HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-05-2000-9cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 5, 2000
Action Agenda
Item No. q- G
SUBJECT: Govinda Hills Minor Subdivision/Paste A eat of Private Road Standards
DEPARTMENT: Planning
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Appeal Application (3-5)
Vicinity Map (6)
Private Road Justification Standards (7-8)
Class B Subdivision Road Cross Section (9)
Curve Radius Diagram (10)
Minor Subdivision Plat (11)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom King, Planner II, ext. 2607
Crai Benedict, Director, ext. 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968~L501
Durham fi88-7331
Mebane 336-227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal from Mr. Scott Pasley regarding a staff technical
decision to deny Govinda Hills, Phase 3 minor subdivision. The private road standard
justification requires:
(1) that each lot must be at least twice the minimum required lot size to justify the use of
a private road, and, as a secondary note, even though not noted in the applicant's
appeal application, the existing private road (Govinda Drive) be upgraded to current
Class B private road standards in regards to drainage, curve radius for public safety
vehicles, and slope.
BACKGROUND:
The following existing regulations pertain to this case and were implemented by staff:
• Section IV-B-3-1 _(Private Road Justification)
• Appendix A -Diagrams from Private Road Standards (See pages 9 and 10 of this
abstract)
• Staff is not interpreting old regulations or enforcing new regulations. They are
technically enforcing the existing code as written.
2
On July 20, 2000 the applicant submitted. a Concept Plan for a minor subdivision. The
proposal showed a 7.359 (6.88 exclusive of right-of-way) acre tract being subdivided
into four (4) lots. Two (2) of the proposed lots were 1.5 acres, two (2) other lots were 2
acres in area. On July 20, 2000, the Concept Plan was denied because the proposal
did not meet the requirements for private road justification (e.g., the lots were not twice
the minimum required lot size/.92 acres=min., 1.84 acres=twice the minimum.). This
requirement had been discussed at Development Review on July 13, 2000 when a
sketch plan was taken as a courtesy review.
The applicant's private road justification was strengthened. The applicant believed that
average lot size was adequate, but without twice the required lot size. On August 3,
2000, the Concept Plan was taken back to Development Review. The Plan would not
be approved with less than double the minimum lot size. This decision was based on
the need for staff consistency in technical codes in the approval of minor and major
subdivisions served by private roads.'
On August 9; 2000, a staff site inspection was performed. This inspection revealed that
the exisitng private road does not meet current Class B Private Road Standards. The
current proposal is not being required to meet any new private road standards.
The proposal will need to meet current private road standards. Attachments
regarding private road standards are included for the Board's information.
On August 10, 2000, the Concept Plan was again denied because the proposal did not
meet private road justification, and the applicant was infom~ed that if he could meet the
private road justification, then he still needed to upgrade Govinda Drive to a Class B
private road. The applicant can achieve the 1.84 acre minimum lot size requirement if
the~number of lots is reduced from four (4) to three (3), or, if the applicant wants to
retain four (4) lots, then he can upgrade the private road to a public road.
Development Review Process -Minor Subdivision
1. Concept Plan -Optional.
2. Development Review Committee review.
3. Final Plat approval.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Administration recommends that the staff decision denying
Govinda Hills, Phase 3 minor subdivision request be upheld. The following findings of
fact pertain to this case:
1. Proposed lots must be twice the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which
it is located to justify a private road.
ATTACHMENT 1
Orange Cuunty Pl~nning & Inspectlvns~
3U8-F Renato ROad
P,O. Box 81D1
Hlllal~preugn, NC x7278
(919) 245.2575
vtt ~aSle
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
ORANGE CO/UNTY, NORTH CAl~aLINA
' Type of Subdivision Request: y Minor MaJor
Type of Plan: ~Cancept Plan Concept Plan-RB ~^ Final Plat
In t~ccardanca Vvith (please check appropriate Section):
6ectlon III-C»5 (Appeal PrOr.Ariiirers/Mir~or Subdi~isians)
veCtlon'III-D~1~h (Appeal Pracedurea/Concept Plan DevAlc>~rnAnf Options)
Section III-D-2-e (Appea! Procedures/Concept Plan In the FRural Buffer Zoning
Distrigt)
Sdctldn 111-D-5 (Appd81 I'rocedures/Final Plat)
there is suhmitt'ed herewith a ndtlc:e of appeal,
This appeal Is b~ing Inltlatad by:
NAME:
ADDRESS: z
Fillnq bate; - I S - Zo 0 0
Taken! by: To.•;~ I ' ~4
'_~'
e ~ ~w v~ ~a.SS~~.
DAYTIME PH41VE: ~9 I q ~ ~ 3 z - ,1 ~~ 3 _. ~ -.--
NAME OF SUBDIVIBION: o V ~ +~ ~a. ~ S ;•
3
Effeatinp Section(s) ~ - 6 " 3 '" ~ ~1 of tho
Regulations end speclflC Standards In question. 1.7i-r larat~'o,- a r•d d4s?yn ~ FfAe s~6rY, v~t~nw ,~ S
'{1,~w~ i• Gear I ~iwr~ N+e a Ct.F ~i e r h
q • fit, rod~t~oh o~~ 1. a:z.~•s a.~..d b~-1d~ s~ ec k w~ S n; s u b orcliH
. Crwr av~ce~ wi!'L. Su 1 ; ;
P('o~/tyloVyyJj 1' r iw
rG ifE/ 7V ('o~lde A MArN1n- ~ .ff~ ~~~ : ~rt ~+ ~~rC 'al i L 'OT' lryr ?S 1C~
maw S''~1vt RC1re~~ LOU~Pti~~ntC :y a56~t wke~ 2t~.~fr. IPt '~k `>~e 5.,~:.vi~%~ Gaw~ir3 eef /Iras,r- ~nni~
L,~P vV~'~v.i...,tlrr. rR U(Ce~l ~~~ ri' ~r•exuu.~~ , i ~ ~~` rrb~l;r~~l WtiMiw.d+ti ~*'~ii~ jS "~(~lu acfC~~ APv1~
~.w~~. lo'I ~° ' ~ i~.srona~sae~a t ~cS . G ~ w,~ (;•.~ce is a.ss~~c~! ' aw~ ~° r
4
State the speclRc reason for the appeal request as it relates to thb specific standard(s)
cited abvve~ LL ` l 1I ~ .
Q GYG C" S f ~I ~ p{ l a M i e l 0 1 NG ~ U of G-~o Q ~ Wa~r~r C {.cra Zo,n
~~.
IVl ti ~ d :sn[e ~1ti ~hi~ < . a~ ZanP~
~~/ WI.L KLwL.~.ht 1`I~ _ it ~+~, ~s~.a^ ci'i'9r .ulYi. •. J.! _ " _ _ ~__ 1 _ L _ ~. .
5iippariing dociime~nts naquired for procoasing of e~ppeaL
1. 18 copie:t; of map ar plat for which appeal IS being sought.
2. Letter addressed to Planning Director stating raeFnn(s) fnr dppeal.
NQ1'E; Appliaa3tl~n will be placed en Beard of County Commies(onara Agenda at the
disaretian of they Board of County Cammiaslanera.
Signature of Ap~uca
Signature of 0 .nest
Date
$~ ~~'loo
D~t~
^^rrrrrrrrrr~r~rrrrr~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-rrrrrrrrrrrrrarrrr~
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Filing Date; ,~ g- /S - tea, -~
Rata Appiie~tlort Received: Q ~s - z.vo
Date Forwarded to Board of County Cammisaioners: ~ .__
Dispasltlon of G~se;
C~;\7'k1ng15U8App~lfprnl~8 l e).OU
.~
TO: t7range County Planning and Inspection
Attn: Craig Hettedict, AICP, Dirextor
306-F Revere Road
P4 $ox 8181
I-l.illsborough, NC 27278
FROM: D. Scott Palley.
DATE: August 15, 2000
1ZE; Application fnr Appeal, Gavinda Hills Phase III
Dear Mr. Benedict,
1 am enclosing my application and reason for appeal of the Development Review
Conuttittee rejection. You will find my reason ins in the interpretation and application of
the specific subt~ction cited for denial. My concept plan application was denied on July
2p, 2000 far this reason, however, I was contacted by the plsntting department a few days
later and informed that upon further review Govinda I~ills lies fulT,- in the protected
watershed line of the Upper Eno Protected .one. I was told to rework my private mad
justification and did sa according to recotttmettdation~ by Robert Davis and Torn King so
that my Platt could be reconsidet~d by Development Review. Again I was denied and
told that in order to be cot~istent, twice the minimum lot size would need to be met. I
was also irtfotmed that the Planning Director, County Manager, and the County Attorney
were meeting to discuss a policy regarding the handling of cutTent pmposals and if the
new private road standards to be placed before the Board of Cammissiorters could be
enfiarccd on these existing proposals. The reason I submitted trty concept plan on July
20th after the courtesy review was according to the Planning Department 1 could be an
the agetula of the August 15~' Commissioners meting and be heard based on the
standards we have been working from for the past two years.
As stated is my Friwte Road Justification, the four lots proposed wi!! average $0,150 sq.
ft., over twice the required minimum size in the Upper Fna Protected 7.one. The night
lots in Dovittda Hills will be within the current number of fats allowed far the existing
Class `B" private road standards. In its final phase Ciovinda HQIs will be mare
conforming and exceed mast existing standards of the minor subdivision code.
I can be reached at 932-1553 or 940-1932 for any questions regarding this appeal.
Respectfuily,
Scott Feeley
c~'~
~.~
s 4}., `'-
19.01 Y' ~ `~
ATTACHMENT 2 6 ' ' z~ ~~ ~'"5.3 '
~ ~~
~ 14}.gg
300.11 i
E j~762
$ 2.ODA ~ i I }70.pE
'c~ I
~N ~Im i~ 2.OtA
VICINITY MAP ~~~ . ~
a'~E~. 1
a/eg1
i` ~ 4.8811 ~ 4'rt6K
`I ` 1 AFFarrrv~
,~ ` Pam
„1m.. t
15.74A
~1 ~ 1
` ~ FB6Ef 7~3EW 4
22~ 2
110.2E `~13.7~ ' ~ ~ ` ,$~j ~ / pey05 ^, ~
e~ 1 I ,' °a"es .
1.eEa
~4,y5 ~ aaE~ ! E
3.m11 {I
3x,A r
~~, - 1~ ~
E~~1s
4.38A ~ ~~ ~ 2 ~ - 1.EIA ~Bs
~~ ~ 1
$ri 4~~ c a
63v, a
,1.16 '~ '~ _~ ~ 2 za
1A~ ` ~ ~ / d(Y1A
i u~'~y Si I
{ 121.03 ~~7r` ~~
~~ ' ~ 869E
lil 1 F ~ 3.0811 ~ 58.36
;I w _ ~ 70.81
~ ~ ~ ~
a.15~ I ~.
,` ~
'I~ ~
A ~~ '~ 5 5 ... . •
1
1 ~i gp.EE (1801 (~)
1 1~ZQ ~
~ 1'~
z7a1 ~
211 $`'~ ~ /
vT 2 ~1~
1-
248.EG 215.97 '
292.9p ~ O , ~
5 20x1 ~ I ~ 3~ ~
N I ~ V i ~ 2.01A ,.
a~~N
}oo.es ~'.1~ I 3cE.~
I ,~
i3 1 ,009
~. '~
,~,~° 14685 ~', zzes
~ 51.57 ~• • yZ>~
` ~ ,.72A }
M 120 ~~
1.161
~~ z9a ~ •. ..r
78.9E ~'\ 1.1U
~~
51.34 ' f ,` 24R '
~~ ~ ~
1971a \ '~" 2onA $
B ~
5.50.11 \~r 1 7248
\ 1~~~
ATTACHMENT 3
EXCERPT FROM SECTION IV-B-3-1 (ROADS) OF THE ORANGE COUNTY, NC
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (AS AMENDED)
In determining whether to permit private
roads in subdivisions, the following design
features will be considered:
The location and design of the
subdivision is such that it clearly
preserves the rural character of the
County through:
a. The provision of lot sizes and building
setback lines significantly greater than
required by ordinance provisions.
Compliance with this standard is
assured in University Lake Watershed
where a subdivision is required to
provide a minimum required lot size of
five acres.'
Where the minimum required lot size is
less than five acres, compliance is
assured when each lot in the subdivision
contains at least twice the minimum
required lot size. For example, if the
minimum required lot size is two acres,
and each lot contains at least four acres,
compliance is assured;z and/or
'This provision does not state that the
University Lake Watershed is the only area
where twice the minimum lot size is required
in order for a subdivision proposing access
via a private road to gain approval. It is
used as an example That in the University
Lake Watershed, rural character is
preserved due to the fact that the minimum
lot. size required is five acres. Doubling the
lot size is not required because five acre
lots or larger would be considered low
density.
ZThe pdouble lot size" requirement has been
required in ether subdivisions where a
private road is proposed in lieu of a public
road. In this case, staff notes that the
40, 000 square foot (.92 acre) lot minimum
must be 80, 000 square feet (1.84 acres).
There are six (6) other requirements for Private Road Justification and are as follows:
7
G:/Tkin~/Exerptfromavtrds
8
b. The retention and/or provision of landscaping and use of clustering of dwelling
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
c. The preservation of site features which directly enhance the special or unique
cultural, historical, archaeological or biological characteristics of the immediate
area.
2. The number, location and/ar 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. Recreation and/or open space areas, including lands containing significant botanical,
wildlife, historic and/or archaeological sites, are to be dedicated and/or preserved
through restrictive covenants, in amounts significantly greater than required by standards
for recreation/open space dedication.
4. Significantly larger than required stream buffers and lot sizes, and/or other design
features are proposed as part of a subdivision to be located in a Protected Watershed as
designated an the Orange County Comprehensive Plan to reduce the amount of
impervious surface and cause infiltration of storm water runoff to prevent the pollution of
water supply reservoirs.
5. 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 run-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 ar 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 conforming aspects of the development will remain conforming.
7. There is only one subdivision road proposed. Its length does not exceed 350', it serves
no more 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.
(i ~/Tk in o/F.x err~tfrnm nvtrds
~~~5~ _~ F~I1f~4 i E R4/-~,~
9
ATTACHMENT 4
~ a~
~E~~T of u~a~
acs r..,aE.~ C sir-au~a~ o r
f2
~av~w,aY
_ ~
~Z;.ti ~ ~ 4 GRf~1 PACTEII
SCZ Rte, C~
S~-C~
L
~ . ~ ~>~
2~Z E
~Op
FL.LIRF dT (hITCO ccr-rrr,.~ ,..«.', ..... _. . _
10
5 0 R /W
~o /w
' (50 (
i
I'
T
R/w
r=oia,w1
i~
ATTACHMENT 5 11
` ~- I''~G
I
I
1
~g
~~
L
ac~~~,~
SOT
Arc. w~e~~ }~c~~ ~~°'~'w
I S C ~rVC dal; Us
~tiaS~io~.
6rid,1~• I ~ _ ~GOVIN ~-~
~"
~~~ -l ~y ~ fE TO NTE115E
~ J
y0. 6 '~.~'' _.+ c~~pFC~ J