UNAPPROVED
Town of Emerald Isle Planning Board Minutes
Monday, April 22, 2002

Mr. Rush is going to pursue financing a CAMA Grant the Land Use Plan.

James W. Taylor, Chief Building Inspector, submitted the figures for the month of March, 2002.

Type Permit                                    $ Value                                    To Date           

22  Various permits             $118,740                   

  4  Residential                      866,660                                 

26                                            $985,400                                $13,726,724

Chairman Almeida asked for any public comment, there  was none.  He asked for any questions from the board members.

Mr. Dowling said he had reviewed the previously submitted plan with the Reel Outdoors and found nothing to do with a grocery. All he saw was “shops”.  When did she reach the decision for the grocery.

Ms. Dennis said it was a last minute decision. She does artwork for a living and wanted to take that shop for that use. Then the idea came up for a deli for fishermen that came into the Reel Outdoors store, adjacent to the grocery. She has had nothing but compliments from anyone that has come into the store.  Mr. Dowling agreed, however he is concerned that these spaces need to be defined on the plans. Things are not done in a timely manner from a planning standpoint.  Feedback keeps coming back.  A timeline must be set to adjust this. 

Mr. Dowling asked if there was a problem if this use were to be put in the Emerald Plantation Shopping Center?  He was advised that it would not be a problem, that is B-3 zoning.  The issue is that it is a B-2 zone which requires a Special Use.

Mr. Rush advised that the deli most closely fit the grocery/food stores.  However, he feels that at the time the ordinance was amended to require lighting plans for all commercial structures it looks like this use should have been made a permitted use at that time.  In the ordinance of 1983 all this use requires for a special use is a lighting plan and comply with all dimensional requirements. In 1998 an ordinance was adopted that required that all commercial projects must submit a lighting plan.  There are several other areas in the table that the same issue would come up. The Board really ought to look at that.  He agreed, that if we can, to point out what the proposed use  will be during consideration.

Mr. Patteson asked the status of  the BP gas station.  He was advised that it operates under a Special Use and is also a B-2 zone.  Therefore, the use has been previously approved.

Ms. Angus remarked, as the zoning official, that it had been mentioned about defining each use of each shop for review process.  She is concerned that there are commercial buildings proposed that has no prospective use, only commercial space.  She cited the example of another Veranda Square that after several years, still have vacant units to be filled.  The owner of the property would not have that available for the review process.

Mr. Daniel asked what Capt’n Willis Seafood is classified?  Ms. Angus advised that they had applied for and received a Special Use for the for a seafood  store and related items, prior to beginning construction.

He asked if they were to want to open a delicatessen would they have to follow this same procedure?  Mr. Rush replied that he believed they would have to apply for an additional Special Use and follow the process.

Mr. Daniel said he thought it should be a permitted use. 

Chairman Almeida closed Public Comments and asked Ms. Angus if this request must proceed through two meetings.  Ms. Angus responded that according to Policy and Procedure, this recommendation could be made this evening and not have to hold it for 30 days.

Motion to recommend approval to the Town Council was made by Art Daniel, second by Anne Erikson, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. 

There was no comment from the Public.

Mr. Daniel said he understands the process allows one year from the Preliminary Plat to the Final Plat. Improvements may be made during that time. If improvements have not been done, a surety that had been posted may be used to complete the improvements. He asked if an extension had been requested, at this time.  Ms. Angus said there has been no extension for this Final Plat.  (There was a 1-yr. Extension granted in May of 2001 for the project due to the Town’s consideration of using this property for retention for stormwater). The project was originally reviewed in 1999.

Mr. Daniel said he is opposed to the plat as presented.  He does not like the driveway arrangements for finger-lots/saw-tooth lots.  It’s a cut off piece of cul-de-sac turned into four driveways.

Chairman Almeida said that may be; however, the Preliminary Plat has already been approved and it must reflect that for the Final Plat.  Mr. Daniel said he saw no reason you could not amend a preliminary plat before it is finaled.

Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Daniel what standard he is looking for?  Mr. Daniel replied that he does not like one driveway accessing Coast Gd. Rd. then a combination of drives taking off from that.  To “T” the access from Coast Gd. Rd. makes more sense.

Ms. Erikson said she had listened to the tapes from last meeting and is still confused about Mr. Daniel’s concern.  She asked if there is enough room, would it be a safety hazard?  Mr. Daniel said what is proposed is far worse than his suggestion.

Chairman Almeida asked if there was any chance of the developer making any voluntary change to the plan?  Mr. Cook said the new suggestion would be less costly; however, he did not make any changes because he was told he cannot do that. These drawings show exactly what was originally approved.

Chairman Almeida asked if there is any problem with making minor changes to the preliminary plat to improve the traffic pattern?  Mr. Rush replied that if the developer is willing to do that, it is certainly acceptable. At this stage of the game, it would have to be completely voluntary and negotiated with the applicant.

Mr. Patteson said he thought this issue had been brought up before, to widen the drive areas.  Mr. Cook responded that they were originally narrower and at the request of the fire department were increased.  Mr. Patteson said he thought there was discussion to make the drives wider than what is shown here.  Mr. Cook said he had already cooperated with making the drives larger. He said he has four drives coming off one common entry that are 60’ wide.  There is never going to be a ‘rush hour’, so he saw no need to increase them.

Mr. Daniel said there are vehicles coming from all different directions. Mr. Cook said they will be marked one-way, that shouldn’t be an issue.  Mr. Cook said he would be willing to talk with Mr. Daniel on his proposals.

Mr. Cook is also concerned with what will happen with mailboxes and such, his plan is user friendly rather than to back into Coast Guard Rd. to deliver mail or packages. He is visualizing four mailboxes at this cul-de-sac and not four separate driveways.

Frank Erwin asked about the dedication of the 15’ easement through the North portion of the properties.  Mr. Odom said he had changed it to 10’ and the wetlands have been redesignated by the Corps of Engineers.  Mr. Erwin asked whether he actually had the final plat before him tonight.  Mr. Odom said he took the Review Committee comments to add the fire hydrant and a note about access to Coast Guard Rd.  These have been added to the Final Plat.

George McLaughlin asked for clarification of the date the letter of credit expires.  The memo he received said May 23, 2003 and the Bank of America form says Sept. 14.  Ms. Angus responded that the letter of credit date from BOA is the correct date.

Mr. Rush said the Improvements must be  finished by May 14, 2003.  The period between May 14 and Sept 14 for the town to cash the letter of credit for the improvements if they were not completed.

Mr. McLaughlin also felt it is unfair that the two plats could be approved when the Osprey Bluff developer that had to do the  work.  How would this board be assured that the work would be the same?

Chairman Almeida said he thought the original intent of the ordinance merely separated the preliminary plat from the final plat to approve it in stages.  He thought it would be expected that the bulk of the work will be done before the final plat is brought in.  He suggests the best course of action will be to recommend an extension of time.

Mr. Dowling said he felt Mr. Cook had bent over backwards since the beginning of this  project. He is in favor of approving a one-year clause, and that he  work with Mr. Daniel on the traffic issue to a mutual arrangement.

Mr. Daniel asked the board the material difference between what he suggested and the other suggestion to give them a year.  What is the difference between extension of one year and approving it subject to all the improvements being made in one year?  It seems to him the extension is less cumbersome and allows it to cure itself.

Ms. Erikson asked about the proposed fill issues.  Mr. James Taylor replied that these lots will be subject to the new stormwater ordinance as it comes before the department. They will be able to fill up to 2’ without a stormwater plan, anything more than 2’ will require an engineered stormwater plan.  There is no limitation on the fill, only that it must have an engineered plan to bring in more than two feet.

Mr. Rush said that Mr. Cook has 9,400 sq. ft. of wetlands that will be filled, and he has mitigated to replace that area elsewhere.  He has offered to mitigate the property he owns on the other side of the road that is primarily wetlands. He also worked from a previous filled area of 23,000 square feet down to the 9,400 square feet.

Mr. Daniel asked if the extension would impose a hardship on Mr. Cook and if so, why?

Mr. Cook said he had paid Bank of America (BOA) for the letter of credit. He has worked and worked with the town for four years and cost him a lot of money and be a good neighbor. 

Mr. Odom reminded the board that the previous project had the opportunity to use the letter of credit just as Mr. Cook is doing.  Whether it is for the total project or that it should be underway is not clear. The procedure is there for a developer to use.

Motion was made by Art Daniel that West End S/D be given an one-year extension to allow Mr. Cook to complete the subdivision, second by Ed Dowling.  In favor of the motion were: George McLaughlin, Anne Erikson, Art Daniel and Ed Dowling; opposed: Pat Patteson with abstention (positive vote) by Frank Erwin.

Mr. Odom asked what the extension was for, the preliminary plat or the final plat?  Chairman Almeida said extension of the preliminary plat to complete the work.  He should have completed the work within one year of the approval of the preliminary plat.

Mr. Cook said the ordinance says you either do the work or you post a letter of credit or a bond.  One of the three, and he chose to use the letter of credit.

3. Rezoning Request from R-2 to B-3 by William Farrington, 202-210 Bogue Inlet Dr, Blk           

Mr. Farrington was present to represent the request. 

Mr. McLaughlin said he would not look at the new plan that was before him since he had just received it and it should return to Review Committee.

Mr. Rush said he recalled the direction Mr. Farrington was given at the last Planning Board Meeting was to seek comment from the adjacent property owners.  He has done that, in response to those comments, he has made these changes.  It is a modification of the concerns of the adjacent property owners.  In his opinion, it should not have to return to Review Committee because he followed the directive of the previous meeting. That is the decision of the board whether to return to Review Committee.

There was consideration given to several scenarios about how the zoning separation line should be delineated and some additional buffering.  Mr. Farrington was agreeable to some of the suggestions made by the members.  He would be willing to have the plan redrawn again to suit the members.

Mr. Dowling said he is concerned about the stormwater runoff and asked Mr. Farrington  to be sure there is not a problem.

Mr. Farrington said he had no problem with returning to the review committee.

Motion was made by Ed Dowling to refer the request to Review Committee on Wednesday, April 24, second by Art Daniel with unanimous approval.

4. Reed Drive Commercial Park, Final Plat,  Blk 41

 Mr. Richard Stanley, Attorney for the applicant, advised that the plat is filed and normal procedure has been to refer it to Review Committee.  It was previously given Preliminary Plat approval.  There had been a condition added that there be a ‘right turn only’ at the entrance.  Paving would have been done but there was difference of opinion from the town on what the width of the entrance should be.   The paving should be done by the May meeting and all improvements in place.  Should there be any portion not done, there will be a letter of credit issued prior to that meeting.

Mr. Patteson asked if the fire hydrant had been looked by the Fire Dept. personnel.  Mr. Taylor advised that it was inspected on April 15 and had no problem.

Mr. McLaughlin asked for authorization to enter the property to make a personal inspection. Mr. Stanley said he would see that authorization would be granted.

Mr. Dowling referred to a Planning Board Meeting held August, 2001 that he had requested a notation of  adding NC Certification in accordance   with Sec. 401 Public Law of 92-500. This note is still not on the Plat as he had requested.  Mr. Alan Bell said he will see the notation is added, he agreed that it should have been included and he had overlooked it.

Ms. Holz said she will have no problem with delineating these wetlands, as they exist, to make reference to the NC Certification Sec. 401 Public Law 92-500.  Mr. Alan Bell, surveyor, approached the board to indicate that the wetlands as they exist.  The board wants the statement to say that no future wetlands will be filled.

Chairman Almeida said the application as submitted is not complete and should not have been brought up.  The bond is not there.  There have been issues before when the drawings were not complete and should not be submitted in an incomplete form.  That is why he   wants to table the project until: 1) the bond is in hand; 2) there is access to the site; 3) to be able to see a portion of the road in its finished condition except for the asphalt.  By portion, he means a 25 or 30 foot strip.

Mr. Stanley said he had discussed the issue of the bond with Ms. Angus earlier and it is not a condition of the Planning Board to set the bond, but the Town Board, Section 18-22.

Mr. Daniel suggested that the Planning Board meet as a group at the site prior to the Review Committee meeting and tour the entire site.  This was agreed to by Ms. Holz and Mr. McLean, Engineer who will conduct the tour.

Mr. Bell said the reason for the delay in construction is the issue about the ‘right in’ and ‘no left in’ at the entrance.  There have been no less than 3 meetings regarding this issue to try to come up with something that everybody is satisfied with.  After he thought it had been resolved he received a request that was contradictory to what had been discussed.  That is one reason he wants to return to review committee to finally resolve what is to be done. He does not want to pave then have someone say that is not what is wanted.

To clarify this comment, Mr. Rush said possibly what Mr. Bell is talking about is that he is concerned about the turning movements to into Reed Drive be designed such that they prevent left turns from Coast Guard Road and straight across movements from Reed Drive.

There was discussion about some of the utilities that must be relocated to accommodate the entrance into the project.  Mr. R.N. Conrad, Public Works Director, advised that the water has been relocated and the fiber optics have been installed, but the pedestals have not been set.

Mr. Daniel asked about the site radius at the Pebble Beach end entry regarding the clearing the town would have to on the right-of-way  and developer clear the private property for safety.

A time of 2:00 PM was set for the 24^th for a site visit to the property.

Mr. Patteson made motion to refer this item to Review Committee on Wed. 24^th, second by Frank Erwin.  Mr. Patteson said the only issue that he saw that is outstanding is the entrance and that should be resolved at the site visit.  Unanimous approval.

a.      Recommendation of changes in Ordinance requirements for Final Plat -  Chairman Almeida referred to Section 18-22(a)(3), which is the portion referring to surety bond.  He thought that most of the work would have been completed (on a subdivision) in order to submit a surety bond.  The wording is ambiguous and allows a developer to file for a Final Plat immediately after a Preliminary Plat is approved by posting a bond. Taking it one step further, they could have the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat the same day if they bring in a bond. If that be the case you might as well do away with the Final Plat.  He suggested that the first line be amended to say “that if 95% of the improvements are not installed” then a bond is acceptable.  It forces the developer to do part of the work prior to the Final Plat review. 

Mr. Daniel said a committee had been appointed to review the subdivision ordinance. He thought there was supposed to be some ‘housecleaning’.  Why could this change not be added at that time?

Mr. Almeida said this issue came at an opportune moment.  This subdivision had nothing done prior to the Final Plat submission.

Mr. Wm. Farrington asked for a more realistic percentage, like 80% or 85%. There are 30 days between meetings and a 3-month process for approval and a lot can be accomplished during that time.  For example the paving can be done in one day.

More discussion on this issue will be done at the May 28 meeting.

5. Consideration of Allowing Four Stories in Commercial Zone – Mr. Rush addressed this issue. He said there is the option to allow hotels and motels to have four stories, as opposed to three stories, in B-3 zone with a Special Use. The use of conditional use was discussed, but the definition of such use did not apply to this issue.

Chairman asked for rationale for why the limit should be changed from three to four stories. 

Mr. Daniel said he did not know what the intent was when the three stories was adopted. It appeared as if height limitations were the major concern. If that is the case and allowed a pitch roof at a different height than a flat roof both would allow three floors of occupied space.  If density is the concern, it should be addressed through zoning. To just limit height, and they threw in a 3 story limit, he had no problem with  allowing four stories being used as habitable space.

Mr. Dowling said his concern is the ordinance and the job of the Planning Board is to follow those parameters. He believes the island does need a hotel. Therefore, it meets the overall public good which must be served. However, he must look at the fact is it fair or harmful or smack of favoritism? In the original plan review there was no attic space until the last meeting that it would be occupied. He spoke with former members of the board and one said he was surprised that the vote was unanimous in favor of the ordinance and he thought it would end up as a commercial building, but didn’t. He (the former member) had no knowledge of occupying a fourth floor.  Another member said he voted on the premise that it would be limited to three stories, and was adamant about that vote.  It was to capping the skyline at Emerald Isle, and that the hotel might be lengthened to accommodate more rooms.  Because some of the original uses were deleted such as café, gift shop, etc., the parking would not be a problem to add rooms.  His question is the loyalty to the previous board of commissioners who had decided on it.

Chairman Almeida said he had a letter from Ceil Saunders, previous Planning Board Chairman, directed to the Board of Commissioners, dated, February 26, 2000.  It talks about Ken Burnette, architect, being invited to speak for about 15 minutes during committee discussion. The recommendation states that a sloping roof is three floors.  It is silent as far as the flat roof is concerned.  Chairman Almeida added that his recollection that they don’t want rooms with 8’ floor to floor.  It would then be a 7’ space a very short, squat area. 

There was continued discussion regarding the issue whereas  the majority of the members felt they should honor the previous decision to the limitation of three and did not want to recommend that the change be made.

There was also some discussion between Frank Erwin and Frank Rush about the possibility of allowing conditional uses to be inserted into the tables.

George McLaughlin made the motion to recommend that the current ordinance remain in effect, as written.  Second by Anne Erikson.  Mr. Daniel said he does not like the way the ordinance is written. Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.

Mr. Rush also added that this previous ordinance change had been requested by Mr. Ronnie Watson and he will still have the opportunity to proceed to the Town Council even with the negative recommendation from the Planning Board.  Mr. Rush said he wanted to advise the board that he has applied for a Land Use Plan Grant through CAMA. That might be the appropriate vehicle to look at some of the changes that the Planning Board would like to see.

Mr. Daniel said he wanted to add that if the commissioners had unknowingly limited the number of livable floors in a motel/hotel complex to three and no way for it to be an economically feasible project, he thinks that issue ought to be looked at also. If Mr. Watson cannot build a three-level hotel, no one else could.

Mr. Almeida said that approach may work through conditional zoning.  Mr. Erwin said he will pursue that to see what might be done in this type of situation.

Mr. Ronnie Watson addressed the Board and said that he did not believe that any other such project had been brought before the board since the three story limit was adopted and he cannot see what difference the number of stories makes when you have to limit the height. He has made the decision not to  pursue the issue any further and would not be proceeding to the Town Board.

 6.   Dunes and Vegetation Ordinance Revision Update – Mr. Dowling said he wanted to go to a work session for the board.  The meeting date was set for May 01, 2002 at 9:00 AM.

7.  Subdivision Ordinance Revision – Mr. Daniel said he wanted to handle this in two phases due to lack of staff availability.  He wanted to go ahead and set a meeting. Chairman said he, too, wanted to have a semi-final stage and then get the staff people involved.   Mr. Daniel said he would take the suggested revisions from Mr. Rush and other members of the committee and incorporate them into revised ordinance.  We could make them available on internet through email and note the strike through and additions.  Then we could meet with the staff. A meeting was scheduled for the committee to meet on Monday June 3 at 9:30 AM at the town hall.

8.      Discussion of Revision of Commercial and Residential Checklists – Mr. Rush advised that due to the heavy work load on the staff, these checklists are still being worked on and will be available on the May 28 meeting.

Mr. Almeida said he wanted to make the floor plans, front and rear elevations, as part of the submittal process at the Preliminary Plat stage.

Mr. Rush also advised the board that he had included in the packet a list of the proposed steps to be required by a developer/owner to proceed through the Planning Board and Town Board.  He asked that the board look over that procedure as well, and make any suggestions.

9.      The Board Meeting date for May has been moved to Tuesday, May 28, at 7:00 PM to accommodate the employees for the Memorial Day holiday on May 27.

Comments by Members:   None

Motion to adjourn made by Pat Patteson, second by George McLaughlin with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. 

Respectfully submitted by:

Carol Angus
Planning Board Secretary