TOWN OF DUCK
PLANNING BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
January 11, 2006
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 11, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Members Anne Darnall and John Jenkins. Member Marilyn March arrived at the meeting at 6:41 p.m.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr., Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
Members of the public in attendance included Town Manager Chris Layton, residents Amy and Allen Beres, business owners, Bob and Tanya Hovey, resident and contractor Bob Evans, S.A. Karageorge, Cary Karageorge, Attorney Andrew Keeney, engineers Eddie Valdevieso and Tom Franchi.
Chairman Forlano called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for January 11, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. He welcomed Councilor Lindley as the new Council Liaison.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Business owner Bob Hovey was recognized to speak. He identified himself as a small surf shop owner in Duck that does a good bit of rental business. Mr. Hovey noted that at the last meeting the applicants indicated that they had never done bike rentals before, however an internet search showed otherwise. Mr. Hovey stated he simply wants to be judged on the same scale if they are doing bike rentals.
OLD BUSINESS
Continuation of review, comment, and discussion (from December 14, 2005 meeting) on application of PRK Land Company, LLC by Richard Kowalewitch, President, with project representative Bob Evans and attorney Andrew Keeney, for new construction as follows:
CUP 05-07 Application of PRK Land Company, LLC by Richard Kowalewitch, President, with project representative Bob Evans, to approve a new conditional use permit under the Village Commercial Development Option for construction of a new building with approximately 2,500 square feet of retail space and an approximately 1250 square foot apartment at 1176 Duck Road.
Chairman Forlano opened the discussion.
Attorney Andrew Keeney was recognized to speak and indicated he was representing the applicant. Mr. Keeney began by complimenting Ms. Cotellessa on the tremendous job she had done. He noted that the old Scarborough house is an important entrance point into Duck. Mr. Keeney indicated that after reviewing the ordinance, and as noted in staff’s report, the Planning Board can now recommend design of conceptual site plan and a project within the conditional use permit requirements for the Village Commercial Development Option. He stated that additional conditional use permits are not required, however there are still pending issues. Mr. Keeney suggested that if the Planning Board recommends approval, they should send the applicants with a list of conditions.
Mr. Keeney presented to the Planning Board samples of the roofing material as well as the siding, two requests made at the joint special meeting.
Mr. Keeney also noted that the applicant’s engineer, Tom Franchi, as well as the town’s engineer, Eddie Valdevieso, were both present to answer technical questions this evening.
Mr. Keeney directed the Board to the staff report and staff’s recommendations on page 4 of the report. He indicated that the applicants agreed to conditions #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6, however they wanted to discuss condition #3, dealing with a soundfront easement, further. Mr. Keeney stated that the applicants want to do everything possible to help tie into the boardwalk; however the boardwalk itself is still in a conceptual phase.
Chairman Forlano asked Ms. Cotellessa for her input before Eddie Valdevieso provided his report. Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that Mr. Keeney went over some of the aspects of the staff recommendation except for the first part of the report which was critical in that it dealt with ensuring that the engineering or technical aspects were addressed. Ms. Cotellessa explained that these aspects would be further detailed by Mr. Valdevieso. She commented that staff still feels strongly that there should be an easement for future construction of a soundfront boardwalk.
Mr. Valdevieso was recognized to speak. He indicated he had reviewed the site plan. In a nut shell, the comments and concerns he has can be addressed. Mr. Valdevieso explained that Mr. Franchi has verbally explained how the engineering issues can be addressed, and Mr. Valdevieso simply wants to see them shown. Some of the issues that need to be addressed include elevation differences between the parking lot and adjacent properties, between the parking lot and the stormwater retention area, grading issues, and ADA requirements. Mr. Franchi has provided verbal explanations on how these issues can be addressed, however Mr. Valdevieso has not received site plan details.
Mr. Valdevieso provided some examples of his concern. He explained that on the north property line there is a one and a half foot grade elevation difference with the adjacent property line. There exists a similar issue on the south property line in two locations. How do you mitigate these elevation differences? Mr. Valdevieso indicated that Mr. Franchi’s response is to install a retaining wall which will work, however no detail has been provided. He highly recommended that a comprehensive document be provided to show how the issues would be addressed. The current site plan does not address any mitigated measures to deal with the elevation differences. Mr. Valdevieso requested section drawings showing how the elevation changes would be addressed. In the area of the dumpster pad and the turnaround pad in the drive aisle, there is no detail that relates them to the stormwater area. Mr. Valdevieso explained that when he reviews a site plan, his first concern is adjacent properties and NC12. Will this site in any way harm them as a result of run off, vehicular traffic, etc? He indicated his response would be no. They have done a decent job of containing stormwater on the site. The next focus of concern is for the public. Again, Mr. Valdevieso stated that he did not see any likelihood of immediate harm to the public at large. He did, however, state that it was in the town’s best interest to have the details that he has listed shown as part of the approved site plan.
Chairman Forlano asked how long the applicants had to make the changes they provided.
Mr. Valdevieso explained that the applicants did not have much turn around time because he had been out of town the last few weeks of the year. He reviewed the site plan as soon as he returned on January 3rd and 4th. Mr. Franchi agreed to meet with Mr. Valdevieso and Ms. Cotellessa immediately following Mr. Valdevieso’s review.
Mr. Valdevieso indicated that that one major logistical concern is the turn around capability if the parking lot is full. He indicated that there are options; for example shifting the handicap spot to the middle of the parking lot, or possibly re-orienting the resident parking using a small portion of the CAMA area which may be able to serve as a pseudo-loading area. Mr. Valdevieso suggested that the opportunity exists to better address the potential for a turnaround space and potential problems with the residential parking.
Chairman Forlano asked if there was any potential for ponding in the septic area since the ground elevation is so low.
Mr. Valdevieso indicated the he did not think that was likely.
Mr. Franchi was recognized to speak. He provided verbal resolutions to Mr. Valdevieso’s concerns. He also indicated that the handicap ramp meets state standard unless his standard is out of date. Mr. Franchi stated that they did the best job possible within the operating constraints and they think the plan is fine. Mr. Franchi discussed grade transition and proposed installing rip rap to deal with the transition. Mr. Evans noted that a curb was shown on the site plan as submitted in the prior meeting.
Mr. Keeney pointed out that Mr. Valdevieso himself indicated that there did not appear to be any negligible impacts that could not be addressed. Mr. Keeney proposed that conditions be placed on the final site plan for Town Council to approve, but these are issues that should be worked out between the engineers. Mr. Keeney acknowledged that there is an issue with the turnaround but suggested that if they are unable to come back with an acceptable resolution, that a condition be put in place requiring valet parking or controlled parking that is monitored by the employees. He has seen a similar situation work great in Florida. He indicated that the handicapped parking can also be modified along with the employee parking as recommended by Mr. Valdevieso, but that can all be conditioned on the final site approval before Town Council.
Member Jenkins indicated that a parking attendant should be required.
Mr. Keeney indicated that if the Board felt that a parking attendant was a necessary condition, the applicants would agree.
Mr. Evans asked Mr. Valdevieso to comment regarding the 10x10 turnaround. He wanted to know whether that was an adequate turnaround and whether it was equal to or exceeding some of the standards in other towns. Mr. Evans explained how the parking separation between residential (for the employees) and commercial is laid out. He further questioned if the residential parking were accepted as separate, whether the 10x10 turnaround could then be considered an extension of the drive aisle and not a part of the drive aisle.
Mr. Valdevieso indicated that he has never seen a turnaround area designated in a drive aisle. It does not function that way and he did not agree that the turnaround could be considered as an extension of the drive aisle. The best solution is to take a designated parking stall and stripe it so you can pull in and back out.
Mr. Franchi suggested filling the drainage pit with uniform graded coarse stone that can be driven on. Water will still flow through at a good pace, they will still meet the drainage standard for a 10 year, four hour storm and it will make for a generous turnaround.
Mr. Valdevieso believes Mr. Franchi’s suggestion is possible but he did not wish to comment until he sees the details. He explained that these details can be worked out but the Planning Board meeting is not the proper venue in which to work out the details.
Chairman Forlano questioned whether additional parking could be provided for in the CAMA AEC since they were below lot coverage.
Mr. Evans explained that there are different standards for coverage in the AEC. They are currently at 22.57% with a maximum allowable coverage of 30% within the 75 foot buffer. He indicated the difference was nominal.
Member Darnall noted that staff’s previous report indicated that decreasing the size of the building would reduce parking requirements.
Member March indicated she had noted the size of the building and its relationship to parking, but also noted that it was not an issue of just one parking spot. She suggested considering staff’s recommendation to reduce the size of the building.
Mr. Keeney indicated that was not a recommendation, it was simply a comment. He commented that they are dealing with property rights also. They have presented a design that works; they have been told tonight that the public is protected, they have followed the ordinance, there are some things that are still outstanding, but the applicants are not going back to the drawing board to revise the entire plan. Mr. Keeney stated that was not acceptable nor was it one of the recommendations.
Mr. Evans presented to the Board a plan that he indicated he prepared following Ms. Cotellessa’s recommendations to utilize the zoning ordinance. In this plan, parking was put under the building, thereby keeping lot coverage at 45% and entirely out of the AEC, septic capacity at 960 gallons per day, two 2 bedroom apartments, 3,000 square foot of retail, a loading zone, a fenced parking lot, and a fenced dumpster in the front. This is what they can do but he stated that they do not want to do this. They want to construct a very small, moderate, attractive structure with eleven parking spaces and a small retail store.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she had never seen the plan that Mr. Evans just presented. She noted that the plan is labeled “this is what planning staff asked for”; that is incorrect. She stated that this is the CAD equivalent of ad absurdam, and from a staff perspective, a review of this plan would take far more time than it would take to modify the plan that is partially acceptable and provide the details that have been requested. She indicated there was no way for staff to respond to this plan at this meeting without a full review.
Member March indicated she wanted to cover the issues and one of those issues to her and to Member Darnall was the size of the building.
Ms. Cotellessa explained that the addendum to the staff report provided to Planning Board reflects staff concerns with respect to the plan as it was presented on December 14, 2005, after staff and technical reviews were completed. The staff recommendation requests first that the applicant provide the requested information so a formal review can be completed of the section drawings and the technical details so as to provide the Planning Board and Town Council with a level of comfort that the plan can be accomplished as shown and that it meets the appropriate standards. Staff remains concerned, as previously expressed, about good development on the property versus minimum development standards, and about designing a project that fits within the Village Commercial area that is compatible with adjacent properties and that provides for the town as well as the applicant. A way to get at the goals the town is seeking is through the Village Commercial Development Option which includes several things that are not accomplished on this site, and which may not be as easily accomplished on this site as on others. Examples of those goals include shared access which the applicants were unable to accomplish. If the applicants are unable to accomplish the preferred goals of the town, then they need to work on mitigating such issues as the turnaround and traffic impacts. Ms. Cotellessa suggested several different mitigation options that the applicants could implement. She further indicated that staff still has concerns with regard to the landscape plan. She also questioned whether the retail business will also rent bikes? If so, where will the bikes be kept? These are legitimate concerns. What use will be made of the 30 foot CAMA setback? Even with these concerns, Ms. Cotellessa stated that it is her belief that these issues can be addressed and resolved, but the applicants need to show how. If this size of the building is something that makes this site economically viable, and it is a win win for the applicant and the town, what is the town getting from this site to ensure that the town will not be facing negative impacts.
Mr. Keeney suggested the Planning Board needs to rely on the experts regardless and he again suggested the Planning Board approve the plan with specific conditions that must be addressed before the Council.
Chairman Forlano asked Mr. Keeney to clarify his comments regarding the soundfront easement.
Mr. Keeney indicated that they are concerned with giving a blank check for something that is still in the evolutionary process. He had questions as to the extent of the easement, liability, CAMA, lighting, design, etc.
Member Darnall inquired how the easement was addressed with the Waterfront CUP.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Waterfront Shoppes actually escrowed funds for the completion of the boardwalk.
She noted that the issue in the particular case of PRK Land Company seems to be relative to the pier and if that pier becomes and impediment to the completion of the boardwalk system. That could be a potential issue. She further noted that the soundfront boardwalk is part of the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Keeney indicated that the town could condemn if necessary to necessitate their easement. He would prefer to agree to work with the town, provided they receive more detail.
Member Jenkins commented that he did not understand the resistance to reducing the size of the building. He asked what the rationale was.
Mr. Keeney explained that there is an economic and time issue.
Member Jenkins stated that the design is good but the building is too big. Mr. Keeney respectfully disagreed with Mr. Jenkins.
Member March asked why they decided to build a building that they knew would be nonconforming from the get go.
Mr. Evans explained that their plan proposed what they feel is a 2,000 square foot retail building, however Ms. Cotellessa has included the porches and storage area thereby increasing the square footage. He disputed the square footage that should be used to calculate the parking and noted that it was suggested that they reduce the number of parking spaces to better accommodate the turnaround and dumpster which they did.
Chairman Forlano called for a 5 minute recess at 7:35 p.m.
Chairman Forlano reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he had concerns based upon Mr. Valdevieso’s comments. He would like to see the issues addressed on the site plan as suggested by Mr. Valdevieso and before he will recommend to Council. He did not however think it was necessary to wait another 30 days to revisit this matter. He stated that he wants to see improvement with regard to the turnaround.
Chairman Forlano asked the applicants to show detail and answer the questions raised by the engineer.
Member Jenkins agreed with Vice-Chair Britt in that he too wants to see the revised plan addressing the technical issues and he is also open to a mid-month meeting to move the matter along.
At Chairman Forlano’s request, Mr. Cotellessa provided a summary of what the applicants need to provide to the Planning Board at the next meeting. She indicated that the applicants need to provide section drawings as detailed on page 4 of the staff report (three section drawings and a redesign of the turnaround area) in response to the town engineer’s concerns. She indicated that if the section drawings can be provided quickly, then Mr. Valdevieso may be able to provide his technical opinion as well.
Mr. Keeney clarified the section drawings requested were the proposed stormwater retention, the differences in elevation, the rise into the site from NC12 and redesign of the turnaround area.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that numbers 1,3,4,6,7, and 8 on Mr. Valdevieso’s memo need to be addressed, and not just verbally. They need to be shown on a site plan that can be reviewed and approved by Mr. Valdevieso. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that the applicants provide comments in response to each line item along with the section drawings. Staff will then provide a response to the comments and drawings received from Mr. Valdevieso.
Member Darnall indicated that the applicants need to bring back a revised plan that shows the section drawings, that the turnaround works and that the town engineer feels will work. If they can do that, then the Board will stop talking about the building size. If they cannot do this, the Board will continue to talk about the size of the building. She further indicated that the Board does not want to sit here while the engineers work out the details.
Chairman Forlano asked if there were other contingencies.
There was some discussion regarding the soundfront boardwalk. Mr. Keeney suggested that he and Ms. Cotellessa could work out some language that the applicants would be agreeable to. Member Darnall indicated she would like to see something stronger than “we’ll work with you.”
Member Darnall also suggested a condition to address the south wall. Planning Director Cotellessa suggested a sign or windows. Vice-Chair Britt indicated that they need to show how the proposed wall will look.
Chairman Forlano also suggested restrictive language detailing allowable uses within the CAMA setback. He does not want to see equipment stored in the CAMA setback. Mr. Evans indicated that there would be no uses in the 30 foot AEC.
Member March indicated that she wanted to see where bike racks and other outdoor storage were proposed. Chairman Forlano also wanted to see pedestrian bike racks shown. Mr. Karageorge indicated that they did not know whether they would rent bikes at this point.
Member Darnall stated she wants the dumpster to be a condition.
Chairman Forlano wanted to verify that the windows would be divided light windows.
Mr. Karageorge stated that they wanted to do the right thing. They originally planned to use the existing structure but it just did not work, but they think the plan they have now is duck.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Town Council meets on February 1, 2006 and advertising for the Council meeting must be submitted tomorrow. She suggested that the Planning Board attempt to meet again within a week if they want to move this on to Council. She also explained that the Board would not have the benefit of an agenda package 5 days before the meeting.
Bob Hovey was recognized to speak and asked about kayak racks and/or jet skis. Vice-Chair Britt indicated that water sport rentals would be an additional use beyond retail and would not be allowed. Planning Director concurred. Vice-Chair Britt further clarified that any outdoor storage including bike racks and kayaks would need to be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Franchi summarized what was expected of him before the next meeting.
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to recess the Planning Board regular meeting of January 11, 2006 and reconvene on Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.
Member Darnall seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0. The time was 8:12 p.m.
The Planning Board for the Town of Duck reconvened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 19, 2006.
Present were Chairman Ron Forlano, Vice-Chairman Jon Britt, Members Anne Darnall, Marilyn March and John Jenkins.
Also present were Council Liaison Denver Lindley, Jr., Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
Members of the public in attendance included Mayor Neil Morrison, Councilor Bart Smith, business owner Bob Hovey, S.A. Karageorge, Cary Karageorge, Attorney Andrew Keeney, engineers Eddie Valdevieso and Tom Franchi.
Chairman Forlano called to order the reconvened Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for January 11, 2006 at 6:33 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the applicant has revised the proposed site plan and their engineer has met with the town engineer. She indicated the addendum to the staff report before the Board this evening lists the issues discussed in her original staff report from the December 14, 2005 meeting and the first addendum from the January 11, 2006 meeting. The addendum for discussion this evening details whether the issues discussed have been addressed and whether there are still outstanding issues. The check marks indicate the applicant has addressed the issue, items with a line “--“ are neutral issues and items shown with an “x” should be discussed further from staff’s perspective.
With respect to Land Use, the applicant’s attorney provided language to satisfy the Town’s request for a soundfront easement. Ms. Cotellessa indicated she added a sentence stating that “the applicant will also allow construction of the soundfront pedestrian walkway waterward of the sound side property, at the Town’s discretion, and will permit said walkway to traverse any pier constructed to the property line.”
With respect to parking, site circulation, design, loading and solid waste, the applicant has provided a dumpster and dumpster location. The applicant has provided 11 parking spaces where 15 are required, with some parking being compact. They have improved the handicap space by relocating the space and changing the access to the building. They have provided some turnaround area by borrowing from the stormwater area, they have provided a combination loading space. Staff believes the design is marginally adequate and the potential still exists for conflicts.
With respect to the environmental and general site design issues, staff has concerns that the there is no retention of natural vegetation nor is there much landscape planting area. The applicant has shown as the request of the Board the proposed bike rental racks. These racks however take up a large area that was available for landscaping outside of the CAMA buffer area. The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan this evening however the plan is still based upon the old parking lot layout. Staff believes the applicant should use the CAMA area for some vegetation and planting. There are no proposed plantings between the adjacent properties to the north and the south. The parking, stormwater management area, and the bike racks are all on the lot line and the dumpster is 3.7 feet from the lot line.
Ms. Cotellessa noted that the site plan tabulations will need to be correct for final site plan approval. The landscaping and appropriate utility connections need to be shown.
Architecture is one of the finest aspects of the plan, however the staff still remains concerned about the actual size of the structure and the south facing façade. Ms. Cotellessa notes that the applicant has indicated that the south façade will contain a sign similar to the ground mounted sign, however this sign is not consistent with the building colors or materials. Staff also believes there is an option on the south façade for window displays to add architectural character.
Staff believes the applicant has done a great deal to bring that site closer to conformance. Ms. Cotellessa indicated that the site design may have been better if the building were smaller. If Planning Board wants to recommend approval as designed, staff would recommend the series of seven conditions listed in the addendum to staff report dated January 19, 2006.
Mr. Keeney was recognized to speak and thanked the Planning Board for their consideration, and Mr. Valdevieso and Ms. Cotellessa for their time. He noted that there was a typo in the addendum that indicated the incorrect amount of retail space of 1500 square feet.
Mr. Keeney indicated that applicants agreed to conditions number 1 and 2. He noted with regard to condition number 3, the applicants have made a major concession and agree to this condition with regard to the easement as drafted by Ms. Cotellessa. The applicants agreed to condition number 4 limiting the accessory apartment to 4 occupants. The applicant did not agree with the language in condition number 5 excluding storage of private equipment in the 30’ CAMA area. With regard to condition number 6, it was suggested and applicant’s understanding that a sign should be shown on the south façade; this is not what staff is recommending now. The applicant cannot agree to divided light or display windows on this wall as this will impact the interior retail space. There was a difference of opinion with regard to condition number 5 and number 6. The applicants agreed to condition number 7 and the requirement that they submit a landscaping plan for approval by Town Council prior to issuance of the CUP.
Mr. Franchi stated that he believes they have complied with and addressed all of the conditions.
Mr. Valdevieso indicated that the site is still not an ideal situation but it is a big improvement from last week.
Chairman Forlano asked for comments.
Councilor Bart Smith was recognized to speak. He indicated that he originally brought up the south façade at the joint special meeting on Decembe4 14th. He indicated that he did not like the idea of the sign or the colors. He would like to see the applicants consider fake windows/shutters on that wall. He gave the example of the Real Escapes building. They give the appearance of a window which breaks up a flat surface with a coastal cottage look that is inexpensive.
Chairman Forlano wanted clarification whether the windows would have panes or no panes. Mr. Keeney stated that his letter was incorrect with regard to the windows to be used. It was clarified that the windows would not be single pane.
Member Jenkins stated that he was pleased to see most of the issues addressed, however he was still concerned with the building footprint and size. He was also concerned with the storage of equipment generally and in the CAMA buffer.
Mr. Keeney explained that there were no bike racks intended in the CAMA buffer area. The only thing intended for the CAMA buffer is private equipment.
Member Jenkins questioned how much private equipment may end up being stored in the CAMA buffer.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he would not focus on the building size because that should have been done a long time ago. His main concern was the south wall. He was not opposed to some signage, however he did not want to see the wall dominated with signage. He would like to see a combination of the fake windows and signage.
Mr. Britt indicated he had no problem with the private equipment storage in the CAMA buffer.
Member Darnall agreed with Vice-Chair Britt on the south wall. She also liked Councilor Smith’s idea of faux windows, and noted that the applicants have a right to put a sign there as well.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that it was not staff’s intention to deny the applicants signage on the south wall. She suggested that the Board may want recommend that the applicants take to Council a revision of the south wall showing any architectural feature they would be willing to include and detailing any signage they propose. Then Council can deal with the relationship between the architectural feature and the sign and provide a condition on that issue so you don’t have excessive signage.
Both Vice-Chair Britt and Member Darnall agreed that it needed to be shown in detail to Council.
Member Darnall had a concern about the bike racks. The bike racks seem to limit the opportunity for vegetation. Member Darnall commented that she thought it was ok to have private equipment in the CAMA buffer.
Mr. Keeney indicated that the bike racks were brought up at the last meeting despite the fact that the there is nothing on the website about the Virginia Beach store doing rental bikes. He indicated that it has never been the intention of the applicants to rent bikes. They have shown them because the Planning Board asked that they be shown if there was the possibility bikes would be rented.
The applicants agreed to eliminate the rental bike rack on the north side of the property leaving the two on the south side of property. This would allow for a landscaping buffer along the adjacent property line.
Member Darnall wanted to make sure the applicant understood that condition number 5 indicated no structures in the 30’ CAMA area.
Member Darnall expressed concern regarding a Duck Trail easement, and suggested that a requirement for such an easement should be conditioned as well, especially since it is part of the Land Use Plan. She recommended that the strongest language possible should be included to accommodate such an easement. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that the Planning Board can make a recommendation that the applicant examine opportunities for an easement across the front of the property for the Duck Trail. Ms. Darnall stated that this is a give and take process and some of the goals of the town have not been met with this plan but these easements, both the sound front and the Duck Trail can be accomplished.
Lastly, Member Darnall indicated that she agreed that the building size has made it difficult to meet some of the goals.
Member March indicated that she also agreed that the size is too big but she will go along with the existing size. She does not want to see any bike rental racks. She was pleased to see the handicap spot had been relocated. She agreed and liked Councilor Smith’s idea of faux windows on the south façade and she also felt that a sign on that wall would be appropriate; however she did not like the sign that was proposed. Ms. March suggested something smaller with colors that were more compatible with the building. She did not want to see any storage of commercial equipment and believes that private equipment storage should be limited to perhaps three private items. Lastly, Member March asked Ms. Cotellessa if she felt the soundfront easement language was adequate.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she felt comfortable with the language as proposed in the addendum.
Chairman Forlano thanked the applicants for their patience. He emphasized that they should not downplay the Duck Trail or the soundfront boardwalk. Mr. Forlano indicated the he felt they did a beautiful job with the building, and he believes they will do whatever is necessary to make the south side attractive.
Mr. Karageorge’s attorney agreed to modify the conditions so as to accommodate the faux windows and signage. It was also clarified that detail regarding the south façade would need to be completed and presented to Town Council.
Chairman Forlano noted that he heard three times concern about the colors of the sign. He questioned what happened with the sign. Mr. Forlano suggested that the sign needs to be compatible with the building. Mr. Forlano had no other issues or concerns.
Chairman Forlano asked for a Motion.
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to recommend to Town Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 05-07 based upon the conditions lists in the staff report dated January 19, 2006 with the following changes:
That the words “or private equipment” be struck from condition number 5, and the words “…no storage of commercial equipment or commercial use…” and “…no more than three personal/private watercraft.” be added to said condition;
That condition number 6 be revised to read “…except that the south façade of the building shall be shown in detail to the Town Council “;
That the language for sidewalk easements showing maximum cooperation by the landowners be included in the presentation to Town Council;
That the site plan be modified to reflect the removal of the north side commercial bike racks; and
That the signage be modified so as to be more compatible with the building materials and colors.
Member Darnall seconded the motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
NEW BUSINESS
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she had no new business but that Council would be sending some directives to the Planning Board in the near future.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Joint Work Session December 14, 2005
B. Planning Board Regular Meeting December 14, 2005
Vice-Chair Britt made a motion to approve the minutes of the Joint Work Session and the Planning Board Regular Meeting on December 14, 2005.
Member Darnall seconded the motion.
Minutes for the Joint Work Session and Planning Board Regular Meeting on December 14, 2005 were approved 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Forlano indicated that one of the issues expected from Council would be event houses. He indicated he would recuse himself from discussion of event houses. Mr. Forlano also expected that the size of houses would also probably be coming back for discussion.
Vice-Chair Britt commented that at the Retreat he heard a definite concern about the size of houses and coverage but he did not hear any specific direction regarding priorities. Are they site view, environmental?
Member Darnall stated that the Planning Board did not know what they were trying to control; was it the size of house, stormwater?
Councilor Lindley commented that everyone needs to step up and the Planning Board can suggest, given the topic, ways to deal with it. He further suggested the Planning Board provide a list of priorities to Council for them to review and rank.
Member Jenkins suggested the topic was simple; 25% lot coverage, count everything, maximum height 30 feet, no more than 5 bedrooms, and no bigger footprint than x.
Councilor Lindley suggested changing the setback on the oceanfront.
Councilor Smith stated that Council does need to take responsibility and clarify as much as possible.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she expected these topics would be discussed further at the February Mid-Month Meeting of the Town Council.
Another issue that was not reached at the Retreat was driveways.
Vice-Chair Britt suggested that in dealing with these issues the Board should be looking at the results of the hydrology study. On that note, Ms. Cotellessa advised the Board that a public meeting hosted by the League of Woman Voters was being held on January 26, 2006 in Kill Devil Hills to discuss the findings of the report.
Councilor Smith indicated that one of the issues not reached at the Retreat, of concern to him, had to do with preservation of vegetation. Member Jenkins indicated vegetation has been a concern of his.
STAFF COMMENTS
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Board that staff was working with CAMA to handle permit letting locally for minor development within the AEC. A public hearing will be held at the February Town Council meeting to consider an implementation and enforcement program.
BOARD COMMENTS
Member Jenkins indicated that he should have insisted the building size for the surf shop be reduced at the last meeting of the Planning Board.
Member Darnall asked that the language for the Village Commercial Development Option be supplied in the next Planning Board package. She is concerned that the Town did not get much out of this conditional use.
Member Jenkins agreed.
Member Darnall expressed frustration at the joint work session meeting. She also feels that the joint meeting may be somewhat misleading to the applicant.
Planning Director Cotellessa commented that the idea behind the joint meeting was to identify the hot points so the applicant does not come before Council blindly.
Member Darnall suggested that maybe Council can come to the Planning Board meeting when these actions occur.
Vice-Chair Britt indicated that he does not think the joint meeting is productive.
It was agreed that a memo from Chairman Forlano would be presented to Council requesting a directive to review the process and revise the ordinance language.
Councilor Lindley explained that he will make a point to update all council members.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that she believes that there has just recently been new legislation which will require written summaries from the Planning Board to the Town Council of the action that was taken on a particular case.
Member Darnall stated that she liked the idea of a summary for Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Forlano adjourned the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Approved: ______________________________________________
/s/ Ron Forlano, Chairman