HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-19-2000-9dORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 19, 2000
Action Age da
Item No. ~~
SUBJECT: Govinda Hills Minor Subdivision/Pasley Appeal 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-$)
Class B Subdivision Road Cross Section (9)
Curve Radius Diagram (10)
Minor Subdivision Plat (11)
Sketch of Existing Private Road (12)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom King, Planner II, ext. 2607
Graig Benedict, Director, ext. 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-$181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
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.
Update: To summarize, the suggestion has been given to Mr Pasley to reduce the
number of proposed lots from four (4) to three (3) in order to meet the private road
extension justification. In addition, the existing private road is substandard and it would
not be prudent to permit more lots until additional travel width gravel, drainage ditches
and proper turning radii for emergency vehicles are added (see page 12).
Mr Pasley was helped by staff early in his process correcting his surveyor's idea that a
portion of his land was in the watershed cirtical area. The would have caused lots to be
larger.
2
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.
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 Develapment 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 Augusfi 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. A
second inspection was made on September 14, 2000, and a sketch plan showing the
width and condition of the existing private road was prepared (see page 12). The
current proposal is not being required to mee# 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 informed 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.
3
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
they are located in order to justify a private road.
ATTACHMENT 1
Orange County Pl~nning & Insgeatlona~
306-F RnvQr4 RoaA
P.O. Box 81 di
wmanorau~n, sac a7z~e
(919) 245.2575
Plllnp fbato; ~ !S- Zoov
'rak~n!by: o••~
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
SUBDIVISIDN ORDINANCE
ORANGE COUNTY, NQRTH CAI~C~LIN,A
' Type of Subdiviaian RequAat: ~ Minor MaJar .
Type df Plan: " Concept Plan Concept Ptan-RB ,~,,,,,_ Final Plat
In accordance with (please check appropriate Section):
Sectlor~ ~ltl-C.5 (Appeal Pro~.e~cl~are~Minnr Subdivisions)
ueation~lll-D~1~h (Appeal Pror~sdurss/Concept Plan DevAlc~rnent (7ptiana)
Section 111-D-2-e (Appeal Pmoedures/Concept Plan In the f~ural Buffer Zaning
Dietrigty .
5ectlan ~I11-D•5 (l~ppeal I~rocedureslFinal Plat)
there is aubmifi~ed herewith a notice of appeal,
Tnis appeal la b~ing Initiated hy:
NAME:
vtt ~a5f~
ADDRE3$: ~~,_ ~V~r ~kv~ ~~ssc~?ie.._
'DAYTIME PHOiNE: r `~ ~ ~ 2 " ~ ~ S ?J
NAME OF $UBt~1VI61GN: O V ~ ~ ~o• i S .e•
3a
Efl'eotin® Sectiah(g) 7~ - ~ " 3 ' d '"~ of the .
Regulations and apeclflc atgndards In queetian. I.7~-~ !ou-fi'~n a r•d d~shln ~ Fie. sv~Gd, ~~~~aa ~~~ Svc
'~A+ i• C~ P~ r 1~.~ r r.~~°r ~~ 11` a_-t~t'a 1 ~ l~.ara~.}~r ~ ~~.~~'.~ ~' L"'~'f.~' -i - - •-
Ol. y1-~. +'nV~f?9K ,a~- 1. ~t:sK a.r•-d pv~ Ids ~e (aae ~ ~ S~ n~ I : a u d ~ orcli.an
~povtylo~. Cr+w•- av~.e_ w~t~t+~ v ~w ~ Su ~ ~ ;
fc ire •lo t'~~~d~ a h~lwt.w t :~rGl 10~ i YG a I~vrr. 'ewi i G lob S~xr_ is less
-~aa•- ~~v~ Acvcs~ Go~•.Q1ta~,er ~S a,~5~t wke+ti ~h.c.4. Ipt~'~w `~L.e s„6dt,rC~~ ~`{.'riraS ~~' l~s-1' ~w~ce.
4,-e w~:tiw~..,..u,n.. rr. ~.,tc~ct 1•~~ ~' ~r•eyu-ur,~~ , i'F ~~ P~b~;recl 1'4~iwihi-O+w I~1's~~e is'~'^~O ~c~~c~ ~~
~~w`r Ie~ ~u~~~ ~ea,5 a ore ~ ~t~ , G e ws` I tdr,ce i~ a-srureGl ' awd~ /m ~
~ ~ ~...
' 4
Stets the specific reason for the appeal request as it relates !~ tfif~ speci>:tc standard(s)
CitBd r~bDV~:
OV(.• G~ ,~ ! X15 ~l Q ~ie ~.'{'~ : U !f /^ D Q ~` W~ I.cd ~
rrX
r 1 ul Y
hC~ti d :Brae I1. Uhi~ { . a~w Zc'"p'
Zoe, C ~ - - .~
~,
gllpporEing ddcirmants required for proaassing Df appeal:
~• "It3 copies of map or plat fvr which appeal I,s being sought. '
2. Letter addressed td Planning Director slating reason(s) for appeal. -
NOTE; Applic~tlan will be placed en Board ~f County Commissioners Agenda at the
discretion of tha; Daard of County Commiselanera.
•
•
$ ~ 1 a ~ n ~,
Signature of Ap~lica date
SignaturC Of Q oar Dats ; ~. ~ ~~~~~ .~_.~~~
11YfffMYIIfMR11RfAffffYffrrrrr~ttY~~rRYffarrrfrrllfrYfffRlffRrf-ftiYYYrfYrrrrrtfwifl
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY '
Fiiing Dero; ~ S'- /S - ~~
Data Applivetion Received: Q ~S - L-~v
Data Forwrarded tv Board of County Commissioners; •
DiappsltlDn df Case;
~ t17X Ing1SU8Apprs~lfamilS . l 0: QU
5
TO: Orange County Planning and Inspection
Attn: Craig Bencxiict, AdCP, Director
306~F Revez~s R.vad
P4 Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
FROM: D. Scutt Parley.
DATE: August,l5, 2000
RE: Application for Appeal, Gavinda Hills Phase III
Dear Mir. Benedict,
1 anx enclosing my application and reason far appeal of the Development Review
Committee rejection. Yau will find xny ~~asAn is in the interpretation and application of
the spec'tt"io subsection cited for denial My concept plan application was denied an July
2Q, 2000 far this reason, however, X was contacted by tho planning dcpartmeni a few days
later and informed that upon further review Cavinda Hills lies fully In the protected
water. shed line of the Upper Ena Protected ~.ane. I was told to rework, my private road
justification and did sa according to recommend~tion.9 by Robert Davis and. Tom King sa
that'my plan could be reconsidered by Development Review. Again I was denied and
told that in order to be consistent, twice the minimum lot size would recd to be met. I
was also informed that the l~lanc-ing Director, County Manager, aizd the County Attorney
ware meeting to discuss a policy regarding the handling of current proposals and if the
new private roAd standards to be placed before the Board of Commissioners could be
enforced an florae existing proposals. The reaaan I submitted my concept plan on July .
20th after the courtesy review was according to the Planning Department 1 could bean
the agenda of the August 15a' Commissioners meeting and be heard based on the
standards we have. been wvrkittg from far the past two years, .
As stated in my Private Raad Justification, the four lots proposed will average 80,150 sq.
ft., over twice the required minimum ;sire in the Upper Fna Protected Zone. The eight
iat.s in Qvvinda Hills will be within the current number of lots allowed far the existing
Glass "B" private road standards. In its final phase Ciovinda Hills wfil be mote
canfbrming and exceed most existing stan~dard.5 of the minor subdivision Bade.
1 can be reached at 932-1553 ar 990-1932. fiar any questions regarding this appeal.
Respectfully,
~aatt Parlay
- ' r . ~.~+
sat `r ~~.• I
ism ~~ .
6 ~
ATTACHMENT 2 ~ ' a~'A '
'~
i / ,~ ' ~~
„ate
~ ~i
e
S ~~ St i ~ v7o.oe
~~.~
VICINITY MAP "' Im ~ ~ zou
S- ~ .~,~z I„
.. {
•
N 87a.2e
I s ~ 1
g iav, ~ 7~-a~
~ ~~ zmA
°-I
~ - ~ ~-so
~ ~
~m~.. '1
s~..r.~ : i ~~~ y~ s - ,.~
~.
_
~, ~ ~~ ~.
~ `
- 1 `
\ Gr«K
`
~~arv~~
„~
~~
~
~ sts7
~ ~rts
Panel ~
~ i.rz~
~ ~ ~+~ w.
~
~
, ~
.~~
~,
~. -
_ ~
u.74A
~
~~ ~ 1.11A
'
~ ~
/F9NK
7
`36A 4 7M
6134
pU C
107.18 "~ Z~
haze aq~,~ 2~1 / 2
,~+i' Peaim '
~
~ •i/ r
B
s.~ '~G ' n.
tiw eau ~ \
a~w~5 ~ 30d- ~
7.!>d1
~ 7, 37~ ` ~
g,4y9
131A
~
g~„tj~ ~~
~ ,
~4y5
w
~ ~,
~ H ~
,~ 2
~
~y '
a
~~ ~ ~ _~
.. 14T-q)
~
*~, 4 721.8;
1
t
r
~
'$- ~
_ ~
~
3.88
&7S4 ~ 2
~ ~
A ~
I
, 4 5 6
., -. -~~ -
112
i
p y+
- 9
' F
P'a1 ~~e~ /
i
z~ ' z7a
~;r ~
I~ 1 2
a4s.as ~ a4s.s1 ;
ATTACHMENT 3
EXCERPT FROM SECTION IV-S-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:
1.
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 ~.ake Watershed
where a subdivision is required to
provide a minimum required lot size of
eve 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 far a subdivision proposing access
via a private road fo gain approval. !t 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
tats or larger would be considered bw
density.
2The "double lot size" requirement has been
required in other 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).
7
There are six (6) other requirements for Private Road Justification and are as follows:
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/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. 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
far recreation/open space dedication.
~. 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 on 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 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 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.
~~~~~ ~~ ~~f Y ~~~ ~~~L..i
. 9
ATTACHMENT 4
~a
F~ E C ~f T Q F 1~,4`~
~c~ ~ E~ C s~taut~~ o ~
.~ * 3
~ r
i. 2 .
T~ ~ VE.LUII,4Y
~ ~;.ti ~ ~ 4 C~i~(PACTEn . I' 2 Z apE
SCZ Ri~C~ ~`
SLC4*"~ E
. P'
. ~ ~~
t
10
i iii i i i
~~ ~
~ ~ R /W
~ I ~.,~" ~ I O Q"
~~
5 0-R/W
150 I
i
T
5D"R~w
-.-~,~
r~o,A,w
~!~
ATTACHMENT 5 11
~ '
s°`~~ I
i
_~ ~-s~. ~
~' r .~~ r uair
SCA~~. ~ - ~7~ r~
[ pT ~'
'0ry r
"@ao~' a ;
/grta. w~:~~ }~tr~ ''aqt
15 C vr~VyG ~~(; US ~ Y
hU~s}i p~
~.r ~ a'
_ y ~~T
liridy~- I r _ ~GOVIN~q~"`~~ rgsBG4 R
~~ ~ ~ ~' • ~a~_'C.4oceas~ ~ kr'• ~ ~~~ h•r
,•
r~r CpNr [p', ` ,`
_ r~
3~ •a GTNN ~~~a
~ r ~~a /,ys g_~~..ar.~r.
~ ~ r
~ LY`
~• y
^ 4CS.TYTOT4L
a' r ~E r '~~ <D ~ ~ ~ F* RFS
cam rW r"ap~~ e~~~ e~ a~ &. a ~~ ~~R~s ~ ` r ,y,, aa~~ w
4,yr ~h"~G ~~ oa ww ~ 4 aP~u _ ~` ~ ~Fy¢ ~~ rs`.
,~,w eon ~ ,
~• v
• C~~
~s
~;t a~y~r
.~
1
a
1~
L
l
I
1
I
ATTACHMENT 6
--
--.- oRpzN~Nc~ R~c~~z~~M~nr_T_.....-.----~
_ 50
R~y1.+-cF-UI,~.~
CRASS- ~~C 7IoN
vld•r
'/'
~2r 7r.~u~lw~..~
vjr~~r d j'kG~
3' '
y
12
~ .~
-~ ~
p~~~ ~~~W =~ w zs _ ~r~v~~s
J H ~ f~~ ~~N
v ar
y ~s~
F'~~c~~ k,+- r~~hcrsec+-ion cii~-~ Pv61~c Ro~~(
50~
R ~~ 1, i~ - vF - Wa..•~
.- /
Vo 5rd~ ~;tc
T
oC
0
Q
4
H
O
C7
y
q "- io' nave/ura y ~C ~ <<DN
~ -- _. Na S;d4 Di+ch
Cory,paG1-e.d s~~u
~ L1~.pt~, Uh Knewp
I
~~
/9 - 20'
~1~7/Qi4/~C~ ~~~(~