APPROVED  TOWN OF DUCK PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING April13,2022  The Planning Board for the Town of Duck convened at the Paul F. Keller Meeting Hall on Present were: Chair Joe Blakaitis, Vice-Chair James Cofield, Marc Murray, Randy Morton, and  Wednesday, April 13, 2022. Tim McKeithan. Absent: None.  Also present were: Council Liaison Sandy Whitman, Planning Consultant Donna Creef, Senior Others Present: Dave Klebitz of Bissell Professional Group, Paul Henriques of] PCI Construction, Tom Stewart, COO of] Resort Realty and Mark Kasten ofCahoon & Kasten Architects Chair Blakaitis called to order the Regular Meeting of the Planning Board for April 13, 2022 at  Planner Sandy Cross and Deputy Town Clerk Kay Nickens.  6:29 p.m.  PUBLIC COMMENTS  Reid Carter of153 Speckle Trout Drive thanked the Board for listening to the public. Mr. Carter stated that he has reviewed the proposed plans and said that the proposal is over-built and that the applicant is looking for exceptions which the Board should not grant. Mr. Carter pointed out that parking is the most easily identifiable problem and described how his former business faced challenges with parking and seating. He said that there are only two access points onto the property and those access points are dead ends which will inevitably lead to traffic flow challenges. Mr. Carter also noted that there is not enough vegetation and re-emphasized that the plan is over- building the size oft the lot, in which case the Board should not recommend approval ofthe project. Dennis Wojcik of 103 Dune Road thanked Senior Planner Sandy Cross and Community Planner Jim Gould for taking the time to explain the plan and project and that he has submitted correspondence to the Board regarding the specific issues that are problematic. Mr. Wojcik explained that his concerns lie with the ingress and egress points as well as the on-site traffic circulation. He: noted that based on his review oft the project plans, a left turn lane seems feasible, and he would like the Board to approach Council with that addition into the project.  NEW BUSINESS  SUP-22-00l:4plcaten. by Bissell Professional Group, on behalfofi property owner Phantom Enterprises, LP for a special use permit to redevelop the existing property in the Village Commercial (V-C) district at 1248 Duck Road, P/N985911761927. as a group development to include a 49-seat restaurant with two (2), three story buildings each with  I    1,250sfls:floor retail space and 3-bedroom accessory dwelling units on the 2ndand 3rd floors. Application oft the Village Commercial Development option is requested to reduce the number ofon-site parking spaces, and a reduction ofrequired rear setback requirements. Planning Consultant Creefs stated that Phantom Enterprises owns 1248 Duck Road, which features one commercial structure on the property that was used for real estate offices for Resort Realty. This property has been vacant for a year and a half and the property owner is seeking approval to demolish the existing structure and redevelop the site with three commercial structures. The new structures will be dedicated to retail and restaurant uses with residential uses on the second and third floors of two of the structures. Walkways and decks will connect the buildings and extend over the Currituck Sound. A site plan depicting the proposed improvements is included with the staff report. The proposed development is subject to special use permit review because of the restaurant and the proposed multiple buildings on the site. Multiple structures on the site are considered a group development. Both trigger special use review under the Village Commercial District (VC): zoning regulations. Additionally, the applicant is seeking special use approval under Section 156.065 for parking reductions and reductions ofthe rear yard setback requirements oft the Planning Consultant Creef continued by explaining that the subject property is 30,145 square feet int total area with 1,030 square feetofcoastal marsh and 2,289 square feet of404 wetlands resulting in a net non-wetland area of26,827square feet. The site is zoned Village Commercial (VC). The existing structure was constructed in 1985 and contains approximately 6,000 square feet ofheated space. She noted that the adjoining property to the north is owned by Duck Ridge Shores Civic League and used for sound access by Duck Ridge Shores Subdivision property owners and residents. This property is also zoned VC. The adjoining property to the south is developed commercially as. Duck Waterfront Shops and zoned VC. Across NC12 to the east oft the site is lot Planning Consultant Creef stated that there are several sections of the ordinance which apply to  Village Commercial (VC) zoning district.  13 ofthe Duck Ridge Shores Subdivision which is zoned RS-1 residential.  the proposal including:  Section 156.036 VC Village Commercial (B) (2) Retail (C) (4) Eating Establishments (C)(5)Group Developments Section 156.059 Group Developments  Section 156.065 Special Use Permit VC Development Option (B)(1)and (B)(3) Parking Reduction Section 156.110-117 Commercial Development and Design Standards Section 156.129 Eating Establishments  She stated that other standards for off-street parking and loading; signs, outdoor lighting, and land  disturbance will also apply to the redevelopment activities as well.  2    Planning Consultant Creef stated that the existing real estate office building will be demolished and that three new mixed-use structures with associated parking, wastewater system, decks and boardwalks, landscaping and other site improvements are proposed. Section 156.036 (C)(4) establishes a maximum gross floor area of 5,000 square feet of heated space for commercial structures. Building C will be two-story with 1,936 square feet of space on the first floor and 864 square feet on the second floor for a total of 2,800 square feet. Building B features 1,250 retail space on the first floor with a 3-bedroom residential apartment on the second and third floors for atotal of3,083 square feet. Building A features a first-floor retail area of 1,250 square feet with a3-bedroom residential unit on the second and third floors for a total of2,771 square feet. All the structures are consistent with the gross floor area limitation. Section 156.059, Group Developments, requires a separation distance of 20 feet between each structure unless a fire suppression system is used; if a fire suppression system is used then the separation can be decreased to ten feet. She pointed out that the site plan indicates ten feet of separation. A fire suppression system will be needed in the structures to comply with this 10-feet of separation and Planning Consultant Creef explained that the restaurant is proposed for 42 indoor seats with 7 additional seasonal seats provided. Section 156.094 allows for an increase of 25% of seating capacity or 18 persons, whichever is less without additional parking. The number of proposed seasonal seats is consistent with this requirement. Planning Consultant Creef pointed out that a building rendering of the east and west elevations of the structures has been submitted with the site plan and these renderings of the buildings have been revised based on comments provided during the technical review process and noted that the revised architectural drawings in the renderings are more consistent with the commercial design standards of Section 156.111. facades are emphasized and offer shelter to patrons; there are varying roof line designs and Front front facades; and window placement appears to be consistent with the threshold established in the Planning Consultant Creef continued by explaining Section 156.065 (B) which states that setbacks cannot be reduced by more than 50%. The VC district establishes a setback of20 feet. A reduction of10 feet in the rear yard setback is requested the applicant rear yard for Building A. She stated that these setbacks do not exceed the 50% reduction threshold established Planning Consultant Creef pointed out that a total of 34.5 spaces is required for all the uses and that the applicant is requesting a reduction of five spaces for a total of30 on-site proposed spaces. Section 156.065 (B)(3) oft the zoning code allows for a reduction in or 20% of the total parking. This reduction is consistent with the criteria set parking forth in the spaces Planning Consultant Creef stated that additional plans for outdoor! lighting consistent with Section 156. 116and 156.133, al landscaping and buffer plan consistent with Section 156.114 and 156.115, and additional details on proposed signage will be needed. Submission of these supplemental  will be confirmed during the building plan review process.  guidelines. structural  (1) by  Buildings A and B. The site plan depicts the normal water line  boardwalk to be 10.1 feet from the ini the zoning codes.  (NWL) adjacent to the public  northern corner of Building B and 11.8 feet from the front of  of 5 parking zoning  code and may be authorized as a special exception.  plans should be included as a condition oft the special use approval.  3    Planning Consultant Creef pointed out that other reports were obtained from the Town engineer, fire, police, water service and waste water systems as well as other governmental agencies. She stated that Section 156.065 ofthe Code, a special use can be granted by the Town Council making findings that substantial evidence has been provided to document the development proposal 1. The development proposal is consistent with the adopted vision and comprehensive plan 2. The development proposal is consistent with the desired scale, character, and function of 3. The property and development proposal contain many oft the characteristics established in 4. The requested modifications are the least necessary to accommodate the proposed development and meet the intent ofthe Village Commercial Development Option; 5. The requested modifications will not negatively impact adjacent properties or the Planning Consultant Creef stated that this also must be reviewed for consistency with the 2027 Duck Vision Statement. There are nine policies outlined that are applicable to this particular 2.2.1 Explore opportunities to extend the pedestrian connection northward to the next 2.2.2 Explore opportunities to increase the number of pedestrian access points between Duck 2.2.3 Add new connections between adjacent businesses and the Duck. Boardwalk. 4.2 Ensure that development of land minimizes negative direct and secondary environmental impacts, avoids risks to public health, sqfety, and welfare and is consistent with the carrying 4.3.1 Support the development of small, specialty-type shops and the vitality of existing, local 5.2: Enhance the town' 's reputation as a mull-generational, travel-and-recreate tourist 6.4: Reduce runoff through minimizing impervious surface coverage, encouraging tree preservatton, and accommodating low impact development solutions to. stormwater management. 8.1 Maintain existing improvements and enhance opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, and other Planning Consultant Creef explained that the proposed redevelopment plans incorporate bike and pedestrian improvements into the site and provide for future connections to adjoining properties and NC 12. The boardwalks will also provide connections to the adjoining property to the south. The existing improvements were constructed in 1986. The amount of impervious coverage will decrease with the redevelopment activities. The proposed three new structures will feature building designs, lighting improvements, and landscaping consistent with the zoning regulations  complies with the following criteria:  for Duck Village; Duck Village  the 156.065 (E)guidelines;  surrounding area.  special use: commercial cluster.  Road. sidewalk and the boardwalk.  capacity oft the land. businesses.  4.3 Enhance the character and. success ofDuck Village and commercial areas.  destination, with a unique, small-town, neighborhoodjeel.  forms oftransportation in Duck.  4    of the VC district for commercial development. The scale of the buildings and architecture are consistent with the commercial building guidelines and will replace an older structure with newer structures that are visualy-pleasing. There will be space for new retail shops and food service, adding more opportunities for visitor experiences along the public boardwalk and will contribute tot the Duck Village vibrancy and ambience. Although not mentioned in any ofthe policies above, the inclusion of residential units may provide opportunities for employee housing, which assists with the vitality oflocal businesses. The proposed redevelopment will not introduce any negative impacts on the surrounding properties but will enhance connectivity for the public thresholds set forth in the Village Commercial Development Option and are consistent with other Planning Consultant Creef concluded by saying that it is staff's recommendation that this plan is consistent with the 2027 Duck Vision Statement, the Duck Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Duck Zoning Ordinance, therefore a special use permit for the development is recommended for approval. She stated that there are twelve conditions that are recommended to be included in 1. The applicant must obtain a land disturbance permit from the Community Development Department prior to engaging in any fill or grading activity on: site. 2. A site lighting plan must be submitted and approved by the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with the Town's lighting standards. 3. A landscaping plan must be: submitted and approved by the Community Development Department and necessary plantings installed prior to issuance ofa Certificate of 4. Signs must be reviewed and approved under a separate permit by the Community 5. The applicant must obtain a permit from the Dare County Environmental Health Department for the design and installation oft the proposed wastewater treatment system improvements prior to the issuance ofa land disturbance or building permit. 6. The applicant must submit a utility plan to. Dare County Water Department for final 7. The applicant must obtain a CAMA minor permit for all work and improvements within the Area ofEnvironment Concern (AEC) prior to the issuance ofa land disturbance or 8. The buildings must be constructed in substantial conformance with the elevation drawings and floor plans submitted with the SUP application, as prepared by Cahoon and 9. The applicant must submit the final site plan and site plan review fees as provided for in the Town's adopted fee schedule concurrent with final engineer-stamped site plan drawings, as may be revised through the approval and condition process, with all required information referenced in the SUP conditions, prior to issuance ofa building permit for  the along  boardwalk.  The requested reductions in parking and rear yard setbacks are consistent with the  commercial development in the area.  recommendation that goes to Town Council:  Occupancy.  Development Department.  approval.  building permit.  Kasten Architects dated 3-15-2022.  the project.  5    10. That the applicant, for public purposes, shall grant to the Town ofDuck an easement as shown on the attached Exhibit E, being generally described as 8' wide access easement for public boardwalk extension by Town of Duck and sidewalk connection to match access to boardwalk" along the northern property line running from west to east, and an easement for possible future boardwalk extension to connect with existing boardwalk at Waterfront Shoppes along the western portion oft the property north of the coastal wetlands. Such easement shall be shown on the final site plan for the proposed development of the property, a deed of easement to the benefit of the Town shall be prepared and accepted concurrent with final site plan approval and such easement shall be duly recorded int the Dare County land records prior to issuance ofa building permit 11. The 8 wide access boardwalk connection must be designed by an engineer to comply with the standards and specifications ofthe Town's boardwalk and applicable codes. 12. This special use permit will expire in 18 months from the date of approval unless  for the development of the property.  construction oft the proposed development has commenced.  Planning Consultant Creef noted that some public comments she heard regarded the dead-end parking lot and she would let Engineer Mike Robinson address those concerns. She pointed out there have been other modifications that the town has allowed for commercial development and the fact that the zoning ordinance establishes the sections that may be modified reflects the intent Engineer Mike Robinson stated that the in his review of the parking lot, the drive- aisle width is sufficient and though there are not many parking spaces particularly in the North lot, he does not have any issue with the configuration. He pointed out that a turn- out would be nice, but it is not necessary and stated that the parking lot at Town Hall is similar to what is proposed and it works well. He explained that the proposed parking area is not an ideal situation, but it is also not unreasonable. Mr. Robinson stated that the South lot has the benefit of a handicap access with a van- accessible space next to it which could serve as a functional turn around if needed. Mr. Robinson stated that NC Department of Transportation tentatively has no issue with the plan as proposed and that they are comfortable with the curb cuts and pointed out that the way the driveway is configured in the proposal is an improvement to what exists currently. Mr. Robinson Vice Chair Cofield questioned ift the driveway complies with Town Code. Mr. Robinson stated that this is a redevelopment which is utilizing the existing parking lot which he would assume is compliant with Town Code. Planning Consultant Creefadded that the key word in this discussion is that this proposal is a redevelopment of an existing commercial site, not a new development. She explained that the concerns heard regarding the parking area cite sections in the zoning ordinance that pertain to new developments, which are not applicable to this proposal. Planning Consultant Creef stated that comments were received from David Otts, NCDOTI District Engineer for District 1 regarding the site plan. Mr. Otts stated that the proposed ingress and egress are an improvement of what is on site currently. Planning Consultant Creef stated that a left- turn lane was not addressed but it is something that can be followed up on. She also noted that the  ofthe ordinance.  concluded by stating that he is comfortable with the parking plan as designed.  6    engineer who isi involved with the BRC Grant, VHB, has reviewed the site plan as well and does Member McKeithan pointed out that while this proposal is a redevelopment, this the site. He asked ifMr. Otts was aware oft the change of use of this property when he conducted his review. Planning Consultant Creefstated that Mr. Otts was provided a copy ofthe site plan for review, and though she couldn't say for certain that he was aware oft the intended use, one would have to assume that he would acknowledge that traffic would be increased. She emphasized that this redevelopment ofthe site does upgrade the parking lot and intensifies the use of the property, but the project does meet impervious lot coverage and CAMA coverage as well. She stated that it is important to note that the current impervious coverage and CAMA coverage will decrease Chair Blakaitis asked if there have been any attempts to change the roadway situation. Mr. Robinson stated that in a Zoom conference with a representative with VHB, extending the turn lane was discussed and that is being studied by them at this time. He pointed out that while the turn lane would be nice to have, he is not sure that it is entirely necessary due to super elevation and good visibility from the lot. Senior Planner Cross added that VHB is actively reviewing this and they have been working with DOT: regarding the crosswalk location as well and they Chair Blakaitis called for public comment on a matter that has not been addressed.  not have any issue with the proposal.  is proposal  different  entirely  due to the scope of the change of use and there would be increased traffic from  because oft the redevelopment, noti increase.  to hope  have definitive answers soon.  Rick Fagersten of 101 Dune Road stated that he lives directly across from the project site. He is concerned with garbage trucks collecting trash at early hours in the morning backing into the road and the noise associated with that collection. Mr. Fagersten questioned if while' the parking were being reviewed, what size vehicle was being used in parking space measurement because spaces some individuals may have a difficult time getting out or into their car ift they cannot the door. He stated that the term redevelopment" is a cover and this is a new are starting with a clean slate and constructing three buildings in a space that previously development: they had one. Mr. Fagersten noted that he is deeply concerned with this project and giving exceptions only to Dennis Wojcik of 103 Dune Road read an excerpt from the NC DOT Policy on Street and Driveway Access. He read that the location of street intersections and driveways is critical for minimizing potential impact to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and in the interest of and mobility, the NCDOT may prohibit, restrict, or modify the placement of a driveway public or safety street along the property owner's frontage. Every effort shall be taken to prevent access connections and median breaks within the functional area of an intersection. He stated that the northern driveway is in a functional area oft the Duck Road and Dune Road intersection and that the changes shown on the plan are bringing it more: into the functional area which is not a good design. He added that this proposal is not a redevelopment as the entire site is going to be demolished, including the parking because the site plan shows new parking, not reused. Mr. Wojcik noted that even if this project is looked at as a redevelopment, turning is still problematic and that using al handicapped aisle as at turnaround isi inappropriate. He quoted a section from ADA standards that states, "access  fully open  policies for building within the Town.  7    aisles should not overlap vehicular way" and that vehicular way is defined as route intended for vehicular traffic such as street, driveway, or parking lot. Ifit is meant to turn around cars, it's a Planning Consultant Creef clarified that the size of the parking spaces permitted by the Town per the Town Code is 9 x1 18' and all the spaces on the site plan meet that standard. Reid Carter of153 Speckle Trout Drive pointed out that the parking regulations do not account for the additional parking that may be needed for boardwalk and while the boardwalk has not yet been extended, it isi indicated as such on the site plan. People regularly go to the Waterfront Shops and park there to view sunset and the Board: needs to acknowledge this amenity has aj parking demand as well. Mr. Carter noted that the six bedrooms in the apartments will also have aj parking demand as those will be residents, not people coming and going, and if those residents are employees of the retail spaces, those parking spots would be taken for much longer. He emphasized that the property is being over-built and the Board needs to understand that they are setting a precedent by granting exceptions to standards that are set inj place. Mr. Carter suggested that the applicant could consider modifying the building from a three-story to a two-story building, have one bedroom apartments instead of three bedroom apartments, orl have two buildings instead of three buildings. Hes stated that the bottom line is that thisi is an over-building of this particular lot, and hei is against Jay Blose of1 105 Waxwing Court asked for clarification on the connectivity to the waterfront shops as he did not see that reflected on the submitted drawings and it is something that should be explored as part ofthe development proposal. Senior Planner Cross stated that there is an easement on the drawing that shows future, proposed connection but there are no actual plans at this time. She added that both property owners have authorized the connectivity via a public boardwalk extension but there are: no concepts for that extension att this time. Mr. Blose asked ifthat extension would be a Town responsibility or that of this project to which Senior Planner Cross stated iti is a Dave Klebitz of] Bissell Professional Group introduced Tom Stewart, COO of Resort Realty, Paul Henriquez, owner of PCI Construction and licensed commercial contractor, and Mark Kasten, licensed architect of Cahoon and Kasten Architecture Firm in Nags Head. Mr. Klebitz stated that they have a combined 75 years oflocal design build experience in the Outer Banks and that they have been working with Town staff to get the plan to the point of being presented to the Board including site visits, two technical reviews with staff and Town Public Safety, CAMA and DOT. Mr. Klebitz reiterated that DOTI has no issue with the plan. He stated that they put a great deal of time and effort into making sure that the proposal meets the required standards to comply with the Mr. Klebitzi noted that the exceptions being requested are permissible within the Town's Ordinance and justification can be made for allowing the respective exception. He pointed out that no exception can be made for building separation and indicated that the site plan shows where fire suppression systems will be installed for all buildings which meets the requirements of the ordinance and state building code ifa sprinkler system is in place. Mr. Klebitz indicated that the site plan also reflects the footprint of the current structure and that two of the three proposed  vehicular way, against ADA standards.  the exceptions of standards in place.  matter to be determined.  ordinance, CAMA, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the 2027 Vision.  8    buildings mostly fit into the current footprint and that in a way, the plan is only proposing one Mr. Klebitz reiterated that the State and CAMA have stated that the project is in compliance with code and requirements and added that the intensity oflot coverage is ai reduction ofwhat is inj place by reducing runoff, providing stormwater measures and an engineered pre-treatment already system which treats effluent from the site to much higher standards before it goes into the ground septic Mr. Klebitz pointed out that there are 33 parking spaces in the current parking lots and the isa asking for 30 parking spaces which is below the requirement but also within the limits applicant allowed by the ordinance. He noted that it is important to recognize the intensity of the plan as they are only requesting 30 parking spaces for the space. They are: not creating a space which would 60 parking spaces which would consequently double the traffic flow. Mr. Klebitz they are using the two existing curb-cuts that currently don't connect as well as explained using the two that existing parking lots and their current location. The current 6,000 square foot building is to be two buildings and adding one extra building. The mixed use of residential, proposed and restaurant, location, and building design are consistent with the character of the Duck retail, there are many sites along the boardwalk that are like this proposal. Mr. Klebitz added Village that and project also has a proposal for a boardwalk extension which would allow for circulation which is a great justification for a reduction in the number of Ift the ordinance allows a reduction in parking, this is the most appropriate parking scenario spaces as required. there is development at the end and at the juncture of the Town's boardwalk and sidewalk, Mr. Klebitz stated that should this project move forward and be approved Council, sprinkler and water systems. Once in the permitting stage, they systems, would obtain wastewater all systems, and including NCDOT for the driveway connections and any encroachments. Mr. Klebitz required permits that the District Engineer reviewed the plans and is not concerned as there are two explained a center taper of about 8: feet wide whereas the VHB having ai turn lane. The southern parking lot has Klebitz stated that he has had conversations with the local health are and only nine parking spaces. Mr.  additional building.  making it environmentally beneficial.  require  this  great walking promoting would they  pedestrian activity.  then begin the process of final design including stormwater  by  driveway connections on a 25 mph roadi nor wast the quantity Mr. Klebitz added that he does see the benefit of  cause existing for concern.  ofparking spaçes a  lane and that there is the  plan reflects a full width, 10 foot wide center  possibility to extend the full width left turn lane to  would not be worthwhile to do SO for the north lot as there  the southern lot but it water department and both  entities have been accepting oft the proposal.  Vice Chair Cofield asked ift the project owner is present. Mr. Klebitz stated that the for the project owner is present. Tom Stewart of214 W Lost Colony Drive in representative that hei ist the ChiefOperating Officer for Resort Realty and that the owneri is not present, Nags Head but Resort stated Vice Chair Cofield questioned the number of apartments with three bedrooms boardwalk. Senior Planner Cross stated that there are apartments along the boardwalk along but she the is  Realty is responsible for the property and it's use and development.  9    not sure about the number of bedrooms in each. The old Town Hall office is an apartment; there Vice Chair Cofield stated that a fair amount of the project analysis has been based on the project being considered ai redevelopment however the parking and use is different; the building is being demolished with ai new building being constructed. He questioned how ar redevelopment projectis Planning Consultant Creefexplained that ai new development is a vacant piece of property that has never had any structure on it; it is not a site that has an already existing 6,000 square- foot building that will be demolished and replaced with other structures. She added that there will be new buildings, but the property is an improved property and has been taxed as such and even ift the project was considered a new development as opposed to a redevelopment, it would still be consistent with the ordinance requirements. The exceptions that are requested are anticipated in the ordinance as well. Planning Consultant Creef explained that the fire suppression and ten- foot separation exception is not an exception but a blanket allowance consistent with the: fire code. Vice Chair Cofield restated his question by asking ifthere is any building or development on a site thati is not virgin land that you would: not considerredevelopmen: Planning Consultant Creefstated that she did not understand Vice Chair Cofield's question but, in her mind, if there is a piece of Member Murray addressed a comment regarding the development up to the North property line. He stated that on the rendering, an easement is indicated but it is hatched sO one might consider it as an extension of the decking. Mr. Klebitz clarified that this may be the case. Member Murray questioned the developer's) plan for that areai to which Mr. Klebitz stated that the plan is to develop the plan as indicated on the drawings; the area is hatched as it is intended to be set aside as an easement to be granted to the Town sO the Town may extend the boardwalk through the indicated areai to connect toi the sidewalk. Member Murray stated that he wanted to point out that the hatching was an easement, and that no development is proposed at this point since there was a concern Mr. Reid Carter addressed his concerns with the foliage on the site and the neighboring property as well as his concerns with the parking including employee parking as well as the potential need for parking for the viewing tower with accompanying informational displays that had once been mentioned. Mr. Carter stated that the tower is an amenity that should have parking as well. Mr. Carter added that he is not against the project, but he is against the fact that it is over-built; the applicant can reduce the number ofbuildings from three to two; they could change the number of stories and: number ofbedrooms. Mr. Carter questioned ifthe apartments would be an. Airbnb since that is the most lucrative use and ifs sO, how would those families access the beach? Mr. Stewart clarified that he has heard and read all of the comments received and they are taken to heart. He explained that in the history ofworking with the Town, generally ifthe' Town suggests something, he will move forward with that suggestion. Mr. Stewart stated that he wants this to be aq quality project that the Town can be proud of and something that would mesh with the current architecture of the boardwalk. He added that the existing Resort Realty structure was built in the  is an apartment above Amity, and Wings has an apartment as well.  defined when the site being used is not a virgin site.  property that has a structure on it, itisaredevelopment  expressed by an individual at the meeting.  10    1980s and does not match with the current aesthetics of the Town. When the facility was a full- scale property management office, there were ten agents working in the facility, five property managers, two maintenance technicians and work vans. Resort Realty oversaw 150 Duck and Southern Shores. Mr. Stewart pointed out that this was prior to keyless entry properties sO the site in was extremely busy and at this time, that is not the case since iti is a vacant piece of an eyesore. Mr. Stewart stated that he hopes to obtain all necessary permits and approvals property to turn the property into something to be proud ofa and while the process can bel bumpy, he intends tol bea good neighbor and make something everyone is proud of. Mr. Stewart added that he had also spoken with Mark Sullivan and William Gray from the community across the street from the project site and discussed blocking off the community's soundfront amenity as this is Mr. Stewart is willing to accommodate since he wants to work with the HOA and do what something needs Vice Chair Cofield asked for the rationale for not making the entire parking lot and driveway entirely of pervious material. Mr. Klebitz explained that while this may be something do in the end, what is currently proposed is what is required by the Town's Ordinance they since have the ordinancei requires a certain amount of pervious surface and a certain amount ofimpervioussurface to be installed. Mr. Klebitz added that what is being proposed is what the Town minimum but once they start the final design of the project and once stormwater and runoff calculations, they may need more storage or reduce runoff they in which obtaining the first thing the applicant would do is expand the amount of pervious concrete that is case Vice Chair Cofield asked Mr. Klebitz if he was aware of the Town and resident's regarding stormwater and runoff. He pointed out that some properties have utilized thoughts surface parking areas such as Town Hall and The Village Table and Tavern since it is pervious the best thinking environmentally. Vice Chair Cofield added that he is struck by Mr. Klebitz's answer of  and  to be done within reason to make the project work for everyone.  to as a being  start requires  proposed.  simply meeting the minimum requirements.  Mr. Klebitz stated that cost is also a factor because there is a substantial between regular concrete and permeable concrete; he would not be flat out specifying twice as much pervious concrete that costs three-times doing required for any reason. Vice Chair Cofield clarified that his  his difference client in the cost any justice by as much when iti is not statements regarded pervious  material, not concrete and questioned if the  responded by stating that they are doing the Town applicant was doing the Town justice. Mr. Klebitz  requirements.  justice because they are: meeting all ofthe Town  Vice Chair Cofield questioned why the project wasn'tn made to have one bedroom three bedrooms and added that he does not believe that there are any three- bedroom as opposed to the boardwalk. He stated that there is only one building along the main boardwalk that units along and asked ift there was a reason why the project is not two one-bedroom apartments. Mr. is an office answered that it is the highest and best use of the land since this is something that is Stewart to an investment, they want to see the project that provides the greatest return. He stated going that be wasn'tsure how the number ofbedrooms in the apartment affected the project, but it  he  they would like to offer.  is something  11    Vice Chair Cofield stated that the number of bedrooms affects the number of parking spaces needed, building height, and intensity oft the site. Mr. Stewart stated that they considered the best way to take advantage of the redevelopment and they would like to see three bedrooms and in upon reviewing the prior use of the property, he believes that what is being proposed can be accommodated and added that three bedrooms doesn'tnecessarily mean three vehicles. Member McKeithan stated that his biggest concern is that the project is overbuilt and whoever ends up in the restaurant and retail space will have parking issues. He added that if the regulations call for 35 spaces, then he believes they will: need every parking space that the formula calls for. Member Morton addressed Section 156.036 (B)(8) in the Town Code and stated that dwellings that exist overtop of commercial buildings cannot exceed 50% floor space of the commercial building floor space. He stated that both apartments are over 1250 square feet each and assuming that this is viewed as a group development, then the entire space of the group development was considered in making the size of the apartments compliant. Member Morton explained that Building Al has a floor area of2172 square feet; Building B has a floor area of 3083 square feet; and Building Ci is 2800 square feet, creating a total of 8654 square feet of commercial floor space. He stated that the apartment above Building Ai is 1521 square feet andi the apartment over building B is 1521 square feet, creating a total of3354 square feet. Member Morton said that he assumed that in reviewing gross space for the group development project, the total square footage was Mr. Klebitz stated that the section of the ordinance cited is specific to the village commercial section in the permitted uses table. Senior Planner Cross added that this was correct. Mr. Klebitz continued by explaining that his interpretation oft the ordinance is that the table is for an individual who does not require a special use permit or a Board review because the use is already permitted. The applicant would be able to submit aj permit to the zoning department and the Board would. not be involved in the review. Mr. Klebitz clarified that the reason that this is before the Board is because this project is considered a group development which does require a special use permit. Planning Consultant Creef clarified that the ordinance states that an accessory structure above a commercial structure, that accessory structure can only be 50% oft the floor area ofthe commercial floor area. She added that based on the numbers and calculations, this has been applied to the entirety of this group development. Senior Planner Cross confirmed that she has had discussions with Planning Director Joe Heard in regard to the square footage and he has confirmed the application oft the accessory square footage based on the square footage oft the entire project. Chair Blakatis asked ift the apartments would be for employees ori ifthere would be ai reduction for employees since there is a housing shortage. Mr. Stewart stated that they purposefully have not designated the apartments as anything other than employee housing and added that employee housing would be ideal for those apartments. Chair Blakaitis questioned if employee housing is something Mr. Stewart would consider to which Mr. Stewart stated that they would absolutely consider employee housing. Chair Blakaitis followed up by asking ifMr. Stewart would attest to that at this time. Mr. Stewart clarified Chair Blakaitis's question of attesting to consider employee housing to which Mr. Stewart attested that they would consider employee housing. He added that  divided by two.  12    employee housing is something actively being reviewed. Member Morton added that employee  housing would be good for merchants in Duck.  Chair Blakaitis called for Board discussion as there were no other questions.  Mr. Robinson added that when this project goes for full- engineering, the project will use much more permeable paving. He explained that there are ways to manage stormwater runoff and store stormwater in the gravel below permeable pavers. Mr. Robinson stated that he is comfortable with Member Morton stated that the applicant has worked with the town and technical reviews to address issues to bring the project into compliance. He pointed out that the contingencies as listed by Town Staff need to be met in order for this project tol be finalized. Member Morton stated that Chair Blakaitis asked Senior Planner Cross ifs she thought that any part ofthis project is aj problem with the 2027 vision. Senior Planner Cross responded by stating that she did not think SO. Vice Chair Cofield stated that this project is a creative use of the site and that it is headed in the right direction, but it is not quite there. The intensity of the site is too dense and the applicant is trying to maximize too much and has negative impacts. The project as proposed is moving in the opposite direction of what the citizens of Duck want; it adds to parking issues and it increases traffic problems. Vice Chair Cofield stated that there are things the applicant can do to make this abetter project such asi reducing the number ofbedrooms from three to two, subsequently reducing the number of parking spaces required. He stated that the citizens of Duck have been very outspoken about parking and traffic problems and this project increases those concerns and added that this is an attractive project, but the applicant is trying to do too much on site. Vice Chair Cofield stated that most developers intend to maximize income from a project and in doing sO, there are. negative impacts for the' Town and citizens SO as the project is proposed, hei is not in favor Member Murray stated that he agrees with Member Morton and that this project clearly meets the requirements oft the ordinance. He added that he is open to a condition regarding the treatment of the easement to give privacy to the association area to the north, which could then be granted to the Town: in thei future: ifneeded ifthe applicant was open to adding that condition. Member Murray pointed out that the ordinance is designed in such a way that these exceptions are written into the ordinance, enabling the applicant to make the case for the requested exceptions and that it is not the developer's responsibility to ameliorate the issues. He explained that that responsibility falls on the Planning Board and changing the ordinance. Member Murray stated that with the application and ordinance that the Board has, he is comfortable with the project as presented. Member McKeithan stated that he likes the project, but it is overbuilt. The project is going to increase the parking problem and the traffic problem on Duck Road. He explained that hei is not in favor ofthe project as designed and would prefer to see the project smaller in size that would create  coming up with a solution tol keep the sidewalk from flooding.  he is fine with moving forward with the project.  of the proposed project.  ar requirement for less parking.  13    Chair Blakaitis stated that he likes the project, but he thinks it is over-done and not ideal for the Town. He added that there are some loose ends that can be addressed to give people a better reason to liket thej project, but with the current configuration, he cannot supporti the project. Chair Blakaitis said that he does agree with Vice Chair Cofield and Member Murray, but more work needs to be Member Murray pointed out that the parking is the main issue for the Board and that the Board is permitted under the ordinance to make conditions that Staffhasn't: already added to the proposal. He asked if considering any reduction in the number of bedrooms or removing a floor from a building would satisfy the Board, and ifi it does, then it is in the applicant's interest to consider doing SO as well. Mr. Stewart stated that he was open to hearing suggestions ifit would help the Member Murray asked the Board ift they were open to reducing the number of bedrooms as this would reduce the parking exception that is being requested. Member McKeithan added another option of potentially reducing the retail square footage. Member Murray reminded the Board that when the Village Commercial Development Option was modified, the Board eliminated the ability to reduce the rear yard setback by 50%. Ift the Board had not done that, the building would likely be 10: feet closer to the sound which would yield more parking spaces. He added that the Board is Vice Chair Cofield stated that he did not want to redevelop the project as it is not the job of the Board. He added that there are too many loose ends and the only project he is speaking to is what Mr. Klebitz stated that regardless of how parking is being reduced, the issue is the number of parking spaces. Ift the Board imposes a condition or1 requirement for the parking, then the applicant wouldn't be requesting an exception but instead working to meet conditions of the ordinance Member McKeithan questioned the exact number of parking spaces that are being discussed. Senior Planner Cross stated that the number ofs spaces is 34.5, but it rounds up to a total of35. Planning Consultant Creef stated that it appears to be that the consensus of the Board is that a reduction in parking is not agreeable and asked the Board to give the developer specific instructions or direction and advise what exactly the Board finds distasteful about the site plan. Vice Chair Cofield pointed out that there were many issues discussed tonight and reiterated that it is1 not the Planning Board's job to tell an applicant what to do to obtain approval. Chair Blakaitis added that the size oft the development is a concern as well and agreed that there Mr. Carter commented that individuals from the neighborhood have attempted to meet with Resort Realty to have advanced conversations regarding the project. He stated that he agrees with Vice  done before it is approved.  applicant as well as hearing specifically what the Board would advise.  in this situation partly because oft the decisions made by the Board.  is currently being presented.  exactly.  are too many little pieces to be discussed.  Chair Cofield that the proposal needs more work to address other issues.  14    Chair Blakaitis called for a motion. Vice Chair Cofield motioned to recommend denial of the application by Bissell Professional Group, on behalf of property owner Phantom Enterprises, LP fora a special use permit to redevelop the existing property int the Village Commercial (V-C)district at 1248 Duck Road, PIN 985911761927, as a group development to include a 49-seat restaurant with two (2), three story buildings each with 1,250 sf 1st floor retail space and 3-bedroom accessory dwelling units on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Chair Blakaitis seconded the motion. Member McKeithan commented that he is not opposed to the setback exception, but he cannot Chair Blakaitis called for the vote. Chair Blakaitis, Vice Chair Cofield, and Member McKeithan voted in favor. Member Murray and Member Morton voted against the motion.  make an exception for the parking requirement.  Motion passes 3-2. Requirements  TextA Amendment Consideration: Subsection 150.26/C)(1) - Elevation Certificate  Planning Consultant Creef said presently, the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) requires that elevation certificates bej provided to document the compliance ofstructures in Shaded X and Unshaded X: flood zones at the completion oft the development process. A local contractor has questioned the necessity for an elevation certificate (provided by a surveyor) in situations where the structure or lot elevation can be established by other means. Staff felt this proposal had enough merit to study the ramifications of such a change and propose an amendment if deemed beneficial. Council agreed, and Community Development staff brings this discussion for further consideration by the Planning Board. Other jurisdictions in Dare County including Dare vary ini their requirements but most waive the requirement for an elevation certificate for a County that isi in a Shaded X or Unshaded X: zone ifit can be demonstrated during the construction property  that it meets the local elevation standard.  process  Chair Blakaitis asked ifthis was something that had already been done. Member that this was initially discussed but no action was taken as they were that iti is ai newi rating system used by the National Flood Insurance Program. is required. An under-construction elevation certificate is encouraged but not  for Murray explained  to come into effect. Planning Consultant Creef explained Risk Rating 2.0 waiting and reminded Risk Rating 2.0 Senior Planner Cross clarified that for properties in a flood zone, aj proposed elevation certificate construction elevation certificate is required. She added that for any property outside required. of a flood zone in a Shaded X or Unshaded X zone, a proposed construction elevation certificate is not required ifit can be shown on a survey that the elevation is above the local elevation standard of 10 feet but at the completion ofa project, a finished- construction elevation certificate Senior Planner Cross stated that this process has been followed since the new FDPO was is required. and is similar to Kitty Hawk and Nags Head's ordinance requirements.  thel Board  A final-  enacted  15    Vice Chair Cofield questioned if the elevation certificate is an extra cost incurred by the homeowner. Senior Planner Cross stated that it is an added cost and based on the information obtained from four different surveyors, the cost can be anywhere from $350 to $600 depending on the property. Vice Chair Cofield clarified that one option is to save the homeowner the cost of doing the elevation certificate. Senior Planner Cross added that this only applies to properties in Shaded X or Unshaded X zones where the survey shows that they are above ten feet. Member Morton clarified that elevation certificates are not required up front for Shaded X and Unshaded X zones but required at the end. Senior Planner stated that was correct. Vice Chair Cofield stated that he was unsure of what was being given up by the Board. Member Murray clarified that the Board is not giving anything up. He explained that the Board is making its sO that the elevation of a property can be verified through another route as opposed to an elevation certificate. Member Morton added that a homeowner can still obtain an elevation Member Murray made a motion to adopt the draft ordinance language as presented under option 3 In Shaded. Xo and Xzones, the proposed and under construction elevation certificates are not needed ifa current survey of the parcel is submitted that demonstrates the natural grade ofthe structurejootprin: is above the RFPE oftenfèet. In lieu of the finished construction elevation certificate, an as-built survey ofthe parcel shall be submitted. to certify the finished grade ofthe Member Morton seconded the motion. There was no discussion. All members voted in favor of  certificate ifthey choose to.  to amend the Duck Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance 22-04:  parcel is compliant with the RFPE or 10feet NAVD or above.  the motion. Motion carried 5-0.  APPROVALOF MINUTES  Minutes from the February, 2022, Regular Meeting  Vice Chair Cofield made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Member McKeithan seconded the motion. Aroll call vote was taken, and all members voted in favor.  Motion carried 5-0. STAFF COMMENTS  Summary ofFebruary 2, 2022 Regular Town Council Meeting  Senior Planner Cross gave as short summary oft the recent March and April Town Council meetings.  16    Project Updates  Senior Planner Cross gave a short overview on various projects going on in Town.  BOARD COMMENTS  None.  ADJOURNMENT  Vice Chair Cofield moved to adjourn the meeting, Member Morton seconded. The meeting was adjourned by consensus of the Board members.  The time was 8:34 p.m. Approved:  b  44  17