Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board defers TW's group development, cites architectural scale concerns
Summary
The Nags Head Planning Board deferred final action on a special-use site plan for TW's group development, expressing that building massing and roof design fail to meet the town's human-scale commercial design standards; staff asked the applicant to return with revised architectural drawings in February while keeping the public hearing schedule.
The Nags Head Planning Board on Monday moved to carry a special‑use site plan for the proposed TW’s group development forward toward a public hearing but said it could not recommend approval at this phase because the project’s architectural design does not meet the town’s commercial design standards.
Kelly, planning staff, summarized the application from Albemarle Associates on behalf of Coastal Blue Water LLC and TW’s Bay & Tackle: conversion of an approved 4,774‑square‑foot storage building into retail for a combined 14,024 square feet of retail and 4,250 square feet of storage, a new 6,750‑square‑foot detached building split into two units, and a 3,000‑square‑foot building with a 2,000‑square‑foot art gallery. Staff told the board the site meets flood‑elevation, parking and landscaping thresholds but flagged noncompliance with Article 10 Division 2 of the Unified Development Ordinance on massing and roof articulation.
"A lot of these criteria are met," Kelly said, "but the primary mass of the building reads as one large, monolithic structure and does not achieve the human‑scale intent in our code." Staff pointed to gambrel/metal roof forms, sidewall heights and limited porch depth as reasons the design does not read as residential in scale.
Applicant representatives, including architect Mark Kaston, said they had tried to incorporate residential cues and that the metal building choice was driven partly by economy and the need for flexible storage. "We're willing to work with staff to get something that might be more acceptable," Kaston said.
Board members pressed how on‑site accessory storage might affect parking minimums and whether the large amount of accessory storage risks being used as standalone fulfillment or warehousing for online sales. Kelly replied that the ordinance defines accessory as subordinate to the principal use and that, numerically, the site would provide 79 parking spaces versus an adjusted requirement of 77. Staff acknowledged the proposal pushes the envelope and suggested the UDO could be revisited in a future code amendment to clarify accessory thresholds.
Several members expressed broader concern about precedent and incremental intensity at the site. "This is a lot of development on this piece of property," one member said, adding that earlier approvals and subsequent changes to the site had made it difficult to see a stable, long‑term plan. The board’s dominant concern remained the architectural treatment and the project's visual scale.
Rather than approve at this stage, the board voted to move the application to the public‑hearing schedule and asked the applicant to return in February with revised architectural drawings that better address the town's human‑scale design intent. Motion maker: David Elder (board member). Outcome: motion carried by voice vote.
Next steps: applicant to submit revised architectural renderings for the February planning board meeting; the matter remains on track to go before the Board of Commissioners with prior public‑hearing scheduling.
