Town of Maggie Valley

Town of Maggie Valley

Regularly Scheduled Planning Board

July 12, 2004

MINUTES

Chairman Tilley rescheduled the July 7, 2004 until July 12, 2004 due to a lack of a quorum. The meeting was announced and proper notice was provided.

Members Present: Chairman Patricia Tilley, Jerry Zerbock, Torry Pinter, and Joann Lyons

Members Absent: Richard Pierce

Staff Present: Manager Scott Buffkin, Building Inspector George Bage, and Town Clerk Vickie Best

Others Present: Jim Redmond, Paul Runnerbaum, Larry Tate, and Dan and Lyndia Massie

Meeting called to Order

Chairman Tilley called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m. on Monday July 12, 2004 in the town hall boardroom.

Approval or Correction of Minutes

MS. LYONS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2004 AS PRESENTED.

MR. ZERBOCK SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Green Thumb Nursery- Paul Runnebaum

Under Section 604.2 item 22 under allowable uses, greenhouses are permitted in the Commercial 1 district. Mr. Runnebaum had previously come before the planning board but there were issues that needed to be defined.

Mr. Bage reported that the proposed building conforms to building code. The setbacks are greater than what is required. Surface water run off, erosion control, parking, handicap ramp, and landscaping meet all requirements. The greenhouse will be placed behind the office building. A NCDOT approved curb cut is already in place.

Other than Mr. Runnebaum not owning the property Mr. Bage recommended approval.

Mr. Runnebaum presented a letter from Bennett-Piper Enterprises, Inc., the legal owners of the property that a lease agreement of three years is in place. The property is located at 1975 Soco Road, Parcel number 7696-17-7167.

Mr. Bage recommends approval for Mr. Runnebaum’s request to begin construction of the Landscaping business.

MR. PINTER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE GREEN THUMB NURSERY.

MS. LYONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Jim Redmond- Request to be Deemed a Planned Unit Development

Mr. Redmond owns and operates Leatherwood Cottages located at 1555 Soco Road, parcel number 7696-37-8391. Mr. Redmond would like to be deemed a planned unit development (PUD). Mr. Redmond would like to sell the cottages to individual owners. The property owner will own the foot print only. The cottages are currently on septic systems that were installed in 1955 and a community well. City sewer and water is available. Each cottage is wired separately for electric, telephone, and cable. Mr. Redmond will retain ownership of the roads and common area which he will maintain. A homeowner’s association will be in place. In three years Mr. Redmond will allow each homeowner to paint their cottage. The cottages will be sold to people over the age of 50. The cottages will be used as summer homes. The cottages are made from cinder blocks.

Mr. Redmond informed the board that Mr. Steve Valentine of Haywood County will not need to inspect if the cottages are put on city water and sewer. Mr. Redmond has verification for the sell of several units. Mr. Redmond requested a variance on installing water and sewer lines until November after the tourist season is over. Mr. Redmond will purchase the taps now.

Section 1005 under article X of the zoning ordinance regulates planned unit developments. The purpose for planned unit developments is to afford substantial advantages for greater flexibility and improved marketability through the benefits of efficiency which permit flexibility in building sitting, mixtures of housing types and land use. Residential densities are calculated on a project basis, thus allowing the clustering of building in order to create useful open spaces and preserve natural site features.

1005.3 Land Development Standards. The following land development standards shall apply for all planned unit developments. Planned unit developments may be located in all districts as special exception, subject to a finding by the Board of Adjustment that certain conditions be met:

(1) Ownership Control. The land in a planned unit development shall be under single ownership or management by the applicant before final approval and/or construction, or property assurances (legal title or execution of a binding sales agreement) shall be provided that the development can be successfully completed by the applicant.

Mr. Redmond will not be constructing any additional structures.

(2) Density Requirements. There are no density requirements for non-residential uses as long as the proposed project does not violate the intent of the district in which it is located. The proposed residential density of the planned unit development (land area per dwelling unit as shown in Article VII) shall conform to that permitted in the district in which the development is located. If the planned unit development lies in more than one district, the number of allowable dwelling units must be separately calculated for each portion of the planned (unit) development that is in a separate district, and must then be combined to determine the number of dwelling units allowable in the entire planned unit development.

Leatherwood Cottages are located in the Commercial 1 District. The setbacks for C1 are 10-10-10.

(3) Frontage Requirements. Planned unit developments shall have access to a highway or road suitable for the scale and density of development being proposed.

The roads are suitable for a PUD. There are two entrances to the cottages.

(4) Land Uses. A mixture of land uses may be allowed in any planned unit development. However, within residential districts, non-residential uses shall be primarily for the use of the PUD residents and shall not constitute the primary use in the planned unit development, and non-residential uses shall be carefully designed to compliment the residential uses within the planned unit development. All planned unit developments must be compatible with and not violate the intent of the zoning district.

Mr. Redmond reported that some of the cottages may not be twenty feet apart. There is at least 18 feet between them. Mr. Redmond felt the Zoning Board of Adjustments can look at the distance issue. All buildings are free standing separate cottages.

(5) Minimum Requirements.

(a) The normal minimum lot size, setbacks, and frontage requirements are hereby waived for the planned unit development, provided that the spirit and intent of this section are complied with in the total development plan, as determined by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall exercise ultimate discretion as to whether the total development plan does comply with the spirit and intent of this section.

(b) Height limitations: No building or structure shall exceed the height limitations of the district in which it is located.

The cottages are one story.

(c) Required distance between buildings: The minimum distance between buildings shall be twenty (20) feet or as otherwise specified by the Board of Adjustment to ensure adequate air, light, privacy, and space for emergency vehicles.

(d) Every dwelling unit shall have access to a public or private street, walkway, or other area dedicated to common use, and there shall be provision for adequate vehicular circulation to all development properties, in order to ensure acceptable levels of access for emergency vehicles.

(6) Privacy. Each development shall provide reasonable visual and acoustical privacy for all dwelling units. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping shall be used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of property and the privacy of its occupants, screening of objectionable views or uses, and reduction of noise. Multi-level buildings shall be located within a planned unit development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse impact on adjoining low-rise buildings and shall not invade the privacy of the occupants of such low-rise buildings.

(7) Perimeter Requirements.

(a) Structures located on the perimeter of the development must be set back from property lines and rights-of-way of abutting streets in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance controlling the district within which the property is situated.

(b) Structures other than single-family detached units, located on the perimeter of the development may require screening in a manner which is approved by the Board of Adjustment.

(8) Plans and accompanying documentation to ensure that the water and sewer systems proposed for the planned unit development have been approved by the appropriate local and State agencies and submitted as part of the application.

(9) At least one week prior to the date when the Board of Adjustment is scheduled to consider the development, the developer shall submit a copy of the development plan to the Code Enforcement Officer. The development plan shall contain, where applicable, the following information:

(a) Existing site conditions, including contours, water courses, identified flood hazard areas, any unique natural or man-made features.

(b) Boundary lines of the proposed development, proposed lot lines, and plot designs.

(d) Location and size of all areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved as common open space, parks, recreational areas, school sites and similar public and semi-public uses.

(e) The existing and proposed street system, including location and number of off-street parking spaces, service areas, loading areas, and major points of access to public right-of-way. When more than one use is located in the planned unit development, the minimum required parking shall be the sum of the required parking for each use within the development. Notations of proposed ownership of the street system (public or private). Documentation from the Maggie Valley Volunteer Fire Department of the adequacy of the development's facilities for emergency medical and fire services.

(f) Documentation of an approved Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted where required.

(g) Location and/or notation of existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way.

(h) The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the development, including materials and/or techniques such as screens, fences and walls.

(i) Information on adjacent land areas, including land use, zoning classifications, public facilities, and any unique natural features.

(j) Where applicable, the following written documentation shall be submitted:

1) A legal description of the total site proposed for development, including a statement of present and proposed ownership.

2) A development schedule indicating approximate beginning and completion dates of the development, including any proposed stages.

3) A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling and/or leasing of all or portions of the development.

4) Quantitative data for the following: proposed total number and type of residential dwelling units; parcel size; gross residential densities; and total amount of open space.

5) Plan for maintenance of common areas, recreation areas, open spaces, streets, and utilities.

6) Any additional information required by the Board of Adjustment in order to evaluate the impact of the proposed development. The Code Enforcement Officer or the Board of Adjustment may waive a particular requirement if in its opinion the inclusion is not essential to a proper decision of the project.

(10) Any pedestrian and bicycle path circulation system and its related walkways shall be designed to minimize conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

(11) Layout of parking areas, service areas, entrances, exits, yards, courts and landscaping, and control of signs, lighting, noise or other potentially adverse influences shall be such as to protect the residential character within the PUD district and desirable character in any adjoining district.

(12) Conveyance and maintenance of open space, recreational areas and communally owned facilities shall be in accordance with the Unit Ownership Act (Chapter 47-A of the North Carolina General Statutes) and/or any other appropriate mechanisms acceptable to the Board of Adjustment.

Since the use is changing from a single ownership to multiple ownerships, Manager Buffkin felt that Mr. Redmond would have to have a certified operator to operate the sewer and water systems. Chairman Tilley agreed because she had to hire a certified operator to maintain and test the water and sewer for a mobile home park.

Mr. Redmond currently takes samples of the water to Asheville to have it tested.

Chairman Tilley again agreed adding that she does the same thing for the motel. The difference; in motels the people are transit in nature. The state requirements are different.

Again, Mr. Redmond stated that he would gladly connect to city sewer and water in November after the color season is over.

Chairman Tilley commended Mr. Redmond on the landscaping and grounds maintenance.

Manager Buffkin recommended approval for a special exception as a planned unit development contingent on Mr. Redmond submitting a drawing of the PUD and meet all guidelines of the ordinance pertaining to PUD’s and a agreement to connect to city water and sewer by December 1, 2004.

Leatherwood Cottages has sixteen cottages that range from 890 to 1140 square feet. The asking price begins at $51,000.

MR. PINTER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE LEATHERWOOD COTTAGES AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONTINGENT ON A DRAWING BEING SUBMITTED, ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS BEING MET, AND THE UNITS ARE CONNECTED TO CITY WATER AND SEWER BY DECEMBER 1, 2004

MS. LYONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

When questioned about the interior setbacks, Manager Buffkin stated that the planning board has the authority to approve a special exception thus allowing the buildings to be slightly closer than the stated twenty feet. A fire truck has adequate room to maneuver. “There will be no less room between the buildings after approval of a PUD than there is now.”

Zoning of Campbell Creek

The planning board reviewed the county map of the newly annexed areas. Part of the Campbell Creek area is within the critical watershed district.

The planning board members had great concerns about the watershed areas. In the WS III area the impervious surface can not exceed 12% while WS II allows for 24% impervious surface. Impervious surfaces include roof lines, decks, and driveways regardless if they are paved or gravel. If zoned R3 or R2 the homes would be limited in size. NCDENR regulates watershed areas as well as the county.

The board discussed having an overlay district for the watershed area and then come in with zoning.

Manager Buffkin suggested R2 zoning at the very least.

The Stoney Ridge Subdivision does not conform to any district currently in place. Crockett’s Meadows is zoned R3. Caldwell Drive and Donald’s Circle would come close to meeting R2 requirements.

It is apparent from Dr. Cooper’s strategic plan that people do not want to see clutter.

The Campbell Creek area is the fastest growing area in Maggie Valley with the potential for considerable growth.

Again the board discussed the difficulty with corner lots meeting the setbacks and buffer requirements in R3 subdivisions. Presenting and getting approval for the overlay district then coming back with zoning is an option.

The water shed area could dictate larger homes being two stories because of the impervious mandates. People would be limited to the size homes they could build if the area were zoned R3. By zoning the area Residential 1 there would not be lots that could not be built upon. Most developers require minimum house sizes.

Mr. Mehaffey helped identify the different areas in the newly annexed area.

Seventy-five percent of the Rocky Top Road parcels have homes already built.

Although the plan does not address lot size it should be considered in all decisions that pertain to zoning. Dr. Cooper will present the final draft of the strategic plan to the board of aldermen in September.

After much discussion and map review, the planning board felt an informational session with the homeowners would be beneficial before taking the issue before the board of aldermen.

MS. LYONS’ MADE A MOTION TO SET AUGUST 4, 2004 AT 5:30 P.M. FOR AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING REGARDING THE ZONING OF CAMPBELL CREEK.

MR. PINTER SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

The clerk will advertise the informational meeting through the local newspaper and post notice on the bulletin board.

Increasing lot Size- Public Hearing July 20, 2004

Excerpt from July 15, 2004 Board of Aldermen Meeting:

Set Date for Public Hearing to Amend Zoning Ordinance to Increase Minimum Lot Sizes

Ms. Lyons addressed council stating that for almost a year the planning board has been working on increased lot sizes and a new district for higher elevations. The public does not like seeing homes crowded and the mountain tops cut. Larger lot sizes would help with erosion control by the contractor not having to do as much excavation.

The aldermen have assigned the planning board several issues to work on including erosion control and a slope ordinance.

Alderman Taylor questioned if the larger lot lines would have any effect on the zero lot lines such as a planned unit development.

There would be no change to planned unit developments.

There have been several complaints about Appalachian Village because of the topography of the land making the homes look like one roof line after another.

Alderman Taylor felt the increased lot size would drive up the cost of property.

Alderman Aldridge asked if the planning board could redraft the proposed amendment and get more of a balance between low lying flat land and the mountainous areas.

Ms. Lyons responded that there is no zoning in Haywood County and the Maggie Valley Planning Board felt that parcels above 4000 feet should have at least one acre of land per home. Developers will take it to the limit on the amount of homes allowed by the municipality.

Mayor Pinter agreed adding that people want affordable housing and we don’t want to keep people from owning land especially since this is a retirement area from many. Most retirees do not want large parcels with yards to manage.

Due to the topography of the land it is difficult to administer erosion control regulations. The enlarged lot sizes would cause the developer to loose two homes per acre.

Ms. Lyons reported that Mr. Kevin Alford P.E. recommends enlarging the lot sizes.

Mr. Jay Ring informed council that since he has been chairman of the zoning board there have been no variances other than in Linson Ridge.

ALDERMAN TAYLOR MADE A MOTION TO SET JULY 20, 2004 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON INCREASING LOT SIZES.

ALDERMAN HIGEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Tilley had previously asked that the public hearing be delayed because it appears that two aldermen wish to rescind their motion to set the public hearing. To rescind a vote, the councilmember on the affirmative side must make motion to rescind a motion at the next public meeting.

The planning board discussed the problem with sediment in the valley floor. Both Jonathan Creek and Campbell Creek are being monitored. People that are buying smaller lots have to clear cut the land in order to construct larger homes.

The Board previously discussed zoning based on the slope of the land. This would be expensive for the property owner because of having to have an elevation certificate by an engineer.

Ms. Lyons will conduct the presentation with drawings and pictures of different subdivisions and data with graphs.

As previously stated the planning board desires to change the names of the districts even if the lot sizes are not enlarged. This would help better identify the districts (R1 to R14 for 14,000 square feet).

Vacant Seat on Planning Board

Mr. Pinter has resigned his position on the planning board due to other commitments.

The planning board previously discussed Billy Brede as a member. Mr. Billy Case submitted application to sit on the planning board with excellent credentials, such as Haywood Waterways Association and the Home Builders Association. Mr. Dean Tomlinson had submitted an application. Mr. Tomlinson has served on the planning board in the past. When Chairman Tilley called to remind him of the meeting, Mr. Tomlinson was in Florida and stated that he would have to pass.

The board felt Billy Brede would be an asset as a land planner and engineer. Mr. Case is from Campbell Creek and would be an asset in representing the residents of Campbell Creek.

MR. PINTER MADE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND BILLY CASE AND BILLY BREDE FOR PLANNING BOARD POSITIONS CONTINGENT ON MR. TOMLINSON WISHING TO PASS ON THE APPOINTMENT.

Mr. Pinter stated that he would like to see Dean Tomlinson on the board because of his experience with the planning and zoning board in the past. Mr. Tomlinson was instrumental in revising the zoning ordinance.

Chairman Tilley’s concerns were although Mr. Tomlinson has lived here off and on for fourteen years. Is he a resident here? Mr. Pinter stated that Mr. Tomlinson lives behind Mt. Valley Lodge.

Chairman Tilley will contact Mr. Tomlinson.

MS. LYONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Zerbock suggested anyone not appointed to the board be asked to apply to the zoning board of adjustment.

Chasing Lights

Chairman Tilley stated that the information provided to Mr. Massey was incorrect. Chairman Tilley then called Raleigh and was informed to look under Code of Federal Regulations. The standards shall not apply to those signs enumerated in GS 136.129 which are directional and other official signs and notices, signs advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located, signs advertising the sale of crops at roadside stands, and signs which advertise activities conducted on the property upon which they are located.

The changeable facing remains in a fixed position for at least eight seconds

Manager Buffkin will be talking with a state representative from Bryson City to discuss signs so he will be able to provide more information.

Federal and state guidelines treat outdoor advertising different than an on property sign. The town would still be required to follow the Maggie Valley Ordinance as long as the ordinance does not conflict with state and federal guidelines. A municipal ordinance may be more stringent but not less restrictive.

The results of the strategic plan did not reflect people having a desire for flashing/chasing lights.

The petition presented by Mr. Massey does not include addresses.

Mr. Massey desires to address the Board of Aldermen.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. on motion by Ms. Lyons, seconded by Mr. Pinter.

______________________________________

Patricia Tilley, Chairman

__________________________________________

Vickie Best, CMC

Town Clerk