not for construction

Transcription

TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS • 321 CAUSEWAY DRIVE • P.O. BOX 626
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, N.C. 28480 • 910-256-7937
Planning and Inspections
Meeting Agenda
PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
6:oop.m.
Council Chambers of Town Hall
321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, N.C.
•
Call to Order by Chairman Cofer
•
Pledge of Allegiance
•
Approval of Minutes from October ih Meeting
•
New Business
A. Consideration of a Text Amendment to Alticle 155.8 to allow an
expansion to a Non-Conforming Situation
B. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Poe's Tavern located
at 212 Causeway Drive
•
Old Business
•
Other Business from the Chairperson
•
Other Business from Board Members
•
Other Business from Staff
•
Adjournment
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
Town Hall Council Chambers
Tuesday, October 7'h 2014
Members Present
Vivian Zeke Partin, Janice Clark, Thomas Cofer, Susan Snider, David Culp
Members Not Present
Ken Dull, Andrew Hall
Call to Order by Chairman
Chairman Cofer called the meeting to order at 6:04p.m. in Council Chambers of Town Hall.
Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Cofer led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes from September g<h 2014
The minutes from the September g<h 2014 Planning Board Meeting were approved unanimously
by motion of Zeke Partin and Second by Janice Clark.
Unfinished Business
None
New Business:
Mr. Tony Wilson presented information to the Planning Board on the evening's speaker Mr.
Spencer Rogers:
For more than 30 years, Spencer Rogers has helped private property owners, builders,
designers, and governmental agencies to develop hurricane-resistant construction methods,
understand shoreline erosion alternatives and implement marine construction techniques. He
serves on the faculty at the University of North Carolina Wilmington's Center for Marine
Science, and as adjunct faculty in the Department of civil, construction, and environmental
engineering at North Carolina State University. Rogers co-authored The Dune Book, a guidebook
on dune species, planning, and best management practices along developed shorelines. He also
has contributed to the FEMA Coastal Construction Manual. His research has been published in
numerous scholarly journals, including the Journal of the American Shore and Beach
Minutes- Planning Board Meeting
October 7, 2014
Preservation Association, and the Journal of Marine Education. He also is a regular speaker at
conferences about coastal engineering and hazards, including the annual Solutions to Coastal
Disasters. In 2005, Rogers was part of a select group of engineers and scientists on the FEMA
Hurricane Katrina Mitigation Assessment Team which conducted a coastal damage evaluation
in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. Rogers joined Sea Grant in 1978, having worked as a
coastal engineer for the Bureau of Beaches and Shores in the Florida Department of Natural
Resources during his early career. He holds a Master of Coastal and Oceanographic engineering
from the University of Florida and a Bachelor of Engineering from the University of Virginia.
Agenda ttem A
Presentation from Spencer Rogers on the Preliminary Flood Maps
Mr. Rogers explained that his objective was to explain the Preliminary Flood Maps, with
explanation of the intent of the mapping effort and on how to compare the two maps. Mr.
Rogers began by asking the board what they considered to be an improvement in the Flood
Map. He said that most communities determine this measure by whether their flood insurance
rates go up or down. These maps are used nationally to establish flood construction standards
for both river and coastal development. He explained that flood maps are a critically important
feature to ensure rational coastal development. He said it is important to look at the maps not
by whether the rates go up or not but rather if the rates are reasonable or not.
When Hurricane Floyd hit the Governor of North Carolina went out to survey the damage and
turned to his staff and asked them "what had happened?" The response from his staff was that
the state had bad flood maps. The maps were bad because the state mapping office had poor
USGS topographic mapping information which did not identify river basins and areas of high
and low ground. He said that this could be resolved by ensuring better map elevations for the
state were collected. He also explained that when the State of North Carolina relied on FEMA to
conduct flood mapping and that the program averaged only one flood map created per year
out of the 100 counties in North Carolina. Mr. Rogers explained that it was not practical to
allow FEMA to conduct the flood mapping, which lead to the.formation of The Cooperating
Technical Communities, which was utilized by Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. He said that from
the COTC came the request from the State of North Carolina to FEMA to allow the State to
conduct a statewide mapping project. He stated that what was once a community effort
became a state mapping effort. He explained that the State of North Carolina became the
primary mapping contractor with the goal of completing the mapping in 3 years which they
ended up accomplishing in 7 years. He said that 80 of the 100 counties are riverine and that the
hydraulic models that were created, were able to utilize data collected using LIDAR which was
far sup'erior to anything that was previously used. He explained that there were no running
2
October 7, 2014
models when they began work and that the initial maps were crude and done for the ocean
front areas. He referenced several rivers throughout North Carolina and explained that the
models did not do a good job in those river areas. He explained that following the conclusion of
the initial flood mapping of the entire state that the state decided that they would need to do a
better job creating the storm surge model in the coastal areas. Mr. Rogers stated that the Army
Corp of Engineers spent a great deal of time following Hurricane Katrina, on analyzing storm
surge models through the ADSERC model for flood maps. He said that the ADSERC model is indepth and accurate enough to consider daily tides. He said that as other states throughout the
country started using ADSERC, the State of North Carolina decided to utilize ADSERC modeling
in the 20 Coastal North Carolina counties. He stated that what is being seen now is a result of
the State's effort to replace a well out of date storm surge model. The first three counties in the
Southern portion of the State were the first to receive the new rate maps based on ADSERC
modeling.
Mr. Rogers said that some important things to keep in mind when looking at the flood maps is
to consider the different zones that make up the flood maps. Mr. Rogers stated that it is
important to consider the three classifications of flood zones, the AE Zones -which can be
thought of as small waves, the VE Zone- which stands for velocity, meaning that a wave of at
least 3 feet high should be expected in those zones. He explained that the safest zone is the XZone, which has the cheapest rates and lowest flood damage risk.
Mr. Rogers said that when comparing maps the important thing to consider is the reference
feature used to establish the Base Flood Elevation for a home and that the way that elevation is
applied to a building depends on the zone. He said that the reference feature in the AE Zone is
the lowest horizontal member. He stated that in aVE zone you will not only get wet but also
may experience a wave of three feet or greater. He instructed Planning Board members to think
of AE to VE as a 2 foot difference in the elevation requirement.
Mr. Rogers said that the price of insurance varies greatly between the different zones. He said
that the clearest indicator of "what the maps are doing" is between the two bridges (between
Salisbury & Causeway). The only dune that is in place is that which was created by the Army
Corp of Engineers, hurricane protection project. He said that if you look beyond the Shell Island
Subdivision or if you go past the Blockade Runner the dunes are much wider, which means the
cross section of the dune is much bigger. He said that it you look between the two bridges the
only thing that remains is the cross section of the nourishment project. He said that it is
important for everyone to understand that prior to the last two flood maps which can be
compared directly number to number, a different reference datum was used for the maps. He
explained that this was called NGVD which was the original datum; the new flood maps used a
3
'
October 7, 2014
datum that was one foot higher. He pointed out the location of the dune located between the
two bridges on the flood map, and said that what this means is that the dune may be 12.5 ft
while a berm may only be 10.5 feet. He said that FEMA expects that the entire dune system
would be eroded during a storm surge event according to their model. He said the Army Corp of
Engineers utilizes a 50 Year Dune Protection Model for calculating the impact of storm events.
He stated that what this means is that if a 100 year storm event occurred, the dune system
would likely be washed away. He stated that because of the nourishment project Wrightsville
Beach is a good example to look at when considering these models. Mr. Rogers proceeded to
point out a number of different elevations and locations on the current effective flood map to
illustrate how waves are modeled to decrease in height as they cross the island.
Mr. Rogers explained that while waves could be 30 feet tall offshore, the waves will decrease as
they move on shore. He said that the farther and harder that the wind blows determines how
waves can reform and regenerate. He explained that surface friction will reduce the wave
height and that thick areas of vegetation and dense residential areas will result in wave decay
resulting in smaller waves as you move further inland. He said that as you make your way
across the sound on to Harbor Island the velocity picks up and then drops off on the other side
to an AE Zone due to wave decay in the marsh area. He explained that the proposed changes to
the map show that the pier house located at Johnnie Mercers pier is now in the VE13 Zone and
almost all of the development between the two bridges is now considered an AE11 Zone. He
said that the second block around Salisbury Street is now an AE12 Zone, suggesting that the
wave height would increase in those areas through wave regeneration. He said that the
Preliminary Map shows that Harbor Island would become a VE14 Zone which suggests that
wave regeneration is expected to occur as the waves move across the sound.
Mr. Rogers indicated that there had been complaints about the VE Zones on Harbor Island, and
that the effective maps are as harsh as he has seen anywhere. He said that he found it hard to
believe that waves would pass through some of the wider areas of Harbor Island.
Ms. Clark asked if the determination of the flood zone was because ocean water would come
back in across Harbor Island. Mr. Rogers said that one of the complications of flood mapping is
that you have to run all the potential storm tracks. Mr. Rogers stated that in the example of
Harbor Island it is possible to have Southerly winds and Northerly winds, but the majority of the
wind conditions would be coming from the ocean front. He stated that statistically all of these
conditions may not occur during one storm event, but comparing these measures to historical
events is a very good measure.
4
October 7, 2014
Ms. Partin asked if since the ocean front has been zoned AE then does that mean that they
would experience waves less than three feet whereas some areas not on the ocean front are
considered VE zones (3ft+ wave action)? Mr. Rogers replied that this was complicated and
pointed out the new zone known as the Limit Of Moderate Wave Activity (LIMWA), which was
added in to the Preliminary Maps, and which is defined as 1 Y.! foot waves meaning there would
be less than 3 foot waves in the LIMWA Zone. He said that the elevation requirements are
lowest on the ocean front including ocean front buildings and then requirements increase as
you go across Harbor Island.
Ms. Partin stated that when you have a subdivision like Lees Cut, stating that her unit is 2 feet
above other units within the subdivision, even in the worst hurricane she only got 18 inches of
water on the lowest level whereas other folks had flooding to the top of their ceilings in their
garages. She asked if FEMA looks at each individual home on a case by case basis? Mr. Rogers
explained that a surveyor must create an elevation certificate of the building and then the
elevation certificate can be given to your insurance agent to determine a premium based on
your elevation. Mr. Rogers indicated that the major reason that new flood maps are of so much
concern is because the Biggert-Waters Act which places an extremely high premium on some
homes.
Ms. Snider asked if Mr. Rogers agreed that Harbor Island was at a greater risk than the homes
at the backside of the dunes on the beach strand? Mr. Rogers explained that every storm that
he has seen in the last 39 years has had more damage closer to the ocean and has gone down
as you get further away from the ocean. He said that he had observed increased storm surge
that has been funneled in to the back of large bays in other locations throughout the state and
country.
Ms. Snider asked if that knowledge was reflected in the preliminary flood maps? Mr. Rogers
stated that he could not explain why an oceanfront building between the two bridges with a 50
year hurricane protection project in front of it would not be subjected to waves greater than 3
feet. He suspects that wave action of three feet or greater occurred during Fran and Floyd and
from a rational standpoint this doesn't make sense for rational construction standards and
mana·gement. He said that what this means is from a construction standpoint, you could build a
slab foundation or a basement on the ocean front.
Mr. Cofer asked if the models only take into account the wave action or if they also take into
account the numbers for elevation? Mr. Rogers replied that it was the other way around, that
the models generate a storm surge scenario coming off of the ocean and consider eroding
dunes where the Army Corp of Engineers 50 year dunes are washed away.
5
October 7, 2014
Mr. Cofer asked as far as the VE & AE Zones go, are the models looking at the streets elevations
above sea level? Mr. Rogers replied that there is a limit to how big the waves can get based on
the ground elevation. He said that we have clearly seen wave damage on the perimeter of
certain areas of Harbor Island during certain storms. He said that if the winds come in from the
South then more damage will occur within the center of the island. He said that at the
perimeter where there is little to break the waves it is possible to experience damage but it is
unlikely to get significant wave damage in the center of the island due to wave decay. He said
that waves increase as they cross Harbor Island behind the elementary school but they do not
decay until after the waves have crossed.
Ms. Partin asked about the Shell Island subdivision that is considered on the preliminary maps
to still be in a VE Zone. Mr. Rogers said that these were about the .only areas that were left
within the VE Zones on the ocean front.
Ms. Snider stated "so it doesn't make sense in other words." Mr. Rogers said that comparing
the 3 foot waves of Fran to the proposed flood map would suggest a water depth 3-4 feet
higher than what was experienced during Hurricane Fran.
Mr. Cofer said that between the bridges during Hurricane Fran at least on Oceanic Street, that
the storm surge never made it over the dune line. Mr. Rogers replied that he was sure that
there were some places where it had. Mr. Rogers said that the other complication exists in the
differences in the way that waves were mapped in that particular year. He said that rather than
a wave breaking zone dominating the elevation requirement a wave run up zone is now being
used which he was unable to explain.
Mr. Cofer asked Mr. Rogers "Do you or any of your colleagues plan to challenge these maps?"
Mr. Rogers replied "absolutely not", and indicated that he 'was simply there as free advice.
Mr. Rogers went on to explain the appeal process. He said that if you have proof that a ground
elevation is higher or lower than the information that was used to make the maps then you
have a reasonable justification for why the maps should be revised. He said that in these cases
effective arguments are able to result in successful appeals. He said that the challenge is finding
proof that the guideline has not been met. He said that in fairness to the state it seems that
they produced the best maps that they could and it is clear that in a number of areas they ran
into guideline issues where they were forced to put the lines where they did. He explained that
if the matter goes to an appeal it is not whether the information is rational or not but rather if
the state did their job correctly in following tlie guidelines provided by FEMA. He explained that
6
October 7, 2014
an individual property owner or the community could submit an appeal, and everything has to
go through the local community to the state and then to FEMA who will make a judgment of
whether the appeal is rational or not. He said that there is a 90 day appeal period in place that
had not begun yet.
Mr. Cofer asked if there was any way to verify the elevations to compare to the FEMA models.
He asked if the best method to use would be checking to see how elevation certificates
compare to their model? Mr. Rogers indicated that his understanding is that you can check the
LIDAR data against the elevation certificates for individual homes. He explained that you can
download the ground elevation LIDAR data from FEMA's website. He said that the accuracy of
the LIDAR data is within 1 foot which is a significant improvement from previous modeling
efforts. He commented that the new LIDAR data may even be as good as 6 inches. He said that
the more elevation errors that you could identify the better chance there would be to justify an
appeal.
Mr. Cofer thanked Mr. Rogers for his expertise on the matter and for his presentation.
Mr. Cofer asked that when looking at the models, what criteria are used to determine the wave
height between aVE and an AE Zone? Mr. Rogers replied that the LIMWA is 1 Y, to 3 feet and
the VE Zone is greater than 3 feet. Mr. Cofer commented that the model takes into account not
necessarily just rising water but it more specifically attempts to predict wave action and wave
height combined. Mr. Rogers stated that even in the VE Zone the still water elevation is not
changing at all just the wave height is increasing.
Ms. Partin stated that in some areas in the VE Zones the models predict a wave and you are not
even close to a wave in that area. She stated that she could see rising water but not necessarily
a wave especially with the land distance the waves would have to cross over.
Mr. Cofer said that if anybody from the public has questions they could ask them at this point.
Mr. Wilson pointed out that Town Hall had changed from aVE to an AE zone which is significant
because Town Hall had never flooded before. He said that it will be up to the Board of
Aldermen as to whether the town will proceed with an appeal.
7
Miroutes- Planning Board Meeting
October 7, 2014
Agenda Item B
Mr. Wilson began discussion on the Joint Meeting with the Board of Aldermen.
Mr. Wilson indicated that the Joint Meeting with the Board of Aldermen would be held at 5:00
P.M. on October 28'h 2014 in the Town Hall Council Chambers. He asked if any of the Planning
Board members had items that they would like to discuss during the Joint Meeting.
Mr. Culp said that he would like to discuss crosswalks. He stated that the crosswalks on
Waynick are pitiful; a lot of places have signs that say both lanes of traffic must stop. He said
that he has seen a lot of people coming from the beach side that are coming between two
parked cars and that nobody can see them. Mr. Culp said that the two crossings at the Blockade
Runner and the Hanover Seaside Club are of particular concern.
Ms. Partin commented that the crosswalks on Harbor Island are well marked but she will never
step foot in them because they are dangerous. Mr. Culp said that he does not feel that there is
a good place to stop for pedestrians and that the crosswalk in front of the Blockade Runner is in.
the wrong place. He explained that since the town is repaving that this may be the most
opportune time to examine the issue.
Mr. Cofer & Ms. Clark indicated that they wanted to discuss street end safety and liability. Both
Board Members wanted to examine the safety and liability associated with street ends. Mr.
Culp cited a specific concern about concrete poured at a poor angle that has been undercut.
They clarified that they wanted to explore how these areas could be controlled and marked.
Ms. Partin suggested that a sign could be placed at the town docks as people go there and fish
which makes people very reluctant to dock there to go and eat at the restaurants downtown,
which in turn hurts downtown businesses. Ms. Partin would like to see a no fishing sign placed
at Wynn Plaza.
Ms. Snider stated that she was concerned with incidents late at night downtown where there
are evidently not enough bathrooms available to use judging by the number of tickets that are
issued. She suggested that maybe some sort of communication with the colleges, may be useful
to ask for the students to be more mindful of their impact on the Wrightsville Beach
community.
Ms. Partin said that she wishes the Town could come up with alternative revenue sources other
than through raising taxes. She said that this could include potentially charging for parking on
8
Mitlutes- Planning Board Meeting
October 7, 2014
Pelican Drive. Ms. Partin suggested charging money to park boats on vacant lots and that
potentially outsourcing the operation to Lanier Parking would be beneficial.
Mr. Wilson said that if people have additional suggestions, they need to pass them along within
the next week or so. He was not sure if the board needed to discuss the mixed use ordinance
again and whether the ordinance should be improved.
Ms. Partin asked about the option of accepting credit and debit cards. Mr. Wilson explained
that the conversation on the credit card topic was not over and that it is still ongoing.
Old Business
None
Other Business from the Chairperson
None
Other Business from Board Members
None
Other Business from Staff
None
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Culp made a motion to adjourn
which was seconded by Ms. Clark. The motion to adjourn was approved unanimously by
members of the Planning Board at 7: 02 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Zachary Steffey, Town Planner
9
TO\VN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
October 29, 2014
MEMORANDUM
To:
Chairman Cofer and Planning Board Members
From: Tony Wilson, Director of Planning and Parks ;7Ji/
Re:
Consideration of a Text Amendment to 155.8 to allow an expansion to a Nonconforming
Situation
Cc:
Tim Owens, Town Manager
Background:
The Town of Wrightsville Beach Staff and Attorney have prepared a Text Amendment to Article
155.8 to allow additions to nonconforming situations in the C-2, C-3 and C-5 Commercial
Districts. Currently, the Zoning Code prohibits the expansion of a nonconforming situation.
Existing Ordinance:
SECTION 155.8.3 EXTENSION OR ENLARGEMENT OF NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS
PROHIBITED
Except as specifically provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in
any activity that causes an increase in the extent of nonconformity of a nonconforming
situation.
Definition:
Nonconforming Situation:
A situation that occurs when, on the effective date of this Ordinance or any amendment hereto,
an existing Jot or structure, or lawful use of an existing lot or structure, does not conform to one
or more of the regulations applicable to the district in which the lot or structure is located.
Among other possibilities, a nonconforming situation may arise because a lot does not meet
minimum acreage requirements, because a structure does not satisfy maximum height
limitations because the relationship between existing buildings and the land (in such matters as
density and setback requirements) is not in conformity with this Ordinance, or because land,
buildings or other areas subject to this Ordinance are used for purposes made unlawful by this
Orf!;le or any amendment hereto.
~~
Proposed Ordinance:
Ordinance 2014-1735
2005 CAMA land Use Policies:
Policy 9.1.A.7: The Town shall support refinements in building standards throughout the
community to reflect the unique characteristics of different areas of Wrightsville Beach,
including but not limited to : height, setbacks, and floor area ratios.
Advertisement:
The legal advertisement announcing the November 4, 2014 Planning Board Meeting regarding a
Text Amendment to Article 155.8 ran on October 25, 2014.
Public Comment:
The Town has not received any comments on the matter from the public.
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the Zoning Code in the C-2, C-3 and C-5 Commercial Districts does not
allow for an expansion to a nonconforming situation.
2. The properties located within these districts are the Marina Districts, The landing, the
Old Scotchman Store, Annexed commercial properties and the Pier areas.
3. The zoning ordinances do allow for additions to nonconforming situations to one and
two family dwellings.
Summary:
The adoption of the proposed text amendment would allow limited additions to nonconforming
situations in the C-2, C-3 and C-5 Zoning Districts. The new additions would have to meet the
required setbacks.
Staff Recommendation:
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Board forward a favorable recommendation to
the Board of Alderman for Ordinance 2014-1735.
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 2014-1735
ORDINANCE NO. (2014) 1735
Board of Aldermen
Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
Date: November 13, 2014
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF
THE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
AMENDING CHAPTER 155 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES,
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Board of Aldermen of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, doth ordain:
1.
That Article 155.8 of Chapter 155 of the Code of Ordinances, Town of Wrightsville
Beach, is hereby amended by adding a new Part VI to read as follows:
ARTICLE 155.8 NONCONFORMING SITUATIONS
PART IV.
COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IN THE C-2 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT II,
C-3 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Ill AND C-5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT V
ZONING DISTRICTS
Section 155.8.12 Expansion or Enlargement.
A structure that is confirming as to use and is used solely for commercial purposes in
the C-2 Commercial District II, C-3 Commercial District Ill and C-5 Commercial District
V Zoning Districts that is maintained as a nonconforming structure may be enlarged
or expanded so long as the enlargement or expansion complies with all applicable
provisions of the Code and the following provisions:
(A)
For purposes of this Section, a structure that is "used solely for commercial
purposes" or a "commercial structure" shall mean a structure located in the
zoning districts specified above that is conforming as to use and is used
only for commercial purposes and no part of which is used for residential
purposes. Any structure that does not meet this definition shall not be
permitted to expand or enlarge as provided herein.
(B)
A commercial structure may be expanded or enlarged to an extent that
does not exceed 50% of the commercial measured area of the structure as
defined in this Section 155.8.12. For purposes of calculating the permitted
expansion or enlargement, all expansion or enlargement permitted under
the provisions of this section within the five-year period preceding the date
on which any work to enlarge or expand the structure is started shall be
included.
(C)
For purposes of calculating the commercial measured area, any deck area
shall be excluded.
(D)
Such expansion or enlargement shall not create new nonconformities.
(E)
Such expansion or enlargement shall not encroach into an existing or
required setback.
(F)
The expansion or enlargement must maintain the following structural
elements as they existed prior to the expansion or enlargement:
Ordinance No. (2014) 1735
November 13, 2014- Page 2
(1)
The existing wall height. For the purposes of this Section, existing
wall height shall be measured from the top of the subfloor to the top
plate of the exterior wall;
(2)
The existing exterior walls except as needed to change/add
windows and doors, to perform lateral additions or to correct code
violations; and
(3)
The original structural floor system except as needed to add new
ingress and egress or to. correct code violations.
(G)
Upon completion of the expansion or enlargement, all requirements for offstreet parking contained in Article 155.9, Part I must be satisfied.
(H)
If the nonconforming structure is located 10 feet or less from an adjoining
structure (either on the same or on an adjoining lot) then the
nonconforming structure may be not enlarged or expanded in any manner
whatsoever.
(I)
For purposes of this Section 'commercial measured area" shall mean the
following: all of the interior floor area of a building which is surrounded by
exterior walls and/or attic with or without a laid floor with structural
headroom of five feet or greater. Where a floor lies below a ceiling height of
greater than 15 feet (as in a vaulted ceiling), then that area of the floor
under the vertical height of greater than 15 feet shall be counted twice.
One access corridor in the attic of a structure may be excluded from the
commercial measured area so long as it:
(1)
Runs parallel to the center roof ridge; and
(2)
Is no wider than three feet; and
(3)
Does not exceed five feet in height.
2.
That Chapter 155 of the Code of Ordinances, Town of Wrightsville Beach, is hereby
amended by changing the Part numbers and Section numbers as follows:
(A)
The caption of Part VI is changed to read Part VII. NON-CONFORMING USES.
(B)
The Section number of Section 155.8.12 is changed to Section 155.8.13.
(C)
(D)
(E)
The caption of Part VII is changed to read Part VIII. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION.
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
3.
If this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be
given separate effect and to that end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Ordinance No. (2014) 1735
November 13, 2014 - Page 3
4.
Any ordinance or any part of the ordinance in conflict with this Ordinance, to the
extent of such conflict, is hereby repealed.
5.
This Ordinance is adopted in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare
of the inhabitants of the Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, and shall be in full force and
effect from and after its adoption.
This Ordinance adopted this 13th day of November, 2014.
Mayor
ATIEST:
Town Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
October 28, 2014
MEMORANDUM
To:
Chairman Cofer & Planning Board Members
From: Tony Wilson, Director of Planning and
Re:
Parks~
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for Poe's Tavern located at 212 Causeway
Drive
Cc:
Tim Owens, Town Manager
Background:
On September 19, 2014 the Planning and Inspections Department received a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) application from Russell Bennett, authorized agent for Poe's Tavern. The applicant
is requesting to operate a restaurant at 212 Causeway Drive. The property is located within the
C-3 Commercial Zoning District and consists of three parcels, lots 53, 54 and 55 Causeway Drive.
The existing 4,000 square foot one story structure was built in 1972, and is the former location
of the Olympia Restaurant.
Current Use:
The property located at 212 Causeway Drive is currently being used as the Lumina Meetings
and Events Center and was approved through the Conditional Use Permit process on November
12, 2009. The existing one story structure was built in 1972 and has approximately 4,000
square feet.
Proposed Use:
Poe's Tavern is a full service restaurant, operating hours are from11:00 am to 10:00 pm, 6570% of their sales are attributable to food. Seasonally and on weekends the hours of operation
may extend past midnight. The proposal includes an outside dining area with 55 seats and a bar
area that opens into the restaurant. Interior renovations include a bar area with proposed
seating for a total of 230 occupants.
~
Parking Calculations:
The total number of off-street parking spaces required for Poe's Tavern is 70 spaces, 230
persons/4) + (18 staff)+ ( 3 ADA Handicap Spaces)= 70 parking spaces). The existing site can
provide 21 parking spaces (including ADA required spaces) on site. The applicant will need a
parking exception for 49 parking spaces. A parking exception can be granted through Town
Ordinance 155.9.1.6.
A total of 39 public parking spaces are provided withih 400 feet of Poe's Tavern. Mellow
Mushroom has a parking exception for 16 spaces and lighthouse Beer & Wine has an exception
for 2 spaces.
155.9.1.6 Exception in Parking Requirements.
(A) Parking required for uses in districts zoned commercial or public or semi-public (G1) maybe provided within 400 feet of the main entrance to the principal use and located
in any commercial zone if the required off-street parking cannot be reasonably provided
on the same lot on which the principal use is located.
(B) If the off-street parking space required by this Ordinance for districts zoned
residential cannot be reasonably provided on the same lot on which the principal use is
located, such space may be provided on any land within 400 feet of the main entrance
to, and within the same zone as, such principal use.
(C) The Board of Aldermen may grant an exception in off-street parking requirements
for the alteration or conversion of an existing building in commercial districts or
construction of a mixed use development after a finding by the Board of Aldermen that:
(1) The proposed use is directed primarily toward pedestrian trade existing in the area;
and
(2) The character of existing development or properties within 400 feet prohibit the
acquisition of land for parking; and
(3) That one parking space for each two employees shall be provided. An exception to
this standard may be granted for mixed use developments as provided in this section.
2005 CAMA land Use Policies:
Types of development encouraged: The Town will encourage single-family and duplex
residences, appropriate neighborhood-oriented businesses, parks, and natural areas.
Policy 9.1.A.S:
The Town will encourage commercial establishments providing basic goods and service to year
round residents and visitors. Examples include appropriately scaled and designed grocery
stores, drug stores, sit down restaurants etc.
Departmental Review:
Fire Department: The Fire Department does not have any issues with the proposed project.
Police Department: The Police Department does not have any issues with this project as long as
it is to operate as a restaurant. They would have concerns if the tavern is to operate as a bar
after dinner hours.
Public Works: The Public Works comments are as follows:
1. The water use and wastewater out gallons per day do not match.
2. The water and sewer use should be based on this building use and not tied to a
percentage of another restaurant.
3. No mention is made as to size of grease trap.
Advertisements:
The legal advertisement announcing the November 4, 2014 Planning Board Meeting concerning
a CUP Application to amend the existing CUP ran on October 25, 2014 in the Star News.
Adjacent property owner notification letters were mailed on October 24, 2014.
Public Comment:
The Town has not received any comments on the matter from the public.
Staff Recommendation:
The proposed expansion of the outdoor seating area and interior renovations are consistent
with the 2005 CAMA Land Use Plan. In order to be compliant with the Town Zoning Code the
Board of Aldermen must adopt an amendment to 155.8 Nonconforming Situations and grant a
parking exception as authorized in 155.9.1.6. Planning Staff supports the proposal if the
following conditions are met:
1. The Board of Aldermen adopts an amendment to 155.8 Nonconforming Situations
allowing the expansion of a nonconforming situation.
2. The Board of Aldermen grants a parking exception as authorized in 155.9.1.6 for 49
parking spaces.
3. The applicant obtains all necessary state and local permits.
4. The applicant complies with all Town and Flood Ordinances.
Requested Action:
Grant an amendment to the existing CUP for Poe's Tavern and approve a parking exception as
authorized in 155.9.1.6 for 49 parking spaces with the following conditions:
1. No live outdoor music allowed in the patio area.
2. No customers may be seated in the outside dining area after 10:00 p.m.
3. The enclosure of the outdoor seating area with any material is not recommended.
4. Comply with New Hanover County Fire Marshall.
5. If the property owner receives two citations for noise violations within a twelve month
period, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to review and possible revocation.
Attachments:
1. CUP Application and supporting documentation
2. 2009 CUP
CONDITIONAL USE PERlYIJT APPLICATION (CUP os-01)
Town of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
'
PUI]ose of Conditional Use There are certain land uses which,. because of their unique
characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any particular district without consideration in
each case of the impact of those uses upon neighboring land uses and the public need for the
particular use in the particular location(§!55.4.5). The project you are proposing requires a
Conditional Use Permit. The permit is issued only after the ~pplication is .reviewed by town staff,
the Planning Board and the Board of Aldermen and the public by public notice and public hearing.
Applicants must fill out this application entirely and also gather infonnation and material
referenced in this application. The non"refundable fee for this application is $400.00. The
following guidelines are provided to aid the applicant in preparing a proper application as
referenced in Section ·155 .4.5 as amended, of the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
l.
The applicant must prepare and submit 10 hard copies and one electronic copy ofthis
application and accompanying materials to the Planning and Inspections Director (Town
Hall, P. 0. Box 626, 321 Causeway Drive, Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480) thirty (30)
days prior to the next regular Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board meets the
FIRST TUESDAY of each month except November when they meet the second Tuesday.
2.
Failure to submit the complete packet ofmaterials will result in return of the application.
The application must meet minimum Town Requirements for all local ordinances (zoning,
flood, building, etc.). Amended submittals may be held until the next Planning Board
meeting ifretumed less than ten (10) days prior to the current Planning Board meeting.
3.
Upon receipt of a valid and complete application, the Planning and Inspections Director
will submit the application to department heads for review and also include the
application in the next available Planning Board packet.
4.
A representative of tbe proposed project must be present during i:he Pla~g Board
meeting.
5.
No conditional use. shall be recommended to the Aldermen by the Planning Board
unless the Board shall find in the affmnative of the Zoning Ordinance standards
§155.4.5.4(E) (See page 5 of this application.)
6.
After review and recommendation by tbe Planning Board, the Board of Aldermen shall
hold a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. The Board of Aldermen at the
advertised public hearing will consider recommendations from. the Planriing Board and
staff. The Board of Aldermen will also hear objections to or approval of the Conditional
Use Permit application from members of the public. The Board of Aldermen will then
grant or deny the permit.
Page l of 9
APPLICANT JNFORMATION
Property Owner
Beach Haven, LLC I Arborgate Properties, LLC I Isabella Holdings, LLC
P.O. Box 3167
Owner Mai!.ing Address
------~-------------------
Wilmington, NC 28406
Telephone Number
®
910.791.1196 ext 3
Representative/Agent for<Owner
Russell Bennett
0TTACHAUTHORITYFORAPPO~rnNTOFAGENT) --------------------------~---~-----------
Agent Address
3124 Marshall Boulevard
Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
Telephone Number
(W),_8_:.:43=.2=-24_:.:·=-84.:.::9_:_4__________JIH)J:U.•____________j(F£AAXl4.L
PROJECT INFORMATION
______
Address: 210 I 212 Causeway Drive
Wrightsville Beach NC 28480
Legal Address : DB 2547 PG 2549 I DB 4914 PG 143
(Book and Page a.s recorded at the New Hanover Cotmty.Registrnr of Deeds Office)
PROPOSED PROJECT
Describe project and use: Convert current event space Lumina Hall into
Poe's Tavern, a full service restaurant
Proposed Construction Date
December 201 4
Estinlated Completion Date
May 2015
State Primary Street Frontage (name)
Causeway Drive
'-----~--~--~----~~
Page 2 of 9
ZONJNG INFORMATION
Zoning District of Site
_c_-3_____ Does this project require rezoning?_N_o_ _ _ _ __
Proposed Use Restaurant, Standard
DIMENSIONAL INFORMATION
50' x 100' (Lots 54, 55)
Lot Dimensions 25' x 100' (Lots 53)
Total Lot Square Footage _1_2_,s_o_o_ _ __
State Setbacks of ALL Structures:
Dimensions of Principal and Accessory Buildings
50.5' X 81'
6.25'
Elevation of AL'L Stmctures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total Square Footage of Principal Structure
_4_,0_8_7_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Total Square Footage of Accessory Structures
PARKlNG AJID TRAFFIC lY1ANAGEMENT
Parking Spaces On Site
(TOTAL) ~
2./
Parking Space Dimension and Isle Separation
(Handicapped) ...:_1_ _ (Standard) f:t
l,'frc 2
8' Wx 18.5' L& 24'
Describe Provisions for Ingress and' Egress of Site
Same as current use - site parking opens to frontage road which connects to Causeway Drive
SIGNAGE
Describe (fully) All Proposed Signs for this Project (Dimensions, Heights, Construction
Materials and Location MUST be Provided):
·
3' H x 10' Lwail sign painted on north facing wail above entrance
Page 3 of 9
°
INFORt\IIATION FOR DEPARTJ\1ENTAL REVIEW
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire Protection - Construction Classification
Type 28
Describe (fully) Fire Protection Provisions Provided in tbe Project:
Above kitchen cooking area, commercial exhaust hood with Ansul fire suppression system
Handheld fire extinguishers as required per city code
Sprinkler system throughout
Fire Flow Requirements
385 GPM based on Iowa Rate Flow formula
POLICE REQUIREMENTS
Describe Any Special or Unusual Police Protection Requirements:
none
STQRtVfWATER
Describe any connections to Town drainage systems__no_n_e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
WATER REQUIREMENTS
Maximum Estimated Water Demand GPD
Calculations
_2_,o_oo_ _ _ _ _ _ __
80% of highest month usage in last 12 months for 5,000 sq it restaurant in Florida
Water Main Size Available at Site
SEWER REQUIREMENTS
Maximum Estimated Sewage Disposal GPD _4_50_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Calculations
80% of highest month usage In last 12 months for 5,000 sq It restaurant in Florida
SOLID WASTE REQUIREMENTS
·
1M=urn
sol"d
.
1 Was t e n·1sposa1(cub"w yards) p er Day 8 yards 3 times I week·; Ca lcu lations
-----,---
Size and Location of Dumpster Pad
12' x 12' I existing location (SE corner of site)
Page 4 of 9
LANDSCAPING
Describe (fully) All Existing and Proposed Landscaping and Buffering:
Construct 10' high wall at south end of patio planted with climbing vine
Construct flowering planter boxes at east & north sides of patio & on either side of entrance· (in front of parking spaces)
Describe (fully) All Provisions to Miillmize Effects to the Environment imd Surrounding Property:
Buffer wall described above to mitigate noise for residences on Seacrest Drive; recycle all bottles, cans, paper
and cardboard; restrict dumping of bottles to Bam to 8pm; daily pick up of any trash, etc. in adjacent parking spaces;
control or remove any unruly patrons; supply ample bike racks to encourage biking & minimize vehicular traffic; no
amplified live or recorded music projected outside
OTHER ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED WITH APPLICATION.
CONFORlvfANCE WITH CONDffiONAL USE PERlvllT STANDARDS (§155.4.5.4 CE))
Please attach a statement in writing accompanied by adequate evidence if needed, that the proposed conditional
use will conform to each of !he following standards as established in !he ordinance:
(a)
(b)
That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to
or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.
All employees will be required to be certified SaveServe as toad handler (learning sanitation & preventing
toodborne illness) or alcohol (r'?sponsible service). Security personnel employed as needed. Clearly
· display cab company phone numbers and encourage I call on behalf of intoxicated patrons. Building will
be brought up to current tire & building codes. It will meet all noise and lighting ordinances and obtain
necessary health department certifications.
That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and er\ioyment of other property in the
imnlediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
It is anticipated that conditional use will augment neighboring property values with the proposed
investment of approximately $240K In renovations. The improvements will enhance the aesthetics ol
the property. Through conversations with neighborihg business owners, they expressed excitement
with the prospective additional activity that will be brought to the area.
(c)
That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. ·
Conditional use will strive to Improve the development of the surrounding commercial area by
renovating the building, constructing a landscape buffer along the rear of the property adjacent to
the single family residences.
·
(d)
That the exterior arclritectural appeal and fUnctional plan or any proposed structure will not be so
at variance with either !he exterior arclritectural appeal and functional plan of the structures
already constructed or ill .!he course of construction in the immediate neighborhood or !he
character of the applicable district, ·as to cause a substantial depreciation in the property values
Within !he neighborhood. Conditional use will be similar to that ot previous tenants. Exterior of the property
will b'e improved, tastefully done and in harmony with exts!lng properties. Ae•ght, scale and mass
of the existing structure will not be changed.
Page 5 of 9
(e)
That adequate utilities, access roads, parking, drainage and necessary facilities have been or are
being provided.
Conditional use will be similar to previous uses
(f)
That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in tbe public streets.
Conditional use will be similar to previous uses. Additionally, ample bike rack parkmg Will be
provided to encourage biking and reduce vehicular traffic.
(g)
That the conditional use shaH, in all other respects, confonn to all the applicable regulations ofthe
district in which it is located.
(h)
Public access shall be provided in accord~ce with the recommendations of the Town's Land Use
Plan and Access Plan and/or the present amount of public access and public parking as exists
within the Town now. If any recommendations are found in conflict, the system requiring the
greatest quantity and quality of public access, including parking, sball govern.
(i)
That the proposed use be consistent with the recommendations and. policy statements as described
in the adopted Land Use Plan. ~c:-::c===~=-------------
SITE PLAN INFORMATION
A site plan of the proposed project prepared by a professional engineer, registered land mrrveyor or architect
drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals thirty feet (1 "=30'). The site plan shall be based on the latest tax
map infonnation. The site plan must contain the following infonnation. WE SUGGEST YOU KEUNG A
DRAFT SITE PLAN TO PLANNING AND INSPECTIONS FOR REVIEWPRIOR TO PRIN11NG THE
FINAL COPIES FORDISTR113UTIONl ·
(1)
A key map of the site with reference to surrounding areas and existing street
locations.
Page 6 of 9
(2)
The name and address of the owner and site plan applicant, together with the
names of the owners of all contiguous land and of property directly across the
street as shown by the most recent tax records.
(3)
Lot line dimensions.
(4)
Location of all structures, streets, entrances and exits on the site and on contiguous
property and property directly across the street.
(5)
Location of all existing and proposed structures, including their outside
dimensions and elevations.
(6)
Building setback, side line, and rear yard distances.
(7)
All existing physical features including streams, water courses, dunes, existing
trees greater than one (I) inch in diameter measured six (6) feet above ground
level, and significant soil conditions.
(8)
Topography showing existing and proposed contours at two (2) foot intervals. All
reference bench marks shall be clearly designated.
(9)
Parking, loading, and unloading areas shall be indicated with dimensions, traffic
patterns, access aisles and curb radii.
(I 0)
Improvements such as roads, curbs, bumpers, and sidewalks shall be indicated
with cross sections, design details, and dimensions.
(11)
Location and design of existing and proposed storm water sysiems, sanitary waste
disposal systems, water mains and appurtenances and methods of refuse disposal
and storage.
(12)
Landscaping and buffering plan showing what will remain and what will be
planted, indicating names of plants, trees· and dimensions, approximate time of
planting, and maintenance plans.
(13)
Lighting details indicating type of standards, location, radius of light, and intensity
in foot candles.
(14) · Location, dimensions, and details of signs.
(15)
North arrow.
(16)
Public access shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the
Town's Land Use Plan and Access Plan and public parking as exists within the
Town now.
(17)
A rendering or drawing oLthe proposed building shall be provided showing all
Page 7 of 9
sides ofthe proposed s1ructure.
NOTICE TO ADJOJNING PROPERTY OWNERS
The Town of Wrightsville Beach will notify adjoining property owners of presentation of this application to the
Planning Board and Board of Aldermen. Adjoining property is all property contiguous and across the street from
the subject property. Please submit with your application two sets of plain letter sized envelopes, stamped
(not metered), unsealed and addressed to the adjacent property owners as shown on the New Hanover
County tax listing and bearing the return address of the Town of Wrightsville Beach. Attach a· list of the
·
adjoining property owners to this application.
FEE
The processing fee for a Conditional Use Permit application is $400. A check payable to the Town of
Wrightsville Beach must accompany this application.
SIGNATURE
This sigoature accompanies the application, fee, statement of standards and site plan which comprise the
Conditional Use Permit Application to the Town of Wrightsville Beach.
**I understand that the fee for this application is non-refundable.** ~
(Initial)
**I furthermore certify that I am authorized to grant and do in fact grant permission to Planning
Staff'and his/her a ents to enter on the aforementioned la~nnection with evaluating
·· inf
ali relat d to this permit application.**
=
(Initial)
q!Jgb4
Datb
Date of Submission to Town
Amendments to the original application have been initialed and dated where they appear. This application
supercedes the original application as sigoed and dated above.
Owner's Sigoature
Date
Representative/Agent
Date
Date ofRe-Submission to Town·
Page 8 of 9
Town of Wrightsville Beach
AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF AGENT
Beach Haven; LLC I Arborgate Properties, LLC I
,~
Isabella Holdings, LLC
., does hereby· appom·t
,
d
The unders1gne o>mer, ----------------~·
_R_u_ss_e_II_B_e_nn_e_tt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as his, her, or its exclusive agent for the purpose
of petitioning the Town of Wrightsville Beach for approval of a Conditional Use Permit, as applicable
jo the property h~ving the address of 210 1212 Causeway Drive and descn'bed in the attached petition.
The owner does hereby covenant and agree with the Town ofWrightsvilie Beach that said ·agent has the
authority to do the followiog acts for and on behalf ofthe owner:
(1)
To submit a proper petiti~n and the required supplemental materials; and
(2)
To appear at public meetings to give ~epresentation and commitments on behalf
of the oWner; and ·
(3)
To accept conditions or recommendations made for the issuance of the
Conditional Use Pennit on th~ owner's property; ant\
(4)
To act on the owner's behalfwithoui limitations with regard to any and all things
directly or indirectly connected with or arising out of any petition.
This agency agreement shall continue in effect until final disposition of the petition submitted in
conjunction with this appointment.
'·
Date:
9- /!J -{y
Agent's Name, Address & Telephone:
Russell Bennett·
3124 Marshall Boulevard
Sullivan's Island, sc 29482
843.224.8494
* If the ·owner is an individual, the owner (or all owners if ther~ is more than one) must sign the
authorization. 1f a cmporation, print the na]ne of the coiporation and have signed by an authorized
officer. If a partnership, print the 'lame of the partnership and haye signed by an authorized partner.
Page 9 of 9
List of Adjoining Property Owners
Thomas J. Young
206 Causeway Drive
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Sea Crest Properties, LLC
213 Sea crest Drive
Seacrest Villas COA
211 Seacrest Drive
li.
I.
I.
J
I.
..
;.
i .
:lt'
/
~~
,.>a
J!
~~
/
/
/
K'£
'""'
~~
ORDER GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO BEACH HAVEN, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 212 OLD CAUSEWAY DRIVE,
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Board of Aldermen of the Town of Wrightsville Beach,
public hearing on November 12,
2009 to consider the request
held a
submitted by
Beach Haven, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a meeting
and
events
wrightsville
center
at
Beach,
NC.
property
Having
located
heard
at
all
212
the
Old
Causeway
evidence
and
Drive,
arguments
presented at the hearing, the Board of Aldermen makes the following Findings
of Fact and draws the following Conclusions:
1.
use
does
namely,
It is the Board of Aldermen's Conclusion that the proposed
satisfy the first
general
requirement
listed in
the
Ordinance;
that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional
use will
not be detrimental
to or endanger the public health,
safety or
general welfare.
Findings of Fact to support this Conclusion:
A. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to
operate a meeting and events center in an existing 4,087
square foot building which was formerly the location of
the Olympia Restaurant. The lot in question is zoned
Commercial District III.
B. The legal description of the property for which this
permit is sought is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
C. This property is part of a larger tract for which the
Town has previously issued a mixed use conditional use
permit. That mixed use conditional use permit remains in
effect. Notwithstanding the existence of the prior permit,
the Board of Aldermen is granting this permit subject to
the conditions as set forth herein.
Except as otherwise
provided herein, no permit for construction pursuant to
the previously issued mixed use permit will be issued
until
this
permit
is
surrendered and
terminated.
Additionally, under no circumstances shall the use
permitted by this conditional use permit be allowed as
part of the previously approved mixed use project.
D. The location is intended to host events such as wedding
receptions, luncheons and business meetings.
No food
will be prepared on site.
E. The existing parking lot provides 40 off-street parking
spaces which will permit up to 160 persons to assemble in
the business.
This number could decrease based on a
maximum occupancy determined by the New Hanover County
Fire Marshall.
F. Except for cosmetic improvements, the exterior appearance
of the existing structure will not be changed.
,-
2.
use does
satisfy the second general
namely,
that
enjoyment
already
of
the
conditional
other
permitted,
property
nor
use
in
diminish
requirement
will
the
not
be
immediate
or
impair
listed in the Ordinance;
injurious
vicinity
property
to
the
use
for
the
purposes
values
within
and
the
neighborhood.
A. The Findings of Fact set forth in the preceding paragraph
are incorporated herein by reference.
B. No food may be prepared at this location.
be brought to the location.
All food must
C. The applicant will be required to comply with the Town's
nuisance ordinances which permit excessive noise in
conjunction with activities at this site.
D. While alcoholic beverages may be consumed in conjunction
with activities carried on at this location, no alcoholic
beverages will be sold at this location.
3.
use
does
namely,
satisfy the
that
the
third general
requirement
conditional use will
not
listed in
impede
the
the normal
ordinance;
and orderly
development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted
in the district.
A. The Findings of Fact set forth
in the preceding
paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
B. The exterior dimensions of the existing structure will
not be altered and the parking that previously was
utilized at this site will be utilized for this new use.
C. No other changes to this property or the surrounding
property are anticipated in conjunction with this use.
4.
use
does
namely,
It is the Board of -Aldermen's Conclusion that the proposed
satisfy the
fourth general requirement
listed in the ordinance;
that the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of any
proposed structure will not be so at
architectural
appeal and functional
variance
plan
with either
of
the
the
exterior
structures
already
constructed or in the course of construction in the immediate neighborhood
or
the
character of
the
applicable
district,
as
to
cause
depreciation in the property values within the neighborhood.
2
a
substantial
A. The Findings of Fact set
forth in the preceding
B. The exterior architectural features of the existing
building, except for cosmetic improvements, will not be
altered.
5.
use
does
namely,
satisfy the
that
fifth general
adequate utilities,
requirement
access
roads,
listed in the
ordinance;
drainage and/or necessary
facilities have been or are being provided.
A. The Findings of Fact set forth in the preceding
B. No food will be prepared on site and therefore facilities
normally required for food preparation vlill not be
necessary.
C. The number of persons utilizing
limited by the available parking.
6.
use
does
the
facility will
be
satisfy the
sixth general
requirement
namely, that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress
and egress
so designed as
to minimize
traffic
congestion
in the
public
streets.
B. There is currently access to the available parking and
that access will continue as it is currently structured.
7.
use does satisfy the seventh general requirement listed in the ordinance;
namely, that the conditional use shall in all other respects conform to all
the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
B. The proposed use must comply
applicable to this property.
3
with
all
regulations
8.
satisfy the eighth general
use does
namely,
that
public
access
shall
requirement
be
provided
in
accordance
with
the
recommendations of the Town Land Use Plan and Access Plan and/or the present
amount of public access and public parking as exists within the Town now.
A. The Findings of
Fact set forth in the preceding
B. Public access and public parking are not issues related
to this use and therefore this requirement is not
applicable.
9.
use
does
namely,
satisfy the
ninth
general
requirement
listed in
the
ordinance;
that the proposed use shall be consistent with recommendation and
policy statements as described in the adopted land use plan.
B. The proposed use is consistent with the Town's existing
CAMA Land Use Plan.
Therefore,
because
the
Board
of
Aldermen
concludes
that
all
general and specific conditions precedent to the issuance of a Conditional
Use Permit have been satisfied,
IT IS ORDERED that the application for the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit be granted,
subject to the following
conditions:
a.
That applicant shall fully comply with all of the specific
requirements stated in the ordinance for the proposed use,
as well as any
additional conditions stated below.
That if any section,
subsection, paragraph,
sentence,
b.
clause, phrase or portion of this Permit is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent. jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed severable and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions hereof.
c.
That the project shall be developed in accordance with the
I
plan as submitted and approved.
d.
That this Conditional Use Permit shall comply with all other
supplemental regulations and requirements imposed by the Zoning Ordinance or
any other applicable federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulations.
4
In
the
event
of
a
conflict,
the
more
stringent
requirement
or
higher
standard shall apply.
e.
Other conditions:
(i)
No permit
for work under
the mixed use conditional
permit previously issued that encompasses the property which is the subject
of
this
permit
shall
be
issued
until
cancelled by the property owner;
(ii) Notwithstanding
the
permit
is
surrendered
and
provisions
of
subsection
(i)
this
above, a permit for demolition of the former Middle of the Island Restaurant
location
may
be
issued
prior
to
surrender
and
termination
of
this
conditional use permit;
(iii) Nothing contained in this permit shall be construed to
extend the life of the mixed use conditional use permit previously issued as
described hereinabove; and
(iv)
The
use
permitted
herein
shall
not
be
allowed
in
conjunction with the 'mixed use permit previously issued for this property
unless such mixed use permit is amended in the future in accordance with
applicable Town ordinances.
Ordered this
I fJ 7il
fOL
day of November, 2009.
ATTEST:
5
(
The signatures of the applicant and property owner below indicate
that the applicant and property owner have received this Conditional Use
Permit
together
with
all
attachments.
Any
violations
of
the
stated
conditions will render this Permit null and void.
To be valid, this permit
must be signed below by the applicant and owner and returned to the To~m
Clerk's Office within thirty (30) days of the date of approval as indicated
below.
This
Permit will
expire
six
(6)
months
from
the date
expiration
begins as indicated below if vlithin that six-month period a building permit
has not been granted.
not
commenced
within
The building permit will expire i f construction is
six
(6)
months
from
the
date
of
issuance
of
the
building permit.
/2~/;u I a cJtJtft
Date of Appfoval
Address
M.. fl~a!~
d-1~ 00
Cl:ut£cway=tbl
Address
/~~~
Note: If you are dissatisfied with the decision of this Board, an appeal may
be taken to the Superior Court of Ne~ Hanover County in accordance with
the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e). See § 155.106 of the
Wrightsville Beach Town Code.
6
Land Surveyors, Engineers, Land Planners
February 25, 2005
Re: Description of lot 54 and part of lot 53, Shore Acres, Extension of
Development 3
A certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in Wrightsville Beach, New Hanover County, North
Carolina, and being the same tract as described in deed book !590 page 702, Records of New Hanover
County, North Carolina, and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southern right of way of US Highway #76 said point located the following
bearing and distance from the intersectioll of the eastem right of way line of Keel Street (50' right of way
as shown on map ofShore.Acres, Extension of Development 3 as shown at map book 7 page 74, Records
of New Hanover County) and the southern right of way of us Highway #76, S 51-00-00 E a distance of
300,00 ft to the point of beginning:
Proceed thence with said right of way of US Highway# 76 S 51-00-00 E a distance of95.00 ft. to a point,
thence leaving said right of wayS 36-08-15 W a distance of 100.12 ft. to a point, thence N 51-00-00 W a
distance of I00.00 ft. to a point, Utence N 39-00-00 E a distance of 100.00 ft. to the point of beginning and
containing 0.22 acres, according to computations by Hanover Design Services, P.A. in Febrnary of2005.
319 Walnut Street
Wilmington, N.C. 28401
{910) 343·8002
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Applicable Codes:
International Building Code
2012 Edition
International Existing Building Code
2012 Edition
International Fire Code
2012 Edition
International Mechanical Code
2012 Edition
International Plumbing Code
2012 Edition
International Energy Conservation Code
2009 Edition
MARK
DATE
Town of Wrightsville Beach 2014.10.22
CUP application
CUT LINE
1
DESCRIPTION
POE'S TAVERN
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH • NC
AFF
BFE
BLDG
CIP
CJ
CL
CLG
CMU
CONC
CPT
CT
D
DIM
DN
DTL
EA
EJ
EXT
FIN
FLR
FT
GB
GYP BD
HC
IN
INT
MO
MSL
Above Finished Floor
Base Flood Elevation
Building
Cast in Place
Control Joint
Center Line
Ceiling
Concrete Masonry Unit
Concrete
Carpet
Ceramic Tile
Dryer
Dimension
Down
Detail
Each
Expansion Joint
Exterior
Finish
Floor
Feet
Gypsum Wall Board
Gypsum Wall Board
Handicapped
Inches
Interior
Masonry Opening
Mean Sea Level
N/A
NIC
NTS
OC
OD
OPP
PT
PT
REF
RM
RO
SF
SIM
SPECS
STD
STL
SV
T.O.
T.O.C
T.O.S
T.O.W
T&G
TEL
TYP
VCT
W
WD
Non Applicable
Not in Contract
Not to Scale
On Center
Outside Diameter
Opposite
Paint
Pressure Treated
Refrigerator
Room
Rough Opening
Square Foot (Feet)
Similar
Specifications
Standard
Steel
Sheet Vinyl
Top of
Top of Concrete
Top of Steel
Top of Wall
Tongue and Groove
Telephone
Typical
Vinyl Composition Tile
Washer
Wood
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
ABBREVIATIONS
TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH BUILDING DEPARTMENT
O C T O B E R
!
A001
A002
A003
A004
D101
!
A101
!
D200
D201
!
A200
A201
!
A400
!
SP001
2 2 ,
2 0 1 4
SURVEY!
SITE PLAN - PROPOSED!
AREA PLAN - PARKING RADIUS!
LIFE SAFETY CODE!
!
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING !
PROJECT
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED!
ELEVATIONS - EXISTING!
ELEVATIONS - EXISTING!
54 SHORE ACRES, HIGHWAY 76
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NC
ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED!
ELEVATIONS - PROPOSED!
DETAIL!
SPECIFICATIONS
c 2014 All Rights Reserved, Kevan Hoertdoerfer Architects
CUT LINE
GENERAL NOTES
A. Lot information: !
!
B. All dimensions to face of block or stud unless noted
otherwise. !
!
MARK
SCALE: NTS
PROJECT SITE
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
D1
DATE
CUP application
1
AERIAL PHOTO
DESCRIPTION
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
SEALS
PROJECT
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
A001
A1
SURVEY - EXISTING
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
SURVEY
GENERAL NOTES
!
otherwise. !
!
!
PARKING REQUIREMENTS !
!
Restaurants - 1 space per 4 patrons of total occupancy count, plus
half the number of employees at time of greatest shift!
!
!
Total Occupancy
230 / 4 =
58!
Employees at largest shift
18 / 2
=
9!
Total parking required =
67 !
!
!
PARKING PROVIDED!
!
On site parking spaces
=
21!
!
Public parking spaces within 400 feet
=
65!
MARK
SCALE: NTS
PROJECT SITE
U
S
H
W
Y
76
PROPERTY LINE BE BE ABANDON!
PENDING ZONING APPROVAL
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
D1
DATE
CUP application
1
AERIAL PHOTO
DESCRIPTION
ISSUE
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE!
PENDING ZONING APPROVAL
SEALS
15
'-0
"F
RO
NT
SE
TB
A
CK
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
ho
20
od
lin
e
ab
ov
e
'-0
"S
ID
E
SE
TB
AC
K
PROPOSED dumpster pad location
PROPOSED landscape buffer
20
'-0
"R
EA
R
SE
TB
A
CK
EXISTING wood fence to remain
PROJECT
10
'-6
"
2
SI 0'-0
DE "
SE
TB
AC
K
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
SE
A1
SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
A
C
R
19
'-3
1/
4"
ES
T
D
10.22.14
1/30/08
R
IV
E
khh/ar/tp
1411
A002
SITE PLAN - PROPOSED
GENERAL NOTES
!
otherwise. !
!
400'-0" R
MARK
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
1
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
SEALS
PROJECT
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
A003
A1
PUBLIC PARKIGN WITHIN 400 FEET
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
PUBLIC PARKING
GENERAL NOTES
!
!
!
Chapter 3!
!
Occupancy:
General Assembly Group A-2 (Section 304): Restaurants!
!
!
!
Chapter 5!
!
Allowable Height and Building Areas for Group A-2 Occupancy !
(Table 503):!
!
(EXISTING STRUCTURE IS TYPE V)!
!
Type 2B construction allows 55’ ht. Above grade, 2 story; 9,500 SF area !
!
!
Actual Total Area:
1st floor GROSS SF:
3,850 SF +/-!
!
!
Actual Height: one story, 20’-0” feet +/- interior space!
!
!
!
Chapter 6!
!
Type V construction’s structural elements, exterior and interior walls are of any !
materials permitted by the code.!
!
Fire Resistance Rating Requirements for Building Elements (Table 601):!
Structural fame (columns, girders, trusses)
1 hr.!
Exterior bearing walls
1 hr.!
Interior bearing walls
1 hr.!
Non bearing walls
0 hrs.!
Floor construction including joists and beams
1 hr.!
Roof construction including joists and beams
1 hrs.!
!
Fire Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on !
Fire Separation Distance (Table 602): !
!
Group A Occupancy
<5 ft:
1 hr.!
≥5 ft but <10 ft:
1 hr.!
≥10 ft but <30 ft:
1 hr.!
≥30 ft:
0 hrs.!
!
!
Chapter 7!
!
Parapets shall be provided on all exterior walls and shall not be less than !
30” above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. !
(Section 704.11.1)!
!
Fire Resistance Rating Requirements for separating a single occupancy !
into different fire areas (Table 705.4, note a, and Table 706.3.9): !
!
Group A Occupancy, Type V construction
3 hrs. !
!
Fire Barrier walls shall extend from the top of floor to the underside of !
the roof deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. (Section 706.4)!
!
Openings in Fire Barrier walls shall be limited to a max. aggregate width of !
25% of the length of the wall and the max. area of any single opening shall !
not exceed 120 SF ( Section 706.7) Openings in exit enclosures shall also !
comply with 1019.1.1!
!
Fire partitions shall extend from the top of floor to the underside of the roof !
deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. If the partitions are not !
continuous to the deck, and where constructed of combustible construction, !
the space between the ceiling and the deck above shall be fireblocked or !
draftstopped in accordance with Section 717.2.1 and 717.3.1 at the partition line.!
!
Fire Door Protection Rating to be 1 1/2 hrs. for Fire Barrier walls having a !
required fire-resistance rating greater than 1 hr. (Table 715.3) !
!
Various Walls and Partitions to achieve 2 hr. Rated Fire-Resistance!
(Table 720.1, 13-1.2 or 14-1.5)!
!
!
!
Chapter 8!
!
Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish Requirements for Group A Occupancy, !
sprinklered (Section 803.1 and Table 803.9):!
!
Exit enclosures and exit passageways:
Class B!
Corridors:
Class B !
Rooms and enclosed spaces:
Class C !
!
hood line above
EXIT
FE
FE
FE
EXIT
EXIT
ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY
LEGEND
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
EXIT
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
FE
A1
emergency lighting
!
Kidde Pro !
340 3-A:40-B:C !
Fire Extinguishers
fire extinguisher
or approved equal!
mounted 48" aff w/!
clear indentification
illuminated exit sign
LIFE SAFETY PLAN
SCALE: N/A
A3
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
NO SCALE
Chapter 9!
!
Automatic Sprinkler Systems (Section 903.2): !
This building is required to be sprinklered.!
!
Standpipe Systems (Section 905.3.2): !
This building does not require a standpipe system.!
!
Portable Fire Extinguishers (Section 906.1): !
Portable fire extinguishers sha ll be determined in accordance with!
NFPA 10, (International Fire Code 906, State Fire Marshal Regulations).!
!
Fire Alarm and Detection Systems (Section 907.2): !
A manual fire alarm system is not required.!
!
!
!
Chapter 10!
!
Maximum Floor Area Allowances per Occupant (Table 1004.1.2):!
!
Kitchen Areas:
200 gross
800 SF = 4!
Storage Areas:
300 gross
375 SF = 2!
!
Seating Areas:!
!
Concentrated (chairs only):
7 net
195 SF = 28!
Standing Space:
5 net
380 SF = 76!
Unconcentrated (tables and chairs): 15 net
1,805 SF = 120!
!
Total = 230!
!
Total Occupancy based on occupant load =
230!
!
Egress Width with Sprinkler System (Table 1005.1):!
!
Corridors: 230 occupants (second floor only) X 0.2 inches/occupant = min. 46"!
!
The minimum corridor width shall be as determined in Section 1005.1, !
but not less than 44" (Section 1016.2)!
!
The means of egress shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet !
(Section 1003.2)!
!
The minimum width of each door opening shall be sufficient for the !
occupant load thereof and shall provide a clear width of not less than 32". !
The width of a swinging door leaf shall be min. 32" & max. 48" nominal. !
The height of doors shall not be less than 80" (Section 1008.1.1)!
!
A minimum of two exits or exit access doorways from any space shall !
be provided (Table 1018.1).!
!
Egress doors to be side hinged swinging. Hardware, including locks and latches, to meet
the requirements of Section 1008.1.8.!
!
Landing at egress doors shall not be less than the width of the stair or door, whichever
greater. Landings shall have a length measured in direction of travel of not less than 44".!
!
Exit Access Travel Distance (Table 1016.1)!
!
Group A Occupancy, sprinklered
max. 250'!
!
Corridor Fire-Resistance Rating (Table 1018.1):!
!
Group A Occupancy, Type V, sprinklered
0 hr.!
!
!
!
Chapter 15
!
!
Minimum Roof Covering Classification (Table 1505.1):!
!
Type V construction:
Class B !
!
!
!
Chapter 29 !
!
Fixtures located within unisex toilet rooms are permitted to be included in !
determining the minimum number of fixtures for assembly occupancies !
(Section 2902.1.1)!
!
Minimum number of fixtures (Section 2902.1): !
!
Assembly (A-2 restaurants):!
!
Water Closets: (occupanct load of 230)
1 per 75, =
2 required, male & female!
2 provided!
!
Lavatories:
1 per 200 =
2 required, male & female!
2 provided!
!
Drinking fountains:
1 per 500 =
1 required,!
1 provided, at bar!
!
Service sinks:
1 required,!
1 provided!
!
!
MARK
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
1
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
Project : 1411 - Poe's Tavern!
!
Town of Wrightsville Beach Building Code Inspection Department!
!
!
Contact:
Tony Wilson (ph 910 256-7937)!
!
Current Code: 2012 International Building Code!
!
!!
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
SEALS
PROJECT
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
A004
LIFE SAFETY PLAN!
BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS
81'-0"
6'-0"
12'-0"
3'-9 1/2"
7'-1"
GENERAL NOTES
6'-0"
10'-0"
A. Lot information: T.M.S. !
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
38'-1 1/2"
walk-in cooler
bathroom
110
14'-10"
107
Indicates demo scope!
!
bathroom
22'-10 1/2"
106
dining
102
vestibule
105
Indicates existing walls
Indicates new walls
"xxx"
Indicates room name & number
#
storage
X
Indicates wall type, see details on A110
"#"
Indicates door number, see schedule on A110
X
Indicates window number, see schedule on A110
109
server station
104
hood line above
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
1
kitchen
108
10'-2 1/2"
dining
102
entry / hostess
101
27'-7 1/2"
front patio
14'-6"
100
prep area
ware wash
111
112
T
O
N
walk-in cooler
113
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
50'-6"
MARK
bar
103
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
10'-0"
10'-0"
3'-9 1/2"
SEALS
side patio
9'-10"
115
20'-1"
PROJECT
15'-0"
68'-3"
10.22.14
1/30/08
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
20'-0"
20'-0 1/2"
18'-3"
21'-6 1/2"
6'-0"
FIRST FLOOR!
!
Gross Floor Area:
81'-0"
A1
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SQUARE FOOTAGE !
NOTE : ALL TERMITE DAMAGED WOOD TO BE REPLACED WITH MEMBERS OF THE SAME SIZE.!
TREATED LUMBER TO BE USED WHEN ADJACENT TO MASONRY OR EXISTING FLOOR.
-- SF
khh/ar/tp
1411
A101
FIRST FLOOR PLAN!
PROPOSED
GENERAL NOTES
A. Lot information: T.M.S. 4600401001!
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
EXISTING metal roof
5v crimp metal roof
CLG. HEIGHT
14'-9"
1'-0"
MARK
DATE
CUP application
1
wood post and framing
DESCRIPTION
exposed steel frame
10'-0"
glass garage door
wood slat fence
FIRST FLOOR
A2
EAST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
EXISTING stucco wall
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1'-0"
SEALS
CLG. HEIGHT
10'-0"
14'-9"
PROJECT
FIRST FLOOR
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
A200
A1
SOUTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ELEVATION - EXISTING
GENERAL NOTES
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
CLG. HEIGHT
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
1
10'-0"
14'-9"
1'-0"
MARK
A2
WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
FIRST FLOOR
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1'-0"
SEALS
CLG. HEIGHT
10'-0"
14'-9"
PROJECT
FIRST FLOOR
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
A201
A1
NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
81'-0"
9'-3 1/2"
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
5'-3"
15'-1 1/2"
6'-7"
10'-5 1/2"
Indicates demo scope!
5'-11"
!
Indicates existing walls
Indicates new walls
"xxx"
Indicates room name & number
#
Indicates wall type, see details on A110
"#"
Indicates door number, see schedule on A110
X
Indicates window number, see schedule on A110
13'-1"
36'-2 1/2"
X
MARK
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
11'-7 1/2"
15'-2 1/2"
22'-3"
50'-6"
20'-2"
1
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
3'-10"
3'-10"
SEALS
19'-9"
13'-6 1/2"
18'-8"
6'-1"
20'-2 1/2"
6'-0"
81'-0"
MARK
TYPE
DESCRIPTION
WALL
REMOVE EXISTING DRYWALL, FRAMING, INCLUDING
ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING WITHIN. PROVIDE
TEMOPORARY SUPPORT AND FRAME DOOR OR CASED
OPENINGS AS REQUIRED.
2
DOOR
REMOVE EXISTING DOOR. SAVE ALL HARDWARE FOR
REUSE. REUSE WHERE POSSIBLE.
3
WINDOW
4
CABINETS
5
SEATING
1
PROJECT
REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW. PROVIDE TEMPORARY
SUPPORT AND FRAME FOR NEW WINDOWS.
REMOVE BUILT-IN CABINETS, BAR, EQUIPMENT.
INCLUDING ALL PLUMBING AND ELECTIRCAL.
REMOVE EXISTING BOOTH, BENCH, FIXED TABLE.
SAVE FOR REUSE WHERE POSSIBLE.
6
FLOOR
DEMOLISH EXISTING FLOOR AREA. SEE INTERIOR
ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN.
7
PLUMBING
REMOVE EXISTING PLUMBING. CAP ALL LINES AND
SAVE FOR REUSE WHERE POSSIBLE.
8
ROOFING
REMOVE EXISTING METAL ROOFING. ALL RAFTERS
AND STRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS TO REMAIN.
10.22.14
1/30/08
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
NOTE : ALL TERMITE DAMAGED WOOD TO BE REPLACED WITH MEMBERS OF THE SAME SIZE.!
TREATED LUMBER TO BE USED WHEN ADJACENT TO MASONRY OR EXISTING FLOOR.
D1
FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SQUARE FOOTAGE !
FIRST FLOOR!
!
Gross Floor Area:
2,530
SF
khh/ar/tp
1411
D101
FIRST FLOOR PLAN!
EXISTING
GENERAL NOTES
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
EXISTING metal roof
CLG. HEIGHT
14'-9"
1'-0"
MARK
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
1
10'-0"
EXISTING stucco siding
FIRST FLOOR
D2
EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
EXISTING stucco wall
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1'-0"
SEALS
CLG. HEIGHT
10'-0"
14'-9"
PROJECT
FIRST FLOOR
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
D200
D1
SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
GENERAL NOTES
!
otherwise. !
!
!
!
CLG. HEIGHT
DESCRIPTION
DATE
CUP application
1
10'-0"
14'-9"
1'-0"
MARK
D2
WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
T
O
N
R
O
F
N
O
C
U
R
ST
N
O
I
T
C
CUT LINE
FIRST FLOOR
ISSUE
SCHEMATIC DESIGN
1'-0"
SEALS
CLG. HEIGHT
10'-0"
14'-9"
PROJECT
FIRST FLOOR
10/22/14, 12:28 PM
10.22.14
1/30/08
khh/ar/tp
1411
D201
D1
NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

not for construction

Transcription

Similar documents

Villasimius centro tipico appartamento. - sardinien

You`re invited to the 3nd annual Weenie Roast

BROCHURE-ACQUALINA MIAMI

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Sembawang Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Litchfield Beach Access

Jul 5, 2016 - Wrightsville Beach