Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-06-2000-9eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSISONERS AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 6, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. ~~ SUBJECT: Amendment to Orange County Private Road Standards DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Proposed Amendments to the Orange Courr(y Subdlv~sion Regula~ons 2. Draft February 28, 2000 Public Hearing Minutes. 3. April 5, 2000 Planning Board Minutes. 4. Draft May 4, 2000 Planning Board Minutes 5. Ordinance Amending Subdivision Regulations INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lincoln Ext. 2594 Crai Benedict Ext. 2592 TEL-EPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham G88-7331 Mebane (336)227-2031 PURPOSE: To deade on proposed amendments to the Orangie CouniySubdlvk~ivr- Regulations, regarding private roads (Section N-B 3 - d -1 and APPENDIX A ORANGE COUNTY PRNATE ROAD STANDARDS). BACKGROUND: Request Orange County Administration and Planning staff propose changes to Section N$3-d-1 and Append'a A. ORANGE COUNTY PRNATE ROAD STANDARDS bo: • clarify criteria for private road justification; • reduce to 10 (from 25) the maximum number of lots allowed on a private road; • delete the provision for a Class C Private Road; and • require that a NC Professional Engineer approve the construction of the private road in accordance with sound engineering practices (delete provision allowing a Professional Surveyor to certify private road construction), Location The amendments, if adopted, will apply to the entirety of Orange County lying outside the municipalities and their extra-territorial jurisdictions and the Chapel Hill and Carrboro Joint Planning Transition Areas. Existing and__Proposed Conditions . Existing: Section N-B 3 - d -1 • 7 criteria "considered" for justification of private roads; among those criteria, • provision of "significantly greater" (than required by ordinance): o lot sizes and building setbacks; o dedication or preservation of recreation, open space containing significant sites; o in a protected watershed, increased stream buffers 8~ reduced impervious surface. Existing and Proposed Conditions (cont.) Existing: A~aendix A. Private Road Standards • 1 to 3 lots or du allowed on a Class C Private Road (8 ft. travelway). • 4 to 9 lots or du allowed on a Class B Private Road (12 ft. travelway). • 10 to 25 lots or du allowed on a Class A Private Road (18 ft. travelway). • ~ 25 lots allowed on private road if road is built to NCDOT standards. • Professional engineer or surveyor certification of road construction. Proposed: Section N-B 3 -d -1 • .Criterion 1.a (increased lot size) and at least two other criteria must be met to justify a private road; no private road justification needed for minor subdivisions of 3 lots or less; • minimum lot size: zoning district min. lot size min. lot size for rivate road 40,000 s . ft. or less 80,000. s . ft. 87,120 s . ft. 2 ac. 130,680 s . ft. 3 ac. All other cases 5 acres building setbacks (all districts) at least twice those required by Zoning Ordinance. 50% dedication of land if containing sites referenced in "An Inventory,of Sites of ~ Portions of Oran a Coun " • within protected watersheds: stream buffers increased 25%. Impervious surface decreased by 15%. Proposed: Aapendix_A._Private Road Standards • Class B Private Road (12 ft. travelway) required for 1 to 5 lots (Minor Subdivisions) or dwelling units. • Class A Private Road (18 ft. travelway) required for 6- to 10-lot Major Subdivisions (or dwelling units). • No exception for X10 lots on private road. • Professional engineer certiflication of road construction. Implications Pros: •' Long-term reduced maintenance costs for citizens; • Better planning for long-term development of properly (discourages "piece-meal" development); • Investment in better infrastructure for future subdivision; • Better response time for emergency access. Cons: • Minor increases in costs for minor subdivision development; Development Process~Schedule, and Action • Public Hearing February 28, 2000: Major comments: o No flexibility for private roads to protect natural resources or rural character; and o Cost of private road certification will increase for small subdividers. The Board of County Commissioners referred the proposed amendments to the Planning Board to return a recommendation na sooner than May 3, 2000. • First Action: Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered amendments and revisions based on comment from the February 28, 2000, Public Hearing and recommended further revisions be made and brought back to the May 4, 2000, Planning Board meeting: o Delete provision allowing exceptions for more than 10 lots on a private road; o Firm language dealing with private road justification to more specific criteria; and o Delete provision requiring paved private roads to meet NCD~T standards for paving. May 4, 2000, the Planning Board voted five (5) to three (3) to approve the amendments. Board members voting against the amendments cited their disapproval of the provision requiring greater building setbacks in order to justify having a private road. Final Action: Board of Commissioners to consider amendments to the Orange County Subdivision Regulations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION(S) Planning Board Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments as given in the attached document. 3 Administration Recommendation: Approval of the proposed amendments as given in the attached document. O -a c .0 G 3 ~I 0 c .N 'O '~C O .5 a~ 0 a~ 0 a 0 a a~i c~ E 0 .5 a~ c ~L A~ w 0 a a~ 0 a 0 a N N .~ '~ N O ~ CO ~ ~ o ~ ~ O O Q N O. ~ co N ^` .Q W L a~ o .~ o ~~ m `) •~ 3 c ~ ~ o a '~ ~ :~ w~ ~~ o ~ ~. y c O a~ ~ a o •-~ ~ 0 0 ~~ y ~ •~ o ~ c ~ co -o a~ c ~ ~~'-. o~ ~ •N ~ .~ '~~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ o a~ c~ ~ ~ -a •c 3 ~ a _o ,o `~° N .L .~ ~~~ L . O .N ~, ~ a ~ ~ o o .` U ~ a~ ~ c ~U ~ = oU is ~ C w O C '~ ~ ~ N .p = d o~~~~odd '~ O~ O y O p 3 w ~ .~ p~ N N N O .y O...., _ ~-n~,~°~~ao ~013~~~as~ d ~ O ~ do ~_ e`a~ "~-ac_E L~ ~ ,o ~~ ~ ,= E o m .-. ~ V ~ „gyp' X41 p v M _ v~ a t- ee ~ cv -o ~.° e~ -o c 0 w H N C 'C 41 a O .~ O ~ d O `~ C ~.+ d H 4f .~ V ~ ~ d v O d ~Z t 1 Y O H r.. p~ G ~ a1 eti ~n~~~:o~E y 7 NN o:o3 c o ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ o ~~ ~~ eo~'v ~~ ~ ~ m ~o ~ ~ c H C i C ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ G O O ~ ~ + O v Q _ 0 7 . p i L= p~ O C ~ taai-~~o o~~~ -..• m COeaEs .~~s~~ cE~m•- ~°o~ as ~~~`m_ O .o 5 ~ C ~ ~ ~3 a ~ ~ O ~ ~ y ~ ~ v ~'' ~ G. R U ~ .r.~ 7. ~ ~ C C d ~ ~ ~ C V ~ O n C V ' ~ _ ~ a ~ U v C ~ ca .~ ~ ~ ~ y y 'p .~ ~ , C ~ C ' ~ O .~ . _ ~ O R 7 N C ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ • ~ ~ N d ~J _ ~ N = ~' ,~ c o °' a - rn C~ "i7 ~ t w -~ ~ C ~ ~ A = ~ a . .. °•N~~ C C ~ L ~ 0 ~ ` ~ ~ ~ O • ~ N ~ C LL U t U ~ I-' ~ • O N H ~ • • Q co•~ ~~ v . ~_ ~ 3'0.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _W L ~ _ O 3~ ° ~ m 0 ~ U • ~ N ~ . m C C ~ . O~.. L 0 S ~+~ O ~ ,~ ~ ~ Qw..~ N ~ ~ V ~ U ~ w ~ N V ~ p~~ ~•~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ C~ N _ NON h+ ~ ca a~ a~'~,.. +•+ ~ O ~ E ~3 ~ ~~c ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ O C ~ ~ C ~ ~ C O to N ('O a 'G o ~ ~ o~ _ ~ ,U C a ~ ~ ~'~.~ o ~i bo ~o a ~ p ~' ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ • . ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ _ _ o ccv m ~ ~ O `~ `~ ~ C ~ ~ ~° ° •ti as ca ( j ~ ~ • o m L ~ C V (.~ ~ o N ,O ~, + L ~ O N ~ l~ ~ N Q~ • ~ C L ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ V ~ .G U e- ~° ~~ -°o~ -v~ c~ ~ ~ ~c No rnm O o ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ vii =-~ .oc ~ c ~ o 0 vi ~ •~ ~ ~ N ~ c ~ rn o a ~ N N ~ O O 3 N _~~ ~~y N ~^~ N.~~ O ~ O $ `O 'G N N Cp ..Q O to O p C~ ~ N ~ l~ ~ ~ • N l0 ~ ~ ~ y .~ O N V :.+ ~ N ~ ~ ~ O o~ s O~ oNQ3 ~, +?o ~~o coo ~~ ++, N p O ~ 0 - o ~ co c~ ~~~ ~° v0ic`~c`~O .,osm~• ~ ~~N ~+~N-N axi0'v0-i-i ~. ~ ~ ~~ v~ 0~~ ~ C N O ~ N 0 ~j ~ 0~ ~ CL ~ O = ~ ~ N=+~ 'y ~~~ rtN,, w.. "-' V1 ~+'y~,, 01.x•5 o.~a1 m.o~~°o ~ N~ 3 G....O a,-a -03 i N *~ ~ '0 V ea cb~ ~ d G O 0 n~ N• ~ ~ .~ ~ •cn u1~~? ~ I3~c cll~OC y- ~c0.1~ ~~~ cnNo ~~.~ a~~~c~ 'ado = ~ o,~r~1 0 d N u1 c o• c rn ~ (A W = •C aNdr d ~ 7 ~ ea _o . ~ ~ o O .,.. O ..~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ -a a N ~ `o SRS ~ v ~~N m•~ ca ~ 3 '~j ~ ~ C N~_' off, a y"o c ~ ~ ~ 01~~. ac c~ °-w c ~~•~ o~~c~ a1 cd~ oalca o•-~ .~'-a.5 _~. ~ m ~~~ ~ a~~ E_ ?cam. c - N m •o ~~~ a=_ ~=~ °-o ° v ~ olcm ai ~ ~'~ 3 z N-v•v ~,$•°- ~'a1 ~ °~-o ~o. c.~• ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~°c •v oaoia ~o~ ~y mo a~i~s~ a ~~,~ .~'~~' ono ~~c y:r ~a1 ~ '~-~ to w'~~ :~ouN1 'NCB rao w,y 'mac `~3Nm ~ tam ~~~ roa Ha~E Q~ ~~ ~.ocd-a 3 H-ma1 F-oc: H-o~ CV cM ~ 1.[) O ti ca 0 -o .` m C 'OI O c .~ Q. a_°i m .~ 0 a 0 c. 0 a N E O N 0 O O. O .... v~ 0 ~° ca 0 z O w a O w z O Q Z W a a s± 0 a c .~ b C a U c C N Q ~`~•~`~ ~'co•m~~~a~o•= eOaC~ came L o•o '~y.r mm~c m'3E mead a.,~ o~No tvmi-molv~~~ea~'~~~m sae L,o L•~ c ~ m~ ~ °s av c~~° v •N~ O C ~ ~ ~ - G ~ ~ ~ p ~ +, O O M ~ ~, W 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~•~o LEc~~m~~',°~m O•~wia ,c~ o~r~ awear~e~~.cam O'o ~'a~vE ~aLa,o +.,~c~a~~•L3oEo ~~~m ~d +~o~~- o ~cm ao'mm ~ o 'o ==c•~~c~ +r'~mo •~mea o-°rs~c~ ~o~~r~o~'L'°mQ ,~,c-o~ d,o oo~~~ ~~ema3~~.~~~-mot dram cL c~`~a~~ ~~'wvc~~a~....o~~ oL~d mw, ~~ws Le`a~c~+rmo~mw mono m• ~ ~ ~•~c ~ m C ea v.Np~~w ccv ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ _~~ me° ma` o ~~~ o~ Q ~ o is m v ~ m ~ eA ~ ~ m m ~ `~~ c~~+3 eA ea cn m •c '~' ~ c ~ ~' _ v '~- ~ eat m e,9 ea c c' ~ O m V C O eT _ *~ ~+a3~~ E o iR °'o.-om a~e°vo-a~,~m._m~'L m~a, amai c~•~oea.~ mmLooa cam ~o, ~ m~ra m o ~ o ~ m o~ o ~ m ~ ~•- Lis o ,~ m ~ m ea ea Ec~eaa~a ~~eama.ac~eaEaeaw t~m~m ~~a 4 •~ ~ ~, 0 ~ ~ ~ . C O ~ O '~ 7 ~ ~ ~ a) ~ of '~ ~ d` O. C N 7 '~ ~ V V O N 0 0 N O a. G `- ~ ~ N ~. d cv O ~ ~ ~ ~ fl. ~ ~ y '~ ~ O ~ O O -a O ca ~ ~ ° C~ ca N ~ v' ~ 3 . rm Z ~~ •~.m oa~ml~aQ-~oNm ? ~~ vii ~ ~ a'~~~•- ~~ ~ ~ ~U Q'c°.~~ aaa~ ° °c`~ a~i m ~ ~ o y ~~'~ N ° ~ c ~,~~o w oma ~ c ~,~~.~-~ cTi o awoE o~ _=a vi o..eQ3 cNC~vi ~~U~ ~I~I Q~c~~~'~~rn~cN~~ ~ U N a) eD • .~ .0 ~ ~ ~.. O ~ ~ a) -O N ~ N ~L_ ~ N to 0 0 0 O1 N~ ~~~ C Z N~ C N~~ ~~ ~ ~' V y ~~ ~ ~ C w~ O a) ~ i a) V N L _ ~, 'O Q -p ~ Q) O U ea ~m~~ a~iN °p~°~~°~~~N~cca ~N•~c N~ EUc-t~~c~~a°~' '~N ~~N°- ~~ `oo~~~~c°a~~~cvama~ w~ 0 0 c 0 .r .~ 0 0 O~ N C ~ ~.N"a m ~ yea N QN+r~ C :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ 7 N ~ O ~ O V ~ ~ ~ ~ _ v N W ~ ~ eT co U ~~ y ~ C j O ~ a) ~ ~ '~ V a) ~~ N ~¢V ev ~~ N f6 .~r~.+.~~.~~~ eve . N w 'O W vJ m ~ ~ ' O ~~ L~ ~ ~ T + ~ ~ d . _ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ O. ~ ~o~ ~ r 'C c mm~ " ~ ~, v m~ E ~ d ~ ~ ~ L lQ ~ N ~ 9 N ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ .~ .~ yr ` ~'N . _ ~ O~ ~ O W O w A ~' O ~ C N ~ ~ ~ ~ N Q fl.o- c v .N ' N ~ N N C ~ a d 7+ L O ~ _ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~' d N 0 ~ ~ = ~ ~ r E ~ ~3c _,~ ,, ot NYa 3~~oc cw a v°~i ~ ~•~~-NO ~ d N ... ~~~ C Q a~~ .7 N tr V ~ ~ ~~ d ~a wo c~ V V t ~ C~ V N to ~ .G N Of N N~ N A N N ~f N E ~. ~ c~ a~ w ~ ._ a~ o N ~~° ~3c~E~.Co ~~U ~o,~~c~~~ 'O 4) .~ ~ N ~ to G ~iZ ~ ~~~ N~',C O ~. a~ ,o ~~? ~ m ~ a ~o~ ~'?oc~i~~~o a~E ~ U~o~-~ ~ cQ- ~~c`o.~~~~t 41 ~ ca o U^ ~ G. C7 N f~ N U U U yam.., .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~L ~.C ~ ~ G .~ ~ to ~- ~ ~ "~ ~' ~ y N N t~ ~~ L QU C ~ O C N ~ ~ .N ,~ ~ C N.C ~ N~ ~"~ ~~a ~ W ~'" ~ .-~ N w O C O C ~ ^C ~ C V~~~ M N - _ N N ~ ~` C N v~~ a-p N O N ~"r o n ~ ao ~ o ~ c ~ e~ Ri t~ C~ ,Ca W N C G ._.. R w C s~~ C N N ~, ~~ 0 0 ~~ C ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~ ~ _++ 0 t1~ p'N'N CO C~ O. ~ .~ ev ~ a ~ ,~ ~ N ~ e~ v as 'gym ~~~ ~3,z'°~wc~~~°o~cic ~ wr ~ O at ~wi~ :o~ .o ca ~' ~ 'O d 0 •to ~ O `~ '` d O~ v O~~~ ~ d d ~1i 41 W w+ ,,, 'p '~~o,o~~a~ ~N.oay ~,3 O E ~ O G ~ ~ 4t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v O 'pd mom N ~ ~ Q= 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ {~ ~ V~ a~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ _ _ ~~a3 ~ n~ wo N p`i-4= c r 0 ~ C~ a, C ~~ p C~ ~ C C v c ~~ ~° ~~ W =~~p~asc~ a~,"~'vaN Z V ~ O Ci ~ ~ q t ~w = ~ +O+ i ~ v 8 7 O J J O Q LU w D z W H Z W Q _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~a .~~ _ ~~ `~'~~tn 'aE ~N ~ U ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O 0 ~ ~ ~ N o•°'o~ ~,~~ a~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ `F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "O ~ C N ~ N 'O ~ ~ ~ .~ •~ ~' C ~ ~ C '~~ O~ o U ~~` O ^'S ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ c~ z ~ = ' ~ p c v i p N ~ °c ° ~ ~ d z ~ rn .~c ~ - o ~' ~ ~ ~° ~- ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~,c ~ 0 ~ V y ~ rnv ' w .~ . O ~. ~ y co ~, ~ o c ~. N . 3 ~ ~, ~ ~ ~-o 3 ~~ jC .~ ~ ~ ~ a U c N , N ~ c ~ O ~ ~ ~ D 7 N ca c O U ~, O Q~ ~ •r U ~ s U c ~ ~ ~ E a a i ~,, . _ ~ N~ ~ ~`~o a~ Q1 ~ u ~~~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ .c C C ~ c i o a N C ~. N "O ~' ~, C N ~ N L~ ~_ W Q N N E ~ ~ _ w ~= a W ,O ~ ~ v cw 3 ~ H Q ~ ~.c o 0 3 om5 O ~~Z ~ arc O ~Ec~ LL ~ ~, a ~€~ n ~O 0 0,3 ~ ~ ~ ~ a; - o c~ a~~ ¢ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 01 Z ~ n'~ ~ _ O C ~ 3 2 O~ GJ ~..~ ~ Q ~ '~~~ F'- to ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Z Z O ..• !~ C O ~, W ~ ~ ~ ~ Q..N '~ vi ~ rn ~ ~ U Q axi ~ O 3 N G N e~ N d U ~_ ~~ •~ c ~~ t0 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ m 'C °~ v m ~ m ~ m a ~~~~ ~ o ~, ~= c E~ o V .N ~ .r N ~ ~ U 7+ ~ ~ f~ 3 ~ T~ a ~~~ o~~ ~~~ ~ ~ C Cri •- ~ ~L ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~~ ~ •= ~ .y ~ ~ m a ~ c~E~ ~~~ a ~ o~ .~.~ Q ~ N O N ~ ~ ~ s ~3 m V C d 0 V v V v L ~G ,` N d ~ C N C u~ ~ N C ~ N s ~, 3~ G N e~ ~ ~ c c~ v .~ ea a c ~ ~' c~ ~ .~ c 'O v N ~o ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o . a a~ o l~ dj ~ .N ~ ~ O ~ ~ O. O N ~. Q-~ O o- ~ a~'i .OC ~ .Q ~- a o •~ ~ 'N ~ N c~ 'a a~ ~ U N ~ ~ C cv 0 U .~ a .~ ~ ~ O ~~ t ~ ~ rt+ 'Q i 0 •~ rt+ „~ o .~ a a~i .y ~ ~ .., ~ ro ~ o Q +~.~ U ~ 7 N ~ v: ~ ~ Q. "-. c D.a.~ 00 U QcA~~~ C N ~ 7 t ~ y'~~cc N ~ ~ ~ ~ o~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ .~ ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~ N'C ~ 'D N ~ ~ C t0 +~. N ~ r"NC'~~~CQ f~GD~Q~ e- ~ N ~ a~ 'o ~ ~ ~ ~ a y ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o o 'v~ ~ 3 ~ o a~ ~ U ~ 'O ~ G O ~ O Q ~ ~. N ~ N O ` C ~ ~ ~ ~ N. p 0 O ~ ~ O Q ~ O c ... ~ c ~ a O J © ~ c a a i ~' ~ o o ~ ~ m ~ o. ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ o rn ~ c O m ~ c O ~ rn w a ~~ o ~~ ~ • ~ o . ~~, a ~o • `y C7 c N •4? ~ ~ N Z ` ~ ~ ga °o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ C ` c ~ N ~ ~• ~ N N 0 O N v Q ~ G7 U W O '~ ,O ~ t ~ m O y of ~ o O ~ ~ N ca ~ c~ ~ ` ~,,,; ~ ~7 ~ 7r p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' o ~ ~ ~ W ~ ¢ O a o ~ ~ ' U c o ~ cv [~ --~ ~ o ' o x N ,c ~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ ,~ , v1 'y N r. ~ = '3 O V ~ qj ~ ~ o , j U ~ ~ ~~ ~ o c~a a d ~ ~, w N~ ~ O N A ~ fl- O E ~ -a ~ W ~ C O '~ N O C 0 0 ~ "'' y. O Of ~ LL. ~ ~ ~ 'p_ ~ N vi t 3 ~ N p ~ ' ~ O a o ` E ~oa~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ = o0 E E om ^ N ~ ~ N •- O O. N ~ 41 Z' ~ N p N~ O. o C ~ 7 U ~ .~ ~ N F- ~ ~" ,O ~ ' v i Of ~ 'G ~ o ._ o ~ a a- N ~ O ~. N ~ ~ O O t~ii ~ ~ N i ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~, o o a ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~"~ ~ o ~ o ~U U ~ ~ N U o ~ ~~~ n ~ ©~ oa ~~ ~ ~ ~. z z ~ ~ _ ~ (A ¢ ~ CV c'M ~ ~ci CG O ~ D W ~ ` ~ ¢ ~ Q Approved May, 3, 2000 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD February 213, 2aQd 11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Orange County Planning Board met on Monday, February 28, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. in the Judge Gordon F. Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W. Brown, Alice M. Gordon, Stephen H. Halkiotis, and Barry Jacobs PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Karen Barrows and members Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Theresa Nicole Gooding-Ray, Onie Lea, Lynne Holtkamp, Runyon Woods, Rachel Preston, Leo Allison, James Selkirk, and Robert Strayhorn COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Planning Director Craig Benedict and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN tHE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR Chair Carey welcomed everyone to the meeting. He said that Planning Board Chair Karen Barrows would be introducing each item on the agenda. B. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Carey dispensed with the reading of the public charge. C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Orange Coun Subdivision Rene uc~,lations Text Amendm®nts Planning Director Craig Benedict said that these items have been proposed by the staff based on Board of County Commissioners' goals and Planning Board discussions over the last six months. We said that at every quarterly public hearing additional steps would be taken for the preparation of the County's comprehensive plan by bringing forth regulations that go with the comprehensive plan. He said that tonight's public hearing would address two general areas: subdivision regulations and transportation issues of the comprehensive plan. He said that the staff is in the process of creating a unified land development code so that all of the information about zoning, subdivisions, and economic development districts will be in one book. a. Section III-B Classification of Subdivisions . b. Section III-D-1 Concept Plan Approval in all Zoning Districts Except the Rural Buffer. c. Section III-D-2 Concept Plan Approval in the Rural Buffer. d. (non-Vehicular Access. e. Section II DEFINITIONS. f. Appendix A Orange County Private Road Standards Craig Benedict made reference to private road standards and said that the staff is suggesting a decrease in the amount of lots that are allowed on a private road from a 25-lot maximum to a 10-lot maximum. He described the negative things that have occurred as a result of the 25-lot maximum regulation for private roads. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the Orange County private road standards and asked what would happen to existing private roads if someone wanted to put a house on an existing lot or split the lot into two lots. Craig Benedict said that each of the subdivisions that have private road standards has something in their homeowners association documents that address additional lots being subdivided on the road. In some cases, the cost is borne by the subdivision. 12 Geoffrey Gledhill said that the upgrade of the road is required to service the new subdivided lots. Once the upgrade is done, then all of the lots in the subdivision are jointly responsible for maintaining the road to the upgraded standard. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the 18-foot travel way and asked if that included the swells or if it was just the actual road surface. Craig Benedict said that 18 feet was just the actual road surtace and that the impermeability that comes forward from both public and private roads still is counted as the entire roadway. After the swell goes up to the 50-foot area, then there is a certain amount of impervious that would be counted in the remaining 50 feet. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was the same amount of shoulder that must be cleared regardless of whether it is a public or private road. Craig Benedict said that typically there is the surface course, afour-foot swell down and afour- foot swell up and then whatever can be preserved after that. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 13 and read the first paragraph which says, "Private roads serving more than 10 lots ar dwelling units may be permitted only if constructed tv NCDOT public road standards," and said that this contradicts everything which has gone before it. Craig Benedict said that this statement could be deleted. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to Class A versus Class B private roads and asked if the staff has looked into the cost of hiring a professional engineer. Craig Benedict said that the staff has checked into the costs for engineers and the determination of one road over the other is negligible in cost because it is the engineer's time to ga out and see if the road meets the standards. He said that one of the most important things is if the County is going to continue to have private roadways, the hazards of living on a private road should be reduced as much as possible by having the road certified to the standards. He said that drainage is the key fnr private roads, and that is where the biggest failing is. Commissioner Jacobs said that DOT had set up a committee to work vn subdivision standards and he is cancemed that the County is locking themselves in and not allowing any flexibility. He is concerned that there would be no allowance if there were some significant natural resource or rural characteristic of the property that might be enhanced by having a private road as opposed to a public road. He questions eliminating flexibility in the concept plan amendments. He would prefer that the plan be presented for comment to the Planning Board and the County Commissioners before the staff makes a ruling. Craig Benedict said that some of the language could be changed to allow for same flexibility. Commissiener Jacobs said that he would like to have incentives for people to do things the way the County would want them to, not making, it as a right, but a privilege. Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning staff could specify the reasons for modifications of the regulations. Craig Benedict said that a checklist could be implemented and reviewed to be sure the private road standards meet the goals of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Brown said that she would like the consumer, the one buying the lots, to be protected by the quality of road that is being constructed. She asked for more information on the process of getting an engineer to evaluate the road standards and Craig Benedict described this process. Chair Carey asked if there were some procedural problems if the process for the concept plan is changed and the County Commissioners approve the concept plan. Geoffrey Gledhill said that it is not uncommon in administrative law to do this kind of process. He thinks the objective of the Planning staff is to move non-advisory functions of the Planning Board to the County Commissioners. Chair Carey said that he feels that the Planning Board staff should review the project and not the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the private road justification and asked if there is something along that line for existing roads. She said that this regulation could result in a loss of trees which would'not be the best thing for the County. Craig Benedict said that he would work with the Attorney on language to address the issue for existing roads. Commissioner Halkiotis said that he fails to see anything wandertul about roads that are gravel where everything is covered with dust. He asked if there was any County staff that could certify the roads as meeting state standards. Craig Benedict said that for private roads, there is not any qualified staff to certify the roads. He said that DOT is now coming to the Development Review Committee on a biweekly basis to discuss the road standards. 13 Chair Barrows made reference to the subdivision approval and~said that it sounds like the Planning Board is being eliminated at the concept stage, but would be brought in at the preliminary stage. Craig Benedict said that the Planning Board would definitely be brought in at the preliminary stage. Chair Barrows said that it seems like the Planning staff is taking charge of the plans and that it is a big change from the current process. Commissioner Gordon said that if the intent is to make the standards so precise that it is a matter of determination only, it could be a goad thing. Commissioner Jacobs said that if something is missed in the concept plan stage and the first time that any policy maker sees it is at the preliminary level, it is too late. He would like to see apolicy- minded body review the plan, either the Planning Board or Board of County Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Radway said that he strongly supports going from two years to ten years for the minor subdivisions. He made reference to the 50-foot right of way and said that right now with any roadway width, if no curbs are used, 42 to 47 feet have already been used when everything is counted. He said that the 50- foot envelope is pushed with the swell system. He made reference to the process of the plan approval and said that the County should be really careful in the language for this process. He explained the buy right process. Geoffrey Gledhill said that he did not know whether this proposal would eliminate the buy right. He said that right now the developer has the option of choosing either the flexible or the canventianal plan. Commissioner Brown said that it was her perspective that the hope was to go more and more toward flexible design standards. Bob Strayhorn said that he is concerned about the process of waiting another ten years to subdivide. He asked if there was a list of people who have benefited from minor subdivisions and not abused them. Craig Benedict said that the minor subdivision process would still be available as long as it did not exceed five lots in a ten-year period. He said that about 38% of the lots that are subdivided in Orange County are minor subdivisions. MOTION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board far a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners no sooner than May 3, 2000. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 14 1 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 MINUTES 3 APRIL S, 2000 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lea Allison (Chair), Karen Barrows, Nicole Gooding~Ray, Crauford b Goodwin, Barry Katz, Howard McAdams, Jr., Rachel Preston, James 7 Selkirk, Bob Strayhorn, and Runyon Woods 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Holtkamp, Onie Lea (excused) 10 11 STAFF PRESENT: Craig N. Benedict (Planning Director), Planners Robert Davis and Eddie 12 Kirk, Christina Maon, Karen Lincoln, and Administrative Assistant 13 Joanna Bradshaw 14 15 AGENDA ITEM #1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 16 17 Chair Allison called the meeting to order. is , 19 AGENDA ITEM #2: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 20 21 There were no additions to the agenda. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM #3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -March 1, 2000 24 25 MOTION: Strayhorn moved approval. of the March 1, 2000 Orange County Planning Board 2b minutes. Seconded by Barrows. 27 28. 29 30 a. Orange County Private Road Standards 31 32 Lincoln made the presentation. The proposal is to reduce the maximum number of lots allowed on private 33 roads. Currently, the maximum number of lots allowed an a private road is 25, and the staff would like to 34 reduce it to ten. There are three classifications of private roads -Chas one to three. lots, B has four to 35 nine lots, and anything over ten is A. The staff is doing away with class C, and is proposing that class B 3b have one to five lots. The staff is also proposing to lower the travel way width from 12 feet to ten feet. 37 Class A would have six to ten lots and would be an 18-foot travel way. More than ten lots would be 38 allowed on the private road if some natural resource or rural characteristic was enhanced. 39 40 Barrows asked 'whom the developer would go to in order to contest the ruling. Lincoln said that the 41 developer would go to the boards. 42 43 Benedict said that the maximum number of lots on a private road has been addressed clearly in the rural 44 ,preservation standards. The approval process would be the same as it is currently. He said that after ten 45 lots on a private road, there would have to be some significant natural feature enhanced by the private 4b road to allow any additional lots. 47 48 Strayhorn said that he does not totally agree with making exceptions. 49 50 Lincoln read the list of exceptions for justifying a private road with more than 10 lots. 51 52 Allison also has a problem with making exceptions and reducing the travel way for a class B road. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Barrows made reference to page 110 and the surface materials on a private road and asked why the paving would make a difference if it was a private road. The Board agreed that the portion about surface materials of private roads would be deleted. MOTION: Strayhorn moved to extend the meeting past 10:30. Seconded by Katz. VOTE: Unanimous. The Board agreed to leave the class B private roads at 12 feet. Gooding-Ray clarified that the right-of--way of the class B private roads would remain the same. Barrows noted that the document had "significantly greater", and suggested that the document list amounts. Benedict suggested having a sliding scale for these amounts. Gooding-Ray suggested asking the Planning staff to come back with all of the changes for the next meeting. The Board agreed to receive the changes from the Planning staff at the next meeting. 16 1 DRAFT 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 3 _ MINUTES 4 MAY 4, 2000 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Allison (Chair), Rachel Preston, Bob Strayhorn, Crauford s Goodwin, Karen Barrows, Howard McAdams, James Selkirk, 9 Nicole Goading-Ray to 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Runyon Woods, Barry Katz,, Lynne Holtkamp, Onie Lee -all 1z excused 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Craig Benedict, Planners Robert Davis, Eddie Kirk, and 15 Jane Garrett, Tina Moon, and Administrative Assistant 16 17 18 19 'AGENDA ITEM #9: MATTERS HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARING (FEBRUARY 20 ~ 28, 2000) 21 a. Orange County Private Road Standards 22 23 Kazen Lincoln made the presentation. She said that the purpose of this item was for the board to 24 make its recommendations to the County Commissioners regazding proposed amendments to the 2s Orange County Subdivision Regulations concerning private roads. The amendments were 26 presented at public hearing in February and forwarded to the boazd. The Planning Board 27 reviewed them at its April meeting and made several comments and requested revisions. These 2s revisions have been made and incorporated into the proposed amendments. One of the changes 29 presented at the Boazd's April meeting was that there must be increased lot size and at least two 30 of the criteria must be met in order to justify a private road. The Board had asked staff to revise 31 language in the ordinance provisions concerning private road justification by making the criteria 32 more specific. Criteria l .a, which requires significantly greater lot sizes and building setback 33 lines, now specifies minimum lot sizes of 50,000 square feet, three acres or five acres depending 34 on the minimum lot size of the zoning district with setbacks twice those required in each zoning 35 d15tr1Ct. 36 37 Regazding the criteria that deals with significantly greater amounts of land of historical or 3s environmenta.l significance, the language would be tightened to say, "At least fifty percent of the 39 site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants as referenced in'An Inventory 40 of sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the 41 Unincorporated Portions of Orange County"'. 42 43 Regarding criteria that deals with significantly greater stream buffers and reduced impervious 44 surface for private road subdivisions located in a protected watershed, the amendments propose 45 the stream buffers to be increased by 25% and impervious surface decreased by 15%. Another 46 revision that has not been previously presented is that no private road justification would be 47 required for minor subdivisions with three or less lots. 48 17 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 is 19 zo 21 22 23 24 2S 26 2~ zs 29 30 31 32 Discussion ensued about the person who wants to subdivide on Lebanon Church Road. Benedict said that a private access easement is acceptable to access the adjacent lot, and this language could be added in the ordinance. The board agreed to put the language about the private access easement into the ordinance. Strayhorn would prefer that the setback requirements not be increased. Chair Allison agrees that the setbacks should not be increased. Barrows said that she hopes these proposed amendments make things clearer in regards to private roads. MOTION: Gooding-Ray to accept the proposed amendments with the change to the private road justification, and to add the language about allowing the private access easement to access the adjacent lat. Seconded by Selkirk. The setback is still as recommended by the staff. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 3 (McAdams, Selkirk, and Strayhorn -disagree with setback increase) Adjournment time being reached, the Chair asked for a motion to extend the meeting to complete the agenda. MOTION: Barrows moved to extend the meeting. Seconded by Gooding- Ray. VOTE: Unanimous Preston left at this point. It was 10:25 p.m. 18 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SECTION IV-B-3~I-1. ROADS AND APPENDIX A. ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS TWE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY ORDAINS: ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, SECTION IV-B-3-D-1. ROADS, PARAGRAPH BEGINNING THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 30-a REGARDING JUSTIFICTION OF PRIVATE ROADS IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS; Private roads shall be deemed justrfied for a minor subdivision resulting in no more than three lots that either meets design feature 6. listed below or for which a statement prohibiting further subdivision of the resulting lots is included in a separate document to be recorded concurrently with the final plat In such subdivisions, a private access easement may be granted to allow an adjacent lot to access the private road in order to reduce the number of access points on a state secondary road SECTION IV-B-3-D-1. ROADS, PRIVATE ROAD JUSTIFICATION CRITERA IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: For all other subdivisions the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners (in the case of major subdivisions) and Planning staff (in the case of minor subdivisions) shall consider the following design features when determining whether to permit private roads in subdivisions. At a minimum, a private road may be justfied if the subdivision meets standards of 1.a and at least two other design features listed below. The location and design of the subdivision is such that it cleariy preserves the rural character of the County through: a. The provision of lot sixes and building setback lines significantly greater than required by the underiying zoning district according to the following standards: 1) for zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet or less, all lots in the subdivision must be at least 80,000 square feet; 2) for zoning districts having a minimum lot size of 87,120 square feet (two acres); all lots must be at least 130,680 square feet (three acres); and 3) for all other cases, all lots must be at least five acres. 4) building setbacks in all districts must be at least twice those required by Orange County Zoning Ordinance. b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelNng units to screen the view of the subdivision from public roads,. maintain a wooded or forested character, maintain scenic views, or preserve wildlife, botanical, historic, archaeological and/or recreation sites; and/or g:\klincoln\pvtroads\ordain. doc\5-22-00\kl 19 c. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of the immediate area as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unicorporated Portions of Orange County" or ,for historic sites, if the site is deemed eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 2. The number, location and/or size of lots to be located in the subdivision are such that, even if constructed to State standards, the streets would not be accepted by the State for maintenance due to density or other State requirements. 3. At least fifty percent (50%) of the site is to be dedicated and preserved through restrictive covenants and contains recreation and/or open space areas of significant botanical, wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites as referenced in "An Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Signficance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" 4. In subdivisions to be located in a Protected Watershed as designated in the Orange County Comprehensive Plan, stream buffers are increased by twenty-five percent (25%) above those required by Article 6.23 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance and the impervious surface allowed is decreased by fifteen percent (15) to allow greater infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of water supply reservoirs. 5. The site contains topographic and environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, or watersheds, that would be adversely affected by the use of roads constructed to State standards because of factors such as significant amounts of earthwork (cut and fill) that would contribute to increased nan-off of stormwater and siltation. 6. The site is already developed to 100% of the capacity which could be achieved after approval of the subdivision and some or all of the non- conforming aspects of existing development on the site will be made more conforming as a result of the proposed subdivision, and all confom~ing aspects of the development will remain conforming. 7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350', it serves no mare than five (5) lots, its grade does not exceed 9%, and the land being subdivided is not connected to or part of another subdivision required to be served by public roads. In addition, the average lot size within the subdivision is at least 40,000 square feet. g:\kli ncol n\pvtroads\ordain. d°c\r22-00\kl 20 ORANGE COUNTY SUBDIVISJON REGULATIONS, APPENDIX A ORANGE COUNTY PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS, IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS ALLOWED ON A PRIVATE ROAD FROM 25 TO 1 O; TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR A CLASS C PRIVATE ROAD; AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR TO CERTIFY ROAD CONSTRUCTION. THE FOURTH AND FIFTH PARAGRAPHS IN THE SECTION TITLED GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ARE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: The standards and specifications for Private Roads apply to subdivisions in Orange County and the class of road required depends on the number of lots served by the road. A Class B road serves 1 to 5 lots or dwelling units, and a Class A road serves 6 to 10 lots or dwelling units. All Private Roads in a major (five or more lots) subdivision require the approval of the Board of Commissioners. Before the final plat of the subdivision can be recorded, the Private Road must be built and approved, or the applicant must post a security instrument with the County in an amount that would cover the cost of constructing the road. Class B Private Roads intended to serve 2 lots or dwelling units are not required to be constructed to Orange County Standards or to be inspected before recordation of the. final plat. However, Orange County recommends that these Class B roads be built to these standards in order to ~ provide adequate access, especially for emergency vehicles which require the clearances and tum areas shown on the specifications. Private road construction must be inspected and the construction certified in writing to the Orange County Planning Department by a North Carolina Professional Engineer Also, the location of the travelway within the right-of--way must be certified to be within the platted private road right-of--way. The road must be inspected during construction so that any changes or improvements necessary to insure approval can be made before the stone is placed and the shoulders and ditches are seeded and mulched. In order for this to happen, the subdivider or representative must inform the professional making the certification prior to the start of construction and at intervals during construction when inspections are needed so that they can be scheduled. ITEM' 9 UNDER THE GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRIVATE ROAD• CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Is AMENDED To READ AS FoLLOws: GENERAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 9. Have a professional engineer certify that construction meets the required standards and that travelway is within the right-of--way in writing to the Planning and Inspections Department. g;\klincgln\pvtroads\ordai n, doc\5-22-00\kl 21 STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Certification of Construction s~cTION IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS The standards described herein are the minimum set forth by the County. Orange County has not determined, and is not responsible for determining that these standards are adequate or appropriate for all uses by landowners. The standards also may not meet NCDOT criteria. No road will be accepted for maintenance by NCDOT unless or until NCDOT standards are met. Certification of Construction A professional engineer must certify in writing to the Planning Department that a Private Road, either existing, upgraded, or newly constructed, meets the standards of the required class for the subdivision. The following must be inspected and certified: 1. the travelway is within the platted right-of--way; (this criteria may be certfied by a registered land surveyor); 2. the proper material has been used in the travelway and it is built to the required width and thickness; 3. the shoulders are the correct width and the typical cross section is in place; 4. the road is on the proper grade; 5. ditches are in place where necessary to provide adequate drainage, in accordance with sound engineering practice; 6. needed storm pipes of proper size, materials and construction are in place and energy dissipater; installed, in accordance with sound engineering practice; 7. all disturbed areas are properly stabilized; 8. the required road sign is in place; 9. an adequate tum-around is in place at the end of the road; 10. required vertical and horizontal clearance is provided; and 11. sight distance and construction at the intersection with a public road has been approved by NCDOT. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Surface Materials, REQUIRING THAT PAVED PRIVATE ROADS MEET NCDOT PAVING STANDARDS, IS DELETED. STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE ROADS, Minimum Curve Radius (sECOND PARAGRAPH, ITEM 4) IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: A curve radius of less than 125 feet may be approved if all of the following conditions are met: The road existed prior to the adoption of subdivision regulations or was approved as part of an earlier subdivision; g:\kl incoln\pvtroads\ordain.doc\5-22-00\kl 22 2. Reconstruction of the existing road to meet a 125' curve radius is not feasible due to the extent of earthwork which would be required and/or the inability to reconfigure the existing right-of--way location due to ownership ar the lacation of existing structures, wells or septic systems; 3. Standards pertaining to road width and grade will be met; 4. The subdivision can be approved with a Class B private road; 5. Documentation is received from the Erosion Control Division that the proposed curve radius would provide for adequate vehicular access and circulation; 6. Documentation is received from the Department of Emergency Services stating that the proposed curve radius would provide access for the largest emergency vehicle, which would use the road. AT TWE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HELD ON JUNi; 6, 2000, UPON MOTION 8Y AND SECONDED BY s TWE FOREGOING DOCUMENT WAS ADOPTED. AYES: NAYS: Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners Date g;\klincoln\pvtroads\ordain.doc\5-22-00\kl