TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
April 16, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, April 16, 2004.
Present were Linda Nave, Vice-Chair and acting Chair, Marilyn March and Jon Britt. Also present were Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council Liaison, Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant and several members of the community. Chairman Ron Forlano, and Member John Jenkins, were not present.
Ms. Nave called the meeting to order at 2:05 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 directed the Board members to page 2 of the sign ordinance where she defined Pennants in more detail.
Vice-Chair Nave pointed out that flag is defined on page 2, and is then repeated again on page 4.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated she would have that removed. The next change to the ordinance occurs on page 11 with respect to residence signs. She noted that there was only a small group of homeowners that attended the meeting on April 12, 2004, so the issue of residential signs was not discussed. Planning Director Cotellessa noted however that staff has prepared, and the Board has before them, a summary of residential signs along with photographs. The largest of the residential signs surveyed were approximately 9 square feet. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested the Board institute an upper limit of 10 feet rather than the 8 feet she had suggested in the draft before the Board, in light of the survey results. It was noted that residential signs exceeding the upper limit would fall under the same amortization schedule as the commercial signs.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that with respect to visualizing things, as they discuss wall signs, the map on the wall in front of the Board takes up approximately 27% of the wall space, and the Duck Seal in the front office encompasses approximately 18% of that wall surface.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved on to page 12 and building frontage along the main customer entrance. She noted that staff also conducted a survey of the store frontages at Scarborough Faire and Scarborough Lane.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the freestanding signs have been taken out of the mix. Each lot is allowed a 64 square foot freestanding sign. Then, we only need to look at each of the individual businesses with respect to their store frontages. Ms. Cotellessa commented on the survey performed at Scarborough Faire with respect to a few stores with unusual store frontages; Cara Magnus, Elizabeth’s Café, Mango’s and Ocean Annies. Each of these businesses has some kind of angled entrance. Ms. Cotellessa proposed that with respect to all of these circumstances, we consider the entire store front as detailed on the plans provided to the Board as their frontage, and not just the frontage with a door.
The draft ordinance suggests allowable signage be calculated as two square feet per lineal foot of store frontage. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she did not include a minimum figure per business but that could be done.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed with the Board that a minimum figure of 30 square feet should be added for those businesses that have a very small store frontage. It was also clarified that if the development chose to reduce one store’s signage in exchange for an increase in another, than that would be permitted with proper documentation.
It was noted that freestanding signs are in addition to the business sign allowance. Wall mounted signs are limited to 20% of the finished wall surface on which they are attached.
John Kotch of Sunset Grille was recognized to speak. He questioned how the store frontage was calculated. Was it based upon one entrance?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she could reword the text to reflect entrance(s), but those entrances cannot be service entrances or doors that are locked and closed. The entrances must be a place where customers actually go in and out. Ms. Cotellessa noted that this draft eliminated the upper limits of signage which means big building with a lot of customer entrances can have enormous amounts of signage.
Member Britt commented that with the restrictions limiting the amount of roof, wall and window signage, he did not see the absence of an upper limit as a problem. He further commented that an upper limit would only penalize the bigger buildings.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that with no further comments, she would propose making the few changes discussed, with the expectation of bringing it forward to the meeting on the 28th for recommendation.
Member Britt questioned whether flags were going to count against the gross signage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that if they convey a message, they would count against signage.
There was further discussion as to what conveys a message. If the flag advertises something that tells the general public what you sell; i.e. a martini glass at Roadside, or a crab and lobster flag at Dockside N Duck, then that flag would be considered signage. Ms. Cotellessa read the definition of a sign “.. any object which is used to inform, persuade, advertise or visually attract attention to a …service, commodity,..” etc.
John Kotch was recognized to speak and commented that the Board was taking away his ability to fly flags at all by requiring the flags be 15 feet from the property line. His flags are 14 feet from the property line, and then there is asphalt. He said the Board was taking away all of the things that make the small business owners in Duck want to stay. If the small business owners leave, big business will come to Duck.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that staff and the Planning Board have made a tremendous effort to listen to and work with the business community regarding these issues. Ms. Cotellessa again proposed bringing forward the changes discussed today at the meeting on the 28th for recommendation.
Member Britt stated that he has always felt that there was nothing wrong with the signs before, so he would not mind seeing the flagpole rule reduced to 12 feet. He stated that 15 feet was an arbitrary distance.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the reasoning behind the 15 feet limit was safety; there have been instances where flags flying along the road front have fallen into the bike path.
Mr. Kotch suggested permanently ground mounting and cemented the flags.
Vice-Chair Nave suggested looking at the safety issue in relation to the size and height of the flag.
It was clarified that the distance measured is from the lot line, not the roadway. In some cases, the very edge of the Duck Trail is the lot line, however in other situations; the lot line is further back. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested the Board look at reducing the location of flag (page 14, number 5) from 15 feet to 10 feet. She indicated that she would try, and any one else was free to help, to locate information on how to ground mount flags so that in a wind-driven state, they are more stable. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would work on this and bring back a recommendation.
There was a brief discussion regarding the calculation of a neon sign following some questions raised by Joe Southern of Ocean Atlantic Rentals. Ms. Cotellessa explained neon signs would be measured in a rectilinear fashion. She noted that the regulation with regard to window signage was changed to allow 25% of the total aggregate window area rather than the individual window, not to exceed 50% of the individual window.
B. Discussion of Draft Outdoor Storage and Display Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion. She noted that on page 2 she addressed the semantics regarding required parking under Section b., number 3.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she removed the $100.00 cleanup fee, and replaced it with “...in accordance with the adopted fee schedule of the town...”. This allows the fee scheduled to be changed without needing to change the zoning ordinance as well.
Planning Director Cotellessa also brought to the Board’s attention an email that was received regarding outdoor storage. There was concern regarding merchandise remaining outdoors on decks, after hours. From the police perspective, racks of clothing are great places to hide as you are trying to break into a place; stepping stones left on decks can be used to bust through a window; beach chairs or the like, left out on a windy night could end up in the street. With these concerns, this business owner has asked for some regulation regarding outdoor display. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that if the merchandise is to remain outside when the business is closed, then the merchandise should be secured.
The discussion moved on to trailers. Planning Director Cotellessa explained that she included two options for the Board; Option B does not allow trailers at all for any reason. Option A allows for trailers on a temporary basis, much like that which is being allowed for with outdoor sales, limiting their use to certain times per year, and in keeping with a list of setback requirements. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the Board could also choose to allow trailers for any period of time.
Member Britt stated that he felt the time restraints for trailers should not be the same as tents. He further stated that he felt it was necessary for the entire Board to be present to make a decision on this topic. Member Britt indicated that there was a third option which would mimic Option A, but that defines temporary differently, more broadly.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she could include a third option but she would need to know how they want to define temporary.
Member Nave agreed with Member Britt in that an option that allows for a longer temporary situation should be included as an option.
Temporary was suggested by Member Britt to be 100 days. Joe Southern suggested Memorial Day to Labor Day.
Member Britt indicated that he would like to see a way to allow trailers without having a negative affect on surrounding properties in season, but further stated that there need to be controls and he does not think they should be allowed year round.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that regardless of timing, whether it is 100 days or 3 days, some of the businesses, including Sunset Grille, may not be able to meet the rest of the criteria no matter what we allow in terms of time. She wanted to make sure the Board understood that changing the time frame by itself may not alone allow for trailers.
Member Britt indicated that he completely understood, but if they can meet the criteria, he would like to see the option available.
Member Nave suggested using a specific number of days rather than seasonal dates when defining temporary.
Joe Southern suggested 90 days, but also suggested that businesses be allowed to use x number of days at a time, not necessarily all 90 at one time.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised that she would create an Option C.
C. Discussion of Village Commercial Development Option Regulations
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that this will be on Town Council’s Agenda for May 5, 2004, if the Board recommends it be carried forward for public hearing. She further noted two minor changes.
Member Britt moved that the Board send the draft Village Commercial Development Option Regulations revised on 4/8/04 to Council with a recommendation for approval.
Motion approved 3-0.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Zoning Text Amendments on Setback Encroachments, referred by Town Council
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that there have been several instances where construction, whether it be a pool, a driveway, eaves, etc., has encroached upon the setbacks, and under the current zoning ordinance, staff has required that the error be corrected. Planning Director Cotellessa proposed a way for contractors and/or homeowners to correct such a mistake. This would be an administrative determination provided the noncompliance occurred in good faith, would not be detrimental to the neighbors, etc. Such a determination would deem an unlawful building lawful, and administrative approval would be limited 10% of the setback.
She continued to explain the second situation which involves building features that are exceptions to minimum yard requirements. Surveyors generally show the walls of a building, but they do not generally show the overhangs. Ms. Cotellessa noted that we do count the overhangs, because that is what the code says to do. The code now says that there is an exception to the minimum building setback of 3 feet; Dare County has always interpreted that to mean that the exception can be on the sides or the front. The problem is the minimum building setback is defined in the code as a line that is parallel to a street, which would be a front setback and not a side setback. Ms. Cotellessa also noted that overhangs are counted in lot coverage, and is a subject that may need to be addressed as well.
The zoning change that Planning Director Cotellessa has proposed would allow you to go 12 inches into the side setback with your overhang, and 3 feet into the front with a stoop, or step, or covered entry way. On the side, the only thing that can encroach the setback is the overhang, by no more than 12 inches. This side encroachment does not apply to accessory structures.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she was planning to clean this text up and put it in the form of a draft ordinance for the Board’s recommendation at the meeting on the 28th so it can go before Council on the 5th of May. It will be advertised in the meantime.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article III. Exceptions and Modifications Generally – Distribution Only…Markups due back 4/28/2004
Article III is new for the Board’s review and markup, and she would like this Article back by the 28th.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would be bringing Article I and II to the meeting on the 28th with the Board’s concerns and some of her own.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes was deferred until the next meeting because they did not have a quorum.
OTHER BUSINESS
Member Britt wanted to clarify that they would be pushing the sign and outdoor storage regulations forward at the next meeting, unless additional issues arise?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that was her expectation.
Member Britt inquired whether Ms. Cotellessa felt that everything would get done in terms of signage and architectural guidelines in order to get the moratorium lifted, or did she feel that it would be extended again?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that it was certainly her hope that everything would be done in time, and she was expecting to bring something to Council in May. She was unsure how much legislation would come out of it. She was hoping with the Village Commercial Option and the signage regulations that they should be able to move forward. Building size was one of the concerns.
Member March commented that the Town Council brought something up at the last meeting that they wanted the Board to look at.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that Mayor Schwarz and Councilor Morrison had discussed making special regulations with respect to allowing access to houses for both ramps and elevators. They wanted to consider those within the current building codes for new houses, but for existing houses maybe allowing them beyond the limits, if they have already maximized their lot coverage. Ms. Cotellessa explained that there are potential issues, and she will come back to the Board at a later date with recommendations.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Nave moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 3-0. The time was 3:23 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Linda Nave, Acting Chair