PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
May 14, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 2:05 p.m. on Friday, May 14, 2004.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Marilyn March, John Jenkins and Anne Darnall. Also present were Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator and Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant. Member Jon Britt, and Town Council Liaison Neil Morrison were not present.
One member from the business community was present.
Chairman Forlano called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and welcomed Anne Darnall back to the Board. He then opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were offered.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Introduction of Mark-up
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Introduction of Mark-up
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the Board has before them a full copy of the revised zoning ordinance updated through 5/7/2004. Additionally, before the Board were the mark-ups of the zoning ordinance Article I and Article II. She explained that various comments made by Planning Board members were noted in red; comments from Sam Taylor were indicated in green and her comments and suggestions were noted in blue. It was her intention to simply introduce some of the key issues today with the intent of getting into a full discussion at the work session on May 26th.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the definitions are not totally in order and she would suggest that be corrected. Ms. Cotellessa suggested expanding the definition of accessory use to include structures such as sheds gazebos, pergolas, and detached garages.
Average of the peak was also noted; one Board member disagreed with the definition, and Ms. Cotellessa was not sure why the definition was even necessary because it is not referenced in any of the zoning ordinance, and there is a separate section of the code which allows for cupolas and observation towers. Ms. Cotellessa’s recommendation would be to remove this definition completely. It was noted that the height of a building is measured from the dirt to the highest point of the building, and Ms. Cotellessa has recently started requiring that the height of a building be indicated on as-built surveys.
Ms. Cotellessa noted under bed and breakfast home that other sections of the code require that such a dwelling be on NC 12, however the present definition does not indicate same. Member Jenkins suggested that it had originally intended to limit B&B’s to route 12, and Member Darnall indicated that there was also discussion of allowing B&B’s in the VC district.
Member Darnall suggested that the entire definition of B&B should be looked, and Planning Director Cotellessa suggested looking at appropriate zoning categories for it.
Member Jenkins suggested deleting single family and simply calling it a dwelling. He further commented that he agreed with Mr. Taylor and how do you define what a family is.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved the discussion on and noted that bedroom equivalent is another definition that the Board should look at closely however she would recommend defining it much as Dare County Health department has.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that the Board has discussed building height and she wants them to look closely at this as well, especially with regard to filling lots and then building houses 35 feet. There are issues to consider with regard to aesthetics, storm water runoff, etc.
There was a recommendation in the mark-up with regard to consolidating and condensing the definitions of hotel and motel.
With regard to Small Child Care Homes, Ms. Cotellessa briefly explained that North Carolina does not regulate if you care for children less than four hours a day, and the only limitation is a result of septic capacity.
There was a recommendation from one of the Board members to eliminate the definition of drive-in restaurant however Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that this definition was put in place as a result of Burger King, and to further limit the kinds of uses permitted.
Without a definition for same, you cannot say it’s not allowed.
There was discussion regarding the definition of dwelling unit, dwelling, single-family and family. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she has never seen a zoning ordinance where family was not defined; she did comment that our ordinance is a little light in its definition of family and should be revised. She recommended one or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, plus no more than three additional unrelated persons.
Member Darnall questioned how Ms. Cotellessa’s recommendation would affect the students that stay in Duck for the summer, and the rental properties.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that maybe in the case of a house full of students that we are not looking at a single family dwelling in those circumstances, and perhaps in those cases, a conditional use permit should be necessary. Chairman Forlano indicated that this was an important subject that will need further discussion.
George Keefe of North Beach Outfitters was recognized to speak and noted that in order to operate a small business here, it is essential to have housing for your staff/employees and under this current definition that is not possible.
Member March noted that in New Jersey, a family dwelling was determined by the number of kitchens. It did not define how many people could be in it.
Member Jenkins pointed out that zoning in Duck began back in 1982 as a result of the construction of Sea Colony which was multi-family, high density. The people at that time did not want the continued construction of multi-family, duplex, triplex, etc, and he believes that still remains true in Duck. Mr. Jenkins indicated that he would not like to see apartment buildings or even duplexes and triplexes as they would only aggravate the Town’s existent problems.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved the discussion forward to lot area and how that is determined. She indicated that it is her intention to gather more information and perhaps prepare a matrix to help determine how lot area should be determined.
Chairman Forlano noted the there is a reference regarding lot area that stems from when the lot was initially platted, which may have been 20 + years ago; he indicated that this reference, although not noted in Article I or II, should be changed.
Member Jenkins indicated that the lot area may be even further restricted if there are wetlands present.
The discussion moved on to lot coverage which Ms. Cotellessa pointed out was a sticky subject, and every jurisdiction seems to handle it differently. She wanted the Board to specifically look at overhangs and whether they should be included in lot coverage. CAMA does include overhangs and assumes that they are incorporated in the lot coverage calculations, which is not typically the case on the surveys. If it is not the desire of the Town to include overhangs in lot coverage calculations, Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she would like to see that specified. Should gravel parking areas be included in lot coverage? Dare County requires at least ½ of your driveway and parking area combined be concrete. In that respect, Duck is a bit more liberal because aside from your 12 foot concrete drive aisle, all of your parking can be in gravel. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she and Chairman Forlano have discussed pavers and the extent of their perviousness. Do we want to make allowances for pavers since they are more pervious than concrete or asphalt? Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she has obtained some information regarding pavers and will bring that information to the Board at the next meeting. She further noted if you do not include the parking and/or other aspects of the parking and/or drive aisles, you can guarantee the houses and the pools and the pool decks will get bigger. She also noted that slatted decks open below to sand or pea gravel are not included in lot coverage currently, because there is a certain amount of water flow through them. Dare County, on the other hand, previously counted decks. She reiterated that right now the Town does not count gravel or decks, but it does count overhangs, and she needs to know what the Board thinks should and should not be included. On the same note of lot coverage, Ms. Cotellessa pointed out that septic systems are not included in lot coverage, however in order to get the pools and required parking, contractors are now starting to use peat systems; these systems cover the ground. Should they be included in lot coverage?
There was some discussion as to the effect on existing construction if the zoning ordinance is changed.
Oceanfront setback was briefly mentioned.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that there should be a definition for an office. She moved on and mentioned that she did not really do anything with the sign sections since the Board has just finished with the sign ordinance.
Ms. Cotellessa moved on to Yard, side and clarified that this is not a setback line, and continued on noting minor changes/additions to Section 6 and Section 7. She noted comments that should be looked at with regard to Section 9.
She added under Section 12, Yard Requirements that parking spaces and parking areas may be located within the required side yard but no closer than 5 feet from any property line.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted some numbering changes at the start of Article II which deals with uses. She made noted comments under Section 17 with regard to the Intent and Conditional Uses. With regard to the conditional uses, Ms. Cotellessa noted that yard lighting is subject to regulation and this will undoubtedly need to be discussed considering the Dark Sky ordinance.
The discussion moved on to Section 19. Planning Director Cotellessa asked the Board to look at the different districts and see if they felt there were any uses that may be a problem. She also noted that it was interesting that public and private facilities and yard and area lighting had not been included in this section and needed to be.
Under the C-1 district, Ms. Cotellessa suggested adding 19 which speaks to accessory apartments (the Town already has eleven of them) and 20 which includes general and medical offices. She also noted that real estate offices fall under Conditional uses, but should they be permitted by right? There was a suggestion from one of the Board members that the height limit in C-1 be changed to 52 feet, and building size be decreased to 5000 square feet. It was also noted that C-1 and C-2 district building size definitions have language that would effectively prevent sidewalk sales and outdoor display which the Board may want to delete in light of the recent Outdoor Display and Storage regulations that have been recommended to Council.
There was some discussion regarding corner lot setbacks, and permitted uses.
It was explained that the reason for C-1, C-2 and VC districts has to do with the different levels of intensity of commercial development and different types of uses. Village Commercial should be a fairly mixed use site. There were a few other changes that Ms. Cotellessa pointed out as she wrapped up the overview of the comments/mark-ups regarding Article I and Article II. She explained that it was her intent to have a more detailed discussion regarding these two articles as the next meeting and if the Board had any other comments, she would welcome them.
C. Commercial Architectural Guidelines Checklist Summary – Discussion
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that the results of her summary were interesting. She indicated that she expects that the size of buildings will be a regulated issues; signs will be regulated, lighting was an important issue; trees, vegetation, grading may be regulated, however with regard to the individual features of buildings, incentives seemed to be the thrust. She noted that Council will be deciding whether or not to extend the moratorium, but her expectation was that they will extend it for another six (6) months but they will loosen the moratorium to allow small changes.
D. CAMA Land Use Plan Public Input Summary – Discussion
E. Commercial Development Survey Forms – Discussion
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she made copies of both of these surveys so the Board could see what kind of input is coming in and why we are looking as certain things like signs. In large part, the Board was directed by Council based upon the input received from the public in these surveys.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article VI. Miscellaneous Regulations - Distribution Only…Markups due back 6/11/2004
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that Article VI would be due back to her with mark-ups by June 11, 2004, but she was also still waiting on some mark-ups from Articles III and V. She further explained that the Board does not have Article IV because they have already dealt with that article which was nonconforming uses.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes for April 28, 2004 was deferred until the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Election of Officers was discussed and it was decided to defer the elections until the next meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
Chairman Forlano asked if Member Jenkins wanted to comment on his email and the photos regarding parking. Member Jenkins simply suggested that the Board may want to look at the use of concrete and parking. He suggested that the members of the Board should consider alternate approach to try and reduce storm water run-off, for a more aesthetically pleasing and harmonious result.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that the photos that Member Jenkins provided show a lot with a concrete drive and parking, however the Town does not require that everything be concrete. The Town only requires a 12 foot wide drive aisle to the house.
There was some discussion regarding the need for a 12 foot wide drive aisle, and whether it needed to be concrete, whether lot coverage should be reduced if the drive aisle is not concrete and whether incentives or special exceptions can be offered if you preserve vegetation.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 4-0. The time was 3:45 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman