The most pressing topic at the meeting was the consideration of the Cape View Coastal parcel number 24 24 3723 cg11, located at the southeast corner of Rosland and Adams. The project proposes reducing the site’s density from 10 units to four, in line with the area’s R2 zoning classification, which permits up to 15 units per acre. This reduction aims to alleviate concerns about traffic and density, improving the overall quality of the neighborhood.

A detailed presentation by staff member Kyle outlined the project’s compliance with city codes, emphasizing its adherence to allowable density and comprehensive planning criteria. The parcel spans 28 acres and is surrounded by a mix of single-family, two-family, and multifamily residential developments. One of the main points of interest was the project’s impact on vacation rentals, which are a contentious issue in the area. Kyle assured the board that the minimum rental period of seven days imposed by the residential zoning would mitigate any concerns.

However, the discussion became particularly heated when it shifted to the project’s drainage and sewer plans. Concerns were raised by Board Member Miller and other participants about the proposed drainage swale system and its interaction with the existing sewer lines. An engineer representing the applicant, O Ro or Associates, explained the complexities of the sewer line connection, emphasizing that the existing retention pond was only 18 inches deep, while the sewer line needed to be at least four to five feet deep to function correctly. This depth discrepancy raised questions about the feasibility and future maintenance of the sewer line, especially if it were to run through the drainage area.

The engineer noted that the proposed plan would improve the drainage situation significantly, claiming a “200 to 300% improvement” over pre-development conditions, which had no stormwater management system. Despite this, the board expressed concerns about potential future problems with the sewer line and the impact on the drainage system. The board sought reassurance that any disturbances during repairs would be restored to their original condition.

Another point of discussion was the requirement for all on-site utility lines to be underground, as mandated by city code. There was some uncertainty about whether the utility plan explicitly stated this requirement, leading to suggestions that a clear notation be added to avoid confusion and ensure compliance with city codes.

The conversation underscored the need for reviews and clear communication between developers, the planning board, and city engineers. It was recommended that both the site plan and preliminary plat be presented together to the city council to ensure a comprehensive understanding and address all concerns before final approval. The board emphasized that the site plan approval should be contingent upon the council’s review and comments.

Following the in-depth discussion on the Cape View Coastal project, the board moved on to another significant topic: the ordinance amendment to permit rooftop amenities on multifamily mixed-use commercial buildings. This ordinance, previously discussed in earlier meetings, aimed to clarify language and conditions for rooftop developments. The intention is to allow observation decks and other amenities above the existing height limit of 65 feet, provided these structures do not contribute additional enclosed space beyond what is required for elevators and stairwells.

The board deliberated on the regulations, which stipulate that rooftop amenities may exceed the maximum height by 12 feet, while elevator and stair equipment can exceed this by up to 15 feet. The amenity area is limited to 50% of the roof’s total square footage, must remain open, and can feature open-air shade structures that are at least 50% open. These regulations aim to ensure stability during storms and compliance with existing lighting and safety codes.

A point of contention was whether these regulations should be confined to the Economic Overlay (EOC) District. Concerns were raised about the implications of allowing rooftop amenities along the beach, which could obstruct views and detract from the coastline’s aesthetics. The board ultimately decided to recommend to the City Council that rooftop amenities be limited to the EOC District, starting with a focused approach and potentially expanding in the future if deemed appropriate.