|
UNAPPROVED 1 & 2. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Phil Almeida. Those also attending were: Art Daniel, Anne Erikson, Frank Erwin, Ed Dowling, and Richard Brauns. Pat Patteson was out of town. 3. Minutes from June 24, 2002 Regular Meeting were approved, as written. Motion to approve made by Frank Erwin, second Anne Erikson with unanimous approval. 4. Minutes from July 22, 2002 Regular Meeting were approved, as written. Motion to approve made by Ed Dowling, second Anne Erikson with unanimous approval. 5. Report from Town Manager – Frank Rush gave the board a brief summary of the decisions and discussions of the Town Board of Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, August 13, 2002. One of the issues of importance is that the Land Use Plan Update is due to begin and will be initiated at the September meeting. Mr. Wm. Farris, Wilmington, N.C. will be handling the LUP update. Chairman Almeida asked Mr. Rush about the status of the study being done at the intersection of Hwy 58 and Coast Guard Rd. Mr. Rush replied that there has not yet been any response since he submitted the request to NC DOT to Neil Lassiter. He will check into this matter. Chairman Almeida also about the status of the revision of the ordinance regarding any structure of 8,000 sq. ft. or more requiring a special use. Mr. Rush said he has asked Michael Harvey, Benchmark, Inc. to look into this revision. As soon as it is put together it will be presented on the agenda. Chairman Almeida wanted to know about the status
of the issue from the town attorney whether the staff has the authority to
make minor changes to any preliminary plats, once they are submitted.
Mr. Rush said he was advised that the staff does not have this
authority. The plat should go before the Planning Board and Town Board.
Mr. Rush also advised that if an applicant wanted to take the risk to
make such a change, without Planning Board approval, they can submit the plan
on to the Board; however, they have understand that the commissioners may not
agree and return it to the Planning Board for revision. 6.
Report from the Building Inspector – Mr. James
Taylor gave the board the total permits issued and monies received for the month of July was $20,097 with an
added value of $2,339,790. A
breakdown of the permits was 42 permits with value is 11 accessory uses, 5
additions, 16 building, 1 mobile home, 2 repair and 7 water access permits. The June report reflected no new construction building
permits, and this month reflects there are sixteen.
Mr. Almeida said he wants a few more construction details than what has been submitted. He wants to see the footprint, jogs in the building, limit of the glazing, etc. What has been submitted is not sufficient. He read from the ordinance.. ”Architectural plans shall include front rear and side elevations, exterior building colors, lighting fixtures, and any proposed exterior decorative construction and roof line”. He did not want further misunderstanding and to have a 1” = 16’ scale a plan what is to be done, supportive documentation for glazing areas showing that the project conforms. There is no scale on the elevation drawings. Mr. Watson brought his elevation drawings to the board table and pointed out that he has a 10’ overhang for the porch, there are columns and dormers on the porch roof. He felt this meets the requirements of the ordinance to not have to jog the wall every 40’ with an 8’x4’ offset. There is no long exposed wall to the street with the 10’ deep porch. He asked if it is not better to build roof lines like he has proposed than to put up a building with jogs. What he could do, if he understands correctly, is build a building and every 40’ put a jog 4’x8’ and a simple roof line. That would not be as desirable as what his project proposes. Mr. Almeida said there was a similar project that the elevation looked good and the board issued a waiver. It was later determined that the Planning Board does not have the authority to issue a waiver and the ordinance must be followed. Mr. Watson said he was not asking for a waiver, he is asking that the porch, gables, columns and fascia to be interpreted as the “offset” for the entire building. It is going to cost him more to build the building the way he has it shown, he could do it cheaper and put the ‘jogs’ in the wall and not look nearly as appealing. To trade of the jogging for the covered porch would offset the cost of the porch. Mr. Dowling then addressed the issue that the one gable on the most eastern end of the A (east) building is higher than the roof line which is in violation of the ordinance not to allow ‘spires, towers, and other structurally non-functional additions’. Mr. Watson said he was wanting to dress up the proposed restaurant site a little more than the retail shops. So the larger of the gables is over the restaurant site. However, he will cut down the gable in order to meet the ordinance. Mr. Watson had actual photographs of the proposed project done at Blowing Rock. The whole concept is to be able to park the car and walk to all the shops. He has gone beyond the number of spaces for parking required by the town. In regard to the offset issue, Mr. Michael Harvey, Benchmark, Inc. included his remarks. Mr. Harvey advised that the rendering provided of building A (east), at the end of the building for the restaurant facility, there are two columns with a veranda separation, sort of a courtyard effect from the parking area. If that is blown into a full-blown wall, enclosing the area, that would meet requirements of the ordinance. From an architectural perspective you would lose the veranda or courtyard motif that would, in a sense, be meeting the requirement if this is not an accepted proposal. Chairman Almeida asked that Mr. Watson have Mr. Burnette prepare a sketch for the next review committee that illustrates the 4’x8’ jogs required in each building. There was discussion as to the number of jogs required for the length of the building. Ms. Angus, as Zoning Official, interpreted it to mean one jog per wall since the ordinance says “an offset”. Chairman Almeida said he interpreted it to mean a jog in the wall every 40 feet. This is to be further discussed in Review Committee for interpretation. Mr. Rush advised that there is also the issue of the meaning of ‘façade’ of the building to include the jog. Should it be side streets as well as walls facing the street? Mr. Watson added that building “B” (west) does not face a street, only the west wall is on a side street. Is there a jog required in the side and front walls? Chairman Almeida asked for a larger scale on the stormwater and sedimentation plan to make it easier to read. It is very small and hardly legible. Mr. McLean said he would do that. Chairman Almeida then advised that this project will now proceed to the Review Committee with the submittal to be completed and revised as has been discussed during this meeting. He wants to tighten up the submittals by the original deadline for more fluid review. Mr. Dowling said he would like to make the suggestion that only one entry/exit be used on to Hwy 58, and it conforms with NC DOT recommendations. Also, it would be nice to have the sidewalk on the town right of way to tie in with the town’s plan to install sidewalks. There was discussion as to whether, to meet the jog requirements, that the restaurant front be enclosed. Whether the jog must be every forty feet in a wall, or one jog per wall. This will be determined at Review Committee. There being no further discussion on this project it was referred to Review Committee on Wed. August 28 at 3:00 P.M. 8. Discussion on Amendments to Zoning Ordinance regarding Accessory Uses. Motion was made by Ed Dowling, second by Frank Erwin to table this discussion to next meeting. 9. Discussion and possible recommendation to amend Section 19-101, 102, 103, and 106 regarding the number of stories permitted; add definition of attic story; to delete the additional setback requirement for 3-story buildings. Mr. Daniel advised the planning board that there are conflicts with the wording and definitions and requested that the board table this discussion until the subcommittee could revisit it. Mr. Daniel made the motion to table the amendment, second by Ed Dowling with unanimous Approval in favor of the motion. 10. Discussion of the proposal concerning development of new submissions. Requirements for Planning Board review of major projects. This discussion was in regard to a writing that was distributed to each member to update them on the work that has been done through Michael Harvey, Benchmark; Mr. Rush, and Ms. Angus regarding plan submittal to get a more definite hold on project review. This plan will begin with staff review prior to the Planning Board receiving the first submission. The members agreed that it was a good idea and to implement the process for the October meeting. 11. Comments by members: Mr. Dowling advised that he would like to see the Dunes and Vegetation Sub committee hold another meeting prior to Planning Board consideration. A date is to be set for this meeting. There being no further business before the board, it was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Motion to adjourn made by Art Daniel, second by Anne Erikson, with unanimous approval. Respectfully submitted:
Carol
Angus, Secretary
|
