The Blowing Rock Planning and Zoning Board met on Thursday, July 18, 2002. Chairman Greene called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were George Snyder, Paul Peterson, Albert Yount, Bill Parker, Ron Oberle, Jim West, and Cobb Milner. Absent was David Cox and Dennis Quinn. Staff present were Kevin Rothrock, Planning Director, Marion Rothrock, Town Engineer and Sonya Long, Administrative Assistant.

Mr. Parker asked that the minutes be changed to say Bill Parker instead of Bob Parker.

Mr. Milner made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Mr. Peterson. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Rothrock explained that in the past Town Council had urged developers to choose other suitable roofing materials instead of metal standing seam on some commercial projects. Section 16-302.05(B) permits metal standing seam to be used on commercial buildings. To further clarify the Town’s position with regard to metal standing seam roofs, staff recommended amending Section 16.302.05(B) of Article XVIII (B) – Commercial Design and Appearance Standards. The new language would remove metal standing seam as an appropriate roof material.

Mr. Rothrock stated that the Town Council at their last meeting forwarded this information to the Planning Board for review and recommendation.

Mr. Peterson stated the town was becoming too restrictive.

Mr. Earl Horne questioned the use of certain types of materials for flat roofs. Stating that in some cases, metal standing seam would need to be used on flat roofs and that most of those types of roofs can not be seen.

Mr. Derald West asked that the ordinance be left as it is written now. He stated that metal standing seem is used all over the world and that in the case of the First Baptist Church building, it would be a wise economical material since there was so much roof on that building. With no further discussion, Chairman Greene asked for a vote on Mr. Milner’s motion.

For the motion were Mr. Snyder, Mr. Yount and Mr. Milner. Against the motion were Mr. Peterson, Mr. Parker, Mr. Oberle and Mr. West. The motion failed therefore the Planning Board’s recommendation is to keep the ordinance as currently written.

Mr. Rothrock stated that Mr. James was requesting a minor variance from Section 16-265.10 of the Land Use Code. That section requires a minimum 30-foot vegetative buffer along all perennial streams. Mr. James is requesting the variance in order to place 120 linear feet of stream in a culvert, thus removing the 30-foot vegetative buffer. This request involves two (2) properties owned by Ms. Susie Underwood. One property is located on the corner of Hwy. 321 and Possum Hollow Road, while the other property is located off Possum Hollow Road just below the BREMCO substation.

Mr. Rothrock went on to explain that as a trade off for the variance, if approved, the applicant proposed to donate 1.43 acres adjacent to this area to the NC Wetland Restoration Program, NCDOT, or other suitable organization. The existing 725 feet of stream on this parcel will be restored and rebuilt to its natural state. He also stated that this variance was the first step in the development process. There would be several more steps and permits the applicant would need even before the conditional use permit process.

The applicant, Mr. James, stated they would donate the 1.43 acres but would not be able to complete the stream restoration project in conjunction with the stream culvert work as the staff recommended. Mr. James explained that they would be glad to design that work but due to the cost of the site work they would be doing, it would not be feasible to complete the restoration of the creek on the additional lot.

Mr. Peterson stated the Board should be dealing with the culvert issue only and leave the additional restoration up to the developer.

Mr. West stated he was comfortable with the recommendation from the staff, but had problems with the land being donated and conditions not put on that land for the project to be completed.

Mr. John Vilas, plan designer with the project, spoke next. He explained that there would be a lot of wetland provided up and down the stream compared to what is their now. It has been established that there is native Brook Trout in the creek and this project would re-establish the creek for the fish. Mr. Vilas stated that they would be looking to donate the land to an agency that needed a mitigation stream such as the Department of Transportation.

Chairman Greene stated she was uncomfortable with the donation of the creek with no conditions attached because it leaves to many unknowns.

Mr. Rothrock explained that the Board would need to vote on each Findings of Fact individually. The Board agreed.

1. There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Ordinance. In order to determine that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, the Board must find that the five following conditions exist:

Against: Mr. Oberle and Mr. Parker

Item A passed.

All were in favor.

Item B passed.

Item D passed.

For: Mr. Snyder, Mr. Peterson, Mr. West, Mr. Milner, and Mr. Yount

Against: Mr. Oberle and Mr. Parker

Item E passed.

2. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance and preserves its spirit.

For: Mr. Snyder, Mr. Peterson, Mr. West, Mr. Parker, Mr. Milner, and Mr. Yount.

Against: Mr. Oberle

Item #2 passed.

Page 4

July Minutes cont.

 

 

3. In the granting of the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done. The Board shall not grant a variance if it finds that doing so would in any respect impair the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Item #3 passed.

Mr. Parker made a motion that a condition be attached to the approval of the watershed variance; the Town receives an offer and acceptance by the entity prior to the beginning of the construction of the culvert. Seconded by Mr. Oberle. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. West pointed out to the applicant that when the conditional use permit is brought before the Board, they would need to provide the entity and the time in which they will being work of the adjacent property.

Mr. West asked to be excused from the discussion due to conflict of interest. All were in favor of Mr. West stepping down.

Mr. Rothrock reported that First Baptist Church was requesting to rezone a piece of property on Ransom Street adjacent to the church property. The property recently contained a single-family dwelling and is zoned CB, Central Business. First Baptist Church has also proposed to build a three-story addition on the adjacent property. Mr. Rothrock explained the reason the church requested the rezoning is to utilize the higher built-upon area of up to 70% impervious. Although First Baptist Church is proposing a new addition, the Board should consider the wide range of permissible uses associated with the Central Business zoning designation.

Mr. Rothrock explained that after further review of the request, the property would not have to be rezoned for the use or the impervious area. Staff would like to see the property zoned like the existing church property. Even if the Board did not approve the rezoning the proposed addition would not exceed the maximum impervious percentage and would still be able to continue with the conditional use permit process.

Mr. Peterson pointed out that if the church were to buy the next three lots that adjoin this lot, they could use the property and not rezone.

Mr. Snyder made a motion to approve the rezoning as presented, seconded by Mr. Parker. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Rothrock pointed out the two renderings on the board of the proposed addition. He stated that First Baptist Church was requesting a conditional use permit to build a three-story addition

and make renovations to the narthex area of the sanctuary. The church is requesting a reduction to the width of the southern boundary opaque landscape buffer from 16 feet to eight (8) feet. Mr. Rothrock added that the church parking appears to be inadequate in relation to the Land Use Code. Based on the parking standards and the current size of the building, the church is deficient 118 parking spaces. Due to the space there is really not enough property to add additional parking spaces. The church has arrangements with businesses to use their parking lots for Sunday services and they are proposing to add ten parking spaces along Ransom Street.

Mr. Derald West, architect for the project spoke next. He explained that the reason they were trying to reduce the 16 foot buffer area to 8 feet is in that particular area it is already very dense. Any additional buffer would only be hiding the existing landscaping. Mr. West stated that along that area where they would like a reduction of the buffer requirement, there was a condominium building with no windows facing the church. Therefore a reduction from the requirement would not affect the adjoining property and would be very beneficial to the church. He went on to explain that all building materials would match the existing church materials except for the metal standing seam roofing material proposed. This material would last a lot longer than shingles and the quality was much better.

Mr. Snyder pointed out that the parking spaces along Ransom Street would require the cars to back out into the street. Mr. Marion Rothrock stated that was usually discouraged but it already exist in that same location now.

Mr. Yount asked about the new concept of storm water detention in which the Town Engineer spoke about at their last meeting and if that had been considered with this project? Mr. Marion Rothrock explained that it would look like a depressed area in the lawn and will all most look like it does presently. Mr. Rothrock stated the Town Code requires is a concrete apron area in the middle of the detention and the applicant’s engineer had stated they would be reducing the slope in order for the apron not to show.

Chairman Greene stated she was concerned about the type of material proposed for the roof. She went on to explain that this particular building had a very large and noticeable roof and the metal would make a dramatic statement. She used the Bob Timberlake building as an example. Chairman Greene explained that they to had proposed standing seam metal and the Board had thought it would stand out to much. The Town Council approved a rubber slate shingle, which made a big difference to that building. Mr. Snyder also agreed with Chairman Greene.

Mr. Peterson stated that asphalt shingles were about the only other alternative and would look worse. Mr. West stated they had not thought about a fake slate shingle but that the color of the metal would match in color with the existing shingles.

Mr. Peterson made a motion to send the project forward as presented to the Town Council, seconded by Mr. Milner. For the motion were Mr. Peterson, Mr. Yount, Mr. Parker, Mr. Oberle and Mr. Milner. Against the motion was Mr. Snyder. The motion passed.

Mr. Rothrock reported that the Blowing Rock School requested a major amendment to their existing conditional use permit to add 24 parking spaces in the lot adjacent to the school gym. Parking lot trees, coach lights, and storm water detention would be provided. Currently the school uses this gravel lot for parking but obtained no permit to do so. The school has now proposed to construct a parking lot that meets the standards defined in the Land Use Code.

The Board did discuss adding an additional sidewalk along the new parking lot and going all the way to Sunset Drive, along the school. Mr. Peterson stated that any type of sidewalk to Sunset Drive would only encourage people to access the school.

With some discussion, Mr. Oberle made a motion to recommend approval of the plans as submitted, seconded by Mr. West. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Rothrock reported that the Blowing Rock Hospital was requesting a conditional use permit to add a new emergency room wing and entrance to the existing hospital emergency area located off Chestnut Drive. Additional parking spaces, new sidewalks, and landscaping will be provided with this project. The applicant has planned to provide the required storm water detention underground.

Mr. Peter Wasmer, architect for the project, stated that there would not be additional parking spaces. There are 14 parking spaces that exist and they would be coming back with 12 spaces. Mr. Wasmer explained that the reason they are losing a couple of spaces is due to the required handicap space and the ambulance turn around.

Mrs. Pat Gray, hospital administrator, requested removing the sidewalk going from Chestnut Drive to the Emergency Room entrance. Mrs. Gray stated the sidewalk would only take away from the existing green space and would rarely be used, especially during the winter. She explained that the renovation would consist of a new separate ambulance entrance, new CAT scan and new urgent care facility.

Chairman Greene stated she could see the sidewalk being used by people accessing the Emergency Room if parking in front of the medical clinic.

Mr. West stated that the existing parking around the emergency room entrance is now mostly employee parking. He questioned where those employees would be parking if that parking becomes public parking. Mrs. Gray stated the parking lot across the street would still remain employee parking since the development of Laurelmont Phase II will not begin until much later.

With no further discussion Mr. Oberle made a motion to recommend approval of the plans as submitted, seconded by Mr. Parker. All were in favor of the motion.

Mr. Rothrock explained that currently the Planning Board has one vacancy. The Town Council had requested that the Planning Board discuss and provide a recommendation on what the Board would consider to be the optimum number of Planning Board members. Currently, the Town code provides states that the membership shall be ten residents of Blowing Rock plus one representative from the Town’s extraterritorial planning area for a total of eleven members. If the Planning Board were to consider a reduction in members, that could be handled through attrition so that no current member would be removed from his or her seat on the Board.

Mr. West pointed out that eleven members gives the board a wide representation of different kinds of interest, but by reducing the number of members you still wouldn’t lose that variety. He suggested seven (7) to nine (9) members. Mr. Oberle agreed.

After some discussion, Mr. West made a motion to recommend to the Town Council that if they choose to reduce the number of members it shall be no less than nine (9) and that it reflect the General Statues, seconded by Mr. Snyder. All were in favor of the motion.

The Board reviewed another set of policy statements for the update on the comprehensive plan. They discussed municipal services.

Regarding number three (3) under A. General Services, the Board recommended moving the last two sentences to the Action Plan. They also made the following change to number five (5);

5. Inform all property owners of current issues, projects and upcoming events. (They removed "Implement a community newsletter to")

Under B. Water and Wastewater, they recommended deleting item number three (3). Under D. Other Services, the Board recommended deleting the last sentence in item A. The Board also recommended changing B. to read as follows:

2. Develop a household hazardous waste disposal program. (Deleting all other sentences).

Chairmen Greene congratulated Mr. Oberle on his recent award as Citizen of the Year.

With no further business, the Board adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

________________________________ ______________________________

Susie Greene, Chairman Sonya Long, Administrative Asst.