The Blowing Rock Planning and Zoning Board met on Thursday, May 16, 2002. Chairperson Susie Greene called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members present were Cobb Milner, Dennis Quinn, Bill Parker, Ron Oberle, Jim West, Paul Peterson, Albert Yount and David Cox. Member Mary Greene was absent. Staff present were Kevin Rothrock, Planning Director, Don Holycross, Town Manager and Sonya Long, Administrative Assistant.

Mr. Parker made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2002 meeting as submitted, seconded by Mr. Quinn. All were in favor.

Chairman Greene explained that Mrs. Mary Greene had resigned from the Board. She asked the Board members to contact Mr. Holycross with any suggestions of someone to complete Mrs. Greene’s term.

Mr. West reported that the Town Center Committee had met several times to discuss alternatives in applying setbacks and green space requirements in the proposed Town Center District. The following are the proposed recommendations.

1. To establish a setback along Main Street, use 15% of the average depth of the lot. This 15% will be required open space that must be placed along the front of the lot (along Main Street). Regardless of the required open space, a minimum setback of five (5) feet along Main Street will apply to all lots.

Chairman Greene recommended adding that if the lot line goes into the street, that area would be considered in the percentage to calculate the open space.

2. Along the side streets, 10% of the lot depth or a five (5) foot minimum setback must be observed.

Mr. Rothrock explained that the lot width would be in relationship to Main Street.

3. Within the required open space, the building may encroach into 50% of the lot width or depth, whichever applies. In no case, shall a building encroach closer than five (5) feet from the edge of pavement, back of sidewalk, or right-of-way, whichever is greater.

Mr. Cox wanted clarified if canopies or awnings would be included. Mr. Rothrock stated the committee discussed accepting that in the percentage.

4. If a building encroaches into the required open space setback, the required open space must be placed in the front 1/3 of the lot.

Mr. Rothrock stated they were trying to avoid putting the green space in the back with this provision.

Page 2

June 2002 Minutes cont.

 

 

5. Of the required open space, 50% must be planted green space with an emphasis on large, overstory, "anchor" trees.

 

6. Side and rear setbacks will be zero (0) or a three (3) foot minimum, whichever can be accommodated.

Mr. Rothrock explained this provision would be used if the applicant could not work out something with the adjoining property.

7. Open space and/or green space shall not be used for outdoor storage, outside dining, merchandising, etc.

Mr. West recommended adding "Required" at the beginning of item 7. Maybe this would prevent the required open space not covered in merchandise, tables and other items. Mr. Rothrock pointed out that this provision would apply to new development.

Mr. Rothrock discussed as examples the Village Shoppes and SouthMarke using the provisions above.

Chairman Greene stated she had concerns about the back/side lot lines between buildings. The Town is depending on the good will of the owners. Mr. Rothrock explained that it is actually putting the burden on the developer.

Ms. Sue Glenn commented that it seemed like it would be easier to apply the percentage of green space to the entire lot instead requiring the green area in the front setback. Mr. West stated that as long as you meet the 15% in the front area, you can then add it along the sides.

Mr. West made a recommendation that the Town Center Committee report go forward as submitted and that staff draft an ordinance that incorporates the items within that report. The motion was seconded by Mr. Oberle. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Holycross reminded the Board that all other zoning districts with no setback requirements would still needed to be looked at.

Chairman Greene recommended that a committee work on the other zoning districts and then report back to the Board as previously done. Mr. Oberle suggested that the current committee continue working on this item. The committee agreed. Chairman Greene also suggested that the committee address the zoning districts in this order, Central Business, General Business, Office Institutional, Hospital Medical and the Horse Show Grounds.

Mr. Rothrock stated that the possible adoption of new setback requirements in the non-residential districts of Town results in many nonconforming situations throughout these zoning districts. Many buildings are now built very close to the front or side property lines. Staff feels that it is critical to understand the language of our current non-conforming section of the code.

Mr. Rothrock read the definition of a Nonconforming Situation. He explained that in simple terms, the nonconforming section of the Town Code allows nonconforming structures to be built back to the existing footprint, although the Code does require the owner/developer to "comply to the extend reasonably possible with all provisions of this chapter applicable to the existing use". The Code doesn’t limit the flexibility to properties damaged by fire, flood, etc. The Code also allows nonconforming structures to be built back to existing footprints in reconstruction or redevelopment projects and only limits nonconforming situations from getting any worse in that the new building or renovation cannot increase the extent of a nonconformity.

Mr. Rothrock presented several different philosophies on repair and reconstruction to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Peterson questioned whether it was fair to make someone comply with the new Building Code if they exceed 50% of the appraised valuation in reconstruction. Mr. Rothrock explained that the current Code requires 25% of the appraised valuation and this would be increasing that percentage which makes it more flexible. The Board discussed changing "appraised" to "assessed."

Mr. Quinn suggested that the first thing an applicant should do to build back their building is try to comply with the current regulations. If they can show that they cannot reasonably comply with those regulations and still make it a viable economical enterprise, then they can ask for one of the other options presented.

Chairman Greene asked that staff provide some clarity of definition to "hardship" so that there are no misunderstandings.

The Board discussed this further. Mr. Quinn changed his motion to recommend Option #3 with flexibility of hardship, seconded by Mr. Oberle. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Oberle discussed expanding the Town limits out to the Blue Ridge Parkway. He was concerned of what might be developed right outside the limits. He asked that it become a high priority. Mr. Holycross stated that the staff would begin working on that project next.

Chairman Greene asked that the Board being thinking about a new Vice Chairman due to Mrs. Mary Greene’s resignation.

With no further discussion, Mr. Oberle made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. West. All were in favor of the motion.

_______________________________________ _____________________________