Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-20-1993 - III-D 1 O R A N G E C O U N T Y BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 20, 1993 Action Agenda Item # j7r_D SUBJECT: St. Thomas Woods Preliminary Plan - Revision DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Resolution of Approval Mary Willis - Extension 2583 Subdivision Plat ,TELEPHONE NUMBERS: 4/13/93 Draft Planning Board Minutes Hillsborough-732-8181 Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To consider a revision to the conditions of Preliminary Plan approval for the St. Thomas Woods Subdivision to allow the use of a secondary driveway on Lot 3 . BACKGROUND: St. Thomas Woods is located on the west side of Pleasant Green Road north of Cole Mill Road. The Preliminary Plan was approved on March 1, 1988 and contained 36 lots. Six lots access directly onto Pleasant Green Road. The remaining lots access onto internal subdivision roads. Two subdivision roads feed into St. Thomas Drive which provides a single access to Pleasant Green Road. Lot 3 and Lot 32 are corner lots, located at the intersection of St. Thomas Drive and Pleasant Green Road. The Preliminary Plan approval required that access for these lots be restricted to St. Thomas Drive. The lots which accessed directly onto Pleasant Green Road were required to have joint driveways to reduce the number of access points. In October, 1992 a complaint was received regarding the construction of driveways onto Pleasant Green Road. The complaint involved the location of driveways which were designated as joint driveways on the Final Plat, and the construction of a driveway on Lot 3 which accesses onto Pleasant Green Road as well as St. Thomas Drive. Joint Driveways The Final Plat for St. Thomas Woods required joint driveways between lots 35 and 36, lots 33 and 34 , and 2 lots 1 and 2 . The Subdivision approval did not include cross-easements between the two properties, nor any specific design guidelines. The driveways were paved and landscaped, and questions arose as to how to join the driveways when the adjoining property was developed. Lots 1, 33 , 35 and 36 have been developed. In all cases, individual driveways have been constructed, however, the access is at or very close to the appropriate property line, and the Planning Staff has determined that the intent of the joint driveway requirement has been met. Staff is in the process of developing specific design guidelines for joint driveways to provide clearer direction to developers and homeowners. Access for Lot 3 Lot 3 , owned by Reid and Lola Aldridge, is located on the northwest corner of Pleasant Green road and St. Thomas Drive. The residence faces St. Thomas Drive. The driveway is paved and landscaped, and accesses St. Thomas Drive. In addition, the property owners constructed a gravel drive off of Pleasant Green Road for the purpose of parking a recreational vehicle and boat. After being informed of the violation of the subdivision approval, the drainage pipe was removed, and the access to Pleasant Green was cut off. The RV . and the boat have not been used since that time and are blocked in until some form of access is constructed. The septic tank and drainfield are located on the west side of the property, which prohibits construction of secondary access around the rear of the residence to reach St. Thomas Drive. The only other access for the RV and boat would be on the east side of the residence. Additional construction within this area would be highly visible. A large portion of the existing wooded area between the structure and Pleasant Green Road would be disturbed, as would landscaping installed in the front yard adjacent to St. Thomas Drive. Because the second drive is used strictly for the RV and boat, and moving the second drive to another location would result in significant land disturbance and visual impact, the Planning Staff proposes that the second drive be allowed to remain. Allowing the second drive would require a revision to a condition of Preliminary Plan as indicated in the attached Resolution of Approval. The Planning Board considered the proposed revision to the Preliminary Plan for St._ Thomas Woods and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends approval of the attached Resolution of Approval to allow a secondary drive to be used for a limited purpose on Lot 3 of St. Thomas Woods, per the Planning Board recommendation. 5/92 RESOLUTION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS Date April 20, 1993 Name of Subdivision St. Thomas Woods - Revision Owner/Applicant Reid and Lola Aldridge The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves a revision to the St. Thomas Woods Subdivision Preliminary Plat, dated September 21, 1987_ and approved by the Board of Commissioners on March 1, 1988 subject to the following original conditions of approval as modified by cross-out (text deleted) and underline (text added): 1. Combine lots 6 with 7 and 11 with 12 so that each lot has Health Department approval. 2. Lots 3'and 32 must receive primary access from the subdivision road (St. Thomas Drive). A secondary access onto Pleasant Green Road may be utilized on Lot 3 for the sole purpose of ingress and egress of a recreational vehicle and boat. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Staff which minimizes the visual impact of the secondary drive. Required landscaping shall be installed by June 30, 1993. Failure to install landscaping as required will nullify this revision, requiring removal of the secondary drive. 3. Dedicate and additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way along Pleasant Green Road in lieu of the proposed (5) feet to accommodate future turn lanes, if warranted by future development. 4. Provide 10' x 70' sight triangles at each intersection. 5. Provide cul-de-sacs at the end of Renee Drive and St. Thomas Drive with to note indicating that the right-of-way n the cul-de-sac (above that required for a 50-foot right-of-way) be incorporated into lots 10 and 20 on Renee Drive and 26 and 27 and St. Thomas Drive. 6. Designate stormwater detention area as unsuitable for development ad maintained by the owner of lots 11 and 12 (combined). 7. Provide joint driveways for lots 1 and 2, 33 and 34, and .35 and 36, 5 Signature of Applicant Clerk to the Board I, , accept the above listed conditions of subdivision approval, and acknowledge that each must be met prior to recordation of the final plat. A . j • - rite .. I I.Willson Amity Autry.°ytrN Nt Ors mod.r°•drawn R.F. SAILSY C a me Nom to/dotal tut**mode by me at my,°r,Unt LOT.7 \ E aro/un°r v drrot woeanron on MA // - �yr1_ / N x_� 11 of ,and n m n.ry moat coact / ■ �•t to Ow oNt of my....WM.and MINI. 1 Y moth / N\ a s. Oat m.en °I ovwre r awm.d or Uuwdey.,.a rs c COLA AO'co. vn� • � �, dprw,m a I 10,000 t P•V .C �/ LOT I \\•N y/ 4 d,.me oeunderrn not tomcod re mown c.bonen x333 i / 47,698�•H. \ _fines arced from mldrmauon found in / .that von road cal Medved In exora• O�AH CARL VIUUlTY MAP ` + / / once unto GS.•.30.r mended_ ? ,p�S ifF Ah7Ta OGALE LOT 5 / + Witrwsa mr nand and mil malt 1 I._... —day of rr• / / a" --- NAT i9 FY -Y-- * SEAL t/l./G..�4 .-.aa ISEAU ,' 4•1335 .ii o/ -"Z'''''..;".4 ... �/ / - �/ �/ O h�/ ` \ ` + t _ voihom mry Atuy.R.L.s. 1395 4I.* SUAvc / LOT L `fit / "'C'..\--LOTS 142.To y JEW -. / I ,_../ -..:-. --- -----7..--.---;-•- -.- 7 .. ca \,�- / ,/ r{� LOT♦ / •. / / i4.4' n ft :_ jpL w/ � °w,. ��J hti ,NORTH CAROLINA-DURHAM COUNTY 7 0 / ^ 1•L$ANlc ES G•Au7t7Notary Public do nelrby candy .`'� LOT 3 �� I V try,y/ItL LAM JERRY AUTRY pmonWv Slr ■ 001 S.F. / I - `` app Yred adore me Ind day and KonoMtdood the ouo _ _ -ti / a eaanon of the lore0oln9 plat. DES u. 7 a- / / 6 V7 Wrtn=my nand and nourUl eat.this i 1 /_ day of 4,- ■ hall 1 My Commmron Eaotter �r•r' PUBU UIG) 'ytt. rc• , % Notary Public °� /• (PIJB L. rrz,.N C_/ f/ i acT IT/M. "fH / rJ a B3, M C^t j'� 4fT• "ail+ dxn:finer auF ESS 8•' / V V31 �I t---` rrt.�! 'Tauw.e >Z / I I Q // LOT 31 ', G I LOT 30_ / LOTS 3437- TO OE ACCCSSCO N - / I Flom ST.TArwtAt.p0. CERTIFICATE OF OWNER / / to 4,449 S.yE I1 Nj Lp,1715.* I In __ p / The unbrfrPlea owner of the prawrry Intl moon me VS!'t I n.eM°olst and wd0Vnron moor molted Mat L-7 /- N\ I - f 1 (lu cLa�F ordered the wwk of wrvtY- - -- - - \ aP \ __I r L ---,-- I Q _ .+ry rw can m9 m o.done.and that NI oua.weed. / // \\ \\ _•:1;1 ASS 2s'-- ,-Ja G -- -.. _ :' alleys moments and 00th own roan w alarmed ^' ' w \ udM rata plr an...by oWrc.nd for noon care tnd mat .. N.4q TC \ r--- - N77.64 2,p'J 1 9 11 ell cadre lid anveM ee.emena mown uodr.hd oln art r v \\ef. \\ 1 - -'I I -• - :SM needy 9rmt.d tot mo caw nrou�l�1Ua= 1 p *a`I \'s w \ I B f 137 1 - /Ofj7jJT�.4.�I� ;SEA LI - I LOT 30 \ .. I YL I 491914 Sf. I t J• 1 1 I (.7,311S.P. \ ■ v_ A 1 1 i Q • L. - / IsEALI• / \ I ' 1 N at/ I \- a------------- co ° V rR `' / I I- : -- 6z7._„4.2„.....6____ "�„J _ Li.,:3'634 Ta RE Ac0Cyf5D = hp. - 14'2 ---- pa v A�qu 1 - 19'n•y-- ICI 4gr750 SF I , e S h NORTH CAROLINA-DURHAM COUNTY 'lads will require-. d / LOT 21 �_ I f , b Y -, l,feAr.•cis G.qurtTNpory PUbi¢do hheav coml./• in the col-de-s•ea b 1 54,43a.SR _ 1f" . I - I , for a 60 foot • , I 1•_ - ------ tnet 69414 SCA.La Ck aersomdy orporet26 Into lots I I• . i3¢oe' ! I h 0. eppeand Delon me Iha dey and ackno.vladgad the due C• Ie and 26 k 27 on - • ------7T•Ay'ST'.I _ amnion of the longom9 plat p I_ --. - 1Qf r I -� --i - - Wftnomy hand andnowul MM.flit, IR day of '�-/ r ~,+"''7 - -- I $19 LOT 3S I Y•Y .19 '—r I NOT / I . .. --_■tt'!.. -1■_ I 750 5.R r d ; My C°mmmion Expels: p\ il / ----7------ "r �' �a I r u _._ Notry POOIic 94,,y� . • _ _ _ -. —I.__.__ ..LOT ty -" - I �.. ace.19 1174 't/L S7/34E OE _ -- ------ - 1 r LOTS 3S4JL Te Of .. • I - 1 1, zfmr -- A6c 1,500 T Jana O6w -t ---- - - • f It -------27?--407•f - ..... _ _ _ I _ -Te.a __ 1_ ,8 /r -'-•v-r•O!'It try_ I. 4- LOT 3 L I a Q -- - FINAL PLAT) - 54,039 S.F. I - °8-4 i LOT " 7 i ' " AUTRY LAND SURVEYIN c-s 54,0313.* 1' 1 _._ __ I 0 I I ' 20.tIORA WIC 0ST•3 WILLIAM JERRY AUTRY, REGISTERED LANG sURVE., 13 1 I --- r Se FQOa?OET>'ACE 5006 ialNTREE ROAD DURHAM. N C. 1' NIa'SIM• ' ------------- - ' ALS•oil - PHONE. 19191 183.11162 r___ FB.c, lueD DEED Te OWNER: BSI-3,1 5T THOMAS WOODS E 7 C-L •,87.07'6x' Lapp 11.00 3041 27.57_ S7tx1.50•w' LEGEND REFERENCES ._a CSNCCT I of 4)• 1 C-x 9Tel'ss' x0.00 19,04' saN 5757 •5•447.5C G '= MONUMENT 0 TAX MA/�0AW 17-23 COUNTY:oRAA1G= r-z er•Al..CC. a,.•I,. Arc n' aea.n' • P, °'e TOWNSHIP: FJ•d0 IRON FOUND • Or./Iaflt • DATE:_nAY 11.1485 1 SCALE:1".la& IRON SET 0 ToMa6Y 61/LLOOIC 0 100 too Soo 400 BLDG SETBACA--- 4507 ST6/4.t we DA. 7 All other lots proposed will have internal access . Emergency Management has indicated their concerns about dead end roads and long cul-de-sacs. The one long cul-de-sac proposed could be corrected by extending the road between lots 23 and 24 to the phase line. This would provide a stub-out which could eventually be tied back into the main entrance road thereby forming a loop road. Due to the size of this project a master plan of the property should be submitted. This could be used as a guide for reviewing future phases of Fox Hill Farm. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan for Fox Hill Farm Phase Two Section "A" with five conditions: 1 . All lots shall receive access from the internal roads instead of Miller Road, Baldwin Road or the main entrance road. 2 . Access for lots 1 through 7 shall be provided by another internal road instead of the main entrance road or include lots 1 through 7 in Phase Two Section B and provide internal access at that time. 3 . Extend the cul-de-sac between lots 20 and 21 to provide internal access for lots 8 and 9 . 4 . Extend the road between lots 23 and 24 to eventually allow the road to reconnect to the main entrance road. 5. Before additional concept plan phases are submitted, a master plan of the proposed development of the property shall be submitted. b. Preliminary Plans 1111.1006 ( 1) St. Thomas Woods - Revision Presentation by Mary Willis. This item is to consider a revision to the conditions of Preliminary. Plan approval for the St. Thomas Woods Subdivision to allow the use of a secondary driveway on Lot 3 . St. Thomas Woods is located on the west side of R Pleasant Green Road north of Cole Mill Road. The Preliminary Plan was approved on March 1, 1988 and contained 36 lots. Six lots access directly onto Pleasant Green Road. The remaining lots access onto internal subdivision roads. Two subdivision roads feed into St. Thomas Drive which provides a single access to Pleasant Green Road. Lot 3 and Lot 32 are corner lots, located at the intersection of St. Thomas Drive and Pleasant Green Road. The Preliminary Plan approval required that access for these lots be restricted to St. Thomas Drive. The lots which accessed directly onto Pleasant Green Road were required to have joint driveways to reduce the number of access points. In October, 1992 a complaint was received regarding the construction of driveways onto Pleasant Green Road. The complaint involved the location of driveways which ere designated as joint driveways on the Final Plat, and the ' construction of a driveway on Lot 3 which accesses onto Pleasant Green Road as well as St. Thomas Drive. The Final Plat for St. Thomas Woods required joint driveways between lots 35 and 36, lots 33 and 34 , and lots 1 and 2 . The Subdivision approval did not include cross-easements between the two properties, nor any specific design guidelines. The driveways were paved and landscaped, and questions arose as to how to join the driveways when the adjoining property was developed. Lots 1, 33, 35 and 36 have been developed. In all cases, individual driveways have been constructed, however, the access is at or very close to the appropriate property line, and the Planning Staff has determined that the intent of the joint driveway requirement has been met. Staff is in the process of developing specific design guidelines for joint driveways to provide clearer direction to developers and homeowners. Lot 3, owned by Reid and Lola Aldridge, is located on the northwest corner of Pleasant Green Road and St. Thomas Drive. The residence faces St. Thomas Drive. The driveway is paved and landscaped, and accesses St. Thomas Drive. In addition, the property owners constructed a gravel drive off of Pleasant Green Road for the purpose of parking a recreational vehicle and boat. After being informed of the violation of the subdivision approval, the drainage pipe was removed, and the access to Pleasant Green Road was cut off. The RV and the boat have not been used since that time and are blocked in until some form of access is constructed. The septic tank and drainfield are located on the west side of the property, which prohibits construction of secondary access around the rear of the residence to reach St. Thomas Drive. The only other access for the RV and boat would be on the east side of the residence. Additional construction within this area would be highly visible. A large portion of the existing wooded area between the structure and Pleasant Green Road would be disturbed, as would landscaping installed in the front yard adjacent to St. Thomas Drive. Because the second drive is used strictly for the RV and boat, and moving the second drive to another location would result in significant land disturbance and visual impact, the Planning Staff proposes that the second drive be allowed to remain. Allowing the second drive would require a revision to a condition of Preliminary Plan as indicated in the Resolution of Approval (a copy an attachment to these minutes on pages ) . The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Resolution of Approval to allow a secondary drive to be used for a limited purpose on Lot 3 of St. Thomas Woods. Willis presented photographs that showed both driveways noting that the visual impact is not great and that the neighbors indicated they would find the use of the driveway for parking the RV and boat acceptable with some additional landscaping. She emphasized that this driveway . would only be used for the RV and boat. Staff felt this would have much less visual impact than creating another area for parking. Gray noted that Condition #2 in the Resolution clearly states the driveway would be utilized only for the parking of the RV and boat and that failure to install landscaping by June 30, 1993 would nullify the revision and require immediate removal. He noted also that the owner would have to sign the resolution accepting the conditions of approval. 10 Burklin asked if there are requirements for approval by the neighbors in covenants since all the lots, from the beginning, were to access St. Thomas Drive. Willis responded that this was a County requirement, not covenants so the approval of the neighbors is not required. She continued that if there was some conflict in the covenants, then, it would be up to the Homeowners Association to resolve that issue. Jobsis asked if there was any reason that the driveway on St. Thomas Drive could not be widened to accommodate the RV and boat. Willis responded that could be a possibility, but, since this lot is at the entrance to the subdivision, the visual impact that would occur with the widening of the concrete driveway would create more of a disturbance. She also noted that at the present time, the RV and boat cannot be removed from the property. Hoecke asked if the Planning Staff felt that landscaping could be installed that would make the driveway not appear as a driveway. He expressed concern that something that "looks like a driveway" will be used as a driveway, perhaps not by the owner but by others. Willis responded that it would appear as a driveway but, that the visual impact would not be as great in this location as in some other location on the property. Hoecke asked if the buffer was cleared to install that driveway. Collins responded that a portion of the buffer was cleared originally for power lines. The owner felt since that area was already cleared it would be simple to clear the additional small area needed to install a gravel driveway for' the storage of the RV and boat. Scott asked about the lots that were required to have joint driveways but did not (lots 1 & 2, 33 & 34 , and 35 & 36 ) . Willis responded that lots 1, 33, 35 and 36 have been developed. In all cases, individual driveways have been constructed, however, the access is at or very close to the appropriate property line, and the Planning Staff has determined that the intent of the joint driveway requirement has been met. MOTION: Gray moved approval as recommended by the Planning Staff. Seconded by Waddell. VOTE: 5 in favor. 1 ) 2 opposed (Burklin and Jobsis - both felt that the restrictions on driveways was very clear up front and they were concerned with being inconsistent) . AGENDA ITEM #9 : MATTERS SCHEDULED FOR JPA PUBLIC HEARING (4/15/93) AGENDA ITEM #10: MATTERS PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC HEARING (MAY 24, 1993) a. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments ( 1 ) Zoning Compliance Permit (a) Article 14 . 3 - Site Plan Review (b) Article 21 .4 - Zoning Compliance Permit Required Presentation by Emily Cameron. This item is to consider adding language to Article 14 and Article 21 of the Zoning Ordinance to clearly explain that a site plan approval with or without a zoning compliance permit does not establish a vested right to develop a project in the absence of an approved Site Specific Development Plan. In 1991 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to include provisions for vested rights . An applicant may request approval of a Site Specific Development Plan which would allow t him or her to develop property according to the plan 'for a period of two to five years. Once a vested right is established, development of a project would not be affected by zoning changes concerning the type and intensity of the use. If a site plan is approved without being vested, the applicant is not entitled to develop the project should zoning regulations change subsequent to plan approval. Issuance of a zoning compliance permit does not extend a vested right. If a site plan approval is followed by a zoning permit and a building permit, then the project is vested, provided the building permit does not expire.