TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
MID-MONTH MEETING
March 24, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 24, 2004.
Present were Ron Forlano, Chair, John Jenkins, Marilyn March and Jon Britt. Also present were Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council, Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant and several members of the community. Vice-Chair, Linda Nave was not present.
Mr. Forlano called the meeting to order at 6:30 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
Planning Director Cotellessa was asked to provide the Board with an overview of the topics discussed on March 12, 2004. She noted that the Board had before them a sign height survey which detailed the various ground mounted sign heights in Town. Additionally, they had an application for a new sign that is wall mounted, but which extends beyond the roof line, which was an issue that the Board had been struggling with.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that she defined the definition of reader board more clearly and indicated that there was further regulation regarding them further in the body of this draft ordinance.
With regard to roof signs, the language in the draft ordinance now limits total aggregate signage to 10% of the roof surface which doubles what is presently allowed. It further limits an individual sign on an individual plane of a roof from obstructing any more than 25% of that particular plane of the roof. She also noted the height limitations from the point of the actual roof attachment is 10 feet, and the total height restriction limits signs from being any higher than the height restriction for buildings in each particular zoning district.
Discussion ensued briefly regarding the sign application received from Angelo’s Pizza which the Planning Director provided as an exhibit to the Board. It was noted that this proposed sign would be considered a wall mounted sign even though it extends beyond the roof line.
There was some discussion and clarification that the pennants that were to be prohibited were the plastic string type that might stretch across a property. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she could clarify and it was suggested that a definition be added specifically for pennants.
Lisa Mann suggested that pennant style flags, singularly attached to a flag pole be allowed.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would try to craft some language to define pennants versus flags, and to allow the type of pennants for example that Mr. Kotch has on Sunset Grille, but to disallow the car sales type.
Reader Boards were again discussed. Planning Director Cotellessa noted that there is no requirement to limit reader boards; we could allow the whole sign to be a reader board if the Board so desires. There are a few signs, i.e. Tommy’s Market and Wings, which would be too big under this proposed ordinance.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there are very few places in Town that exceed the allowable amount of signage, either under the new or the old ordinance; both ordinances provide for a very generous standard. She explained that currently, you are allowed 3 square feet of signage per linear foot of building frontage. The proposed ordinance reduces that amount to 2 square feet of signage per linear foot of building frontage. The standard in most jurisdictions is 1 square foot, with an additional ½ of foot if you meet certain criteria.
Discussion regarding the definition of frontage ensued. Is frontage that aspect of your building that has public entrance, or is it only measured by the building frontage which faces a street? Ms. Cotellessa suggested allowing signage on any side of a building; however the measurement of determination of allowable signage should be made based upon the frontage of the building only, however that frontage is to be determined.
Chairman Forlano suggested providing a business with an allowable amount of signage based upon x number of square feet. Mr. Forlano referred the Board and the public to the whereas clause of the ordinance which states “..to protect the public from unrestricted proliferation of signs.” And then on number two “prioritize signs”.
Planning Director Cotellessa redirected the Board back to the topic of frontage and how that should be calculated. She explained that while there are limits on the different types of signage, i.e. roof top, window, wall, the cumulative total signage is presently based upon the linear feet of the building facing the right of way.
Mr. Kotch asked what was wrong with the current signage.
Chairman Forlano explained that signage is being addressed based upon the number of Land Use Plan questionnaire responses that have been received by the Town. The proliferation of signage was a recurrent theme in the responses. Everyone is having heartburn over Wings, however Wings is allowable under the current rules, the building form, the sign, etc. The concern then becomes that if everything here can be replaced in that manner with the current regulations, then there is obviously concern about the current regulations.
Joanne Lambert from The Kid Store was recognized to speak and questioned how group development signage was calculated.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that group developments are treated as one big building, and therefore the allowable signage is based upon the total linear building frontage.
Member Britt stated that we are limiting the percentage of roof coverage, we are limiting the percentage of your wall coverage, and your ground mounted sign can only be so big; why do we need to have a square footage limitation at all?
Planning Director Cotellessa and Chairman Forlano both suggested that would result an enormous amount of signage. Ms. Cotellessa explained that businesses benefit from different kinds of signage and the draft before the Board allows for the business owner to have the flexibility to do what works best for them.
Chairman Forlano expressed his concern that with regard to the freestanding signs that there are just too many.
Ms. Mann suggested that with regard to the group developments that each store be allowed a minimum amount, not to exceed x amount.
Mr. Kotch suggested with regard to the group developments, that the ground mounted sign not be counted against the individual store signage.
Chairman Forlano noted that he does not think the ground mounted signs help the individual signs in group developments.
Mrs. Keefe noted that the shops at the Waterfront chose not to put their signs on the ground mounted because you would not be able to read them while you were driving by. Mr. Keefe raised questions about the upper limit on signage of 300 square feet in group developments such as Scarborough Faire.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that the Board can choose to relate the amount of available signage to any frontage which allows public access, and eliminate the upper limit.
Ms. Mann stated that it is necessary to have two sets of rules here; one for individual stores and one for shopping centers. Shopping centers are much different than individual stores.
Planning Director Cotellessa raised the question; if you took Kellogs or Wings and subdivided that building into 10 different stores, should they be allowed more signage than if it was were one big store. Ms. Lambert commented on Member Britt’s suggestion of limiting signage to 20% of your wall space which would provide a proportionate amount of signage based upon each store’s wall space.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that if Kellogs utilized 20% of their wall space for signs, and utilized their window and roof and ground mounted signage to the maximum, you would have an enormous amount of signage.
Public comments were suggested to limit the amount of wall space to 10 or 5%.
Planning Director Cotellessa then used the example of Bob’s Bait and Tackle who has nowhere to put a ground mounted sign, so he would obviously want more wall mounted signs and 10 or 5% may not be enough. She commented that we need to have a set of minimum standards in the code, whether it is a big standard or a small standard, whether it’s based upon store frontage or building frontages or lot frontages, a standard must be set.
Councilor Morrison commented that in order to protect businesses with small fronts, could it be said that “notwithstanding the other regulations pertained herein, each business is entitled to at least x number of square feet of signage.”
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that it made sense to have a minimum allowable signage.
Member Britt stated that he did has not heard any reason why his suggestion of no limit would not work. He stated that if you limit the amount of roof signage and window signage and wall signage and the size of your ground mounted sign, you are accomplishing what we need in order to limit the signage. He believes that his simplistic approach would work.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the Board consider calculating frontage based upon the side that the public enters. She indicated that staff will do some more research to see how changing the formula of linear frontage of a building facing a public street to linear frontage of a building providing a public entrance would affect them.
The discussion moved forward to Flags and other wind devices. Planning Director Cotellessa noted that she deleted the absolute prohibition of roof mounted flag poles, but left that they are only permitted if the top of the pole is no higher than the building height limit for the district in which they are located.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the property line restriction under number 5 of this section does not apply to property lines abutting the Sound.
There was a brief discussion regarding the rationale for the 15 foot imposed flag setback from the property line.
Under number 6, one flag that contains only the word OPEN will be permitted without affecting total signage between October 1 and May 1, subject to all other limitations siting flags and flagpoles. This was included as a convenience to the public.
Chairman Forlano asked for some clarification regarding residential signage limitations, under Exemptions from permits, section 2(g). Chairman Forlano noted that he spoke with Jay Ball who indicates that the average residential sign for a cottage is usually 2x4 or 8 square feet. The ordinance before the Board limits cottage sign to 4 square feet.
Member March stated that she has not seen any larger than 2x2.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that this limitation is a carry over from the current ordinance. She asked the Board whether they wanted to provide for more flexibility.
Member Britt indicated the he did not feel it was necessary for the Board to regulate residential homes. We are passing enough rules.
Member Jenkins agreed with Member Britt and felt that the residential signs could be addressed through the property owner associations and some of them have their own architectural review boards.
Councilor Morrison also agreed that the residential signs were best dealt with by the homeowner associations. He did not feel that the Town should get involved with regulating residential signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked for some direction from the Board. Did they want to leave this section, change it or remove it.
Member Britt, Member Jenkins wanted this section removed.
Member March indicated that she liked the section as it was.
Chairman Forlano stated the he wanted a compromise; he wants to keep the section but he wants to increase the size limit to 8 square feet.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested staff do some surveys so the Board can make a more informed decision. She also noted that the Town would be meeting with the community associations on April 8th and April 12th for various meetings. She indicated that she would try to get some input from the people that own these houses.
Chairman Forlano agreed that feedback should come from the homeowners and not the business owners in this instance.
There was a brief discussion of the Sign Amnesty regarding the changes that had been made prior to the last Planning Board meeting.
There were no further comments regarding the remaining sign ordinance and Chairman Forlano suggested a short break.
B. Discussion of Draft Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations
There was brief discussion regarding peddlers and the Board’s previous indication that they did not want to see peddlers taking business away from the existing merchants in Duck.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted the main issues remaining with regard to Outdoor Storage and Display had to do with tent sales and trailers.
Chairman Forlano stated that sidewalk and tent sales would not be allowed to exceed three days, four times per year under these regulations. He read from the ordinance “..proposed display and storage and/or sale area shall not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic and parking.”
Mr. Keefe of North Beach Outfitters was recognized to speak and felt that the word parking was remarkably restrictive.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that there was discussion at the last meeting that tent sales and similar events should be subject to the approval of the whole shopping center. There was also discussion regarding the fact that a tent sale in effect expands the area of the square footage of retail sales which is not providing for parking in association with that expansion of business, in addition to taking away parking. The idea is to support these events, provided the operational standards can be met. These standards however are very hard to meet in July and August.
Maggie Cox of Barr-ee Station agreed with Ms. Cotellessa, and noted that they did not have a tent sale during the summer last year.
Ms. Mann of Beach Essentials commented that she would still like to have the option of doing a tent sale during the summer months if the standards are met.
Member Britt indicated that he thinks the application for a permit needs to come from the shopping center rather than the individual business owner.
There was discussion regarding the application process; should the application come from the business, the property owner? Does there need to be 100% acceptance of the shops in the development?
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that she draft a form that would require the business owners conducting the tent sale to apply for the permit; however submittal of the application for a permit would require the approval of the shopping center owner or the individual property owner. This would provide the property owner with notice of the event.
The Board members as well as the members of the public agreed that this policy seemed reasonable and acceptable.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that the standards for sidewalks are the same as tent sales in terms of days and times per year, and this would be applicable in the case of a special event.
Chairman Forlano went back to the parking issue and tent sales.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that this was simply a semantic issue; it should read “.. shall not obstruct required parking without replacement.” She indicated that she would fix the language that Mr. Keefe was concerned about, which was acceptable to him.
The discussion moved on to the topic of trailers on site for the use of additional storage. Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board of previous discussions and asked for direction.
Member Britt indicated that he could not clearly see what problems would come as a result of allowing trailers, but he can see them coming. He does not want to see trailers all over the place. He stated that if someone can meet the standards and provide the necessary buffers, than maybe they should be allowed during the summertime. He indicated that there should be some strict regulations though.
Planning Director Cotellessa also noted that if they are permitted on a temporary basis, and during that “100” days of summer, it becomes prevalent; then the Board may want to look at a permanent solution rather than the use of trailers.
Chairman Forlano suggested to Mr. Kotch that he may need to subtract from within his existing building to allow for the necessary storage that he requires. Mr. Forlano indicated that he has a problem with trailers of any kind outside of the building. It doesn’t fit in the architectural guidelines and he does not want to see any more trailers in Town. If you need more space, you need to fit it within the confines of your existing space; and if that means you need to eliminate 6 tables, or do away with your office, then that is what needs to be done.
Planning Director Cotellessa also noted that some of these businesses are limited not only by the amount of storage space they have but also by the amount of seating.
Mr. Kotch indicated that his situation was nothing that he created; he indicated that this was something that he inherited. He indicated his septic was approved for 370 seats and the existing building could not handle the refrigeration he needed, so the trailer has been his temporary solution.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that the last time she was at Sunset, there appeared to be quite a few more seats than the 370, that he is permitted. She noted that staff counted 598 seats at his establishment, and she noted that there are many other restaurants in Duck that exceed the maximum number of seats permitted. The number of seats permitted is limited by your septic.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked the Board again for direction on this issue.
Member Jenkins stated that he could not agree with adding storage beyond the footprint of a building, which may already be nonconforming. He also mentioned that this could have impact on the future as Member Britt indicated.
Chairman Forlano asked Mr. Kotch, except for convenience, would the loss of that trailer hurt him?
Mr. Kotch indicated that there would need to be two deliveries of food everyday.
Member Britt indicated that he agreed that trailers are not good, but he also sees a restaurant owner who has done good things with his building and has made a large improvement. He does not want to see this regulation affect him this year, and he indicated that he would not vote for this regulation and would object to it at the next level if necessary. The Village Commercial Development Option will be available in the fall to help address this issue.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to Member Britt that temporary trailers must be addressed because they are not allowable under the current ordinance, and if nothing it decided here, then it will not be allowable under this ordinance either.
Member March stated that she needed to abstain.
Chairman Forlano asked if the ordinance could be passed with a qualifying statement as Member Britt suggested.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated the Council would need to direct an enforcement moratorium. You would not have zoning text that in essence says here’s the law, but don’t enforce it. She explained the reason this text was written was so that we could accommodate some of the needs of the businesses that are not addressed in the current code, such as tent sale, banner and trailers.
Chairman Forlano summarized the Members’ positions; he and Member Jenkins both say no to trailers; Member Britt would not vote no to trailers and Member March abstained.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that one of the reasons we are looking at the trailer issue is also because the Town has had complaints about it. It does not meet the current ordinance and we need to figure out what we are going to do about that in terms of enforcement. Then aside from that, we need to decide whether it will be permitted in the future.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested tabling the issue and bringing it forward at the next meeting for a vote.
Chairman Forlano asked if Member Britt would agree to leaving the operational standards as they are presently written, and not necessarily saying no to trailers all together.
It was suggested that “within required landscape or setback area” be added to the language for clarification.
Member Britt indicated that he did not know what to do, and was unable to agree to anything at this time.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that she did need to know if they wanted to revise the ordinance schedule, and they indicated that it should be bumped back a bit.
It was clarified for the public that both the sign ordinance and the outdoor display and storage ordinance would be discussed again on April 16, 2004 and then a vote would be taken on April 28th.
C. Discussion of Village Commercial Development Option Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the Board that this is a proposed zoning text amendment to add to the list of things that are available in the Village Commercial area. This provides business owners with an option to apply for a conditional use permit to make changes and/or add on to existing properties that may be nonconforming on a case by case basis.
Member Britt indicated that he thought the Option was great. He did however think that the Town Council should be removed from the initial review process.
Member Jenkins questioned whether the Option would solve Duck’s nonconformity situation or would it only prolong it.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the idea behind this Option was not to create new problems. This option deals with redevelopment in a positive sense, while considering parking and safety and architectural guidelines. This is very much a case by case review.
Ms. Mann commented that this Option encourages business owners to maintain and improve upon their building/property.
Chairman Forlano indicated the he feels Council should be involved in the review process so they can know what the reasoning is behind the application. He further stated that he was in favor of the Option.
Chairman Forlano asked the Board members if they were all in favor of the Option as it stands. All members presents agreed they were and it was determined that the Board would vote on the Option at the April 16, 2004 meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was hoping to bring forward at the next meeting a synopsis of the responses to the Commercial Development Questionnaire. From the responses she has received from the Planning Board and Town Council, there is a seemed to be a push towards incentives and minor areas of regulation.
D. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Mark-ups Due
E. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Mark-ups Due
Planning Director Cotellessa reminded the Board that their mark-ups were due and she was waiting for them. Once she has received their markups and made revisions, she plans to bring them back for review the end of April. She noted also that she needs the Land Use remarks from the Board.
Member March commented that she did not have any comments on either the ordinances or the Land Use Plan.
Chairman Forlano stated the same.
Member Britt noted that there was a lot in the section of Uses under the District Regulations.
Member Jenkins commented that a lot of the regulations under C-1 and C-2 are redundant. He thinks it can be simplified and merged into one commercial district. He noted the same of RS-1 and RS-2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Member Britt moved to approve the minutes from March 12, 2004.
Motion carried 4-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Land Use Plan Review – Mark-ups Due
Planning Director indicated that the Board’s comments were due to her. If you have no comments, she indicated she would like to hear that as well.
Member Britt stated he had no comments regarding the Land Use Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 4-0. The time was 9:30 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair