Trail Systems: There are currently no standards for emergency access for trail systems in the UDO. On occasion, emergency service personnel has a need to access people using trailsat Orange County parks and nature preserves administered by the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). The draft goal and objectives (Attachment A) could be implemented and considered by the BOCC in the future as a matter of County policy for the planning and development of future parks or for incorporation into the UDO.It may providea more flexible approach, responsive to the site-specific environmental issues of individual park sites, if a matter of policy. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Existing Staff has accomplished the work thus far on this project and will complete any remaining work that is authorized by the BOCC. 5 6 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managerrecommends the Board: 1.Receive the update; 2.Discuss the concerns and options asnecessary;and 3.Provide staff with feedback on any potential regulatory amendments. 6 7 Attachment A Emergency Access to Trail Systems at Orange County Parks Draft Goal and Objectives The following are draftgoals and objectives for accommodating emergency service personnel gaining access to people using trails at Orange County parks and nature preservesadministered by the Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). Orange County parks that currently have trails are Efland-Cheeks Park, Cedar Grove Park, Fairview Park, River Park,and Little River Regional Park and Natural Area. The Jones Creek Greenway connects Lake Hogan Farms with Morris Grove Elementary School. Future trails are being designed for the future Blackwood Farm Park, Hollow Rock Access Area, and at the Seven Mile Creek Preserve. These draft goal and objectivesare intended for review and comment by the Parks and Recreation Council, the Emergency Services Department, and the Orange Unified Transportation Board. Overarching Goal: Trail systems will be designed and constructed to accommodate the maximum enjoyment of trail users, however, in doing so, there will be considerations for topography, sedimentation and erosion control, the avoidance of sensitive natural and cultural resources, public safety, and the provision of staging areas for vehicles to access trail users in times of emergency. Objective #1 – Trails will be constructed and maintained with a minimum clearance width of six feet (even if width of the trail tread is narrower) and a minimum clearance height of eight feet. [Single-track bike trails at Little River Park may have sections less than six feet of clearance.] Objective #2 – Trailnetworks greater than one milein total lengthwill be marked with periodic signs that specify distances from trailheads and with GPS reference points for users to identify their location along the trail. Objective #3 – Trails will be shown on maps displayed on kiosks located at trailheads, and maps will be available from the park office (for parks that have an office) and from the DEAPR Central Recreation Center in Hillsborough. Objective #4 – Emergency Service vehicles will have access to trails in such a way that larger vehicles can reach staging areas identified within the park (and on maps) and smaller all-terrain vehicles (e.g., Gator) can access most sections of the trail. Staging areas will be located wherefeasiblewithin close proximity (approximately ¼ mile) toany point along the trails. Keys to any gates/ bollards Draft #2  7/24/14 8 Attachment A will be provided to the appropriate Emergency Services provider(s)and will be available from the park office (for parks that have anoffice). Objective #5 – Eachpark containing a trail network will develop an Emergency Action Plan, including protocol and procedures for trail-related emergencies. Draft #2  7/24/14 9 Attachment B EXCERPT FROM MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA ITEM 9: REGULAR AGENDA UDOPRA NIFIED EVELOPMENT RDINANCE RIVATE OAD AND CCESS S: To receive information about a current multi-department TANDARDS advisory board project involving thereview of private road and access standards and to receive the Board’s comments. Abigaile Pittman presented abstract. Lisa Stuckey: Would the pullover roads apply just to 18 foot wide roads? Abigaile Pittman: It would apply to any one way road. Paul Guthrie: What is the definition of a private road? Abigaile Pittman: One that is not accepted for public maintenance. Not built to public maintenance standards. Paul Guthrie: There are no use standards or number of properties attachedto define it; it has to do strictly with the shape and construction of the road. Abigaile Pittman: Yes. Pete Hallenbeck: A private road is one that NCDOT does not maintain. Paul Guthrie: Any existing non-public road servicing more than one household is grandfathered until an effort is made to do some sort of planning development. Abigaile Pittman: The new regulations are not retroactive. Paul Guthrie: What would trigger on that situation this proposal? Michael Harvey: Someone coming in and trying to subdivide any of those existing lots. There are two dual issues here.We have an addressing ordinance that is enforced by Orange County Land of Records via the attorney’s office that spells out road serving x number of lots or certain size has to be name. That is part of the ordinance. County subdivision regulations have been adopted over the years. We didn’t get private road standards until 1998-2000 so the County has a history of subdivision development some of which have been done under different standards. We also have several properties in the County that have exercised their right under the general statute to develop their property or subdivide their property through the exempt subdivision process. By state law, we have no review authority and cannot hold them to any specific requirements identified in our subdivision standards. Abigaile Pittman: The standard we are recommending to address those exempt subdivisions is to develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road, public or private, for emergency responders. 10 Attachment B Tony Blake: I do want to have this discussion around water supply at some point. Lisa Stuckey: I do think it would be a good idea to say that if you have a gate we can’t get through, there should not be any discussion about who owes what for whom. Craig Benedict: It is important how we differentiate what would go in the UDO and what needs to be handled by other ordinances. Paul Guthrie: In the emergency access to trails systems, there are two sides to it, one is providing the access points but the trails may not be able to accommodate the size vehicles we have. We may need smaller vehicles. Pete Hallenbeck: I like the three lots on the driveway. Craig Benedict: You will probably need a road name. Pete Hallenbeck: We have a few roads in Efland we cannot get the fire trucks down. With the pullovers, anyone who had to go through a 1700 foot road would appreciate those pullovers.