Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 14 1998 PC Minutes4-14-98 April 14, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 14, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; Mr, Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of March 31, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA SDP 98-028 Piedmont Regional Education Program - Burgess Lane School Preliminary Site Plan - One-way circulation waiver. SDP 98-023 Fried Family Farm Site Plan Waiver - Request for a waiver from the requirement for a full site plan to allow a fifth residence on one parcel. SDP 97-143 Henley Middle School Classroom Addition Site Plan Waiver - Request for a waiver from the requirement of a full site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1997 Planning Commission Annual Report Discussion: Burgess Lane School - Mr. Rooker asked staff to comment on plans to replace the trails which will be lost as a result of this project. Mr. Cilimberg said an alternative area and layout has been identified which will replace what is being lost. Annual Report - Mr. Tice asked that the name of his district be changed from "Charlottesville" to "Rio" to reflect a recent change in the name of the district. No other issues about any of the Consent Agenda Items were raised. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA 98-03 Lighting Ordinance - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors proposes to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article 11, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of 01sq 4-14-98 2 Albemarle, Virginia by adding a new section 4.17 Outdoor Lighting to require that certain outdoor luminaires (lighting fixtures) be fully shielded. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the ZTA as proposed in the staff report. Mr. Loewenstein commended staff for their work on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Rooker asked if any thought was given to applying any different standard to a luminaire at a higher elevation. Ms. Scala said the issue had been considered, but no reasonable solution was identified. Ms. Thomas added staff had considered a lot of associated issues which are not addressed by this ordinance, e.g. height of the pole or types of lighting. "The intent was to keep as close to the Resolution of Intent and get something streamlined and straightforward as quickly as possible." Mr. Rooker asked about multiple luminaires. He asked: "Is it a fact that 10 one thousand watt bulbs put out less light than one 4,000 watt bulb?" Ms. Scala explained staffs logic: "Commercial lamps typically are going to be above 3,000 lumens. It would be unusual for a commercial lamp to have a luminaire with several 1,000 lumen bulbs in it. It would be more typical to have several 3,000+ lumens. The only time it really comes into play is on a residential application. A typical example would be a corner floodlight on a house, which would have one luminaire with two arms for floodlights. We thought each bulb is slightly less than 3,000 lumens. If you added them together it might exceed 3,000 lumens, but what are the chances of them both being aimed in the same direction. It seemed kind of silly to try to get at that one particular problem. Probably the light shining in each direction is going to be less than 3,000 lumens. It's almost impossible to control floodlights on corners of houses. So we thought this would get at the larger problem which is how do we measure lumens easily. The best thing we came up with was to go by the lumen marked on the lamp or the manufacturers information rather than trying to measure it with a meter." She said staff does not anticipate instances where a commercial luminaire will have multiple lamps, with each lamp being under 3,000 lumens. Staff anticipates most commercial lamps that are installed will have to meet the Ordinance. Mr. Rooker suggested that the brochure describing the proposed Ordinance should be mailed out with tax bills, perhaps water bills. Mr. Finley asked for an explanation of the EPA's Green Light Program. Ms. Thomas said it is a program which, to date, has dealt mostly with indoor lighting and lighting efficiency, but which is now being expanded to address outdoor lighting. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on the waiver for athletic field lighting. Ms. Scala said this issue had generated a lot of discussion. She said some athletic field applications can meet this ordinance, others cannot (such as Scott Stadium). Tennis courts, recreational baseball, softball and soccer will be able to meet the ordinance. Problems ` occur with those sports which have spectators because you can't have poles as close to the field --they have to be set back and aimed down. After much discussion we decided to J-6d 4-14-98 3 put a specific waiver which says "the Commission may modify the standard upon finding that an outdoor luminaire or system of outdoor luminaires required for baseball, softball, football or soccer cannot comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the field for its safe use as determined by National Illumination Standards for that type of field and activity or other evidence. There are set standards in place which require certain foot candles for each type use. "We didn't want to exempt athletic field lighting totally, because a lot of it can meet our Ordinance. We thought with this specific waiver, what will happen is if someone came in and wanted to light a field, they could show you that either they can meet the Ordinance, or if they can not, they can request a waiver and show you they have provided the best lighting system they can do.... Our goal would be to get the best lighting system that we can get in place for the field." Ms. Scala said it is not anticipated that the waiver would be used often because there are few applications for athletic field lighting. Mr. Loewenstein asked what percentage of existing athletic fields will probably not be able to comply with the Ordinance. Ms. Thomas said she thinks Scott Stadium is probably the only field in the community which could not comply with the Ordinance, "depending on what the procurement requirements might be by the funding agency." She said "there appears to be a vendor who can meet this Ordinance with full cut-off luminaires (but) whether or not that meets standard procurement procedures is another matter because that is a different issue." Referring to 4.17.4(a)(2), Mr. Loewenstein said the term "safe use" is used "as determined by national illumination standards for that type of field and activity or other evidence." He asked staff to described what "other evidence" might consist of. He wondered if this definition will be easy to understand or does "safe use" need to be more fully defined. Ms. Thomas said she thinks Parks and Rec will be most comfortable adhering to a national standard, which is contained in a document entitled RP6 (Recommended Practice 6). That document is going to change soon and will allow more options for illumination levels on fields. She said she thinks we will probably stick with the standard pretty closely." Mr. Rooker questioned whether the words "or other evidence" should be included. Mr. Kamptner said staff wanted to "leave the door open" in case there is a field use for a purpose for which a standard may not exist, "but the recommendation will be to go with a national standard if it applies." Mr. Loewenstein was concerned about the potential for confusion which might be caused by the word "or," because it appears as though there may be a choice. Mr. Kamptner said "if a national standard exists, it will certainly be the recommended standard that is applied." Mr. Kamptner added: "Related to that, if there is a national standard, you probably won't have the discretion to deny the application." Mr. Tice injected: "Unless there is a technical alternative that would meet the standards." Mr. Rieley said he could foresee a situation where there might be a dual standard, e.g. Little League is adamant about 50-foot candles on the infield, 30 on the outfield, and it sounds like the national standard may change to 30 on the infield, 20 on the outfield. Mr. Thomas added: "The other point about this waiver is that if a system cannot fully comply with the Ordinance, it doesn't mean you can't require that it comply to the largest extent possible." To address Mr. Loewenstein's concern about potential confusion, Mr. Rooker suggested adding at the end of the sentence, if a national illumination standard is not applicable," so it is clear if the national standard is applicable, that is what you're looking at, but if it isn't, they could produce some other evidence to establish what a reasonable standard would be." Mr. Kamptner said Mr. Rooker's suggestion "may be limiting, because it is possible there may a-41 4-14-98 4 be both a national standard and a local standard that could be more stringent. When we are looking at safety, we will apply the common sense rule and whatever is the most stringent standard that exists will be the one that applies." Mr. Rooker said: "The standard seems to be permissive in getting the waiver, so I don't know how leaving it open could work to our advantage." Mr. Rieley suggested citing specific standards, e.g. Illumination Engineers Standard, which seems to be the one most widely recognized. Mr. Rooker said: "Another standard would be applied only if that didn't apply in this circumstance." Ms. Thomas said that might be the best approach. Mr. Tice asked if the language related to a modification or a waiver [4.17.4(a)(b)] allows the Commission to apply conditions related to hours of use. Mr. Kamptner responded: "We think you could impose reasonable conditions to address issues that may be related to the application. Mr. Rooker asked: If we granted a waiver we would be able to attach conditions to the waiver, without having to say anything here specifically about that?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "We can add some specific language." Mr. Rooker suggested adding to the end of the beginning statement of Sec 4.17.4 "...as provided herein, with such conditions as may be attached by the Commission." Mr. Tice added: "To further the purposes of the Ordinance." Mr. Kamptner said it had been unclear (from the presentation made by the lighting vendors during the previous week's work session) whether or not the existing systems available can adequately provide lighting for all types of athletic fields. He asked staff if there are any types of fields where they will never be able to comply with the standard proposed here. (He confirmed he was referring to systems which are currently available.) Ms. Thomas replied: "it doesn't sound like you could comply and adequately light a major league baseball stadium or possibly a minor league, because of television requirements, and also college football, for the same reason." She said the requirements for television lighting are the crux of the lighting standard. Mr. Kamptner said: "So other than those types of fields, any other type of field could comply with the standard." Ms. Thomas replied: "I think so." Mr. Tice asked if that would apply to golf driving ranges. Ms. Thomas said that question had not been raised with the vendors. Mr. Kamptner said: "With golf, if they are going to try to come up with some type of lighting that doesn't meet the standard, they would have to fall into the waiver requirement under 4.17.4(a)(1), as opposed to (a)(2), which is probably a more stringent standard." Having attended the lighting presentation, Mr. Rieley said he feels it is important to have the waiver provisions, but he thinks the language which has been proposed by staff is adequate. He said he thinks there will be some fields which will have a difficult time meeting the Ordinance without a waiver. He said even the proponent of the cut-off fixtures acknowledged it would be very difficult to meet the illumination standards without a waiver. Mr. Rooker asked if there should be a cost factor in the consideration of a waiver. He said this language says "to get the waiver you must show you can't meet the illumination standard and comply with the Ordinance, cost not being an issue." He said: "Suppose they can meet the standard but the lighting would cost three times what it would otherwise 4-14-98 5 cost. Is that something we should grapple with?" Ms. Washington, who had attended the presentation, said it did not appear cost would be a factor. Ms. Thomas said the shielded systems will be only 5% to 10% more expensive than a conventional system. Referring to Section 4.17.5(b), Mr. Finley and Mr. Rooker raised a question about the definition of "temporary." Mr. Finley wondered particularly how this might effect agricultural work. Ms. Scala said the language anticipates "unusual conditions where they would need extra lighting that they would put up and take down. We anticipate that if they have a permanent fixture, like a barn light, it would have to meet the Ordinance. " Mr. Loewenstein wondered if the lack of a clear definition for "temporary" might make enforcement more difficult. There was considerable discussion about how to define the word "temporary." Ms. Washington expressed concern about putting a time limit on projects, whether agricultural or construction projects, because she said there are a lot of "human factors" involved which are not controllable. Mr. Rooker felt there should be some guideline for what is "temporary" and "if you are going to exceed that, then we need a provision for granting a waiver." Mr. Tice asked if it is a significant problem for construction lighting to meet the proposed Ordinance for fully shielded lighting. If it is not a problem, he wondered if the exemption for construction lighting should be removed, with an allowance for a modification or waiver for those situations where the Ordinance could not be met. Ms. Thomas said she suspects most construction lighting would not meet the Ordinance, but she did not know whether or not it could meet Ordinance. On the issue of gas station canopies, Mr. Kamptner said it may be necessary to further define the definition of luminaire so that it is clear a gas station canopy cannot be considered a luminaire. Ms. Scala said she thinks it is clear that each lamp under a gas station canopy has its own luminaire. She explained: "They would either have to have flat lenses or be recessed in the canopy so the globe of the bulb wouldn't extend below the canopy." She said something may need to be added such as "All lenses shall be flush or flat with the bottom surface of the canopy." Mr. Rooker and Mr. Loewenstein felt additional language should be added so as to leave no doubt as to interpretation. Mr. Rieley said he would find it difficult to interpret the definition as presented as encompassing the entire canopy. He questioned whether any additional language is needed. Public comment was invited. Mr. Phil lanna, (UVA), who had assisted staff in the preparation of the proposed Ordinance, addressed the Commission. His answers to specific Commission questions were as follows- --IES stands for "Illuminating Engineering Society," which works hand -in -hand with the CIE (an international organization). He stressed that IES makes clear in all their literature about recommended practices that they are indeed "recommended practices" and are not "standards." They are guidelines. He suggested the reference to IES standards be changed to "recommended practices." Mr. Rieley said he thinks a lot of the 4-14-98 6 Parks and Recreation staff are very concerned, if there is a liability issue, that the IES's recommendations are the most widely accepted national guidelines which are accepted and they are very reluctant to use those as anything other than a "standard." Mr. lanna said it is not inconceivable that IES will continue to refer to them as "recommended practices" for liability reasons. --He doubted that any construction lights meet the standards. He suggested the possibility of a "vehicle with portable lights with full cut-off that would illuminate road work projects," but he was not aware of the existence of such a vehicle. ( In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, staff said they had not sought comments from VDOT regarding lighting of their road projects.) --On the issue of athletic field lighting, he said some communities have addressed this through a curfew in the lighting ordinance which requires that lighting (of playing fields) be turned off by 11:00 p.m. He said golf driving ranges are particularly difficult to light, but there are some ways to minimize the impact of the lighting. Mr. Ben Foster addressed the Commission. He questioned the derivation of the proposed Ordinance because he said he could not recall having heard any complaints about lighting in the County. He questioned whether the public wants this ordinance which will add another layer of bureaucracy to a county which is heavily bureaucratized already." He anticipated this ordinance will require a significant amount of additional county staff. Since there has been "no public outcry," he did not see the need for the ordinance. ' Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that a determination has been made the ordinance will create no additional work for the Engineering Department, but there may be some increase in Zoning Department staff time to handle residential complaints. Overall, staff believes there will not be a significant impact on staff time or staffing levels. Regarding the reason for the Ordinance, Ms. Scala said "the purpose was to protect the dark sky and to protect the general welfare by preventing the trespass of light onto adjacent properties, and to protect public safety, particularly safety of drivers in motor vehicles by preventing glare." Ms. Scala added that the Zoning Department does receive complaints about lighting. In response to Mr. Foster's request for examples of the kind of complaints which have been recieved, Ms. Thomas described the types of complaints which include both residential and commercial situations. She said though there may not have been a "public outcry," there are a number of sources supporting this ordinance, including the University. She said the University's McCormick Observatory has become less and less useful over time because of it's proximity to the City's lights. The University is now also concerned about the Fan Mountain Observatory. Another source of support was the Mountain Protection Committee. Also, the DIS Committee is studying design as it relates to in -fill, including the issue of privacy and intimate neighborhoods, and how to light neighborhoods without spillover onto adjacent developments. Mr. Loewenstein added that the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent in September 1996 to adopt an outdoor lighting ordinance, and their action was based, in part, on complaints which had been received. Mr. Foster said he feels there are many places the University could locate its telescope where it would not be impacted by lights. He said: "To put the rest of the population under the restrictions of this ordinance just so the University can see the stars doesn't 4-14-98 7 make any sense to me whatsoever. I would recommend that you get a public mandate to indicate that all this bureaucracy is needed. I don't think it is." Ms. Janice Jackwith, a Free Union resident, addressed the Commission. She disagreed with Mr. Foster's comments. She said an important part of the quality of life in her neighborhood is the starry sky. She said the industrial and commercial lights of Charlottesville have a great impact on residents of the County. She said she is proud to live in a county where this problem is being addressed. Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Charlottesville Area Board of Realtors and the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, addressed the Commission. He suggested action on this proposed ordinance should be deferred for the following reasons: --Surrounding jurisdictions do not yet have Dark Sky policies. --Though UVA may be exempt from this type of ordinance, it would good policy to work in tandem with UVA. --is Virginia Power "on board?" We should not wait until the Ordinance is passed before getting VEPCO involved. --The public information process that is supposed to be a part of this process should be taking place now. The Ordinance should not be passed until the public has been educated. --This is another example of piecemeal planning. "The real impact on dark skies will be the retro-fitting of existing lighting. A citizens' committee is supposed to be formed to address this issue. We think the policy for retro-fitting should go forward to the Board of Supervisors in tandem with this policy for new installations. It should be one complete Ordinance. "We suggest you defer action on this rather than send a piecemeal Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Chris Lee, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. He said the county's efforts to keep the skies lit with stars and not with excessive lights is appreciated by the Chamber. He said: "We hope we can work with Albemarle County staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to enact an ordinance that effectively provides for dark skies while not burdening our taxpayers or excessively restricting our businesses or public areas." He indicated he supported Mr. Watson's suggestions that it would be preferable to defer action until further input has been sought from the community and until a more comprehensive ordinance can be drafted. However, he said the Chamber does not have any significant concerns about the proposed ordinance and therefore decided they would "not resist it at this time." He said the Chamber believes waivers should be allowed and there have been some monetary concerns related to temporary lighting. He said there is no construction cut-off lighting available with a shielded fixture. Though it could probably be designed, it would be impractical financially. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Lee if he feels the proposed waiver provision related to construction is adequate. Mr. Lee responded: "For temporary lighting, yes." He indicated he feels the term "temporary" should be as broad as possible because some construction projects and highway projects will last much longer than a year. ��S 4-14-98 8 Regarding public input, Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that three work sessions have already been held on the proposed ordinance, so that has already been considerable opportunity for public comment. In addition, staff has consulted with many community members while they have been working on the ordinance. Mr. Lee added: "At the time that Senator Couric proposed State legislation to enable this ordinance, it was the understanding of the Chamber that there would be a committee established to draft the ordinance and the chamber expected there would be a place on that committee for a member of the Chamber of Commerce." Mr. Loewenstein said: "You are speaking of the retrospective lighting issue." Mr. Lee said: "At the time it had not been determined that you would break it into two phases. It was thought it would be a single ordinance and it was after that it was broken into two phases where this has been fast -tracked through the legislative process, and the retro-active, obviously, needs to be more thoroughly looked at. There are certainly issues involved with this ordinance that I think deserve a thorough review and would benefit from the review of a Citizen committee." Mr. David Sutton, representing Tiger Fuel Company, addressed the Commission. He said his company would be part of the "regulated community" which will be impacted by this ordinance. He said he has great concerns. Mr. Sutton's concerns, which he repeated several times, were as follows: --The Board of Supervisors, in 1996, indicated it was their intent to go forward with a comprehensive lighting ordinance. At that time the Chamber of Commerce (of which he was a member) was approached in 1996 and asked if they would support the enabling legislation to have a comprehensive lighting ordinance passed in the county. When the Chamber's Board was approached by the Board of Supervisors "there was absolutely no distinction made between whether it would be prospective or retrospective. It was just a comprehensive lighting ordinance that the Chamber was asked to support. The Chamber did support that proposal and was "a great help in getting that legislation passed." The Chamber's support was based on what was believed to have been a commitment on the part of the County, "a promise that there would be a Task Force formed to study this legislation, and that Task Force would have business representation upon it." He indicated he strongly feels it is a breach of faith to go forward with this legislation, piecemeal, without establishing that Task Force and without coming forward with a comprehensive piece of legislation." (Mr. Sutton repeated this concern several times and it appeared to be his major reason for opposing the proposed ordinance.) --Referring to Mr. Loewenstein's statement that there have been three work sessions on the proposed ordinance, he said he had no knowledge of any of those work sessions. He believed no members of the "regulated community" were represented at any of those work sessions. He said: I think it is unfair, or at least unwise, to proceed with these regulations without getting together a Task Force that includes a representation of the regulated community." --He believed a major component of the proposed ordinance is to protect public safety on the roads --protection from glare." He said his company has 30 or 40 canopies but he has never received a single complaint about glare from the canopies, and he is not aware of any safety problems that glare from canopies has caused. He said he .264 4-14-98 9 understands the desire to keep light from escaping upward, toward the dark sky, but he believed "a great deal of the impact of this ordinance is to stop any light which goes anywhere horizontal from the fixture, which is in no way diminishing the dark skies." (In response to these statements, Mr. Loewenstein later quoted the "Public Purpose to be Served" section of the staff report. He stressed that public safety on the roads is only one of three purposes listed, and is listed last.) Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Sutton if he was representing the Chamber at this time. Mr. Sutton responded: "I am not representing the Chamber tonight." Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Chamber had been represented by Ms. Linda McRaven at a work session held a couple of months ago and some of the specific suggestions made by Ms. McRaven have been incorporated into this proposed ordinance. Mr. Sutton said, based on his conversations with Jane Dittmar (President of the Chamber), he thinks she shares his concerns. Mr. Sutton again expressed his belief that the Chamber had understood it would be a part of a Task Force to study a Lighting Ordinance, and that Task Force was never created. Mr. Rieley asked by whom the commitment referred to by Mr. Sutton had been made. Mr. Lee, who had returned to his seat in the audience and was therefore difficult to hear, said it was his understanding the commitment was made by Charlotte Humphris and Emily Couric. Mr. Sutton said his comments were based on "his recollections of the representation made to the Chamber Board from Jane Dittmar, who had met with the officials." He did not know who the officials were. Mr. Tice asked Mr. Sutton if he was aware the Chamber had a representative on the Mountain Protection Committee (which "came up with the recommendation that this ordinance reflects") for two years. Mr. Sutton replied: "I'm not familiar with that at all." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Sutton if he was saying the Chamber's representation on the Mountain Protection Committee was not viewed as participation in the process. Mr. Sutton replied: "That is not what was represented to the Chamber. What was represented to the Chamber was that a Task Force would be created to study a specific lighting ordinance, and from that Task Force would come a recommendation. That's what was represented to the Chamber, and that has not been done." To address Mr. Sutton's statements about the process, Ms. Thomas offered the following explanation, "based on information in the file:" "Larry Davis (County Attorney) issued a memo that said the County at that time had the authority to regulate any new lighting, independent of new legislation. I don't believe Senator Couric had even been approached at that point about helping to pass this new legislation and, therefore, the Chamber really hadn't been involved yet. That was around the time of the adoption of the Resolution of Intent in September of 1996, that came out of the Mountain Protection Committee. I have also asked Sally Thomas about this because this has arisen more than once, and she said 'no', the idea was to pass a simple, straight forward ordinance that met the intent of the Board's resolution and to clarify what the County could do with respect to existing lighting. Mr. Davis, I think, felt there was a good chance that maybe we had the authority to regulate that, but just in case, let's clarify it and get some new legislation, and Senator Couric's and the Chamber's help was enlisted in that endeavor. And I believe the Task 4-14-98 10 Force that was referred to at that time always was intended to be associated with the retroactive ordinance, which everybody felt early on, would be more controversial.... I have gone back to Sally on this question just because it has come up and I wanted to be clear. But the County, with its existing authority could have pressed ahead at any time and just didn't get to it as quickly as we should have. That's how staff has seen it, based on the files and conversations with people involved with it. The Chamber may have interpreted it a different way, but I think that authority did exist prior to Senator Couric's bill." Mr. Kamptner confirmed the accuracy of Ms. Thomas' explanation and added: "The Ordinance that is in front of you --you are considering it as part of your zoning power, part of the Board's zoning power. The enabling authority that was adopted in the 1997 General Assembly is one that gives Albemarle County, and one or two other localities, authority to regulate outdoor fighting as part of its police power, and it has the retroactive application. I think it was the retroactive application under that authority which gave rise to the desire to form the Task Force. This ordinance, which is under the zoning power, acts only prospectively. It's only effecting new, in this case, luminaires." Mr. Cilimberg added: "I can tell you, from actually being in the Board of Supervisors meetings that the issue of lighting came up in 1996, from at least one Board member and maybe more, which posed the question of what could be done to deal with lighting, because there were concerns that Board members were hearing about lighting in the County. We explained what we were currently doing at that time under the existing Zoning Ordinance. What was done by the ARB, in review of Entrance Corridor site plans --which essentially is what this ordinance proposes to do in a more comprehensive fashion --and it was provided through the County Attorney's Office to the Board that we only had power, at that time, to regulate, through our Zoning Ordinance, new lighting. That is what led to the Board of Supervisors Resolution of Intent in September of 1996, which actually preceded any effort through the General Assembly of Virginia to get enabling legislation, which only one locality had at that time, to address retroactive, existing lighting. That was either Arlington County or the City of Alexandria. The County of Albemarle requested to be enabled as well to do that under a separate enabling power in the State Code. That came during that next General Assembly session and I believe Senator Couric was one of the sponsors of that bill. At that time, it is staffs understanding and the indication was given to us, if we got that legislation, in pursuing that local ordinance language we would have to use the Task Force of a variety of interests in addressing that. That is not to say the Board couldn't decide now they want to put it all together and do it, but that is not the direction that was given, based on the Resolution of Intent, and then in separate, later action regarding the new legislation in the Virginia Code. As Mr. Kamptner has pointed out, this is legislation proposed here under totally different power than what the legislation approved by the General Assembly for the County would enact. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors will hear these comments as well and will have to consider where we were in '96, what happened in '97, and where we are now --as to whether, at this point in time, we would adopt one piece of legislation, to be followed by another later. That has certainly been the direction that we have taken based on the actions that occurred over that time." At the conclusion of staffs explanatory statements, Mr. Loewenstein stated: "What this attempts to address is precisely what the Board asked for." A6 � 4-14-98 11 Mr. Sutton concluded: "I appreciate your response and I wouldn't contest the fact that legally what is being said is probably accurate. I haven't looked into it so I don't know. am willing to accept that on its face. But I am also willing to accept on its face the representations that were made to the Board of the Chamber of Commerce and there was never, ever any representation that said there would be a distinction between two phases of this ordinance and that it would be passed piecemeal and that any part of it would be passed before the Task Force was appointed and represented and had some input on this legislation. And I think that is unwise." There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on the regional aspects of this ordinance and whether there had been any attempt to seek comment from neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Cilimberg said the regional aspects had not been discussed by either staff or the Board of Supervisors. He could not say whether the regional element had been discussed by the Mountain Protection Committee. He said the regional issue is a very good point if one of the issues is the dark sky. "Obviously, if we are trying to protect it and others are not, it doesn't lend itself to the full realization of what you want to achieve. What this can do, depending on how the Board wants to approach this, is be viewed as the County's initiative, and the Board, through the Planning District Commission or the Planning and Coordination Council, is seek City, University and other locality participation in their own potential lighting regulations. Other jurisdictions will have something to look at in terms of what the County has done. From the State level, in terms of the overall lighting impact what we are aware has been adopted in legislation, has to do with protection of areas around observatories.... This is really something, if it were to be pursued, in terms of the regional component, that would need to happen at a local level because it is not something has been approached from the State level." Mr. Tice said the Mountain Protection Committee had discussed the regional nature of this issue. He said Mr. Watson's comments about a consolidated, regional approach, "are right on the money." The recently adopted Water Resources Ordinance is a model of how jurisdictions can work together to produce a coordinated document. One of the differences between the Lighting Ordinance and the Water Resources Ordinance, however, is that each jurisdiction already has water protection ordinances which are unique to that jurisdiction. In the case of the Lighting Ordinance, there are no existing ordinances in the surrounding jurisdictions. "So, to a great extent, what we have in front of us can be the model, because we are not trying to modify existing ordinances that are already in place. To my mind, there is little reason why Charlottesville, the University, Greene County, and other surrounding counties couldn't take this as a model (and modify it for their needs)...." He said, based on conversations he has had with Commissioners in some of the surrounding jurisdictions, they are interested in looking at this issue. Addressing statements made about "piecemeal planning," Mr. Tice said one of the recommendations of the Mountain Protection Committee was that "the county, as much as possible, needs to move away from the fragmented, piecemeal approach to planning and 4-14-98 12 take a more comprehensive, systematic view of things. But, in this case, ... whether we should adopt this before considering the retrofitting measures that may be recommended -- there is some importance to going ahead with this now, because even if we never retrofit a single fixture in this county, there is considerable value in what we would be protecting in terms of the resource for the public as it is now." Mr. Loewenstein agreed. Mr. Rooker said, over time all lights will have to be replaced, so even with only a prospective ordinance, theoretically, at some time all lights will come into compliance. Mr. Finley asked how the Commission deals with the public comments which have been offered. He asked: "Who has taken an in depth look at this? Are we at the point where we say this is a model? How far has the review gone? Are we really at the point where this ordinance is worthy of being called a model and we can recommend that to the Board of Supervisors?" Mr. Loewenstein responded: "Ultimately, that is the question we have answer here this evening. I think the staff and the Mountain Protection Committee that originally talked about this, had, indeed, consulted with a number of people. We have had lighting experts at work sessions and we have had people testify to us in some detail about a number of the technical and other aspects of this. We have also had a dark skies tour ... so that we could become better educated before trying to make decisions like this. We have to take all the input that we get into account, as we do before we take any action." Mr. Finley wondered if there has been enough public input. He asked.. "Do we really know if the citizens of Albemarle County would like to consider this as a model ordinance for lighting? Are we at that point?" Mr. Rooker said the work on this ordinance has been on -going since 1996 (and even before with the Mountain Protection Committee) and there have been several opportunities for public input. Mr. Tice pointed out there had been considerable discussion about lighting even before the formation of the Mountain Protection Committee. Discussions were organized and included public input, including active participation by the Chamber of Commerce, before the Resolution of Intent was ever passed. Mr. Rooker said he has received more favorable comments on this proposed ordinance from residents of his district than on any other topic since he has been on the Commission. Mr. Tice echoed Mr. Rooker's comment. Mr. Finley said: "Likewise I have heard a few cynical comments, similar to one we heard tonight, that this is another layer of bureaucracy. That is probably because the education process has not gotten that far out. As far as I can see, it seems to be favorable, but the technicalities of lighting I don't know that much about. I hope that enough people have looked at it who do know that much about it that would also say this is a model ordinance that should go forward." Mr. Rooker commented: "That is one reason I am more comfortable that this is a prospective -only ordinance at this point, because it gives us an opportunity to see how this works when we're not in a posture of requiring people to take down lights and replace them. So I think what some people have labeled as a piecemeal approach makes a lot more sense because it gives us an opportunity to see how this will work in a prospective fashion. If we have some technical problems with it, we can correct those before it is even considered to be applied retrospectively." Staff confirmed there will be another public hearing before the Board of Supervisors on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Tice said that may be the time to address the issue as to what was represented to the Chamber of Commerce Board. Mr. Loewenstein said he hopes 0-70 4-14-98 13 Chamber people who were actively involved at that initial stage will be present at the Board of Supervisors hearing. Mr. Rieley said it is unfortunate that a misunderstanding has arisen out of this, "but it seems pretty clear, from listening to staffs explanation, what was happening, and it seems very clear that representations that were made involved legislation that this particular ordinance is not a part of." Mr. Rieley addressed some of the public comments: --On the issue that surrounding jurisdictions do not have a dark sky ordinance, "this is an opportunity for us to lead the way and I think we can be much more effective leading the way than waiting for a joint action." --On the issue of Virginia Power participation, he said he is aware that "a number of people in the County, include members of the Board of Supervisors, have actively contacted VEPCO and tried to work with them over the years, largely to no avail, particularly on the issue of exposed luminaires." --On the issue of the public education process, he agreed that it should already be in the works and should be on -going. "This ordinance does not go far enough if this is the only mechanism that we are going to have to light our public spaces and our private ones as well in a reasonable and rational way, and public education will ultimately do more than this ordinance will do. I couldn't agree more that we have to move aggressively on that front." --On the issue of piecemeal planning, he agreed with comments of other Commissioners that "this is different enough --this is a relatively painless way to do a lot of good, with very little additional bureaucratic overlay. I think it makes a lot of sense to move ahead." He concluded: "I appreciated the quality and the level of the comments all around, but I find this a pretty easy one to support." Mr. Finley asked how this will tie in with the local Electrical building codes. Ms. Scala responded: "There are really two separate things --this ordinance and the BOCA Code. We do review electrical plans for commercial but not for residential. Zoning and Building Code Services have said they will be supportive and pass out our brochures, but they are not going to require a plan for residential beyond what they do now. As far as the commercial, that will be a requirement of the site plan, so it will not be necessary for them to require it because it will already be required by the site plan when they go in for their building permit." Mr. Finley said: "So you are saying it will just be passing on to the inspectors and the electricians what this ordinance is requiring, rather than being built in to the Code." Ms. Scala responded: "They won't be the one requiring it. It will be required by the Zoning Ordinance, but it won't be required by the BOCA Code." [NOTE: Mr. Tice asked Mr. Cilimberg to address an incorrect comment made by Mr. Foster earlier in the meeting, i.e. that the ARB has a staff of 20. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the ARB has only one full-time staff person, though other staff members sometimes are involved in certain support and inspections aspects of the ARB review.] '%.w MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that ZTA 98-03, to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by A71 4-14-98 14 adding a new section, 4.17 Outdoor Lighting, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, as presented by staff, with the following changes- --Section 4.17: Insert a comma between the word "lumens" and "installed" on the second line. --Section 4.17.4, Add at the end of the first sentence: "...as provided herein, together with such conditions as the Commission deems necessary to further the purposes of this Ordinance. --Section 4.17.4(a)(2), change to read: "_safe use, as -determined by—fionpl r�standards as determined by the recommended practices of the lEngineering Illumination Society of North America for that type of field and activity or other evidence where the recommended practices are not applicable. [NOTE: Mr. Tice confirmed his motion included no changes to 4.17.5(b) in relation to the definition of "temporary." Mr. Rooker said he felt agricultural should not be a part of this exemption. He said there should be a separate exception for agriculture which defines temporary with some time limit. Mr. Cilimberg said "temporary" will be difficult to define for any of these (construction, agricultural or emergency ) because it will depend on what activity is taking place. He said it would be difficult to establish a time limit because with agricultural activities even the term "seasonal" might involve more than one season. Mr. Kamptner said it will be up to the Zoning Administrator to make the determination as to what is temporary. He said the problem with a time limit is that the inspectors will have no idea of when the temporary lighting began. Mr. Rooker concluded: " I am convinced we probably can't improve on (the proposed language).) The motion passed unanimously. SUB 98-003 Massie's Woods Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Plat - Request for preliminary approval of a Rural Preservation Development (RPD) creating a total of 4 lots on approximately 66.77 acres. The property is described as Tax Map 89, Parcels 18B and 62 and is located on the west side of Dudley's Mt. Road (Rt 706) approximately 1 mile west of Old Lynchburg Road (Rt 631)in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is zoned Rural Area (RA) and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sipe presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Sipe confirmed that the preservation tract will have one building site, to be chosen from the three potential sites which are shown on the plan. He noted that there is an existing residence on the preservation tract which would have to be removed, or converted to a non-residential use, if the preservation tract is ever built on. He pointed out the location of the three development lots, which are below areas of steep slopes and below the 800-foot contour elevation. The preservation tract encompasses all the area of steep slopes and all the area above the 800-foot contour. A 7A 4-14-98 15 The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray and Mr. Greg Baldwin. Mr. Ray described the history of the development rights of the property. His comments included the following: --The potential for five building sites was reduced to "an actual three" because only three viable building sites could be identified. --The applicant is aware of the fact that the existing dwelling on the preservation tract will have to be removed or converted to a non -dwelling if the preservation tract is built on. -- The applicant believes the proposed plan is more environmentally friendly than a by -right development because a by -right development would result in several thousand more feet of roadway. --Soils tests have been performed and submitted to the county and those show that septic fields can be located on each of the proposed building sites. --The owner of the 20 foot right-of-way to the rear parcel of land has given the applicant a "letter of intent to give up the right-of-way and in exchange for that he will enter off this development's cul-de-sac." --The applicant objects to condition 1(h) which requires delineation of the 800-foot elevation contour and a note on the final plat restricting residential building to that area of the preservation tract below the contour. Mr. Ray said this condition is not required by present ordinances and "it may be a condition that is not 'enjoyed' by all the adjacent properties." He said this condition offers the County no additional protection because all the possible building sites that have been identified on the rural preservation tract are below the 800-foot elevation. "So we don't have a viable building site above that by existing ordinances. That is already controlled." Mr. Rooker asked: "That being the case, why would you take issue with the condition?" Mr. Ray replied: "Principle. I oppose conditions being placed on properties that are not controlled by ordinances. To accomplish what we want is already doable by existing ordinances." Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that "the Commission can recommend conditions to ensure that the intent of the RPD is fully realized and also to ensure that the mountain resources that have been identified as worthy of protection in the existing Comprehensive Plan are protected, and we can address this in the conditioning process, even in the absence of an ordinance on the books. In this case, I would agree with my colleagues --given what you have said is true about viable building sites, I don't know that this is necessarily a valid objection. I just wanted to clarify that there doesn't have to be an ordinance for us to recommend conditions. We are carrying out the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which has identified mountain resources as worthy of protection, and this is a way of doing that." Public comment was invited. Mr. Kevin Dudley, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He was very concerned about the fact that the location of his well, which is only about 20 feet from the cul-de-sac, is not shown on the plan. He said his well is not a Class A well and has only 25-feet of casing. He was concerned about the possibility of his well being contaminated with chemicals which are used when snow is cleared from the road. He stressed that his `�4-w well is below the road and the natural drainage flows across it. [ Mr. Sipe said he has made the Engineering Department aware of Mr. Dudley's concerns and has asked that �3 4-14-98 16 they be mindful of the well site and the drainage concern when the road plans are reviewed. He said he recommended that Engineering try to keep the drainage from this development on this property through the design of the drainage channels. He said, hopefully, even with snow removal, the drainage will be taken down the public road and will not cross onto Mr. Dudley's property. Mr. Loewenstein wondered if conditions (c) and (d), related to drainage plans and road plans, should be more specific to address Mr. Dudley's concerns. Mr. Sipe said the right-of-way required will be 50-feet wide so there will be no problem with providing drainage within the right-of-way, which is standard practice, and containing it on the applicant's property. It was later decided condition 1(c) would have added at the end: "...calculations; including the provision that no runoff from the proposed road or cul-de-sac will drain onto Tax M& 89, Parcel 2161."j Mr. Dudley asked if the applicant has the right to put rental units on this property. Mr. Cilimberg said the County has no control over whether the units will be rental units, but they cannot be multi -family units (apartments). On the question of duplexes, Mr_ Cilimberg explained: "They could put a duplex on an area that would meet the minimum lot requirement for two lots, but they could get no more than 4 total units. Mr. Dudley expressed concern about how a cul-de-sac is going to impact his dwelling. He said cul-de-sacs in rural areas are often used as parking places and become targets for litter. Mr. Rooker said the problems which were described by Mr. Dudley will cease once the dwellings have been built and are occupied. Mr. Dudley was also concerned about potential contamination of his well caused by the use of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said the only way to totally address Mr. Dudley's concern would be to relocate the road. (Mr. Ray later addressed this issue and explained why the road cannot be relocated. He assured the Commission, however, that the applicant will do everything possible to ensure that Mr. Dudley's well is protected.) Ms. MaryAnn Rodeheaver, a neighboring (but not adjoining) property owner, addressed the Commission. She said she had not received notification of the proposed development. (Mr. Loewenstein later explained that she would not have received notification because she is not an immediately adjacent property owner.) She expressed concerns about the condition of Dudley Mt. Road, which she described as "very narrow, with no shoulder, ditches, and no center line," and its ability to handle additional traffic safely. She suggested the State needs to review the status of this road and also needs to post a speed limit. (Ms. Rodeheaver was advised that speed limit is an issue to be discussed with VDOT. If no speed limit is posted, the speed limit for rural roads is 55 mph.) She said it is her understanding this is a really a request "to make the division line between these two parcels invisible so they can move the rights down to the lower parcel which has only one right by the present zoning." She wondered if this will set a precedent. (Mr. Sipe explained that the intent of the RPD is to promote better design of subdivisions in the Rural Area and to encourage the preservation of large tracts. The RPD allows the clustering of lots on a parcel or group of parcels. Mr. Cilimberg said there was an intent, in adding the Rural Preservation Development provisions to the Zoning Ordinance, to allow for flexibility to try to preserve open land as much as possible, but the RPD does not allow for any greater number of dwelling units than could otherwise be achieved by right.) Her final concern was about the impact of the proposed development on the groundwater supply for existing homes. She asked: "Would we have any recourse through the County in the event our water supply were to diminish as a result of clustering these three homes 4-14-98 17 just up the road from us?" (Mr. Sipe said, currently, the County has no authority to regulate wells. He said: "Under Riparian Law, they could not make a use on their property that is detrimental to other people sharing that water, but that is difficult to prove and it is enforceable through private mechanisms, not through the County ordinances." Mr. Kamptner added: "Generally, any piece of property is entitled to a reasonable use of the groundwater available. ") Mr. Bill Mahone, owner of property southeast of the subject property, addressed the Commission. He said he has no problem with the proposed development, but he expressed concern about the potential development of middle site (as shown on the plan) on the preservation tract. He said his house is "about 50 feet down the mountain from the boundary, directly below" the middle site, so any development which takes place in that location will impact his land. He was concerned that runoff from that site could cause erosion problems on his property. He asked what type of uses might be allowed on the preservation tract. Mr. Loewenstein explained the preservation tract could have only one dwelling. Mr. Sipe added that an easement would be given to the County and Recreational Facilities jointly and offers an additional layer of protection from future development. Mr. Ray was allowed to respond to public comment. Regarding Mr. Dudley's well, he said field survey work has not yet been done, "but if his well is close to this boundary line we will locate it and will be as friendly to it and as protective as we possibly can be in the design of the road, including the possibility of shortening the length of the cul-de-sac so it does not come up to the location of the well." He noted that the applicant's property does not adjoin Mr_ Dudley's property because there is a 10-foot wide pipestem strip between the two properties which is owned by Mr. Fitzgerald. (He confirmed that Mr. Fitzgerald is going to use the cul-de-sac and abandon the 10-foot easement.) Mr. Finley suggested the building sites on the two lower lots could be rotated 900 which could result in 50 additional feet and might allow the road to moved. Mr. Ray said potential building sites could be located anywhere on the two lower lots, but he said he does not think the County would allow the creation of a "spite strip," between the adjacent property and the road. [NOTE: Mr. Ray referred to this as a "spite strip" but some Commissioners used the term "spike strip.'] Mr. Ray added that the only place safe sight distance can be achieved is with the road as proposed. Potential realignment of the road was discussed. Mr. Tice asked: "When the road plans are developed and Engineering is looking that this, if this remains a concern, does the County, working with Mr. Ray and the applicant, have the ability to work out a change which would create a spike strip without this having to come back to us?" Mr. Cilimberg answered: " I don't think you want to create a strip of land independent --what you would be looking at is a widened right-of-way and running the road further east. I think what we would want to do, and maybe this needs to be in the conditions, is simply have, under the Engineering Department's approval for road plans, a specific mention of the need to include in that road plan development those measures necessary to divert drainage away from the well. That allows some flexibility as to how to do that without having to bring it back to you." Mr. Ray said: "The direction you are going is fine, but the wording Mr. Cilimberg suggested is not because if we don't create any earth disturbing activity near his well then we should not be required to divert water away from his well-- 75' 4-14-98 18 only if we are doing any type of earth disturbing activity. If we shorten our cul-de-sac or we contain the drainage that we cause within our property, then we should not have such a broad condition placed on us." Mr. Cilimberg said his intent was "the drainage within that area disturbed would be diverted away from the well." Mr. Ray said: "I don't see that would cause us a problem to entertain that if it is caused by construction of this road." Mr. Dudley asked when he will know for sure how the applicant will deal with the location of his well. Mr. Sipe said the majority of the review which will impact Mr. Dudley will be related to the road plans. He said he will contact Mr. Dudley when he has received the road plans and he can come in and review the plans and offer written comments for Engineering to address. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. To address Mr. Ray's objection to condition 1(h), Mr. Cilimberg explained: "The RPD is a discretionary alternative granted by the Planning Commission, and, as such, conditions that are addressing the purpose of the particular RPD are entirely appropriate and are different than the normal conditions you would have in a conventional subdivision. This is not a lone case of conditions that have been recommended to protect the resource that we feel was being protected by the RPD. We have had other Rural Preservation Developments, both by special use permit as well as by Commission action, that have had particular conditions that dealt with building sites, location, rural preservation tract features, etc. I just want you and the applicant to know that the conditions here are not treating this RPD differently than other RPD's have been treated." Mr. Rooker asked what type of road would be used to reach the upper two potential building sites shown on the plan. Mr. Cilimberg said a driveway presently exists and the conditions of this approval require that driveway to be used for those building sites. He said the only site which is not actually adjacent to the existing driveway is the most northern one, but they would have to use the existing driveway if the most northern site was chosen. Mr. Greg Baldwin, representing the applicant, addressed this question and said the roadbed does extend to the northern most site. With the idea of preserving a larger piece of the preservation tract and clustering all the lots, Mr. Rooker asked if it is important to the applicant to keep open the option of building on the two most northern sites, rather than limiting the building site on the preservation tract to just the most southern site. Mr. Baldwin said the two upper sites are the better sites, with the middle site probably being the best of the three potential sites. The lower site has some topography problems. In the evaluation of this proposal, Mr. Rieley said it is important to remember that "we are not evaluating it against a blank slate. It must be evaluated in relation to the by -right development, and in almost every respect --except for the cul-de-sac being closer to Mr. Dudley --this proposed development is superior to by -right development, and is better for almost everybody ... and does accomplish what the Rural Preservation strategy is supposed to accomplish." He felt Mr. Rooker's suggestion that the preservation tract building site be a 76 4-14-98 19 limited to the lower site was a good one for the reasons identified by Mr. Rooker and because it would eliminate the need for a long driveway on steep slopes. Mr. Tice said he agrees, in concept , with the notion of limiting the building site on the preservation tact so as to leave a larger portion of the preservation tract in tact and to cluster all the dwellings . However, it appears the lower building site seems to be very constrained so "there may be value in leaving that option open in this case." Mr. Loewenstein agreed that this proposal will have significantly less impact than a by - right development, even with a road to serve the northern most building site on the preservation tract. Mr. Rooker said: "I brought the point up and I think it would be desirable if they could cluster the lots. However, I think the plan the applicant has proposed is better than a by - right plan he could pursue. That is why I asked the applicant whether or not he cared if they were so restricted. The applicant having said that that is probably the most desirable building site and Mr. Tice's point about the constraints on the southern lots would probably make it unfair to impose that as a condition, although it might be more desirable from a planning standpoint." MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SUB 98-003, Massie's Woods Rural Preservation Development Preliminary Plat, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final drainage plans and calculations. b. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of final road plans. c. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final drainage plans and calculations, including the provision that no runoff from the proposed road or cul-de-sac will drain onto Mr. Dudley's property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 21 B1. [NOTE: Mr. Rieley said his motion does not include drainage from the land upstream. It is intended to address drainage "in the constructed area," with the intent being to keep runoff away from Mr. Dudley's well.] d. Albemarle County Engineering approval of final road plans. e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of soil erosion plan. f. Health Department approval of primary and reserve drainfield locations for each lot. g. Staff and Recreational Facilities Authority approval of rural preservation easement for the preservation tract. h. Delineation of the 800-foot elevation contour and addition of a note on the final plat restricting residential building to that area of the preservation tract below the contour. Language effecting this restriction is to be incorporated into the conservation easement granted to the County and the Recreational Facilities Authority. i. Addition of a note on the final plat requiring construction of any driveway serving the building sites shown be built on the existing road bed shown on the plat to the extent 77 Im 4-14-98 20 practicable. Language effecting this restriction is to be incorporated into the conservation easement granted to the County and the Recreational Facilities Authority. j. Abandonment of the existing 20-foot right-of-way serving Tax Map Parcel 89-18 running within and parallel to the proposed internal public road. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Rieley asked if staff reports could include a copy of the tax map overlaid on USGS topo maps. Mr. Cilimberg said that would be very difficult to do and would involve a lot of extra staff time, but he said he will see what can be done. Mr. Sipe said it would be relatively easy to just include a copy of the USGS map with the staff report. Mr_ Tice expressed disappointment in the most recent set of County aerial photography, which he described as "really deficient." He said it is almost useless in some cases. Mr. Cilimberg was uncertain what had caused the problems, but he said new aerial photography will be done again in a couple of years and he will make the graphics staff aware of Mr. Tice's comments. Mr. Tice suggested the statement which is sometimes used in staff reports that "this property is not in a water supply watershed," should be changed to reflect that the property is "not in the county's water supply watershed," because all property is in somebody's watershed. Mr. Loewenstein reported briefly on a trip he recently made to Chattanooga, TN to study how that area has addressed some land use and planning issues. He said he will report on what he learned in more detail at a later time. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11.00 p.m. T " V. Wayne C,i Pber4-,-Speretary AV