TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
March 12, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 12, 2004.
Present were Ron Forlano, Chair, Linda Nave, Vice Chair, John Jenkins, Marilyn March and Jon Britt. Also present were Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council, Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant and several members of the community.
Mr. Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were offered.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Discussion of Draft Sign Regulations (Revised 3/5/2004):
Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion with a brief presentation detailing several of the different types of signs and outdoor display in the Town of Duck that have been discussed at previous meetings. She provided examples of flags, wind driven devices, neon signs, roof top signs, group development signs, window signs, window displays, window stickers, outdoor storage and displays, and sight distance issues to summarize some of the issues that have been discussed thus far.
Ms. Cotellessa went on to explain that the sign ordinance before the Board includes changes that have been discussed in blue. She noted that she added a definition for a reader board which is a sign that provides for changeable copy. Many of the businesses in Duck have and/or use reader boards so she was presenting this definition for the Board’s consideration.
Planning Director continued to note additional changes. She pointed out Section 2, Lighting had been changed. She removed the section (b) limiting the distance between commercial lighting and residential districts, and the times that signs can be lit. This section was replaced to deal more directly with the types of lighting; i.e. down lit signs and shielded lights.
It was also clarified by Ms. Cotellessa that sign lights would be subject to the same amortization schedule as the sign itself, unless Council decided to handle it differently.
Angela Beckman of the Duck Community and Business Alliance was recognized to speak, and inquired whether the lighting regulations in the sign ordinance were staying within the existing lighting ordinance or whether they were being changed as well.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Board would be looking at all of the zoning ordinances and lighting would be one of those issues; however this draft deals directly with sign lighting.
Chairman Forlano further explained that the intent of this regulation is to follow the existing lighting ordinance that is already in place, and possible improve upon it.
6. Abandoned Signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this section was changed to reflect that abandoned signs were to be removed within thirty days rather than sixty.
d. Exemptions.
Under number 1, the clause, “including signage indicated for handicapped parking” was added.
e. Prohibited Signs.
Under number 1, it was clarified that this regulation refers to “vehicular” passageways.
Planning Director Cotellessa went on to number 11, and noted that previously roof signs were prohibited. This draft however allows for roof signs provided they do not extend beyond the peak of the roof on which they are attached, and provided they do not exceed individually or in aggregate 25% of the roof area on which they are attached.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that under the Town’s current ordinance, roof signs are limited to only 5% of the overall roof area, and are not allowed to extend any higher than 10 feet above the roof, so in some respects the new ordinance is a bit more liberal in some respects.
John Kotch of Sunset Grille was recognized to speak and inquired whether his roof top sign was legal under the current ordinance.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she did not know the measurements of his sign, nor was she aware whether he had a sign permit for his sign, and therefore, she could not make that determination. She stated that his sign would not be permitted under the new regulations because of the 25% limitation.
The meaning “roof area” was clarified to mean the plane on which the sign exists.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that even though Mr. Kotch’s sign is attached to a flat roof, it is still obscuring the roof line behind it which is considered an architectural feature.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved onto number 12. and noted Pennants shall not be permitted or controlled as flags.
Councilor Morrison inquired as to whether the items on Mr. Kotch’s building were considered pennants.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that they are building mounted flag poles which are prohibited under this draft ordinance, and which is discussed under the flag section.
It was clarified that tourist-oriented directional signs refer to NCDOT signs which the Town Council has prohibited.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that under section 2. Exemptions from Permits, number (c) she included “or group development”; and under number (g) she included, “a sign advertising the business may not exceed one square feet” because this is a provision of major home occupation regulations. Under number (i) Ms. Cotellessa noted that flags “and other wind-driven devices” are exempt provided they meet criteria that will be discussed in the flag section.
3. Permanent Signs That Require a Permit
(b) Business Signs
(4) Permanent Window Signs
The limitation of neon signs was eliminated under this section, and window signage was changed to allow for 25% of the total aggregate of all window area, not to exceed 50% of the aggregate sign area permitted.
There was some further discussion regarding the distinction between window displays and window signs. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that window displays would be treated much like outdoor displays except for the fact that they are indoor, and outdoor displays are not being counted as signage; therefore window displays would not be counted as signage either, unless they are displaying signs. If they send a message versus simply displaying merchandise, they would be considered signage. Then the question was raised as to whether merchandise that displays a message should be considered signage.
Member Britt reminded the Board that they had discussed non-descriptive flags, and non-descriptive outdoor storage, and suggested that they use the same standard for distinguishing between window displays and signage.
There was some further discussion regarding the relationship between window displays and the architectural control features that are being developed. Member March expressed concern that Wings would cover the majority of their windows with merchandise, and suggested some limitation of the amount of stuff that you can put in a window.
There was some discussion opposed to Member March’s suggestion. Planning Director Cotellessa also noted that a business owner could cover their entire window with curtains if they chose to.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it was her opinion that if you can see it from the outside and it sends a message, then it should be considered a sign, otherwise she would consider it a display. She further noted that unless you want to limit the percentage of display allowed in windows, there is really no good way to address the issue.
Member Britt reiterated that he liked the way it reads; he wants to stay out of the inside of stores.
(5) Special regulations and allowances for business signs:
d. Reader Boards
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she had drafted special regulations for the reader boards in this section also. She noted that this allowed for larger board for institutional facilities and a smaller board of twelve (12) square feet for businesses.
Member Britt noted that this allowance of twelve (12) square feet of reader board conflicts with number 1 of this section that allows for ten (10) square feet.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked the Board for some direction. Did they want to allow reader boards as part of the total square footage allowed, or in addition to the total?
Chairman Forlano indicated that he felt that reader boards should be included in the total 64 square feet.
Member Britt raised another question under number 1 regarding the height limit of twelve (12) feet, and how that would affect existing signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that staff would look into that issue. It was also noted that there is a height restriction of twenty feet from road level under the current regulations.
The owner of Grogg’s Watersports questioned how his sign would fit in the freestanding sign ordinance because he has a separate business but it is on the same property as Sunset Grille.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that you are only permitted one ground mounted sign per lot. She further indicated she was not sure how that would have been permitted, because you were never allowed more than one (1) ground mounted sign under Dare County’s regulations.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked for direction with regard to the reader boards; did the Board want them included in the total square footage of allowable signage or in addition to.
Chairman Forlano and Member March both agreed that the reader boards should be included in the total 64 square feet, but the amount and/or size of the reader board did not need to be limited.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated she felt message boards were intended for temporary message use, but since the Board is providing for temporary signage, then perhaps the additional ten (10) square feet is not necessary.
4. Temporary and Special Event Signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa went over several changes to this section. She noted that section a. now refers to flags “and other wind devices” as well as ground-mounted “and building-mounted” flagpoles. This section was also changed to allow for one flag pole with no more than two flags per pole for every twenty-five (25) linear feet of road frontage. Permits for flags are not necessary but standards must be met. Wind-driven devices can only be mounted on decks and buildings provided they are not mounted above the eave lines. Sails, sailboards and kites shall be considered as flags and subject to those restrictions. Flagpoles must be set back fifteen (15) feet from all property lines. Flags shall be non-descriptive in nature, and any flags conveying a message will be treated as signage and subject to those regulations. Flags and flag poles must be maintained in good repair.
Concern regarding the application of open flags being treated as signs was raised by Mr. Kotch from Sunset Grille. He suggested that perhaps the Board would look at this issue on a seasonal basis.
Councilor Morrison agreed with Mr. Kotch’s suggestion.
It was decided that one (1) open flag would not be counted against signage during the off season which was decided would be October 1 through May 1. The open flag would also be subject to the twenty-five (25) linear feet distance as detailed under number 1.
While on the subject of flags, Chairman Forlano questioned what is negative about roof mounted flag poles.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that we don’t allow ground mounted flag poles to be higher than the height in the building district which is thirty five (35) feet.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he felt a flag on a roof top is a decorative feature, and if they don’t pose a safety issue and they are kept in good repair, then why not allow them.
Member Britt also mentioned that the Board was already allowing roof signs to a certain extent.
The location of flags in relation to property lines, Duck Road and the sound was discussed. The consensus of the Board was to fine tune the location of flags based upon the safety issue, rather than limiting them as they relate to property lines. They did not think that flags needed to be fifteen (15) feet back from the sound.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved the discussion on to section (b) which dealt with banners. She noted that banners can be displayed no more than “ten (10) days” at a time and no more than “six (6)” times per year with a minimum of “fourteen (14) days between banner displays per business.” Content is not limited, however if a banner is left up for more than ten (10) days, then it becomes a permanent sign, and must be regulated as such.
Chairman Forlano asked whether each and every business would be notified as to what conforms and what does not conform on their property.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that once the Board is fairly comfortable with the regulations, she would like to have a workshop type event where business owners can bring in what they have for Town review. She explained that staff has started doing some site surveys to address some of the concerns of the Board, such as 2 square feet versus 3 square feet of signage per store frontage. In most cases, even with 2 square feet, group developments would have excess signage available. Planning Director Cotellessa further explained that staff is trying to keep the business community informed as to what is going on, as are the business members attending these meetings and the DCBA. Any input into these issues is more than before. She further explained that it was her expectation that staff would be holding another Business Outreach Event before these new regulations would be passed, thereby providing the Town with another opportunity to notify the business community of the changes and the chance to gather more feedback from the businesses.
The subject of discussion moved on to how signage is calculated. It was explained that your total allowable signage is based upon your store/business frontage. There was however some discussion as to whether or not you can have a ground mounted sign based upon your total road frontage. It was initially suggested that a business would need 100 feet of road frontage in order to have a ground-mounted sign. Councilor Morrison had asked staff to look at how many businesses in town would be affected by this regulation. Staff research revealed that a total of thirteen (13) lots have less than 100 feet of frontage. If the regulation were reduced to 75 feet, which is the minimum lot frontage necessary to create a new lot in the commercial districts, only three (3) lots would be affected. The lots that would be affected were Duck Village Outfitters, Cravings and Roadside; Roadside’s lot frontage rounded up, would put them right at 75 feet. In light of these minimal figures, and the fact that you cannot create a new lot with less than 75 feet of frontage, Ms. Cotellessa suggested that perhaps this regulation is a moot point.
Chairman Forlano had some questions regarding the location of signs, specifically dealing with projecting signs discussed under section 1, location.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would try and clarify the language under this section, specifically with regard to number (d), (e) and (f).
Chairman Forlano asked if anyone else had any more questions regarding the sign regulations and none were offered.
Planning Director Cotellessa discussed the Amnesty Resolution that she had prepared at the Board’s request. She noted that the Board had suggested waiving fees, but she pointed out that there is a lot of work that goes into processing sign permits, and she would not recommend waiving the fees. She went on to state that if the sign was put up as it should have been, with a permit, there would have been a fee involved. It was also explained that approval of a group development by Dare County did not necessarily provide for and/or include sign permits.
It was also clarified that the amortization period would apply to permitted existing signs and if a sign was not permitted and that business owner does not apply for a permit during the amnesty period, then their sign becomes illegal and will need to be removed within thirty (30) days. The amnesty period would allow for signs to be permitted under the old regulations that were in effect when Dare County handled these matters.
Incentive, such as waived permitting fees, for bringing nonconforming signs up to speed prior to the amortization deadline was suggested by the Board.
B. Discussion of Draft Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that she has not made any changes to the regulations yet. She recapped some of the discussion from last meeting, noting that outdoor display and storage of items typically expected to be outdoors would be acceptable, however that storage must be used for items that can be used/rented or sold. In other words, kayaks attached to a tree with lights in them, would not be considered storage display, but rather signage, and they would be regulated as same. She also recalled that the storage has to be for a retail business on the same lot which would prohibit someone from setting up a tailgate type of business in Wee Winks parking lot. She noted that the Town does have a peddler permit which would only apply for a merchant who travels from place to place, like an ice cream truck.
A large part of the discussion at the last meeting involved tent sales, and the difficulty with having them due to the lack of available parking.
She also mentioned that the Board discussed outdoor crates, trailers, and storage units. Ms. Cotellessa stated that at the last meeting, the Board felt such uses tend to expand the existing capacity of a business outside the walls of that business. The Board made it clear that they were not inclined to permit that type of expansion, and they are not permitted under the current code.
Mr. Kotch was recognized to speak and explained that the Sysco trailer at Sunset Grille is there to help minimize the amount of deliveries in and out during the summer time. He noted that the trailer was used as a staging area; it did not take up any parking and it was kept in the loading zone. He indicated that they felt it would help from a safety standpoint, and without it, they would need deliveries 1-2 times a day, just to keep up. He said it is only temporary; they use it about ten (10) weeks out of the summer, and he would apply for a temporary permit if possible.
Member Britt stated that his concern is not necessarily Mr. Kotch’s trailer, but rather that if it happens at one place, it will happen at others.
Chairman Forlano indicated that his business at Duck Deli does not have enough storage either, and he would love to park a refrigerated trailer in his parking lot to allow for additional storage, but unfortunately we need to work within the confines of our business. This also dictates the volume of business that we can do, and the number of tables that we can have. He further commented that this Board and Town Council want to work with the businesses, but there has to be some limit so that it is fair to everyone concerned.
Lisa Mann of Beach Essential reminded the Board of the limited amount of time in which the businesses in Duck have to make their money, and was an advocate for allowing temporary storage, provided the trailer does not take up parking, does not sit on a septic system, is off the right of way, and can be camouflaged.
Member Nave indicated that the trailer did not bother her, but she fears that allowing one temporary permit for Mr. Kotch would lead to a proliferation of trailers.
Member Britt confirmed with Mr. Kotch that the health department was ok with his refrigerated trailer.
Member March also voiced her concern about setting the precedent by allowing one, and what that could lead to.
Member Britt questioned whether other jurisdictions allow these types of storage on a permanent basis.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she has seen it done on a permanent basis. She indicated that some of the things you would look at; i.e. do you put it somewhere where you could not put a permanent storage space. For example, does it meet the setbacks, does it have buffering to the adjacent properties. In a small town with a large number of small businesses, most businesses would not be able to bring in a trailer for storage.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that these operational standards deal with temporary storage of crates, trailers and similar storage units. She suggested that if the Board is considering allowing these standards, then the term temporary should be defined more clearly.
The Board consensus of temporary was Memorial Day through Labor Day.
Chairman Forlano indicated that the Board would look at this issue and would revisit it again at the next meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that under this draft, tent sales would be permitted provided you meet the operational standards and the Board seemed to agree.
Member Britt clarified that the main hurdle to the tent sales would be meeting the parking standard.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that these operational standards allow for something that was not previously allowed, however it does make it difficult for these events to happen in peak season.
Mrs. Keefe from North Beach Outfitters commented that the purpose for tent sales are typically to move merchandise at the end or change of a season, so the biggest tent sales always occur around Easter, near the end of August/beginning of September and around Thanksgiving. Mrs. Keefe indicated that they only had three (3) tent sales last year, and all of the business owners in the Waterfront Shops are invited to partake.
There was some discussion as to whether the group development should be required to apply for tent permits rather than individual shops due to the overall affect the tent sale could potentially have on those businesses that do not partake in the event. Further discussion resulted in agreement that an individual business within a group development can apply for a tent permit however their application would require acknowledgment or acceptance of the various businesses within the group development, while meeting all other operational standards.
There was some discussion regarding peddlers setting up on the decks of businesses and the distinction between peddlers and entertainment.
C. Discussion of Draft Village Commercial Development Option Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this is a draft of a conditional use permit option for Village Commercial properties, many of which are nonconforming with respect to our existing code, in terms of setbacks, lot size, building location, landscaping, etc. This leads to a number of restrictions. This option does not change any of the existing zoning ordinances, but rather it adds an option to the list of things that you can do with a property, in some respects allowing for a “custom built” approach.
In some respects, this is a very subjective approach that requires submission of a conceptual development that will be reviewed by a group of boards; i.e. Town Council, Planning Board and an architectural review board. This is a holistic approach.
Member Britt and Member Nave both noted that they have read it but still wanted to review it further before discussing the details.
Member Britt noted that conceptually he thinks it is a good plan, but he thinks they need to look more at its application.
Planning Director Cotellessa mentioned that this is a fairly unique approach that has not been done locally.
Chairman Forlano commented that he could not see a small business owner going through all of the steps and requirements detailed in this option.
Chairman Forlano suggested revisiting this topic after all of the Members have reviewed it thoroughly.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the mark-ups of these regulations were due back to her by the next meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes were approved pending a typographical error noted on page 10.
Member March moved to approve the minutes from February 25 , 2004.
Motion carried 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Land Use Plan Review
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she was looking for the Board’s comments on the Land Use package they received by the next meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she was trying to put together a synthesis of both the online comments and the commercial development checklist responses, and she hopes to have them on the 24th.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Britt thanked the staff for getting the packages together and out so timely.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 4:40 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair