Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-03-2000-9eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 3, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. ~~ SUBJECT: Govinda Hills Minor Subdivision/Paste A eat of Private Road Standards DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Appeal Application (3a-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 Craig Benedict, Director, ext. 2.592 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732181 Chapel Hill 968501 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. 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 just cation was strengthened. The applicant believed that averag® 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 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 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 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 Cuunty Planning ~ Inspnctlana 3U8-F R~et4 RppA P.0.9ox 81p1 Hlllsborbugh, NC ~Z279 (919) 245.2575 FIIInq~at0: - /5- Zooo APPLICATION POR APPEAL SUBDIVISION OR©INANCE ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAI~C~LlNA ' Type of Subdivision RequAgt: ~ Minar Major Type of Plan; Concept Plan Concept Rlan-R@ ~____ Final Plat In eccordanc:e Vi+iih (please check appropriate Section); Section 111-C.5 (Appeal Pro~.e~dureslMinar Subdivisions) Section~lll-D~1~h (Appeal Procedurea/Concapt Flan Develc~Ipment Options) Section ill-D-2-e (Appea! ProcedureslConcept Plan in the FRural Buffer Zoning Digtriot) Section'Ill••D-5 (Appeal PrbcedureslFinal Plat) there is muhmitt'ed herewith a notice of appeal. This ~Ippeal Is b~ing Itlltlated by: NAME: ADDRESS: DAYTIME PMO~IE: 1 q ~ 3 2-~~ S 3 NAME 4F $UBDIVIBION: ,_ r9 o V,~ ~„(~a. ~'_~ _I `_S__~___ ~,b,~~~ 3Q IAffecting Sectfah(s;f) ~' ~ " 3 -d ~-1 of the ranee Cdaunty. NC_S ' ' R,~gul>s~ons and specfflc standards In question. 1.7~-r lacafio++ pr'•d dex7gn ~ Fl:e. rtu~ael;v~~%nk iz S '11,~w~F i~ C(par l mar H+e a ~~ ~ ~ r ti _ q• "n+~ rotil't?91'10 1. a:ars a.r..d bvi td1 fe oa Nw. S n; r ~+ b orcli~ provrgloNl. C-ow•- ~v~e~ w~l~1~. v iw ~ Su i ~~ ~o r~or~dt a w~Iwi.»ww ~ w:retl liar {zrt ~ lnrte 'uiww i c lo~g;u ?S ~e~ re ;~d ~a1n- ~'~v~ u~vt~~ Gow,.P1,~Ke,e :y cc~4re wke.+R Q~.4~. Ip} ',w ~r fsu6d~;.r~~'~ Gw~~ir•3 of ~uis,l~ ~n~~ G,v vw,~;,~~+ti• rY utYe~l Ira' ~' ~r-e'~u-~ ~ , i 'F '~+~e, P~bJ~PaG y1+tiH~hs J+w 1*t s;7•t 'rs "iW° ac ~c~, ,~,~ ~~_~.1,. Ids La .,a,_, _ . . _{a.51---~~•~~ aL ~fd3 . G a w~- It~rGe iS Q.s~utL~ ~ aV~.d r o1"t ~a51e r lk~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 State the speclflc reason for the appeal request as it relates t~ thb specific stenderd(a) cited above: ~~ z a~+D! Suppariing docaimants n~ulred for procassing of appeal 1. f 8 copied of map or plat for which appeal IS being sought. 2. Letter addressed tp Planning Director stating reason(s~ for dppeal. NQTE: Appllc~tlon will be placed en Boarri cif County Cammisatone-rs Agenda at the discretion of they 4oard of County Commissioners. Slpnature of Ap~liica Signaturo of 0 .net ~ ~~~lap Date S~ ~~~~° Date r^rrrrrrrrrr~r~rr~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrYrr~rrrrrrrrr~arrrrl FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ' failing Data; • S- /S - ~o Date Applic~tton Received: Q /s - z.p o Data ForwerdCd ~a Board of County Comrnisgioners: Diaposltlon pf Case; ~;1TkIng15UBAppeq`A~{n-tt1~S. lO.OG - ~,, J TO: ,Orange County Plaruting and Inspection Attn; Craig Benedict, AICP, Director 306-F Rcwcrc Road PO l3ax 8181 Hillsborough, NC 2727'8 ' FROM: D. Scott Parley. DATE: August 15, 2040 RE: Application fior Appeal, Gavluda Hills Phase III Dear Mt, Benedict, 1 am enclosing rrry application and reason for appeal of the Development Review Commfttee rejection. You will find xny reason ins in the interpretation and application of the specific subsection cited for denial. My concept plan application was denied an July 20, 2000 f'ar ihia reason, however, ?was contacted by the planning dopartmeazi a few days later and informed that upon further review Crovinda I3i11s lies ful~- fn the protected watershed line afthe Upper Eno Protected .one. I was told to rework my private mad justification and did sa according to recommendativng by Robert Davis and Tom King sa that my plan could bs reconsidered by Development Review. Again I was denied and told that in order to be consistent, twice the minimum lot size would need to be met. I was also informed that the Plantrirtg Director, Govnty Nfanager, and the County Attorney were meeting to discuss a policy regarding the handlitxg of current proposals and if the new private road standards to bC placed before the $oard of Commissioners could be enforced on these existing proposals. The reason I submitted my concept plan on July 20th after the courtesy review was according to the Platuiing Department I could be an the agenda of the August 15s' Camtrrissinners meeting and be heard based an the standards we have been working from for the past two years. As stated in my Frivate Road Justification, the four lots proposed will average $0,150 sq. ft., over twice the required minimum ;rixrs in the Upper Fno Protected 2.one. The eight lots in Covinda Hills will be within the current nunnber of lots allowed fior the existing Class `B" private read standards. In its ~ phase (3ovinda Hills wd.I be mote conforming and exceed most existing standards of the minor subdivision code. I can be reached at 932-1SS3 ar 99Q-] 932 far any questions regarding this appeal. Ttespectfully, Scott Farley ~~ ~i 4} 1 19.01 ~ r~ ~ I (~ ~ "' 7 2.6Y1 ATTACHMENT 2 ~.~ „~ ~ ~.~ ~ e ; i~ ,o~.az S 2~ ~ ~ ~ a~o.oe of " aim i~ 2.mA ~~~ VICINITY MAP I~~ ~i~y a ill L ]i3-2n J I ~ zaw - I g e~.3. n ~ u' I ~ I~a ZQIA~ . sa a~l~.~ II11.l~y.so «,< ~ ~ ,. ~.,.~.,, ~ zmr ` , azA \ ~ -~ ~ \ . ~ .aae ~ CrtLK 7flei g°° Pan~.l ~~, ,.~ -I t7D ~~:`LF`. ~. ~ ~ tta~ L i a, mn ~i \ , ~~. ~ ~ ta,7U1 ~ . ~ ~ ,.,u 1 ~ ' I s+a. 'r znR ~ ~ ~ ~ pea~~seA . ,w.1a '~ zma l ~ 2 ~ s +,eae ` ~>~ `~/'~ aeaee s.s~ 'err ' n. 'fit r dye 3aef a ' ~~. ~ ` i ~ I ',Y ,.af~, ~`~ ~ a.ae~ i e ap~+ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~`y6 7 ._ ~ ~~ 4.7611 ~ ~~ ^_ ~ ~ t.e,,. r ,e ~ , ' ~~i /~' i fit` 8.7~A ~ ~ ~ agar, +i ~~ ~ ~~$ a ~ 4 ,x><, ~ i ~~ I. ~ ~ ' ~ I ~ ~-'~ ~ s A ~' i 6 . I p~~ ~,~ _ . zs~ a~c+ ~ ~` ~ i ~~ 2 i z.s.aa z.aa, ~ ~ , ~ ,o.ea11 i 'r ~ ""' ATTACHMENT 3 EXCERPT FROM SECTION IV-B-3_x (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 hake 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;x 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 /ots or larger would be considered low density. 2The adouble 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 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 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 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. ~~~~~~_~ ~~i~fA.i E R4~~ 9 ATTACHMENT 4 /\^{[F ~ ~ Y ~E~~T aF ~a~ a/c~T'~.a~ C s~aut..c~ ar T !! * ~ /T• r l• ~e T ~av~.~raY R ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ GCkl~i P A CTE~ . ~~~ app .. ~~ Rf~GE 5~-~~ ~ . • ~ ~'-- 25 . , ~~ 1 10 ii~~i i i ~ 0 R /W a Q--R/W ` 15Q ~ T 50'R/w ~._ . r=d,~,w1 ~!~ ATTACHMENT 5 ~ ~ ~ ti~Q M Scab: / ~~ _ /7Q~+/_ ,r nor ~ ~t~''~r2 s~;~ i 5 C ur v~ ra.r; vs '~ ~uay+iay~. Y ~~ 13r~d ~ ~ f" .r covi~vQa~ .1 ~ ._ DR.~`k: ' ~ T~'a ~catse ~ ~ y" ` °~I r sY ~"'r~` e~ lpp ~ ~l. 'f T~ ~ Y ~ r~, _~~ 7 : (E T W MrTEP~C7KM ~ °~ 4 ~f~ ~ ~ \` ~~a~', 1~1~$~ 1 '~ nor ~'~~`~iw. '°~~. ~a~~\ \+w `1 11 <p .?~sy ~ ~~~ES w, j •aa.TSraTM. `~ B T ~ 1`• 2a'S 4 R ~ pT .r, ~., s+q.Fs ~<yoi 44 , ~ ~ ~Q ~ '~wi v~ ~ '.~ ~~~ ~4CRk' y mar ey~S ` ~~~ ° P~~ ~~ ~~~ .~ a ~~ ar 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT 6 CRVSS- ~~C TIv~V ORp~N~1NC~ R~~uII~EM~N`I~ .~ s o FZ~yI,+-oF_W,~7 ovrd•r y' 3' pitGl. ~~ y' ,~ i i ~ M°`f' . \ ~~ 1 ~iSi~P` yv ~o-~pacte..! S~rF~cc 1 s~~tv ~~ r ~~~~ ~, ti _ ~~cl~~S u ~ ~ ~s~ F~~rc mot- r~+e,rs~~t;c-~ w;t~ PdLI;~ Ra.~~ ' ~x rs_~~nr ~ _ ~r~~ p GoND~ rsoNs 50~ R ~~ ~,~ - ~F - wa.,~ Va Si.(a ~ifc~, T /2 ~ Tr~~~ 1 w~ 7 q "- ~v " TrgV4/way ~ -.~ C <~N ~ __ No s;d4 D.{ck C ~ P ~ ~ ~4d su'-F`" P. U~ K++ow~ ~ ~ I D 4 a 0 U /o ~ PC~A1 V I~r•~J /9 - 20' ~~ ~~~~c~ ~~a~ CMT wzc.~r~r~ ~~.)