Unapproved
TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2003

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by chairman, Anne Erikson. Members in attendance were Anne Erikson, Pat Patteson, Pam Minnick, Jim Craig, Joe Quigley. Members absent were Ed Dowling and Frank Erwin. Also present were Planning Director, Kevin Reed and Secretary, Carol Angus.

3. The minutes of the regular meeting August 25, 2003 were approved as written. Motion to approve was made by Pat Patteson, second Jim Craig with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.

4. Report from the Planning Director – Kevin Reed gave the members an update on the Board of Commissioners meeting held on September 9, 2003. Mr. Reed also advised the Board on the following:

§ Land Use Plan Steering Committee

§ Inspections Department Report for Month of August 2003

5. Discussion of proposed amendments to Chapter 19-Zoning- of Town code in order to establish regulations for large commercial structure.

The members and Mr. Reed, Planning Director discussed the following issues as requested by the Board of Commissioners:

§ Location and number of required sidewalks with particular attention to be paid to commercial property with multiple street frontages;

§ Distance requirements from curb cuts (driveways) to street intersections;

§ Traffic study requirement. Modify language to quantify what is meant by language that the statement the “the local roadway that vehicular traffic will be utilizing to enter and leave the site can handle the increase in vehicular traffic”.

§ Give specifics required for sidewalks.

The discussion dealt primarily with traffic studies and the definition of “level of service” (LOS) as it related to the traffic volume on a street ranging from and A to an F which meant “failing”. The “A” through “F” range is interpreted the same as in educational system as being A for best and descending to F. The Board all agreed that they did not want to see the LOS be any less than a “C” as a result of new development and if the LOS were to deteriorate to any degree, not to drop to less than a “C”. In addition, the Board agreed that the impact of a development should never decrease the level of service greater than one grade.

Any traffic study to determine LOS was agreed should be done during peak season over a weekend from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM. This would encompass the influx and outflow of those visitors during the period they will be checking in and out of the rentals.

Motion was made by Pat Patteson second by Pam Minnick and unanimously approved to recommend, that large commercial structures proposals submit a traffic study that will produce the level of service to not less than a C and, nor to allow a present LOS to reduce more than one level; and, that the study be done on a peak weekend on a Saturday and/or Sunday from 11:00 AM through 3:00 PM. The subsequent wording is to be supplied by Planning Director Kevin Reed at the next meeting of the Planning Board.

The next item to be addressed for review was sidewalks and whether there need be specifications for sidewalks on all sides of properties that face more than one street that are required to be installed. There was discussion about whether sidewalks should be required for both sides of streets; and whether a developer must bear the entire cost for such installation then subsequent development is approved where sidewalks might already be available.

The width of sidewalks was discussed to be 4’ minimum to 5’ maximum of concrete or asphalt, brick, or similar material; however, not to include wood due to maintenance.

Motion was made by Pat Patteson to recommend that sidewalks be installed of impervious material other than wood, 4’ minimum width, 5’ maximum width, on all boundaries unless waived by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners as part of the development plan. Motion seconded by Jim Craig, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion. The wording for this amendment is to be submitted by Planning Director, Kevin Reed, at the next Planning Board meeting.

The last portion of this discussion was related to curb cuts. It was acknowledged that they are revealing throughout the town. NC DOT will determine the curb cuts allowed in the commercial district on HWY 58; however, the town streets are not so regulated. Mr. Reed advised the members that the Planning Board and Commissioners do have the authority to determine what will be appropriate for curb cuts in the interest of public safety.

Motion was made by Pat Patteson to recommend approval to the Town Board that the distance between curb cuts will be considered during the review process for new commercial development. Mr. Reed will formulate the wording for this amendment.

6. Discussion of possible amendments to Sec. 19-107, Paragraph 7, of the Town Code in order to address the required vegetative buffer in business districts.

Mr. Reed advised the members that this agenda item will be placed on the October Planning Board agenda because he had not yet been able to gather the committee members due to the recent hurricane and it’s following confusion.

7. Discussion of the maintenance of drainage ditches along public streets.

This item was addressed by the Planning Director. Staff was asked by the Planning Board to report on the above subject matter. According to Public Works Director, Artie Dunn, the town does not routinely repair drainage ditches in order to ensure that they are maintained at the required slope. The ditches are repaired when damaged to a point that they become ineffective for the handling of storm water. Likewise, obstructions that affect their ability to function are also routinely removed. Again, there is no ongoing program to ensure that they are maintained at the initially constructed slope.

This issue had been raised by Planning Board member Ed Dowling on several occasions. The board agreed that it was unfortunate that Mr. Dowling was not in attendance for this discussion. However, because the maintenance of such and endeavor, the ditches are cleared only when they present a problem in a specific area. Part of the reason for such an approach is the lack of staffing for such an ongoing procedure. Though general discussion among the Planning Board members it was determined that this is not a prevailing issue and should not be an issue for the town to pursue at this time. No action was taken on this agenda item.

8. Discussion on the regulation of temporary banners.

Mr. Reed advised that the definition of temporary sign, which is: A sign that is an advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, fabric, plastic, paper, plywood, or other material intended to be displayed, not to exceed fourteen (14) days, to inform the public of an unusual or special event for non-profit organization. Exception: menu-board/specials board/A-frame on site (section 19-134(11).

Discussion included the recommendation that the temporary signs be permitted as an exception and be added to the body of the Zoning Ordinance for specifics as to how they will be regulated. The Planning Director will make proposed to the Ordinance to possibly reduce the number of days that signs may be displayed prior to and after an event. Mr. Reed will prepare the wording for further review by the Planning Board for an upcoming meeting.

9. Discussion of lighting standards for new subdivisions and commercial developments.

The Planning Board members were in favor of the draft language for new developments that was previously considered by the Board of Commissioners. Attached to these minutes is a verbatim copy of the text of that draft language.

Motion to recommend to the Town Board that the Lighting Standards for New Developments be included in the Town’s policy was made by Pam Minnick, seconded by Pat Patteson. The motion passed by a unanimous vote.

10. Comments

Ms. Minnick brought up the issue of house numbering throughout the island and asked (Commissioner) Doje Marks if that has been resolved. Ms. Marks replied that house numbering is still in the hands of the Fire Department (doing verification) and will be finalized soon.

Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by:

Carol Angus, Secretary

Town of Emerald Isle Planning Board

III. Street Lighting in New Developments

A. The owner/developer of the new development shall be required to install street lighting via underground wiring in accordance with the standards outlined in this policy. The owner/developer shall incur all capital costs associates with the initial installation of the street lighting system.

B. The Town will assume responsibility for operating costs and maintenance of new street lighting systems installed along streets dedicated to the Town and installed in accordance with the standards outlined in this policy. The Town will assume responsibility for operating costs and maintenance at such time that the final plat is recorded and the owner/developer presents a written request to the Town of Emerald Isle to assume responsibility.

1. The owner/developer of the new development may elect to install decorative street lighting along streets to be dedicated to the Town, provided that the owner/developer incurs all capital costs associated with the initial installation of the street lighting system.

2. The Town will assume responsibility for operating costs and maintenance of decorative street lights installed along streets dedicated to the Town and installed in accordance with standards outlined in this policy.

C. Private Subdivisions.

1. The Town of Emerald Isle will not assume maintenance or operation of street lighting systems installed in a subdivision with private streets.

2. Street lighting systems installed in subdivisions with private streets, are required to adhere to the standards outlined in this policy with regard to spacing, illumination, pole selection and pole height.

3. The owner/developer may utilize decorative lighting in subdivisions with private streets, provided such decorative lighting conforms to the standards outlined in this policy.

4. The owner/developer and/or homeowners association shall be responsible for the initial installation and operating cost of street lighting installed along private streets.

5. The owner/developer and/or homeowners association shall be responsible for any cost associated with the removal of any street lighting and initial installation of new street lighting should that become necessary.

6. The owner/developer shall include all responsibilities of the homeowners association pertaining to the street lighting in the development covenants.