|
Town of
Emerald Isle
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Almeida. Members present were: Phil Almeida, Art Daniel, Frank Erwin, Ed Dowling, and Pat Patteson. Excused members out of town were George McLaughlin and Anne Erikson. Others in attendance were, Frank A. Rush, Town Manager; Carol Angus, Secretary. Approval of the Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 25, 2002. Motion to approve the minutes as written was made by Pat Patteson, second by Ed Dowling, with unanimous approval. Report from Town Manager, Frank A. Rush – Mr. Rush gave the members a brief summary of the meeting of March 12, 2002. He advised that work has begun on the 2002-2003 fiscal year and he is working on a proposal for outside planning assistance for the future. He would also like to set up an amount to set aside for engineering services on a retainer basis for complex projects. Mr. Almeida commended the work that Mr. Rush has done and continues to do for the Planning Board, especially for the work done on the checklists. Report from the Building Inspector, James Taylor – Mr. Taylor advised that for the month of February there were 23 building permits issued with a value of $1,881,820.00. 1. Request to Rezone from B-3 (Commercial) to RMF (Residential/Multi-family) a northern portion of Block 42, parallel with Crew Dr. at North, now used as Bridgeview RV Park, by Husband & Wife, LLC, Bridgeview RV Park. Public Comments: Mr. Bill Reist advised that he felt it would be helpful to the public if a map were available so that they can be aware of where the projects are that are being looked at. Mr. Rush agreed and brought in a large map from his office, which is still to a very small scale and he would check into getting a map of a larger scale. Mr. Frank Erwin commented that B-3 to residential is usually more favorably received. He is interested in whether there might be a problem with having residential zoning there. Georgia Murray, owner, said as far as she is concerned the property is residential because it is full of campers. They are there under Special Use in a B-3 zone. She referred to Ronnie Watson. Mr. Ronnie Watson, said that back in 60’s when Emerald Isle was being zoned there were certain blocks being zoned commercial. It may be looked at differently today, but they saw it as commercial. Mr. Erwin asked about the buffer requirements of commercial as opposed to residential. What he might see as he approaches the island. Mr. Rush said that the State Hwy occupies a portion of what you see when you approach the island. There is a 200’ right-of-way that belongs to the state. Ms. Murray advised the members that there are two separate parcels that she is representing tonight. The first on the agenda is the one she and her husband own, and the piece Mr. Erwin is referring to is the one her mother, Martha Howe, owns and is the next item on the agenda. Mr. Rush said he responded as though the two items were combined, they are two separate items. In terms of buffer requirements between B-3 and residential districts there must be a fence or dense planting of vegetation. It would allow multi-family housing up to 8 units per acre. Chairman Almeida said that he would like to see something on how the development would take place. A crude sketch to some type of plan and open area. Mr. Patteson said that as you approach the property from the bridge he would prefer seeing a residential project than a commercial project. He also felt that more taxpayers would be living in a residential zone to generate more tax base and use the infrastructure that is here to keep businesses alive. Residential would retain considerably more vegetation than commercial. Mr. Dowling asked if it was possible to ask for a visual presentation of this. There is a 5’ buffer along Hwy 58 in the new Dunes & Vegetation Ordinance (note: this regulation has been in effect since the adoption of the original ordinance), would the developer be willing to go along with this? He would like some concept of what is being considered. Mr. Rush cautioned the members that this is a rezoning request, not a specific development application. This would allow any of the permitted uses in that RMF zone. There will be the opportunity to review development plans as part of the subdivision process. Mr. Patteson said he did not think this is fair, that the owners are not sure of what they would do with the property until after they know it will or will not be rezoned. They only want the option to be able to develop it. Mr. Daniel said he is more used to conditional zoning and is more open to residential zoning than to commercial on that site. Mr. Almeida asked if conditional zoning is allowed? Ms. Angus replied that Emerald Isle has no conditional zoning. It may be considered as Special Use. Mr. Almeida then advised that this item will be reviewed at the Review Committee on Wednesday, March 27. 2. Request to Rezone from B-3 (Commercial) to RMF (Residential/Multi-family) a northern portion of Block 42, parallel with Crew Dr. and Hwy 58. – George Spell Estate, Martha Howe. Mr. Patteson said he felt more strongly about this particular piece to be rezoned to residential. This would be much better as non-commercial project for the vegetation retention. Mr. Almeida’s concern is that the buildings could be placed that the rear of the buildings would be facing the highway. Mr. Patteson added that there would be a limit of 8 units per acre for residential, and limited to three stories. So it would not be a huge building to look at. For commercial they have considerably less vegetation requirements and buildings everywhere with impervious surfaces. Mr. Daniel added that residential rooftops are more pleasing than commercial rooftops and the maintenance is usually maintained. Mr. Dowling asked Ms. Murray (representative:) to consider relinquishing some of the land for extension for a buffer as part of the beautification process as you come over the bridge. He also wanted to know if the board could attach a ‘special permit’ for the buildings to be part of the rezoning. He was advised that this is not a permitted request for a rezoning. Ms. Murray said she does not have the answer to that question. She is not going to spend a lot of money on designs then be “shot down” in the rezoning process. Mr. Almeida asked Ms. Murray if she would be willing to agree, for the future development, to provide a buffer and also to limit the height of the buildings on this strip? Ms. Murray said she will limit it to the regulation, but she does not want a one-story building limitation. Mr. Almeida asked if it would be single-family? Ms. Murray responded that she does not know. She assumed this would be discussed at the review committee process. Mr. Dowling agreed that he agrees with low density versus high density as well as limiting impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. Chairman Almeida then advised this project will be further reviewed at Review Committee on Wednesday, March 27. 3. Rezoning Request from R-2 (Residential) to B-3 (Commercial) portion of block 35, fronting on Bogue Inlet Drive at the rear of Jordan’s Seafood House. - Mr. Pate Phillips, surveyor, was attending to represent this proposal for Mr. Wm. Farrington. Ms. Angus pointed out where the property is located on the map. Mr. Phillips pointed out the surrounding zoning and points. A Bogue Banks Water Corp. well site is to the East of the property, with residential zoning to the North. To the West and across Bogue Inlet Drive is some commercial and mobile home zoning as well as commercial on the South. Mr. Phillips said that Mr. Farrington intends to leave the existing buffer along the canal for those residential property owners to the North. Mr. Daniel said he felt that a line should be drawn to retain R-2 zoning along the canal to guarantee the buffer to the residential zoning. Several members agreed with this proposal. Mr. Patteson said he had already met with Mr. Farrington on the property, and if he were a resident of that area, he would want something there besides what is there now. It is a mess behind Jordan’s and the bar is a rat area. Mr. Farrington is considering having a quaint store shopping area to bring a little more of a downtown concept. The parking for Jordan’s is six feet into his newly purchased property which will have to be worked out. Mr. Rush agreed that there is an issue about the parking now, but not an immediate issue so that some alternative plan can be made. Mr. Rush and Ms. Angus could not answer Mr. Almeida’s question as to whether the parking spaces had been provided by the town. Chairman Almeida referred this project on to Review Committee on Wednesday, March 27. 4. Final Plat Approval, West End 23-lot S/D, North of Coast Guard Rd., in Block 51 – Mr. Jerry Cook represented this project as developer as well as John Odom, Prestige Land Surveyor. Mr. Odom remarked that this project first appeared before the board almost two years ago for Preliminary Plat approval. There was an extension granted for the Preliminary Plat in April of 2001. Chairman asked if any work had been done since the Preliminary Plat had been approved, and if not what was the particular reason? Mr. Odom replied that it had not, and the letter of credit is available for those improvements. Mr. Cook said he would address that issue. He advised that the first time he came before the boards there was a plan being worked on for stormwater. Part of the solution may have been to use this piece of property and he was asked to hold the project, which he did. So the extension was requested to stay in line with the one-year requirement for the Final Plat to be approved. Chairman Almeida asked if the stumps in the pond would be removed? Mr. Cook said he will remove them very carefully along with the remainder of the property. The removal of debris has to be done very carefully to avoid disturbing the wetlands. Mr. Cook said he is not looking at doing the work there until Fall because of the tourist traffic through the summer. He does not want to do any work until he has received Town Board approval. Chairman Almeida said he thought that once you got the Preliminary Plat approval you could do the improvements. Mr. Cook said that is correct, but he chooses not to do that until he has full approval and has submitted the Letter of Credit to insure completion. Chairman Almeida said he wants to see a promise that the draft covenants will be enforced. Mr. Cook said they are draft, but the mission statement, included with packet, will be part of the covenants. Mr. Almeida said he wants a cover letter from Mr. Cook at Review Committee saying that all those items mentioned in the mission statement will be included in the covenants. Mr. Cook said he will be glad to do that. Mr. Almeida said he felt that the bond should be done for small items that need to be done, not for the whole thing. Mr. Cook must also stipulate a date to be finished. (The Bank of America Letter of Credit in the amount of $65,000 has been dated to be completed May, 2003.) Mr. Almeida reiterated that he wants the items on the mission statement be included in the covenants and a date the development will be completed. Mr. Cook said he has to be finished within a year. Chairman Almeida said that is not correct, it has to be from the date of the Preliminary Plat was approved. Mr. Cook said that is incorrect. Mr. Frush interjected that the work must be done within the year according to the Letter of Credit. Mr. Daniel asked why the driveways were set up the way they are shown? Mr. Cook said the first plan was to put in a road for these lots parallel to Coast Guard Road. He wanted to limit the amount of impervious surface to a bare minimum. This driveway method was the least intrusive way to effect access to the property without affecting traffic on to Coast Guard Rd. Mr. Daniel asked about the configuration of the drive, as to why it was done the way it was. He does not like the way it is done to serve four houses from one entry. Mr. Cook replied it was to reduce the amount of impervious surface. These areas will be maintained by the homeowners association and the concept has been approved by the fire department. It was the compromise to not have a driveway for each individual lot. Mr. Daniel said that if you had half as many lots, you would only have as many driveways. Mr. Cook said he does not want to do that. The zoning allows 15,000 sq. ft. lots and each lot is almost an acre. Mr. Erwin asked who would benefit from the 15’ easements running east to west. Mr. Cook said this allows for each owner to have access to possible common dock(s). There is no plan to build common docks. Mr. Erwin asked for further identification of the 15’ easement on the plat. Mr. John Odom, surveyor, said that he has wetland delineations. Mr. Erwin said he felt that the easement should be defined for recording each property for property description. Mr. Erwin asked why there is a portion of the lot showing below the high water line? Mr. Odom said that is being deeded as a quick claim type deed, just like what was done at Spinnakers Landing. Mr. Cook said it will extend to the Coastal Waters. There was discussion between Mr. Erwin and Mr. Cook regarding the use of the property beyond the high water mark. Pat Patteson asked if the cul-de-sac could be widened a little bit without interfering with anything? Mr. Odom said it was done to reduce impervious surface. Thirty-seven feet is the actual radius of a cul-de-sac, maybe they could do away with the island and make a little circle if that would help. Mr. Patteson said the island would look nicer. Mr. Patteson went on to add that with the Dunes & Vegetation Ordinance written the way it is and deeding this property that far to the North, you could effectively cut down all the vegetation on the south side and still retain 45% ‘natural’. Mr. Cook said that may be possible with the ordinance, but not according to the covenants. Mr. Taylor said that there is a conflict with the way driveways are permitted at a maximum of 16’ at the street. These drives are more than 16 feet. Mr. Rush said the combined drives would really be looked at as though they were private roads, not driveways, so that should not apply. Mr. Rush pointed out that the total filled area on the subdivision is 9,400 square feet. When he first produced the maps it was almost 23,000 square feet, and he has worked with the staff to minimize that to the 9,400 that is shown. Mr. Almeida said he remembered some discussion about mitigating some of the wetland for some property on the south side of Coast Guard Road. Mr. Cook indicated on a map there are about 3.3 acres on the south side of Coast Guard Road that he will consider for mitigation. Mr. Dowling asked the linear footage of the project. He was advised it is 1,100 ft. He went on to mention that he saw only one symbol placing a fire hydrant for this area. Mr. Dowling asked that the fire hydrant be placed on the map. He also stated that this is a good illustration of why we need 2’ contour lines on the map. Mr. Odom reminded Mr. Dowling they were on the preliminary plan, that topographical lines do no appear on a Final Plat. Mr. Dowling said he felt a lot of the natural areas will have to be used for the peat systems. He is concerned especially with lots 6, 20, 23, and 5 being granted 4-bedroom duplex usage by the Health Dept. What is the reasoning behind 4 bedrooms on each side ? Mr. Cook said that they could go to normal septic tanks and drainfields. Under the peat system is about three or four times more efficient. It is much less drainfield, less trees cut, it has to be supervised by a maintenance supervisor. This will be necessary for each lot. According to the State of North Carolina, this is the best system available. There will be underground cisterns for stormwater runoff. This is used for watering lawn and plants. Mr. Cook advised the members that this particular property never had a stormwater problem, it has been used to take other stormwater. The trees and vegetation help with absorption. He intends to clean the property of the dead debris with no disturbance of the wetland. There was some discussion about the blocks appearing on the plat that were there for the use of the health department. Mr. Odom said the blocks should be removed and he will do that. Mr. Dowling complimented the developer on a fine environmentally sound plan and he hopes it can be executed. It looks like a good project. Mr. Daniel asked if the systems were mound systems or underground? Mr. Cook said they are underground. Collection box lids are ground level. There are no grinders in this system. Mr. Cook added that the cistern would also have a drainfield. Mr. Erwin asked what the action is expected for this project this evening? Mr. Almeida said it will appear before the Review Committee on Wednesday, March 27, then to return to the Planning Board for their recommendation in April. The project was then referred to Review Committee on Wednesday, March 27, 2002. 5.
Consider Ordinance Amendment Regarding Number of Stories Required in
Commercial There was discussion regarding four stories for motel or hotel with three floors only being used for sleeping rooms and the ground floor to be used for amenities and utilities. Also, to limit the number of rooms to coincide with the RMH zoning allowing a limit of 32 rooms per acre. Mr. Watson said that the number of rooms had increased because the café and some of the previously considered amenities were being discarded. Therefore, parking and septic tank capacity were significantly altered to allow more rooms. Mr. Daniel asked why this issue had not been brought up prior to this? Mr. Burnette, architect, said he thought it had been. This item was referred to Review Committee on March 27, 2002. 6.Ordinance Revision to Chapter 17, Streets and Sidewalks – The proposed changes are attached that are to be recommended to the Town Board for their consideration on Tuesday, April 09, 2002. 7. Discussion of Revision of Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance, Chapter 19 – Ed Dowling advised there are ongoing meetings with this committee and he will have the rough draft available at the April meeting. 8. Discussion of Revision of Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance – Art Daniel advised that, to date there has not been a meeting. He will report further at the April Meeting. 9. Procedure for new roads in undeveloped lots – Chairman Almeida, withdrawn. 10.
Revision of Commercial
Checklist – Mr. Rush asked that the members look over the submitted
checklist examples and let him know if this is the way they might want to pursue
the checklist process.
Motion to adjourn made by Frank Erwin, second by Pat Patteson, with unanimous approval 9:45 P.M.
|
