Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
<br />Fire Council comments that can be addressed in the UDO: Upon reviewing the comments <br />within Attachment 4, Planning staff believes the following can be address in the UDO: <br />3. Cul-de-sac: Require a minimum clearing width for all proposed cul-de-sacs of 50 feet to <br />accommodate emergency vehicle access/staging within Section 7.8.5 (D) (10) of the <br />UDO. There is currently no ‘minimum clearing width’ separate from the development of <br />the actual, improved, travel area. This is something staff would verify before the <br />subdivision is recorded. <br />4. Drainage pipes under driveways: Section 7.8.5 (D) (9) could be amended to establish a <br />minimum width for all drain pipes of 16 feet. This would address the concern of trucks <br />being ‘hung up’ when attempting to access/leave a property. <br />5. Gates/Walls: With respect to required widths and setbacks for gates/privacy walls <br />regulations could be adopted to require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to <br />accommodate the Fire Council’s concerns. Staff would need to determine where such <br />regulations would best fit within the UDO. <br />6. Pull-over Areas: Private road standards could be amended to include emergency pull off <br />areas as suggested by the Fire Council. Staff will have to take into consideration the <br />impact such a requirement would have on current impervious surface policies, as such a <br />standard would increase the impervious surface area on a site and could possibly impact <br />overall developability. <br />7. Private Bridges: There are currently no existing standards governing the development of <br />a ‘bridge’/stream crossing. Such crossings are permitted in accordance with Section <br />6.13.6 (C) (4) of the UDO. Staff is still reviewing this request. <br />8. Tree Clearance on Driveways: While the County may need a reference to a tree clearing <br />requirement for subdivision projects to ensure emergency vehicular access, and <br />reference such requirements in recorded road maintenance agreements for all <br />subdivisions, the UDO may not be the most appropriate location for a County standard. <br /> <br /> <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact in reviewing the private road and access <br />standards of the UDO and providing comments. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS: Planning Staff recommends the Planning Board: <br />1. Review the selected private road and access standards of the UDO; <br />2. Review and discuss the described issues and staff recommended options for revisions to <br />the UDO; and <br />3. Provide feedback on this issue. <br />98