TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
MID-MONTH MEETING
May 26, 2004
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 26, 2004.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, John Jenkins, Jon Britt and Anne Darnall. Also present were Neil Morrison, Duck Town Council Liaison, Suzanne Cotellessa, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator and Sandy Cady, Administrative Assistant.
Member March was not present.
Public attendance included George Keefe from North Beach Outfitters. Olin Finch, Duck resident and business owner arrived to the meeting at 6:55 pm.
Mr. Forlano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and opened the meeting for public comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
George Keefe was recognized to speak. Mr. Keefe commented regarding the intent of Section 17 whereby the objective is to promote stable, permanent neighborhoods, which is a contradiction to what actually exists in Duck. He stated that Duck is neither stable nor permanent in nature.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the intent should be to promote a good mix of year round residential and quality vacation rental; really it should reflect more of what exists but it should also promote a decent atmosphere for the year round residents as well.
Mr. Keefe further commented that from this intent flows additional issues with such definitions as family and single family dwellings; and how do these definitions bear on rental homes and worker/staff housing?
Chairman Forlano agreed with Mr. Keefe in that the intent of RS-1 is contradictory and does not represent what exists in Duck.
Planning Director Cotellessa recommended rewriting this intent section to reflect the mixed character of Duck. She also mentioned that they had discussed, under permitted uses defining such permitted uses as short term rentals, worker houses, and single family homes.
There was discussion regarding defining rental homes so that the definition applies to both the short term seasonal rentals as well as the staff rental situations.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that she would try to put together a definition of a rental home that will incorporate the worker houses and rework the intent sections of the single family district to more closely reflect what we have, while maintaining some of the language about stable and low traffic flows, etc.
It was discussed that perhaps the word stable needs to be replaced with another word. One suggested replacement word was orderly.
There was additional discussion and comment regarding single family vs. single dwelling, and the definition of family. Planning Director Cotellessa commented that she has seen family defined as one or more persons operating as a single housekeeping unit, which the Board members seemed to like.
There was also discussion regarding mother-in-law suites which are presently not permitted, and to allow for them could potentially open the door to a multitude of multi-family situations as well as enforcement problems.
OLD BUSINESS/ITEMS DEFERRED FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article I. In General – Discussion of Markup
Planning Director Cotellessa gave a brief overview from last meeting’s discussions. She indicated that they had discussed how to decide what a bedroom or bedroom equivalent was; we presently determine the number of bedrooms based upon health department standards.
Chairman Forlano questioned the definition of building height and what is included in determining the building height.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that way the ordinance currently reads; cupolas and observation towers are not to be included in the building height but that conflicts with a later section of the ordinance. She would suggest that the reference to cupolas and architectural features be removed from the building height definition because they are dealt with later in the document. As it presently reads, it is confusing and contradictory.
Chairman Forlano questioned the definition of a basement. What is a basement? He indicated from his research, he found a number of definitions where if 6 feet of three walls were in the ground, then it was considered a basement.
Planning Director Cotellessa agreed that there should be a definition for basement as well as some height definitions that are illustrated to make it easy for people to understand. She indicated that she would bring back some alternatives for the Board to look at.
Planning Director Cotellessa moved the conversation on to lot coverage. She noted that the Board was given at their places tonight a matrix detailing how different local jurisdictions deal with lot coverage, parking, driveways, paving blocks, etc. For the most part, Ms. Cotellessa explained that she wants to get the community’s perspective and define what lot coverage is. She explained that there were a few sticky points such as house overhangs; she has been counting them in lot coverage; CAMA counts them as lot coverage but many of the members of the building community have argued this point. She needs direction on overhangs and wants it specified in the ordinance. She also wants to know what they want to do with gravel. Gravel is not presently counted as lot coverage; the end result is that most people use gravel for their parking, but she has had other people that have wanted to gravel the entire yard.
Member Darnall indicated that she did not think the Town should be able to dictate to people how they can landscape their property. She suggested that if the idea behind using permeable surfaces was to help control storm water, then you should be able to put anything you want that is permeable without that counting against your lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she also needed guidance with respect to decks. Slatted, open decks that are over sand or open grass are not presently being counted against lot coverage. She indicated that Duck may be the lone ranger in this respect.
Councilor Morrison indicated that, as he recalled, when they decided to increase the number of required parking spaces, they had decided to provide some additional allowances in exchange; i.e. the open decks.
Member Britt questioned what they were trying to accomplish with lot coverage. Are we trying to use it as a tool to control housing size? If we are, he indicated that was wrong.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she believed the primary objectives that they were trying to control with lot coverage were storm water management and open space.
Chairman Forlano brought up the topic of pavers, noting that if they are installed properly, they can serve as an alternative to drive aisles which may help with the storm water.
There was some discussion regarding the level of permeability regarding pavers and credit for their use. Chairman Forlano suggested that the use of pavers should be encouraged as an alternative, and their use should result in a credit of some sort towards their lot coverage.
Member Jenkins agreed with Chairman Forlano.
Planning Director Cotellessa mentioned to the Board that when you allow for gravel parking and drive aisles, or pavers, you do not necessarily reap the full environmental benefits because you will then see owners maximizing their coverage with their house or their pool deck, which are impermeable.
Councilor Morrison noted that even still, you cannot exceed 30% lot coverage with the house and pools, so you still have 70% open space.
Chairman Forlano suggested taking the permeable substance out of the equation completely.
Olin Finch was recognized to speak and spoke with regard to lot coverage. He noted that you need to identify the problem before you decide what you want to do. He commented that Nags Head allows turf stone but it must be placed over sand; you cannot use clay and they have had good success. He further noted that you really need to identify what you are trying to accomplish; water issues and lot coverage are totally different issues.
It was noted that other than Duck, Currituck is the only other jurisdiction that does not count open decks against lot coverage.
Mr. Finch commented regarding overhangs. He noted that most places do not count overhangs.
Member Britt remarked that given the issues they are trying to control, open space and water runoff, he did not feel overhangs should be included; they do not affect open space, and they do not have an impact on runoff.
Member Darnall indicated that she does not want to see a large number of properties become nonconforming as a result of the Town including overhangs in lot coverage.
Planning Director Cotellessa simply indicated that she wants clarification as to what should be counted and commented that she took her cue from CAMA in terms of what is included in lot coverage.
Olin Finch raised the question; what problems occur if you do not count overhangs in lot coverage? If there are no problems as a result of not including overhangs, then why the discussion?
The Board consensus was that overhangs should not be included in lot coverage. They further leaned towards keeping permeable surfaces, including open decks, out of the lot coverage equation, and they wanted to allow some credit/incentive for the use of alternative semi-permeable surfaces such as pavers.
The definition of oceanfront setback was discussed. Planning Directed Cotellessa suggested the complete deletion of this definition as it is not referred to in any of the zoning ordinance or any other ordinances.
The definition of and size of parking space was also questioned in relation to conserving green space. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that the size of the space should be deleted because it is addressed under the parking section.
B. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article II. District Regulations – Discussion of Markup
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that they have already discussed changing the intent of the single family residential district to more closely reflect what is really here, and to provide other permitted uses such as rental houses to include group houses for workers.
Ms. Cotellessa moved the discussion on to yard and area lighting. Under the current ordinance, a conditional use permit is required for yard and area lighting in a residential district. She would suggest changing the ordinance to reflect that pole mounted lighting requires a conditional use, but exempt low voltage ground mounted lighting, that is not higher than, for instance, 14 inches.
Mr. Finch commented that lighting has never really been abused, except occasionally; you would have a catch all if you simply allowed for a maximum wattage.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that limiting the wattage is not the answer because there are other factors to consider such as lumens and spillage and glare. She indicated she would try to rework the language here and make reference to the lighting ordinance.
Ms. Cotellessa moved the discussion on to buffer strips and noted that the current ordinance requires a 10 foot height requirement which she would recommend changing to width and/or density. She further indicated that she would bring something back to the next meeting regarding various intensities of buffer strips.
The conversation went on to C-1 districts. Ms. Cotellessa noted that this district allowed for real estate sales offices but not other offices. She commented that the Board had discussed allowing other types of businesses, and also allowing for accessory apartments. The question was whether you should have a permitted use by right or make it conditional.
There was a question as to whether B&Bs should be allowed in C-1 districts. Member Britt asked whether B&Bs were something that we wanted to encourage. He commented that B&Bs are very controllable and can be very good for the community.
Chairman Forlano and Member Britt both agreed that B&Bs should be permitted in C-1 and VC districts.
Member Darnall commented that she did not like the idea of allowing singl family detached residences in C-1 or VC districts. She indicated that Duck’s commercial districts are very limited already. She did however feel that accessory apartments should be encouraged in the C-1 and VC districts.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that if you want to remove detached single family dwelling from Section 20, C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, then you should also remove numbers 9-13 which deal with small child care homes, and home occupations. Then the Board needs to decide if they want B&Bs included. There was some further discussion regarding the S-1 district which presently contains a B&B; it was noted that there are only 2 parcels in the S-1 district and that district pretty much allows anything. Ms. Cotellessa noted that the Land Use Plan sees these properties as a transitional area between the residential district and the VC district.
Several of the members felt that B&Bs and B&B Inns were acceptable alternative uses in the commercial district.
Chairman Forlano questioned the Board whether they wanted to include B&Bs as well as small B&B Inns, in C-1 and VC districts.
Member Jenkins stated that he felt that additional B&Bs would only exacerbate the parking situation and he did not see need for more.
Member Britt indicated that he thought they should be permitted.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested she try to craft something that is sort of a hybrid between an Inn and a B&B home.
Planning Director Cotellessa noted that they need to be careful when allowing Inns because she has put language in the ordinance limiting the maximum gross building size to less than the current allowable 10,000 square feet.
Member Darnall argued that limiting the size would be a hindrance when the older group developments want to redevelop and improve their property.
Planning Director Cotellessa offered the suggestion that perhaps they require a Conditional Use Permit for buildings over 5,000 square feet, providing an architectural context for design, etc. This would allow for some legislative body to be involved in the approval of those buildings larger than 5,000 square feet rather than providing for a by right ability to build. She stated that she would also look at the Village Commercial Development Option to see how that can be used in this context.
Councilor Morrison indicated that he felt quaint and small was better and he would be inclined to limit the size to 5,000 square feet.
The majority of the Board members agreed to limit the size of a building to 5,000 square feet while providing the option to build a larger structure through approval of a conditional use permit or a village commercial development option.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that there was some suggestion in the markups to allow for building heights in the commercial districts to be increased since the RS-2 district allows for 52 feet. The consensus of the Board was to leave the building height in the commercial districts at the current 35 feet.
Member Darnall questioned why C-1 has a very generalized list of permitted uses, while C-2 provides a long list of examples.
Planning Director Cotellessa stated that by being to specific, you tend to limit other types of uses. Member Darnall suggested that the uses in the commercial districts should be condensed.
C. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article III. Exceptions and Modifications Generally – Introduction of Markup
Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion noting that one of the markups had suggested limiting the height of fences to 4 feet in residential districts. She indicated that many of the covenants only allow for 4 foot fences, however the Town has always allowed for 6 feet. By reducing the size to 4 feet, they would create a large number of nonconformities. She further noted that in this same section that is says “no wall or fence…can exceed six feet in height”; Ms. Cotellessa questioned whether this reference to a wall includes retaining walls.
Mr. Finch commented that a bulkhead is also considered a retaining wall.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested changing the second sentence of Section 24 to read “However, within any residential district no wall or fence, other than a retaining wall or bulkhead shall exceed six feet…”. The Board agreed.
Ms. Cotellessa moved the discussion on to Section 25., noting that some people were opposed to allowing for variances to height limits for such things as spires and cupolas and ornamental towers. Another suggestion was to combine (a) and (b) of Section 25.
Member Britt and Jenkins both stated that they did not feel that you should be permitted to apply for variances to height limits and they would delete (a) and (b) completely.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the Board that the height of a building is presently measured to the highest point of the structure. Ms. Cotellessa also commented that she would be bringing back some recommendations on how to measure height, but the question now is whether we want to allow features above the current height limit.
The use of solar panels and whether they would require a variance was discussed.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she would bring some information on solar panels and how other ordinances deal with their height.
Member Darnall suggested providing some wording with regard to levels of usage/height.
On a slightly different note, Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she would like to see it articulated in the code that building mechanicals are permitted in the setbacks; it is not in the code now. She indicated that she is not presently enforcing that mechanicals meet setback requirements but she would still like it spelled out, and she would like guidance on what if any setbacks the Board wants to place on them. Ms. Cotellessa would suggest that they be allowed in the setback but no closer than 5 feet from the side or rear lot line.
The discussion moved on to Small Child Care Homes. Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out that all other special exception permits are heard by Town Council except for small child care homes, and the question is whether these too should be heard by Council, or are there other items that should be heard by the Board of Adjustment. She further noted that the Board of Adjustments decisions requires four votes (regardless of quorum number) whereas Town Council only requires a majority vote.
The discussion moved on to WTS, and Planning Director Cotellessa commented that there was not much Board input on this topic. She did note that someone indicated that the definition of a monopole was incorrect.
Member Jenkins indicated that the size of a monopole can be much larger, and they can also be directional. Member Jenkins indicated he would provide Planning Director Cotellessa with additional information so she can bring back a recommendation to the Board.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested eliminating Section 28. Reduction of front yard setback requirements. She did not see the necessity for this section.
She moved the discussion on to Group Housing projects on a lot of 20,000 square feet. Someone suggested that this was too small for a group housing development and suggested increasing the size lot required for a group housing project.
Mr. Finch commented that on a lot of 20,000 square feet, you would have a multitude of issues trying to develop a group housing project, such as lot coverage, septic, parking, etc.
Chairman Forlano suggested that the lot size for group developments should be increased to an acre or more, however Member Darnall commented that you would again be decreasing the opportunity for affordable housing by increasing the lot size required.
She further noted that she did not see why Group Development should not be permitted in all of the districts with a conditional use permit. The same factors would apply.
D. Zoning Ordinance Review: Article V. Off-street Parking and Loading – Introduction of Markup
Planning Director Cotellessa began the discussion by raising several important issues: 1) should driveways be required to be finished to a hard surface like concrete, asphalt, pavers, 2) to any width and 3) should driveways be required to go from the street up to the house. Ms. Cotellessa explained that her interpretation of the current code has been that the drive aisle must go from the street to the house; however her interpretation has been challenged. She would like clarification on this issue.
Ms. Cotellessa also noted that she has been interpreting that all parking and driveways must be five feet from all property lines due to a number of existing conflicts in the ordinance.
Another main issue is the number of required parking spaces. Several suggestions have been made by builders that N is better than N+1. Another builder questioned why we would not allow stacked parking if it exists under the house? If the issue regarding stacked parking was to allow for emergency vehicles, then vehicles under a house are not affecting this problem.
Chairman Forlano liked the idea of a hard surface being provided from the nearest point of the driveway to the house which would allow emergency personnel with gurneys easy access to the house.
Member Darnall clarified that from her conversations with Donna Black from the Fire Department, the fire trucks do not pull up to burning houses, only emergency vehicles, and with pea gravel driveways, they are still able to get to the houses.
Member Britt suggested the main issue was being able to get the ambulance closer to the house, and stacked parking in the driveway does become a factor, however the composition of the driveway has not been an issue.
Council Morrison indicated that they (Council) were led to believe that we needed a paved drive aisle for the fire trucks.
Member Britt suggested that we back off on the hard surface driveway requirement, but indicated that we should maintain the twelve foot width requirement.
Member Jenkins indicated that he believes the driveway should be a stable surface.
Mr. Finch commented that this is a small town, and you are trying to encourage a small rural atmosphere, and as such, from an environmental and aesthetic standpoint, you should do everything you can to encourage rock driveways.
Planning Director Cotellessa clarified that it was the Board’s desire to keep the 12 foot wide drive aisle and, although a hard surface driveway will not required, it must be improved; it cannot be grass or sand.
Ms. Cotellessa again asked for clarification from the Board as to whether the drive aisle should be required to go all the way to the house.
Councilor Morrison suggested a combination of a driveway and/or sidewalk which would provide emergency access.
With mixed feelings regarding the drive aisle and access to the house, Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that she try to draft some language that would deal with a combination of access and driveway.
Chairman Forlano questioned the impact on parking by including accessory buildings in the measurement of gross floor area for principal buildings.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained it has no impact on parking in residential districts, however in a commercial district, parking is related to square footage of the property so Section 38(b) should specifically specify for commercial structures as she suggested in her draft. Ms. Cotellessa explained that there is a parking requirement for storage and there has been in every other ordinance that she has seen.
Chairman Forlano argued that parking should not be impacted by storage area. He said he did not see how a refrigerated cooler that is outside of the principal structure is impacting parking. There are no customers going to that cooler.
Ms. Cotellessa explained for instance if Wings decided to put a storage shed on their site, and they store excess product in this shed, they have affectively expanded their retail space on the inside of the store.
Member Darnall commented that Sunset’s refrigerated cooler outside of his principal building allows them to serve more people because they have that excess storage space.
Member Britt agreed with Chairman Forlano that accessory buildings should not have an impact on parking requirements.
Chairman Forlano indicated that he felt that the accessory buildings should be included in lot coverage, but did not believe they should impact the parking requirements.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she would try to draft some language so that accessory buildings would not be included in parking requirements unless they have a use that expands the business in some way.
Under Section 38(c), Planning Director Cotellessa noted that there was a recommendation that gross floor area be measured from the interior for parking and exterior for lot coverage which she strongly discouraged. She suggested leaving this section as is.
It was recommended that fractions of a space should be rounded to the nearest whole number.
The size of parking was discussed. The consensus as Planning Director Cotellessa understood was that we would allow for 12 foot wide gravel driveways, providing incentive for under house parking, including stacking of vehicles and leeway for 10x18 parking under the house. The number of bedrooms was also discussed, and there was mixed feelings among the members as to whether N+1 should be reduced.
Chairman Forlano and Member Jenkins were for N+1, while Member Darnall and Member Britt both felt that N was enough. Member Jenkins indicated +1 allows for those unaccounted sleeping areas; i.e. 5 bedrooms sleeping 14. All of the members and Councilor Morrison seemed to be in agreement that all parking under the house should be counted but stacking should not be permitted in the drive aisle.
Planning Director Cotellessa said she would work on crafting some language for both N and N+1 for further discussion at the next meeting.
Parking deferrals for year-round rentals were discussed, and Planning Director Cotellessa suggested eliminating the year-round residency and changing this deferral to read for non-rental properties only. The Board members agreed.
Planning Director Cotellessa pointed out the table in Section 41, under Restaurant, café or eating place that she had provided for outdoor dining areas without additional parking requirements provided the dining areas are limited to a certain extent, and provided septic capacity can handle it. This serves to encourage foot traffic and provides a little more flexibility for the businesses.
She also pointed out that she had added a section 42.1 that allows for special exceptions to parking requirements to be heard by Town Council, provided all of the requirements are met. It is not as strict as a variance.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers
Members Britt and Jenkins nominated Member Forlano as Chairman.
Motion carried 4-0.
Members Jenkins and Darnall nominated Member Britt as Vice-Chair.
Motion carried 4-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. April 28, 2004
Approval of the April 28, 2004 minutes was deferred.
B. May 14, 2004 (postponed until 6/11/2004 meeting, pending transcription)
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
STAFF COMMENTS
None.
BOARD COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Forlano moved to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 4-0. The time was 10:05 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Chair