TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE
PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2001
Chairman, Ceil Saunders, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Ceil Saunders, Frank Vance, Phil Almeida, George McLaughlin, Ed Dowling, Art Daniel and Fred Josey. Also in attendance, Secretary, Carol Angus; Frank Rush, Town Manager; and James W. Taylor, Inspections Dept.
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 18, 2001 were approved as written with the exception to a change in the vote on the Reed Drive Commercial Park. Motion to approve the motion was made by Ed Dowling, second by Frank Vance, with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.
Report from Town Manager – Frank Rush, Town Manager gave a brief summary of the Board of Commissioners meetings July 10, and August 14, 2001.
Report from Building Inspector – James W. Taylor, Inspections Director, advised the board of the permitting in the department for the previous month and that the CVS Drug store will be given their final compliance inspection this week.
Mr. Dowling asked Mr. Taylor for a recap of how things are progressing at the Osprey Bluff project. Mr. Taylor said he had spoken with the contractor about some fill that was being stockpiled on the north section of the road. It eroded into the wetlands area. The contractor said he would remove the material and put up some temporary silt fence. Street grading has not begun. Mr. Dowling asked if stabilization takes place after the roads were in. Mr. Taylor said that was correct.
Reed Drive Commercial Park, Preliminary Plat – Mr. John McLean was present to represent this project in its revision. Mr. Alan Bell, surveyor, could not be present. Mr. McLaughlin asked if the road would be in and out. Mr. McLean responded that it will be however the board would like to see it done, but he believed it is right turn in and right turn out only. Mr. McLaughlin said all the studies (Kimley-Horn and Benchmark) indicates it should not be there. He thought when Mr. Almeida brought it up several months ago that there should be a road with a cul-de-sac at the end, and with the possibility of a signal light at Pebble Beach. He was lead to believe that the Homeowners Association at Pebble Beach had approached someone about a traffic light there. Because there is footage to make it a direct road for a horizontal crossing, he felt that is in the best interest. The way it is lined up now, he sees serious problems.
Mr. McLean said he did not know where Mr. McLaughlin had been. His understanding that this plan is exactly where everybody agreed to. He had been told this is the plan to be prepared and it is prepared. Ask the Board members if this was not true.
Mr. McLaughlin replied that Mr. Frank Vance had asked for a consensus at the review committee meeting and he did not get it.
Mr. McLean said he has only been coming here on this project for a year and a half and will come again, but it should not be necessary, because he did exactly what was requested. He then asked Mr. Dowling if this was not the case.
Mr. Dowling said that was a review committee meeting and as such they could not vote, that is why they are here tonight to vote on the various portions of the property.
Mr. McLean said he had been told, since he was not at that meeting, to realign the road to align with Pebble Beach, add silt fences, sedimentation, and to lower the pipes. That is all done, now this is exasperating.
Mr. Almeida said that there was no consensus at the review committee meeting. It was divided. He personally was against it. He does think that it was good to move the exit to align with Pebble Beach. There are other concerns that he has with the entrance at Reed Drive and has had from the beginning.
Mr. Almeida then went into detail of his concerns.
1. Reduction of the right-of-way from 60’ to 40’. He cannot find in any minutes where it was voted on to reduce the right-of-way from 60’ to 40’.
2. For the future, and setting a precedence. You either have a sound basis for such decisions. By accepting the 40’ ROW the owner gets more buildable area which in turn, increase the traffic volume. In an earlier meeting, there was discussion on the need to reduce the density of development on this particular property. He suggested the board examine this decision.
a. What is the justification for this decision?
b. What implication does it have?
c. What is the rationale for giving up 60’ of ROW owned by the Town so that a 40’ private road can be built.
d. If the ROW is vacated, should the Town give it away at no charge? The road is usually the responsibility of the developer. Perhaps this board should recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the town attorney be consulted on this issue.
Mr. Almeida asked for input from the members on these issues and started with Mr. Josey. Mr. Josey said there was a lot of indecision about this and then at the end it was decided the right turn in and right turn out. Mr. McLaughlin injected that he did not agree with that, that Mr. Vance had asked for a consensus but he did not get it.
Mr. Josey went on to add that a public road is 60’ and a private road can go down to 40’. This was discussed in March, 2001. Ms. Holz will be using more total square footage with all the addition of the loop around the road.
Mr. Almeida said it was discussed, but never voted upon. Regarding the square footage, the fallacy is that there is a misunderstanding that internal road layouts are not the responsibility of the developer. Typically, if you have a large tract of land, does the city give property for the developer to set out the roads. Or, does the developer come up with the layout and give up part of the land so that the roads can be built?
Mr. Art Daniel said that, in this case, if you got back you find that the owners dedicated the ROW for Reed Drive Extension at 60’. When he came on board, there was discussion about one-way, to come in Reed Dr, around and come out on Coast Guard Rd. From there it was on the agenda too many times. People express their views over and over and he misinterpreted everybody’s viewpoint this time. He thought this project was on “go”, as did Mr. McLean.
Mr. Daniel said he felt the owner was trying to keep this under one acre of disturbed area. One way to accomplish this was to go to the 40’ ROW and make the loop. There were previous alternatives, A, B, C, where C exceeded the square footage of disturbed land. Right in right out, appeared to be an acceptable compromise. No one wanted to see traffic coming out of Reed Dr. Ext. on to Coast Gd. Rd. The right turn in should not create any major problem. The right turn out would allow the motorist to make a legal move to get to the direction they wanted to go. That way they can turn if they got trapped in a No Left Turn situation. Also, no traffic should go straight across to Reed Drive. No, he had no problem with the 40’ ROW. There is also a 5’ utility easement. One of the reasons is for utilities to be placed within the infrastructure. This is a non-encroachable easement, which is set aside only for the street and utilities.
Mr. Vance said he had no problem with the 40’ ROW.
Mr. Dowling said he would recap what was done. There was discussion about 40’, 50’, and 60’. Never voted on any of those. The 60’ ROW from the minutes of June 18, it was ascertained the 60’ ROW included wetlands, it would be taking about 240 sq. ft. or less than 200 sq. ft., about the size of this room. Also talked about safety, and safety, in his mind, is at all times, paramount, especially for ambulances and fire trucks. They also talked about 50’ ROW. Then they talked about 60’ ROW. Now they must deviate from the ordinance manual and stay in that realm, when it is pointed out to the Board of Commissioners then the board should point the rationale. He has heard no rationale so far to deviate from the 60’ ROW. They all have problems with it, and are going to build Reed Dr. and it should stay at what the town ordinance specifies. While this is being talked about, where you bring the entrance in 460’ from HWY 58 to do away with the queue factor toward the bridge. It will back up traffic at the light and not be able to exit from the bridge. This is another factor for the 60’ to get traffic in and out. Also, if you build a 70,000 sq. ft. shopping center, 60’ at the north part of Reed Dr., makes more sense because trucks off loading for the houses (stores). This has been covered meeting after meeting, that the impervious surface, if you look at the calculations, it lessens stormwater. Based on the recent ruling, it is his understanding, he hasn’t seen the attorney’s ruling on calculations for stormwater, but the road surface, is he correct on this, he doesn’t know, he heard it through the grapevine, is not taken into the calculation. So therefore, you have a stormwater problem. So we are back to the 60’, again we have not voted on 60’, or 50’ or 40’.
Mr. Almeida stated that Town ordinance requires 50’ for public road, not 60’.
Mr. Taylor, Building Inspector, said that the width of the street surface will stay the same, no matter the width of the right-of-way. Only the right-of-way on either side of the pavement will increase from 40’ to 50’ or 60’. He went on to reiterate that he understood the reason for the 60’ reduced to 40’ was to be sure that no more than one acre was disturbed.
Mr. Almeida went on to ask of Mr. McLean that the ROW, as shown, is .99 acres, but the disturbed area will work out to more than that when the new wetland area is factored in.
Mr. McLean may want to check out these figures. Mr. McLean agreed that he would do that.
Chairman Saunders asked that the board continue with their comment on the 40’ issue. The board can then return to the disturbed calculation when the 40’ is finished.
Mr. McLaughin said he is comfortable with this explanation. If the road size is not going to change, it isn’t going to make any difference.
Mr. Josey said he understood if it is a private road that it has to be 40’. He is comfortable with that.
Mr. Dowling said if the board goes with the 40’ that the commissioners would be briefed that they have to address that issue with Reed Dr.
Ms. Saunders asked then if there was agreement with the 40’ ROW.
Mr. Almeida said he did not agree with it. It is setting a precedent, but the majority agrees that 40’, so his word doesn’t count.
Mr. Almeida went on to say that Mr. McLean will be checking on the calculation for the disturbed area factoring the wetlands.
Mr. Daniel said they are revisiting the original permit and should have no bearing on this issue as far as the road is concerned.
Mr. McLean added that if the Corps gave permission to swap land, mitigating wetlands, and they would say let’s do that differently.
Mr. Almeida said that is true, but current State regulations, as he understands, if the disturbed area is more than one acre, that a stormwater management plan is required. He looked up some old papers from 1994. The ponds were filled, and one of the conditions was that a storm management plan be submitted. There is a certification letter from Preston Howard, Director of Environmental Management, August 2, 1994, the conditions of certifications: (4) Within approval from DEM for stormwater management is required for the development. He asked, “ Is that in compliance?” Mr. McLean replied that it has never been developed.
Mr. Almeida said that subdivision becomes the first stage of development. That should trigger that condition. Mr. McLean replied, he had not.
Mr. Almeida said he felt this should be done, unless the state wants to waive the requirement. Mr. McLean said if the board will grant their approval for this preliminary, he will do just about anything the board wants him to do. Mr. Almeida said. O.K.
Mr. Almedia went to another issue of the entrance at Reed Drive. It seems appropriate at this stage to recap the various stages through which this project has gone. Review Committee on March 21 there seemed to be a consensus on the loop road with a 40’ ROW. He was not in favor of entry at Reed Dr. Before it could be formally worded, at the regular planning board meeting, it was presented to the Board of Commissioners as having been approved by the Planning Board. The Board of Commissioners approved the layout contingent on vacating town property at Reed Dr. Ext. However, this was returned to the Planning Board at the request of the owner as the Corps of Engineers indicated that the pond through which the road passed was under their jurisdiction. The owner felt that the permitting process through the Corps would take a long time. The process did not take too much time, after Commissioner John Wootten helped out in speeding up the process. At three planning board meetings May 7, 22, June 18 the Planning Board agreed that the entrance needed to be moved away from Reed Dr. Ext. At two of those meetings the decision was unanimous. At the June 18, only one member dissented. This decision is consistent with the report from DOT, Kimley-Horn traffic study, both of which indicate that there would be significant traffic problems if Reed Dr. Ext. was used as entry to the subdivision. The third study by Benchmark, page 4, states that the town consider abandoning the access to the subdivision. This was based on the potential traffic that will be generated by the 7-acre parcel. That study was done the week after Labor Day Monday when the traffic is not as heavy. It has learned recently that this road may serve as access to an undeveloped commercial parcel owned by another entity located on the Northwest corner. As a consequence, the traffic will be much more than projected by all the studies, and so does the problem. Therefore, the question that needs to be addressed is do we support the entrance at Reed Drive? If so what is the rational? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Do you have a strong basis to disregard the recommendations made by the three studies?
These comments were then open for discussion.
Mr. Josey asked about the development at the northwest corner. He wanted to know where that came from. Mr. Almeida replied that he did not pull it up from thin air. He believed Ms. Holz brought it up. Mr. Josey said he remembered her mentioning that Spell had some property there.
Mr. Almeida asked if that property (Spell) is landlocked? Or is the only access through this property? Mr. Josey said that Spell property could be accessed through Osprey Ridge, so it would not be landlocked.
Mr. Daniel said he thought that Ms. Holz mentioned a possible benefit of providing an additional access to that property as an alternative to using a residential street. He felt that was a gracious comment on her part to allow the street to be used for that. He went on to say his rationale, in deference to those involved in preparing these reports, this has been a dynamic situation that has seen many changes since they made their recommendations. One was subsequent to another, and the situation has changed, not completely, but considerably. As a Professional Transportation Engineer, he does not believe that you will find any of them that will say it is better to put a third intersection in, in lieu of providing right turn to get traffic off Coast Gd. Rd., a new intersection that will introduce conflicts trying to use Pebble Beach. There are intercepting left turns and right turns, created separate intersections, there are enough as it is. Unfortunately, the proximity to Reed Dr to Hwy 58 is too close. In the old days we had service/frontage roads that went parallel to the highway such as in Havelock. The wisdom of putting in Crew Dr. and Reed Dr. so close to Emerald Dr. was in the old school, and we are stuck with it. You eliminate the intercepting conflict of one vehicle path with another vehicle path, opposing each other at 90°. You would have that if you allow left turns at Reed Dr. Ext. to go to Coast Guard Rd. You have a non-intercepting conflict when you have a right turn off Coast Guard Rd into Reed Dr. Ext. It may create a rear-end situation if it breaks down. In theory you have a right turn lane coming off the bridge approach and that should have eliminated the queuing effect. But it won’t if the system breaks down. The best alternative is the right turn in and right turn out at Reed Dr. Ext. and another intersection to the south across from Pebble Beach with a potential for signalization. There is a potential for resignalizing Reed Dr. Ext. and Hwy 58, but that would create a “sticky” situation. What happens in a situation like that is that you have clearance intervals, you have green time, a yellow and red clearance interval, and you’ve got stop time. Each traffic phase has to have a clearance interval. When you take 8 seconds out of the cycle for each phase of a traffic signal, in a situation such as this, they become too inefficient. If there are too many phases there is too much capacity reduction, so you would not want to signalize Reed Dr. Ext. and Coast Gd. Rd. By moving down to a new location, that gets you away from Hwy 58, and you don’t have that same loss of efficiency. As far as he is concerned, this is the best logic to back up with right turn in and right turn out, at Reed Dr. Ext. then go to the other intersection for right, left, or to Pebble Beach. Realigning the approach to Pebble Beach improved the geometrics. He felt this area should be signalized.
Mr. Vance mentioned that there had been discussion about cutting the hill down for sight on the town ROW, and Ms. Holz on her property. Also, he felt there was consensus among the board up to where the wetland issue entered into it and stopped things.
Mr. Vance stated to Mr. McLean that at the end of the last Review Committee Ms. Holz made the statement if it would make everyone deliriously happy to have a road go straight in from Pebble Beach with a cul-de-sac. Some of the members said “yes”. Other than that, it was left like it was. He thought they had agreed upon, since the Corps of Engineers issued a change or modification allowing the fill and undo the other part, that it would stand as presented.
Mr. Daniel said that would be a bad method. If you have the road shown like it is, there are only so many parcels available to develop. The other system would allow the entire parcel to be developed in one single development.
Mr. Josey agreed with Mr. Daniel, if you want the possibility of a humongous shopping center that will be possible with that system without the Reed Dr. Ext., you’ve really got property there to develop.
Ms. Saunders asked if it was not agreed that with right turn into the property it will take traffic off Coast Guard Rd. and not block Hwy 58. (Some side bar conversation took place that was not discernable).
Mr. Dowling said it was amazing how they all want to recap this issue, so they are solid in their minds. They are not ready to present something.
Mr. McLean asked if the members were present at the Corps meeting and who represented the Corps. Mr. Vance replied that it was Mickey Sugg. Mr. McLean said they were told that within the next couple days he (Mr. Sugg) would write a letter stating that they could swap out the wetland.
He also said it was good for sixty days.
Ms. Saunders added that Mr. Sugg said it was a modification of the old letter.
Mr. McLean said the reason for a horseshoe road would be better than building the road that is already a dedicated town street. The hang-up was the wetlands which has been worked out. He felt all along that Reed Drive should be as it was, it is already dedicated since the 1960’s, and easy enough to do. He felt what was trying to be done was meet on common ground and do whatever could be done to make more acceptable. He had felt all along that this plan was acceptable, and when his associates asked if they should attend, he replied they need not come tonight, this was “cut and dried” and was a done deal. He had no idea there was any dissention at all. He thought there was some approval was worked out with Town Board folks prior to the Planning Board knew what was going on anyway. At least some conversations were held, and he believes most of the commissioners know what is going on. I know we have to go through the procedure, but he is appalled that there is any question tonight.
Mr. Dowling said that Ms. Holz came two meetings ago and presented Plans A, B, &C. The Planning Board liked “A”, but that was with the exit and a ball on the end (cul-de-sac) which turned out to be more than an acre, which required further permitting. So it was excepted by all at that time, and he doesn’t remember if it was voted on that…………
Mr. Vance interrupted Mr. Dowling to say he had something out of kilter. “A” was the best plan of the three. Mr. Dowling agreed. Mr. Vance said he didn’t like “A” at all. (There was some confusion on which plan was best). Mr. Dowling said he would stand corrected. Plan “A” was the one that comes down 460’ from Hwy 58 the state had recommended. He went on to read that recommendation. A letter from Mr. Joel Crawford, NC Urban Traffic Engineer, dated July 1, 1999, stated “Therefore, to provide the required timing for traffic along NC 58 and the close distance between the two intersections, a signal at Reed Drive will fail during peak traffic hours. Pedestrian activity was not analyzed due to the large number of negative traffic impacts. This area has a high likelihood of creating pedestrian traffic, therefore, providing additional signal time for their crossing would only produce increased delays and other safety concerns. So Mr. Dowling thought they were working with an entrance at 460’ from Hwy 58 and only using half of Reed Dr. Ext. swinging over and down along the contour in a westerly direction and abutting up or contiguous to the Carteret Craven EMC plant and to the Bogue Banks Water plant. He has no problem now, since there is a permit to fill in that wetland, and he appreciates how the road was jogged out to line up with Pebble Beach, and that is correct. But from his vantagepoint, he still lingers on the entrance at 460’ from the safety standpoint. He will give Mr. McLean six studies to support this.
Mr. McLean said to “do with me what you will”, but he is in favor of building Reed Dr. Ext., where it is designated at this time. He thinks he can successfully talk to the town to say “let’s build it where it is.” If the road hadn’t been on record since the 60’s he might feel a whole lot different, but since it has, he feels that is a pretty good court case. He went on to say that he wants to continue with this plan and been trying to do it for a year and a half. It’s the most ridiculous thing he’s ever heard. We need to get to the point to say, Yes, you can do this, or, No you can’t. That would make things a lot simpler. Incidentally, Lands End streets are only a 30’ right-of-way.
Chairman Saunders asked if the members would vote on this issue to see where they stand.
Mr. Almeida asked to go over an issue in Mr. Cranford’s letter, the same that Mr. Dowling read, on page 2, (actually page 3) looking at a shopping center on the 7-acre parcel “To maintain acceptable levels of traffic operation, the main entrance to the shopping center would only be located at the intersection of the southwest property corner. This distance will provide the required length of roadway from NC 58 to clear queued vehicles at the existing traffic signal and the proper sight distance to safely exit the shopping center parking lot.”
Mr. McLean said this has nothing to do with this plan, does it?
Mr. Almeida said Mr. Cranford is trying to say that the entrance should be located at the southwest corner. In essence, abandon Reed Drive Ext., and make one road cut at opposite Pebble Beach.
Mr. Daniel said he can take the traffic engineering manual and cite all sorts of references about how far intersections should be apart, they probably should be 880 feet apart to facilitate traffic signaliza-tion. We are not in a situation that if you are taking an undeveloped area of land and do city planning and lay out a street system, we don’t have that option. We have an existing highway system, and local street system on a platted street extension. As Mr. McLean says, we are trying to reach a point where they can proceed with attempting to develop the property. In deference to what Mr. Almeida says, he appreciates that, but he doesn’t think we can take the criteria out of a textbook that has been developed by good minds and for good reasons and base it on desirable geometrics. That’s cut in stone, but we are not there, we have to compromise.
Mr. Vance said that the board has been through this month, after month, after month, and things are discussed and then at the last review committee he asked them to all say something, and he didn’t hear a word out of anybody. (There was considerable voicing of opinion that was not discernable).
Mr. Almeida said he was wrong, Mr. Vance replied he was not wrong, he asked them to say something. He then went on to comment: “Why is it today you bring it up like that when we did it a year ago? Now, can we as grown people here, I’m tired of listening to back and forth, make a decision where we won’t keep going on and on?
Mr. Almeida responded that all it will take to make a decision is to take a vote and if the majority is reached, you have a decision.
Mr. Vance responded that it had been ready to vote on before, it was ready to go, except the wetlands became involved.
Chairman Saunders addressed Mr. Daniel that Reed Drive Ext. coming in (right turn); and then exit right, left, or straight across to Pebble Beach. She went on to ask for a vote.
Mr. Dowling said he wanted to add before the vote that if it were recommended to be approved that the Preliminary Plat have an entrance at 460’ to follow a southeast line along the contour line extending 12 to 18 foot level and intersecting Reed Drive at mid point. To return to concept where you enter similar to Plan “A” that was previously basically approved.
Ms. Saunders said that was not approved because of other particulars.
No other comments, Ms. Saunders asked for a vote.
Mr. Josey made the motion to recommend approval to the Town Board of Commissioners for the Reed Drive Commercial Park, to have right turn only into Reed Drive, right turn only out of Reed Drive Ext. down Coast Guard Rd., entry and exit for left and right turns on the southwest corner opposite Pebble Beach. Mr. Vance seconded the motion.
Mr. Dowling added “On the certification that just came across to us, for your permit, North Carolina Certification in accordance Sec. 401 Public Law of 92-500 etc., etc.,
# 2, referring to the Preliminary plat, to agree or disagree, that this will be on the plat. Deed restriction see attached example, assuming this is the attachment (holding an 8”x11” attachment), said shall be placed on all lots with jurisdiction wetlands to prevent future fill.
#3 Fill is not approved for the two largest wetlands areas on the site except for a road crossing fill for the larger wetland nearest to Look Realty (no longer in place).
#4 Written approval from Division of Environment Management. Are you willing to put a number, in addition to 7, #8 to the effects that wetlands approximately 10,000 square feet at 8’ contours will be a natural area without fill imperpitude.” Mr. Dowling wants it to be part of the deed in compliance with the State, before he votes.
Mr. McLean said the best thing to use is the map given to the Corps, given to each board member, which identifies where the wetlands are—period! He doesn’t know where the 8 foot elevations is in regard to that. This is the gospel, (holding the wetlands map submitted to the Corps of Engineers). Mr. Dowling asked again if he will put it on the map and Mr. McLean said this has to be done, it’s part of the conditions.
Vote was then taken by show of hands in favor of the motion: Mr. Fred Josey, Mr. Frank Vance, and Mr. Art Daniel. Those opposing the motion: Mr. Ed Dowling, Mr. George McLaughlin, and Mr. Phil Almeida. There being a tie vote, Chairman Saunders voted in favor of the motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Reed Drive Commercial Park to the Town Board for their consideration.
Chairman Saunders then asked that Mr. McLean make note of a few concerns Mr. Almeida would like to see added to the map.
1. Locate the three fire hydrants (Reed Drive, new hydrant in project, and
one on the south side of the project)
Easements are not on the western boundary for part of the distance. How is
the buffer requirement going to be done between commercial and residential.
Mr. McLean asked if he meant screening the water tank. Mr. Almeida said no he meant the residential section.
Chairman Saunders said she knows that Ms. Holz had said she will plant trees on the owners property.
Mr. Dowling added that there were two people in attendance that are from the Osprey Ridge Townhomes. Ms. Holz had agreed that if they would call her and designate the trees, that she would purchase the trees for them to plant.
Mr. Almeida addressed 5’ the easement. He asked that the eastern side easement be moved to the west side of the road. Mr. McLean said he will do that. He will be hiding a great big water tank 33’ high, he doesn’t think it can be hidden.
Mr. Almeida said he was thinking that at some future date if the town wanted to bury a pipe to take it to a pond somewhere, that easement becomes easier to use than on the inside of the development.
Mr. Almeida then asked about septic tank permits. The permits say there are four visiting or occupying an office. Mr. McLean said he can give you reports that say the soil is good for septic tanks, but as far as applying for 2,000 gallons or 12,000 gallons, he doesn’t know. Mr. McLean went on to advise that the plans as submitted are transferable and certainly would have to be altered when the land is developed.
Mr. Almeida said his last item is stormwater. The town attorney agreed with Mr. McLean’s interpretation that we follow past practice. He is confused by the ditches by the roadside, where do they drain? Mr. McLean responded that they drain to the wetland area. Mr. Almeida asked about past practice and was advised of the same response.
Mr. Almeida presented a map he prepared to illustrate to Frank Rush, Town Manager to show how the past practice has been applied. It showed how the drainage of the entire impervious area was not taken into account, only the impervious area was accounted for. He feels that the entire parcel should be considered for drainage.
Mr. McLean said when he makes application to the State for stormwater plans, he assigns a 90% runoff coefficient to the structures and a 10% for the areas that are grassed. That still has to be collected. Mr. Almeida said that is when you do the subdivision requirement. Mr. McLean said that is when you develop project plans, not when you do it piecemeal. It is done as a subdivision, and then the individual goes and develops each parcel. There are areas that are left unattended this is no man’s land, which causes flooding.
Mr. Daniel said if you are looking at post development vs. pre development and pre development is, as is, your runoff should not exceed that.
Mr. Almeida said you are disturbing the property, when you put in a road.
Mr. Daniel said when you change the impact, then yes. Hopefully, when we rewrite the stormwater ordinance, we will take care of that.
Mr. Almeida asked where that ordinance revision stood. He thought that two members of the Planning Board were to look into that. He thought Fred Josey and Ed Dowling were to look into that.
Mr. Josey said that went no further because the Board of Commissioners did not request that.
Chairman Saunders responded that this is only an advisory board and they are not to dictate to the Town Board of Commissioners of items to be discussed.
Mr. Dowling said someone still needs to ask for clarification of the 300’ for fire hydrants. Mr. McLean said that is to be added to the plat going to the town board. It has been previously addressed.
Mr. Rush added that his understanding from the Town Attorney was to adhere to past practice regarding stormwater management. In order to have the stormwater addressed for the entire subdivision at build-out, we will have to amend the stormwater ordinance. Commercial stormwater management plans are required at present by the ordinance.
A. Section 19-74.1 for consideration regarding the definition of façade “face” to be Added to Definitions Sec. 19-62.
Mr. Dowling wanted to understand that the Inspections Department was asking for this definition to clarify of the interpretation.
Mr. Dowling made the motion to recommend the change as recommend by the Inspections Department to:
1. add to: Section 19-62 following “dwelling-two story” to be followed by “Façade/face – means that portion of the building that faces any street, which includes Hwy 58.”
2. Reconstruct Section 19-74.1(4) to read as follows:
“The placement of towers, spires, other structurally non-functional additions to any commercial structure, must be placed that no portion extends above any existing or proposed roofline.”
Mr. Almeida commented that when the board was reviewing Reel Outdoors, there was a problem with the offset. Shouldn’t we lump all of those together, rather than do it piecemeal.
Mr. Josey said they got tied up when the side wall was 46’ and tried to work with that.
Mr. Almeida said he understood that this board is not to look at any revisions until they suggest what revisions are to be made. So we cannot amend it until it is recommended from the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Saunders said they are not to proceed with anything until they are advised.
Mr. Almeida said to hold off until all the revisions, instead of taking small revisions at a time. The Town Manager can take up with the Board of Commissioners the need to really revise the façade requirement.
On Reel Outdoors there was a façade about 85’ long without an offset. The straight face should not be more than 40’. The issue brought out, is that the building did not meet that requirement. This is too strict a requirement to look at a small building and maybe we should change it into what should be a reasonable length.
Mr. Frank Rush, Town Manager said he felt that the revision that Ms. Angus prepared is comprehensive to the area that was difficult to administer in that ordinance. Whether or not we have any spire that will be higher, and the current reading says lower than the roofline.
This clarifies the intent. Secondly, is the addition of a definition of building face, the town does not have one. With the Reel Outdoors this ordinance would have clarified it. We are asking the Planning Board if it is their intent to apply this ordinance to the side streets or just to Hwy 58.
Chairman Saunders felt it should be on all streets.
Frank Vance made the second to Mr. Josey’s previous motion with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.
Mr. Josey had no comments.
Mr. Dowling thanked the board for the work on the previous project.
Mr. Daniel brought up about a potential for accidents at the entrance to CVS Drugs. There is not enough space for two autos to pass, allow incoming vehicles from Mangrove, and movement of vehicles in and out of parking spaces at the entrance of the store. There is not enough width for two-way traffic and parking and handicap parking. Either the handicap needs to be relocated or some of the parking relocated, or remove some of the island.
Mr. Josey said he remembered something being said about it being one way. Mr. Taylor said that he had remembered it being that way. Mayor Harris added that there had been an auto accident there today. The store needs to direct traffic in a one-way pattern to exit behind and around the store.
Mr. Daniel advised the board that he had prepared the letter that had been previously requested by this board to be directed to the Board of Commissioners regarding light signalization in relation to the Reed Dr. Commercial Park area, Islander Drive, Loon Drive, and additional laning on to Lee Street. Mr. Daniel also commented that there was a problem with exiting Emerald Plantation Shopping Center. This light should be resignaled. Commissioner Trainham said he had some trouble exiting the shopping center and had made a call to Ms. Overman and it has since been somewhat remedied. He said there are some things the town can do in relation to such requests.
Mr. Daniel said he doesn’t know why the Town has not requested DOT to assume the responsibility of Coast Guard Road. It should meet the criteria for being a part of the state system. The Coast Guard Station is down there might even get under the Federal Aid system. Most communities have all their roads on the state system; and North Carolina has the second largest road system in the country, second only to Texas. There are over 70,000 miles of roads in North Carolina on the state system.
Mr. Almeida had no further comments.
Chairman Saunders then was given the opportunity to comment. She read to the oath of office taken by each member. The members have been approached by people and put in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, so maybe this will help others to understand.
I, Ceil Saunders, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina. Not inconsistent therewith, and I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as a member of the Planning Board of the Town of Emerald Isle, North Carolina; and I will not allow my actions as a member to be influenced by personal or political friendships or obligations so help me God.
Chairman Saunders then added for the members to keep that in mind, don’t worry about what
anybody says, make your own decisions.
Commissioner Trainham then asked if he might address the board. He said that one of the particular things that the Board of Commissioners has been holding on to, was the openness of their meetings. He misses that with the Planning Board. He would like to have some clarification as to why it is there is no openness. He noticed on the agenda there is no place to call for comment. He even felt embarrassed to interrupt at this point, because even Board of Commissioners are not asked to make any comments or do anything to help further the cause.
Chairman Saunders said this board is just and advisory board, appointed by the Board of Commissioners. There was a confrontation in November at a Planning Board meeting from someone in the audience to another person in the audience that had an agenda item before us. This was uncalled for, and unnecessary. There was also an incident at one of the Board of Commissioners meetings that was uncalled for. She does not want to subject this board to that type of situation. This board works very hard, and are trying to do everything we can. There are seven different heads here with seven different viewpoints. She felt that the board alone can do it, without anyone being insulted. She hoped that answered his question.
Commissioner Trainham replied it is an answer, and that is why he has misgivings about it. He wanted to thank the Planning Board for the job they had done, and wanted to commend them for their efforts in every sense of the word. He does feel the Board of Commissioners should be supporting the Planning Board when a project is brought to them. He can only speak for himself, but he knows there are several member of the Board of Commissioners that are concerned about the lack of openness for these board meetings.
Mr. Almeida made the motion to adjourn Mr. Daniel made the second to the motion with unanimous approval in favor of the motion.