June 18, 2001

Planning Board

Town of Emerald Isle Planning Board Minutes 
Regular Monthly Meeting 
Monday, June 18, 2001

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Ceil Saunders.

Members in attendance: Chairperson Ceil Saunders, Frank Vance, Phil Almeida, Ed Dowling, Art Daniel, and Fred Josey. George McLaughlin was not present.  Also in attendance was Jim Taylor, substituting for Carol Angus.

Minutes of the regular meeting of May 21, 2001, were approved with corrections made by Mr. Josey and Ms. Saunders:  1) on page 2, there was a typo, next to the last paragraph, middle sentence “Mr. Watson did not want get in the middle.”  Add the word “to” between “want” and “get.”  2) on page 1, Mr. Burnette’s name is spelled incorrectly under “A.  The Watson Hotel” and down 4 more lines.  There was no motion to approve the minutes – and no vote.

Mr. Dowling asked to go back to the meeting prior to that.  His discussion and overview of the entire year with the facts pertaining to the five surveys and the information along that line, 4 paragraphs, were left out of the minutes.  The minutes were approved without his delivery.  He thinks it was an administrative error.  He gave his copy to Mr. Taylor, and it should be part of the record.  One or two of the Board members had asked him for data out of it because it talked about the studies and engineering efforts from the state and all our efforts from the good Board of Commissioners trying to enlighten us and help us.

Report from Board of Commissioners Meeting of June 12, 2001.  Ms. Saunders asked Mr. Taylor if he wanted to give the report.  Mr. Taylor said he did not go to the meeting and did not have anything from Carol Angus.

Report from Building Inspector – Mr. Taylor reported that for the month of May the valuation totaled $1,309,940.  There were 12 accessory structures (“accessory” pertains to decks, covered porch, screened-in porch, basically miscellaneous permits), 9 additions to single family dwellings, 9 single family dwelling permits, 5 water dependent structures.  Mr. Josey asked what a water dependent structure is.  Mr. Taylor explained that it is a pier, a boat lift, a boat house, etc.

OLD BUSINESS

A.                 Reel Outdoors, Commercial Review, Block 34, Lot 1 at corner of Emerald Drive and Cedar Street—Jim Davis and Greg Dennis

Mr. Davis said that the glass sides will comply when the final working drawings for Mr. Taylor’s office are prepared.  There are probably some percentages different in trying to scale this from this small a scale.  They will comply.  They are not trying to get away with anything.  The working drawings will have the exact dimensions.

Mr. Josey asked about the abutment at the back of the store where they go against Mr. Blackman’s property.  Are they going to put in Leland cypress, and are they going to have to put in a retaining wall.  He was looking at the typography lines.  Mr. Dennis replied that the Leland cypress is going to go in there to screen.  Mr. Josey said when they prepare the lot, they will have a drop off; they are going from a 20-foot elevation down to 15 feet for storm water.  They’ll have a 5-foot embankment, and he wondered whether they will use a retaining wall in that or a slope.  Mr. Dennis replied they would use a slope.  Mr. Davis said a slope would probably be sufficient for the drop in elevation.

Mr. Dennis said they had spoken with Jay, and he preferred that they use Leland cypress instead of a fence.  Mr. Dowling said that anchors the pad in place if they do have a bulkhead.  He would think that from the standpoint of storm surge and impervious surface, they might want to consider this recommendation.

Mr. Davis said they can’t determine that until they grade the lot.  Between them and the building inspector, they’ll try to make it right.  Mr. Taylor said after they meet onsite after they get the lot graded, they generally talk about those things during the grading process.  After the lot is graded, depending on the slope, a wall may be required; and they can address that then.  Mr. Davis said the elevation at the back of the building may change slightly, which will possibly affect it.  Final grading will be the best way to determine that.

Mr. Almeida asked how they number the drawings.  They are 1 of 2, 2 of 2, and 1 of 1.  On a specific project, does he not number them serially?  Mr. Davis said they had not gotten working drawings yet, so the only copy they should have is 1 of 1.  Mr. Almeida said there are 3 sheets, and they should be 1 of 3, 2 of 3, and 3 of 3.  For the building, there are 2 plans.  The elevation sheet is 1 of 1.  Mr. Davis replied that his draftsman did the work on that one sheet.  Mr. Almeida said the drawings should be a series.  Mr. Davis asked if he wanted all the drawings consecutive.  Mr. Almeida said that is the way they are normally presented.  On a project, they would have 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3.  Mr. Davis said the land planner did two sheets, and the building designer did one sheet.   The site plan is two pages, and the building design is one.

Mr. Almeida asked why he could not determine at this stage whether they will need a retaining wall or not.  Mr. Davis said he had been building for 20 years and knows that the site will change a little when the grading is done.  If a retaining wall is needed, and the building inspector says that is what they need, he has no problem with it.  Mr. Almeida said that the finish grade shown on the drawing should not be accepted as real finish grade.  He said that in all the projects he had done, they would show the original grade, finished grade, and they would know how much of a retaining wall they would need so they could cost out the project.  That is the time it should appear.

Mr. Almeida said the elevation is nice.  The only problem is non-conformance with the current ordinance.  They had discussed this at the last meeting and left it hanging.  Ms. Saunders said they were referring to the offsets on the side, and they did agree that they could put some shrubs there rather than having to build the jut out.

Mr. Almeida said he was talking about the front.  On the front, they have 84’9” straight line.  On the side, they have 46’.  The question that bothers him is that once they waive the ordinance requirement for one particular project, then they are opening the door for everyone else.  There are two choices:  one is to send this to the commissioners and ask them to waive that particular requirement because of specific circumstances; the other is to amend the ordinance, to allow this type of job.

Mr. Dowling asked where the Variance Board comes into this.  Is that after the fact?  That is a question of variance, a deviation from the ordinance.  It is a commissioners’ problem, and they should probably make a recommendation in writing, that this Planning Board point that out to the Board of Commissioners and let them make the decision.

Mr. Almeida asked in principle where do they draw the line.  How long should they have building before they say no variance, no approval.  They need to discuss that issue.  Mr. Vance said they need to go further than that on a building such as this on the ends or the sides because they agreed that they could recess the restroom back, but recessing the restroom back on the end is going to look worse than having shrubs there; but it is in the ordinance for an offset.  They need to look at that paragraph in the ordinance and come up with some answers and maybe have it amended sometime.

Mr. Josey said he played around with that a little bit and wondered how you could say it so it is not specific to one case.  What if they got involved with a ratio effect like length to width?  He figured this one, and it is about 1:1.85 ratio.  Mr. Almeida said suppose the width is 100 feet; that means you can have 190 feet long frontage without an offset using that analogy.  Mr. Josey said he was just trying to come up with something that would work.

Mr. Dowling asked if they could give the permit to do that and base it on total square foot.  Mr. Almeida said they could say that the ordinance they have that was revised recently is not a workable ordinance and recommend that a change be made in that.  Waiving this for every case without setting a limit is not a good idea.  Mr. Josey agreed.  Mr. Daniel agreed, too, and said they could come up with a linear spatial relationship.  They are looking at a village concept, a village plaza; it is small, has overlying rooflines, walkways, gable roof.  It is difficult to put an offset in a little building like this and make it workable.  They have two retail spaces, and to offset this at that particular location is really not particularly architecturally attractive.  Mr. Almeida agreed that the elevation is nice.  The point he was driving at was the ordinance as was recently approved needs to be amended.  He said there were two separate issues and suggested finishing this, and that the chairperson address the Board of Commissioners with the problems they see with the recently amended ordinance.  This project has to have a waiver because they are in contra­vention of the ordinance.

Mr. Dowling asked if Mr. Almeida wanted to put forth something to vote on.  Mr. Vance said at the Map meeting, the developers agreed to do whatever necessary to meet the ordinance.  Ms. Saunders said the Planning Board are the ones who decided rather than do it with the little outbuildings to go with the shrubs.  Mr. Almeida said they still need the waiver.  Mr. Vance asked if they want to try to get a waiver or stick cold-nosed to the ordinance until they get it changed.  Mr. Almeida said it depends.  Does Mr. Vance agree that the current ordinance is not very good?  Mr. Vance said it definitely needs some work on it.  Mr. Almeida said they should separate out the two issues.  He suggested getting on with the project and then going to the amendment part of it.

Mr. Daniel said they should address it in reverse order.  If they are going to say this does not apply and then come up with a recommendation to change the ordinance and it still doesn’t apply . . . .  Mr. Vance said the intent was to get rid of the warehouse look.  Mr. Daniel said this does that.

Mr. Vance said they could offset the restrooms, and that would go in at the very back end of it.  That would meet the requirement of this ordinance, but his feeling is that it would look worse than it does with the blank wall with the shrubbery there.  Mr. Josey and Mr. Almeida agreed.

Mr. Davis said they are showing split-face block on both ends.  That doesn’t change the question about the 4-foot offset, but it looks nice.

Mr. Vance read paragraph 5 of 19-74.

Mr. Vance made a motion that Chairperson Ceil Saunders take it to the Board of Commissioners to see if they will buy it without the offsets on this particular building.  They need to work on modifying paragraph 5 to come up with a solution.  There was no second to this motion.

Mr. Dowling said that would mean Mr. Davis and Mr. Dennis could not proceed with any further development, and there will be a time delay.  Ms. Saunders said this is the Planning Board’s fault because we went to Map and they decided they would do what­ever we want them to do, and now they have to go back again. 

Mr. Almeida said that was not the motion.  The motion is that the drawings be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners.  The onus is on Ms. Saunders to make a presentation to the Board of Commissioners regarding the special circumstances, why they should approve and give a waiver.

Mr. Almeida amended the motion: that the drawings for the Reel Outdoors building be accepted and forwarded to the Board of Commissioners with a request that the current ordinance requirements as contained in paragraph 5 be waived because of the special elevation that has been adopted.  The Planning Board plans to review the existing ordinance and make a recommendation for changes so that the number of waivers in the future is reduced or eliminated.  Mr. Josey seconded the motion.  Vote was unanimous in favor of the motion.  Motion carried.

Mr. Daniel said somewhere in the wording should be the reasoning behind that, and that is the purpose of the existing ordinance is to eliminate the warehouse appearance so it would be self-explanatory to the public what they are attempting to do.

Mr. Almeida said he was under the impression that Ms. Saunders would address the Board of Commissioners personally and explain the detail.  Ms. Saunders said she would do that.  Mr. Dowling asked if she was comfortable or if she wanted further guidelines from the Planning Board to tie this down.  Ms. Saunders said she felt comfortable with it.

Mr. Vance said they need to read paragraph 4 also.  Mr. Taylor said the lowest portion of the roof would be the eave, and the three false gables would be considered above the eave.  The way he reads it, and his interpretation of it, number 4 talks about “the placement of towers, spires, and other structurally non-functional additions to any commercial structure above the lowest point of the roofline is prohibited.”  Considering the lowest part of the roofline would be the eaves and those three false gables would be considered above that point, not lower, it should be acceptable.  Mr. Almeida said when they look at that particular amendment, they can discuss that issue.

Mr. Dowling said it would all be predicated on defining the eave.  Mr. Taylor said it was below the eave, yes, but it is above the lowest point, the lowest point being the eave return.  Mr. Almeida said the intent is not to have a tower or spire coming up like a church.  It does not read that way.

Mr. Vance said they need to rewrite 4 and 5.  Ms. Saunders said she would make the presentation to the Board of Commissioners regarding this.

Vote on the motion was unanimous in favor of the motion.  Motion carried.

Mr. Daniel said the words of the motion should explain the intent, and this motion did not do that.

B.            Stormwater Ordinance Revision (Chapter 18) interpretation (specifically 18-1, 18-2, and 18-21) prior to Board of Commissioners approval

Mr. Almeida said at their May 7, 2001, meeting, they had suggested that they obtain an interpretation from the attorney regarding the stormwater issue as far as application to subdivisions is concerned.  He asked about the status of that request.  Ms. Saunders said she had no idea.  Mr. Almeida asked who was supposed to take the request to the Board of Commissioners.  Ms. Saunders said she thought Carol Angus was going to talk to the attorney about that.  Mr. Almeida asked where it was now.  Ms. Saunders replied that she had no idea.  Mr. Almeida asked about the process in the town for taking up the issue.  Is it Mrs. Angus’ responsibility?  Ms. Saunders said she is sure that Mrs. Angus would have spoken with the attorney, but right now she is . . . .

Mr. Almeida suggested that Ms. Saunders take up the issue with the Board of Com­mis­sioners and the attorney and get a ruling in time for the next meeting.  Ms. Saunders said she would check with Mrs. Angus.  Mr. Almeida said she is busy, and there is no point in putting more on her plate.

Mr. Dowling asked if this was about the interpretation of impervious surface from the road.  Mr. Almeida said to go back and take a look at the subdivision ordinance.  They are looking at chapter 18, page 1075, section 18-21, item 2.  “The preliminary plat shall also indicate and show surface water drainage plans and methods.”  Mr. Dowling asked if the question was computations for the road only or for the total area of out parcel, site, or tract.  Mr. Daniel said water is water, and it looks like to him like it would be more encompassing than just the road.

Mr. Almeida said he tends to agree with Mr. Daniel.  He comes from the mid-west, where he has done a lot of work.  When they talk of a subdivision, they provide not only the road, they provide all the utilities for each lot—water, electric line, storm water, sewer.  Sewer does not arise here because of septic tanks, but basically, they have to provide utilities for each lot in the subdivision.  Suppose they had a site that was sloping, and he decided to put a road halfway down the slope.  The water that was draining all the way down would now be held by the road, and if they took into account only the runoff from the road, they wouldn’t provide for the water that was coming from above.  When they start designing subdivisions, they have to look at the total picture.  Part of the problem has been that they have been developing more parcels a lot at a time and not looking at the total picture.  Also they have to take into account utilities.  Last time at the Board of Commissioners meeting, Frank Vance said everything was all right, but they have not shown in that layout fire hydrants.  Typically, if they look at BOCA, a fire hydrant is required every so many feet, or they should get an okay from the fire marshal that it doesn’t need one.  Typically there is a minimum pipeline size that BOCA and other national corps would require to make sure there is enough water coming to the fire hydrant.  Those issues need to be addressed.  The question he has is are those utilities covered under the subdivision ordinance they have, or do they need to amend it?

Mr. Almeida said there is a catch-all phrase on page 1076, D-4, Other Information.  “Other information as deemed necessary . . . .”  Typically a subdivision plat plan or preliminary plat plan should go to the fire marshal, or if there is no fire marshal, the fire chief for review.

Mr. Josey asked if that had been done with Osprey Ridge.  He remembered sitting in the audience at the Town Council meeting and hearing them discuss it.  Ms. Saunders said it was done.

Mr. Taylor said typically with preliminary plats, prior to approval, the fire chief does sign off on them for the required number of hydrants in the area.  That is spelled out in the ordinance as far as where they are required.

Mr. Almeida asked about the spacing required.  Mr. Taylor read “Each building within a project shall be located within 350 feet of a fire hydrant.”  All the hydrants have to be adjacent to a paved street suitable for transportation for firefighting vehicles.  This is on page 1180 in chapter 19.  Mr. Dowling said where he comes from, and the last four that he has had, it is 100 feet.  300+ feet is a lot of hose for this fire department to lay to fight a fire.

Mr. Almeida said the problem is it talks of a building.  What happens if they don’t have a building?  Would they come back later on and put in a hydrant?  He is used to the notion of having a hydrant as the subdivision is developed so that they are spaced equally.  Mr. Taylor agreed, but said that considering the fire marshal signing off on the preliminary, Mr. Taylor would assume he takes that into consideration.  He could get an answer from the fire chief.

Mr. Daniel asked when the fire flow is addressed, the gpm and the pressure.  Is that always available?  Mr. Taylor replied that he did not know—he would have to discuss that with the fire chief.  Mrs. Paxon Holz said it had to be engineered and approved by the state as part of the subdivision requirements, and that is always done.  Then the pipes have to be put in by the developer and given to the water company, which is a non-profit member of the corporation.  Ms. Saunders said then they get a signoff letter from the water company.

Mr. Daniel said he thought what Mr. Almeida was getting at was the sequencing of all of this.  It never all shows up at one time or any one place.

Mr. Almeida suggested that they appoint somebody to head a committee to look at this in more detail.  Ms. Saunders said Mr. Josey would head the committee, and Mr. Dowling would assist.  Mr. Almeida offered to help them.

Mr. Vance said they could take a look at the 350 feet that is in the ordinance.  Mr. Almeida said they would talk to the fire marshal, and they will look at BOCA and UVC.

NEW BUSINESS

A.        Reed Drive Commercial Park Revision, Block 42

Ms. Saunders said to look at the preliminaries they had in their packet.  Mr. Almeida asked from whom they had gotten the preliminaries.  Ms. Saunders said they came from Mrs. Holz’s office.  Mrs. Angus put them in their packets so they could see if they could come up with some kind of a solution that is agreeable with everybody.  Mr. Vance and Mr. Dowling said they had just gotten it.

Mr. Daniel said if they took the 60-foot right of way and put it in the wetland, they would be talking about 240 sq ft or less, 200 sq ft, about the size of this room.  It just doesn’t make sense.

Mrs. Holz said before they did a lot of work on another preliminary submittal, she asked Alan Bell to submit these sketches showing the different roads, the dimensions, leaving the cul-de-sac where it originally was placed, bringing it back using a 40-foot private street and a 60-foot public street because she does not want to go forward with a lot more expense unless she has some indication that it is acceptable to somebody.  Mr. Daniel asked if she is attempting to keep the disturbed area less than 1 acre.  She said yes.  She had done that on two of them and was not able to do it on A, which has a longer roadway to serve lot 3.

Mr. Josey said he did not have a copy of the original traffic study and asked where the traffic study said the entrance should be.  Mr. Vance said at one time, one of them said it would come out down where they originally said in front of Pebble Beach, but they were talking about getting a state access off 58 cutting through.

Mr. Dowling said he thought that Mr. Joel Crawford of NC Urban Traffic Engineering, when he replied on 1 July 1999 said, “Therefore to provide the required timing along North Carolina, the closest distance between the two intersections, a signal at Reed Drive will fail during the peak hours.  Pedestrian activity was not analyzed.  Due to the large number of negative impasses, this area has a high likelihood of creating pedestrian traffic. Therefore providing an additional timing for their crossing would produced an increased delay and safety concerns.”  Mr. Dowling thought his suggestion was halfway between the intersection and the borderline at Pebble Beach, so it would be about 460 feet from the center of 58.

Mr. Josey asked about the status of getting the areas defined.  Last time they met, Mrs. Holz had it flagged and they were surveying.  Has that come back and was it reflected in the sketches?  Mrs. Holz replied that she hoped to find out Wednesday, but she had not received any official word from the Corps of Engineers as far as the designation.  She hoped to find out at least verbally on Wednesday.

Mr. Dowling said he would suggest flaring the entrance because that has been their position all along.  This does not show a flared entrance.  Mrs. Holz asked how big a flare.  Mr. Dowling said he would leave that to her discretion.  What they asked was for safety purposes, that she flare it out so traffic could . . . .  Mrs. Holz said she thought they had asked for a sight easement.  Mr. Almeida said line of sight.  Mrs. Holz said that was a little different from a flare.  It has been their experience that no matter how big an entrance they have, they will always have people cutting it short.  She has no problem whatsoever with a sight easement.

Mr. Dowling said that two meetings ago, if they put curves in that based upon the topographical crest, he thinks it is compatible with what they discussed and where it lined up with, and one or two members of the Board of Commissioners said they would be favorably disposed on relinquishing part of Reed Drive and letting her build a private road into that.  Therefore this seems right on track.  It is just a matter of narrowing one down that the Planning Board feels comfortable with.  Is a 40-foot road what they are after, or a 60-foot road?

Mr. Josey said he recognized that this is just rough.  He asked Mr. Daniel, with this Z or S shape and Mr. Daniel’s experience with traffic flow, what this would do to traffic and emergency vehicles getting in there.  What would it take to get them in there?  Mr. Daniel replied that the configuration is very restrictive—the two 90-degree turns in less than 200 feet.  If they want to imagine a large fire truck trying to negotiate traffic and the curves, somebody has to give.  Normally an emergency vehicle, as long as the areaway is supportive to the loads of the vehicle, they can cut across country a little bit, and they have to.  They will not find all the rescue vehicles staying within that curve when they are trying to maintain some speed.  If they don’t have an accident with those types of vehicles, they’ll be in good shape and they’ll be lucky.  This is very restrictive.  It is certainly not ideal, and he didn’t like it.

Mrs. Holz asked if the angle at which a fire truck comes out of the fire department is 90 degrees.  Are they pretty much going as hard as they can when they go to a fire?  She would say yes.  She does not know of any roads that go cockeyed out of a fire station; they go out and then they turn.  And she is sure that the fire station is less than 200 feet from 58, so they are used to making turns.  She would be glad to ask the fire chief those questions.  It might not be the best plan, but given the fact that she can’t cross the wet­lands, it is the best they could come up with.

Mr. Daniel said they still need to get across the wetlands.  The position of the fire truck coming out of the fire station, the building line offset from the road right of way is back, and they have a driveway normally as wide as their building.  As long as they can get in and out, they can negotiate pretty well.  When they get ready to go back in, they always stop traffic and back in to the station. 

Mrs. Holz said she was suggesting that they could do it.  She said she would make the offer that she knows the best solution is to mitigate and fill wetlands and so forth . . . .  She does not disagree with that except she is reluctant to do it, she does not want to fill wetlands; however, from the time that a preliminary is approved, it is her understanding that she has one year to make improvements in order not to lose that preliminary approval. If during that time the town either endorses or takes the lead in this mitigation process, she will be willing to do that, to change the location of the road and come across at some point that is more desirable to them.  More than that, she does not know what she could offer.

Mr. Daniel said the ceiling tiles are 2 x 4.  He got 240 feet out of the ceiling and won’t get from him to her.  That is the size of the little piece of wetland they are talking about crossing.  He still thinks collectively they need to address it and let the Corps look at the position.

Mrs. Holz said maybe after Wednesday they will know something more.  Mr. Daniel said it takes up a third the size of the room and yet it obstructs some reasonable access.  It defies all reason.  Mrs. Holz said she totally agreed but sometimes wondered where the reason is.

Mr. Josey asked if they picked one of the three choices tonight and went forward, what would it take to later change it for the road?  If that road was put in and they got permission to do the other road, what is the scenario for that?  Ms. Saunders said she had no idea because she thought once they got the map and it was approved, that was the way they go.  She didn’t think they could backtrack.  Mr. Dowling asked how much latitude a developer has with a road situation like that.  Mrs. Holz said she thought she would have to start all over.

Mr. Dowling said she would have to start all over, and the others agreed.  Mrs. Holz said she had said she would; she wouldn’t want to, but she would.

Mr. Almeida said they had three layouts.  Ideally, based on what Mr. Daniel spoke about, it would be nice to enter opposite Pebble Beach and then go around the wetland.  Then they get into very sharp curves.  Mrs. Holzsaid they can’t go in by Pebble Beach and not go across the wetlands.  Mr. Almeida said they wouldn’t go through the wet­lands because that gets into a series of bad curves.  That is the reason why last time he said they should take a halfway point.  Mrs. Holz said she can’t serve all the lots if she does that.  Mr. Almeida said she would lose some land, too.

Mr. Daniel said they were really having a time with the line of sight, with Coast Guard Road traffic coming toward 58 and the line of sight.  There is a pretty severe curve, and they can’t see zilch down there.  Mrs. Holzsaid according to at least one of the Emerald Isle commissioners, there is not a major problem on Coast Guard Road, and she hoped they would address that issue.

Mr. Almeida said they should address the alternatives that she had.  He asked if Mrs. Holz would ask her surveyor that the size of the wetland be shown on the survey and the exact location.  The wetlands are shown as small sketches, they’re not delineated in terms of what is the dimension, how far from the property line . . . .   Mrs. Holz said he had surveyed them, and as soon as she gets her hands on that, she would bring them.

Mr. Almeida said that he did not know if it was a good idea for the town to take an active part in mitigating.  They can assist, but that is up to the Board of Commissioners.  That option would delay Mrs. Holz a lot.  He would rather look at the three choices she had given the Planning Board.  Of the three, he would like to look a little more at design B.  The question he had is what is the rationale for 60 feet at the entrance.  He could understand that a portion is owned by the town, and keeping that 60 feet right of way.  The other portion, the town ordinance allows her to work with a 50-foot minimum.  He is leaving this up to Mrs. Holz.  Mrs. Holz said this is what her surveyor provided.  50 feet would suit her just as well.  Mr. Almeida said 50 feet in the portion that is her property, 60 feet in the portion that is town property.  Mrs. Holz asked if he would have any objection to 50 feet all the way through as a public road.  Mr. Almeida said he wouldn’t have a problem, except that what happens is they get into a situation where the setbacks change.  When they change from 60 to 50 on setbacks, they can develop more area, but that is up to the Board of Commissioners.  He wouldn’t be in favor of it for the simple reason that they are trying to reduce the density of development of the area. 

Mrs. Holz said she would not be in favor of a road that is two different dimensions.  Mr. Almeida said as far as he is concerned, he favors design B, and he would prefer a combination of the two rights-of-way.  Mrs. Holzsaid that doesn’t make sense, to have it 60 feet in a little section and 50 feet in two more.  If she can get guidance so she can prepare the map so it will be approved, she would be grateful.

Mr. Dowling said he would be in favor from a vote standpoint of a 50-foot road, based upon the calculations of stormwater runoff and impervious surface.  He thinks there is a safety factor, but 50 feet will accommodate any safety factor.  A private road is 40 feet.  Mr. Taylor said 50 feet is the minimum standard for a public road, and he thought it would work.

Mr. Josey said he was trying to visualize 50 feet.  He asked if the side streets that feed off Emerald Drive going down toward the beach are 50 feet.  Mr. Taylor said they are not 50 feet.  Mr. Almeida said 50 feet is the right of way, it is not the paved width.  The paved width is about 22 feet.  Mr. Taylor said 20 foot is the minimum.

Ms. Saunders said she liked the idea of the entrance at Pebble Beach, swing around, try to get the little piece of wetland filled in, give them something back.  It will be a wider area of getting in and out of the property. Mrs. Holz said she would not apply to fill the wetlands.  Mr. Almeida said having heard from the Corps, there is an outside chance and it might be a year.

Mr. Daniel showed a sketch he had done on the design.

Mr. Josey asked if there was an estimate on how much of lot 3 would be tied up in wet­land.  Mrs. Holz said she would not know until she got the survey.  Mr. Josey said he was guessing about a quarter of it would be. Mrs. Holz said she hated to go back with something the commissioners are not going to approve, and they have serious reserva­tions about the proximity of Reed Drive to 58, and she asked them not to send her down that road again.  Mr. Almeida said he is not in favor of that.  It would be difficult to sell that particular lot.  Mr. Dowling said there are five studies from the state that say do not use Reed Drive.

Mr. Almeida said before Mrs. Holz goes into a very detailed plan, he would suggest they approve on a tentative basis one of the designs, recommend that the Board of Commis­sioners look at it before so that she gets a green light.  She can go to the Map meeting, and the Planning Board could meet again to decide it, or they could recess now for a short while and look at it.  He suggested recommending one of the designs and sending it to the Board of Commissioners for review before she develops a full-fledged plan.  Mr. Dowling said he was in favor of voting tonight on A or B.

Mrs. Holz said she could not do A.  She put it there to show what a 60-foot road would be with the cul-de-sac in the original location, but it is over an acre.  She was not asking for approval for A.  If she left the cul-de-sac in the original location and put a 60-foot road in, it is way over an acre.  The two alternatives are B and C.  She could live with either one of those.

Mr. Dowling asked Mrs. Holz if she would be willing to express, as she did on August 13, 1999, to designate natural areas, the ponds.  Mrs. Holz said she would be willing to give a survey showing the ponds as soon as she got her hands on it.  Mr. Dowling asked if she was still agreeable that the big pond would not be filled.  Mrs. Holz said that was right.

Mr. Almeida said, looking at design B, lot 3 is smaller than lot 2.  Lot 1 is very large.  He suggested reducing the size of lot 1, moving 2 down, and lot 3 would be almost the same size.  Mrs. Holz said the frontage is what they look at for commercial property.  Depth is a factor, but when they sell commercial property, they sell it by the front foot.  Mr. Josey asked which direction the front footage ran.  Mrs. Holz replied that it was the front footage on 58.  They are taxed and appraised on the front footage on the highway.

Mr. Daniel said he would vote against both.  He went back to Reed Drive again.  He was not sure whether it was true or not that the Board of Commissioners did not want to hear about Reed Drive.  He thinks this is an untenable solution to move the thing down in the center of the curve and create three intersections on Coast Guard Road.  They could add a turn lane on Coast Guard Road, but they would still have all the conflicts. Instead of having the conflicts at an intersection, they have them at an intersection but in three instead of one or two.  He thought the line of sight distance is better at Pebble Beach and can be addressed better there.  He hates to see another intersection that serves this subdivision only.

Mr. Almeida said the ideal solution is to have the entry at Pebble Beach.  If they put an entry there, the curves become very sharp going in and turning around, and they lose some property, too.  Mrs. Holz said she could not possibly do that and stay under an acre.

Mrs. Holz said this was what the Planning Board instructed her to do.  All agreed.

There was discussion about the angle.

Mr. Almeida asked about the negatives on design B.  He said Mr. Daniel had already spoken.

Further discussion ensued regarding this project.  Because it is an ambiguous issue at this time:

The motion was made by Phil Almeida  to send design B to the Town Board for their consideration, prior to a complete redraw of the proposed plat.  Second by Frank Vance.   The motion carried with dissenting votes by Art Daniel and Fred Josey.

Meeting was adjourned.

Posted by The Town of Emerald Isle 06/18/2001

Archives