Agenda - 08-25-2008 - c1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

REQUEST FOR DESIGN STANDARD CHANGE The Planned Development regulations in Section 7.14.3 a) 4 states: Where a PD-H district adjoins a single family district without intervening permanent open space at least one hundred feet in width serving as a separation for buildable areas, the portion of the perimeter of the PD-H district so adjoining shall be planned and developed only for uses permitted in the adjoining residential district and in accordance with all other requirements for such district, provided however, that in lieu of development, common open space of the PD-H district to a depth of one hundred feet from the district boundary may be permitted. No intensive recreational use or off-street parking shall be permitted within seventy-fiive feet of the district boundary in such circumstances. The petitioner has submitted a conventional plan without the 100 feet open space perimeter that the above section requires. The Zoning Officer (i.e. Planning Director) may in accordance with Section 7.5.4 e) recommend as follows: As to the adherence to PD or general regulations or as to desirable specific modifications in the PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based on determination that such modification are necessary or justified in the particular case by demonstration that the public purposes of PD or other regulations would be met to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications. A comparison of the conventional plan and the conservation cluster flexible development plan gives a good overview of the design challenges that the 100-foot perimeter setback imposes on smaller lots and lots of irregular shapes. Even though achieving 28 total lots on the flexible plan, 12 of the lots are so severely restricted that they are of questionable quality for typical residential uses. Another negative is that a large portion of the setback would be under private ownership, not commonly owned HOA property. This plan offers two undesirable options, one being privately owned land encumbered for the benefit of adjoining property owners and 2) open space land not owned by the HOA. Additionally, the two lots shown on the eastern side of the Tinnin Road extension would not qualify Tinnin Road for acceptance into the State maintenance system per NCDOT agency review comments. Therefore, the conventional plan was prepared with a 50-foot or greater HOA-owned buffer area along the western, northern, eastern and a small portion of the southern boundaries. Combined with the 15-foot building setback on each lot this would give a 65-foot setback from the perimeter property line. For these areas this represents 35% relief. There are two other areas where the petitioner is requesting that the requirement be eliminated. Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 42, 43, 44 and 45 are proposed to front along School House Road. School House Road is a minor local street that functions as a residential street with direct driveway access for existing homes to the south of this proposal. The developer is requesting to use the street the same way as other property owners in order to lower the costs of development, which presumably will allow a lower cost delivery of homes. Staff has recommended that homes, if allowed to front this street, be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the right-of-way to eliminate the need for on-street parking on School House Road.