Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 28 1997 PC Minutes10-28-97 OCTOBER 28, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 29, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner, and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Dotson. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of October 7th were unanimously approved as submitted; the minutes of October 14th were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the October 15th Board of Supervisors meeting. [NOTE: The tape for this meeting is very difficult to understand, particularly comments of Commissioners Loewenstein, Huckle, Nitchmann and Washington and Mr. Kamptner. Much of this transcription is taken from the Recording Secretary's notes.] CONSENT AGENDA SDP 97-114 Joshua Run Site Plan Waiver - Request for waiver of site plan requirements to construct a 150 foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of approximately 8 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41, is located on the south side of Route 649, Airport Road, approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 29, Seminole Trail. SDP 97-115 Piney Mountain Site Plan Waiver - Request for waiver of site plan requirements to construct a 150-foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of approximately 52 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 21, parcel 10 is located on the west side of Route 29, Seminole Trail, on the eastern slopes of Piney Mountain. SDP 97-116 Keswick/Boyd Tavern Site plan Waiver - Request for waiver of site plan requirements to construct a 160-foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of approximately 79 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 41A is located on the north side of Route 250, Richmond Road, approximately 1/2 mile west of Route 616. n CR 10-28-97 2 (SDP 97-109 For Every Season had been deleted from the Consent Agenda prior to the meeting.) The Commission raised no concerns about any of the items on the Consent Agenda. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 97-079 Rougemont Farm Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to establish a fourth dwelling on a parcel containing approximately 419.67 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 49, Parcel 17, is located on the west side of Gordonsville Road (State Route 231) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the October 14, 1997 Commission meeting. The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the request. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the request for withdrawal be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-48 Frances Payne - Request to allow for reconstruction of a dwelling (destroyed by fire) in the flood plain of Ballinger Creek. The property is located on 0.610 acre, currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property described as Tax Map 128B, Parcel 09, is located on the west side of Route 715, adjacent to the Esmont Post Office. This property is located within the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area. The staff reported the Engineering Department has determined that this property does not lie within the floodplain and therefore does not require a special permit. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a withdrawal of SP 97- 48 for Frances Payne be accepted, without prejudice. The motion passed unanimously. Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District - Make recommendations concerning whether to terminate, modify, or continue the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. The existing district consists of 49 parcels totaling approximately 6,231 acres located on State Routes 29 South (Monacan Trail Road), 637 (Dick Woods Road), 692 (Plank Road), 696 (Edge Valley Road), 710 (Taylor's Gap Road), 745 (Poorhouse Road) and 767 (Rabbit Valley Road) in the vicinity of North Garden. The Hardware District is proposed to be continued for ten years. a� 10-28-97 3 Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report explained that though some property owners expressed concerns about the ten-year time period at the Advisory Committee meeting, no one, to date, has formally requested a change. The Agricultural/Forestal Districts Advisory Committee, at its meeting on October 6, 1997, recommended unanimously that the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District be continued for a minimum of 5 years. The staff was recommending continuation of the District for 10 years. Commissioners Loewenstein and Nitchmann asked why, if the Advisory Committee's action was to continue the district for 5 years, is staff recommending a 10 year period. Staff explained that the Committee's recommendation was for a "minimum" of 5 years. Because no property owners made a "formal" request that the time period be changed to 5 years, staffs recommendation is for 10 years. If those three property owners who expressed concerns about the time period wish to make a formal request for a shorter period prior to the Board hearing, the Board can approve a shorter period if it so desires. The Advisory Committee had no objections to a change in the time period. Ms. Huckle asked if the landowners who had concerns about the 10-year period were to withdraw, could the District still qualify. Ms. Scala was uncertain, but said this is a very large district so it could possibly still qualify. If not, another district could be formed. Mr. Loewenstein said if a property owner makes a formal request to a reduction to 5 years prior to the Board hearing, the Board can so modify the approval if it so chooses, even if the Commission's recommendation is for 10 years. Staff confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Loewenstein's statement. Mr. Finley, referring to the minutes of the Advisory Committee meeting, noted that some committee members did favor a 5-year period because they felt 10 years is too long. He asked what is to be gained by a 10-year period. Ms. Scala said a 10 year period is a longer commitment from the property owners not to develop their properties. She said most property owners join a district because they want to preserve ag/forestal land. Also, 10 years is in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She said 2, out of a total of 40, property owners had expressed an interest in a 5-year period. Those property owners, if they so desire, can withdraw their property now, during this review period, if they so desire. After the review period is over, they can still withdraw, but they must pay a fee and a formal request for withdrawal must be acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. Of the property owners who attended the meeting and expressed concerns about the 10- year period, Mr. Loewenstein asked what percentage of the total acreage of the district is owned by these landowners. Ms. Scala estimated at least 2,000 acres, (roughly 1/3). Mr. Tice asked if there are other districts which are for less than 10 years. Ms. Scala responded affirmatively, but said the majority are for 10 years. Em 10-28-97 4 Referring to page 2, (the last sentence in item No. 4--"Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands."), Mr. Loewenstein said that an ag/forestal district may stabilize land use not only within the district, but also on contiguous properties. (Ms. Huckle commented: "Its hard to farm with a large subdivision next door.") Public comment was invited. Mr. David vanRoijen, a property owner within the district, said he believes those people who may be considering withdrawal are concerned about the County's lack of support for ag/forestal districts, e.g. an ag/forestal district is supposed to support agricultural uses and the county is supposed to be supportive, but in reality proposals for cellular towers on adjoining properties are being allowed. He reported that another property owner, Mr. Bass, who was present at the Advisory Meeting, had asked how the County can ask property owners to commit property (for preservation) for a long period of time when the County won't, in turn, protect these districts from these outside influences. He said another property owner questioned the entire concept of the ag/forestal district and was seeking support from the County as to why he should set aside his land for a continued period of time. He suggested that the County needs to study what other counties, who support ag districts, are doing. He said he feels Albemarle County does not support the districts, yet they get a great benefit because they have large blocks of land committed to agricultural/forestal uses and they can use this as a planning tool. Mr. vanRoijen said he, personally, supports the longer time period because it offers stability to the participating property owners for a longer period of time. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. vanRoijen what other counties are doing? He responded that some counties are trying to tie land use to ag districts. They require a lot of proof when property is under land use (tax returns, evidence of revenue, etc), but for ag/forestal properties those proofs are not required. These counties do not, however, as of yet, require that property be in an ag/forestal district in order to get land use. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District be recommended for continuation for a period of 10 years. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-41 U.S. Cellular =Red Hill - Proposal to construct a 200-foot telecommunication tower with associated support facilities on a portion of 319 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.6]. Property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcels 18 and 18A is located on the north side of Route 708 (Red Hill Road) approximately one mile east of Route 29 (Monacan Trail Road) in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. 10-28-97 5 N%W'' Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the request based on the following findings: --The site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. --Options for alternative sites have not been exhausted. --There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staff concluded: "Staff opinion is that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area without findings on possible alternative sites makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. " Should the Board choose to approve the request, the staff report included 17 recommended conditions of approval. Approval would also require Commission action on a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow location of the tower approximately 100 feet from the property line, and a waiver of a drawing of a site plan, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2, subject to two conditions. Staff answers to Commission questions included the following: --Using the maps on display, Mr. Fritz pointed out the locations of existing towers, or sites which have been approved, and also other sites which have been proposed, but not approved. --CFW has expressed an interest in co -location on this tower. US Cellular is not opposed. --The quarry can be seen from Rt. 29, from the south. The quarry is disturbing land above the 800-foot level. --Referring to the line of sight drawn on the cross section, from top of tower to Rt. 29, drawn in with a 50-foot tree canopy, Mr. Tice agreed with staff that the tree canopy is probably closer to 70-feet, and could, at maturity, be 80-90 feet. Mr. Tice noted that if the "strip representing the 50-foot tree canopy" were moved to represent 70-80 feet canopy, the entire line of sight would be obstructed by the trees. Mr. Fritz said he was not concerned about this difference because (1) a higher tower would kick in requirements for lighting; and (2) the presence of foliage does not completely obstruct line of sight and any obstruction would only be for a small section. (The applicant's representative, Mr. Blain, later confirmed Mr. Fritz's statements regarding the tree canopy.) --Mr. Nitchmann, referring to staffs statement that alternatives have not been exhausted, asked staff to define "exhausted." Mr. Fritz said he had received no information from the applicant which says "they can't co -locate on these power lines." No information has been received which explains how the applicant determined that co - location would not work. --Regarding staffs statement that this tower would not have an adverse impact on the activities within the ag/forestal district, Mr. Tice asked if staff 's assessment had ,. also included an evaluation of the second objective of ag/forestal districts, i.e. impact to "valued natural and ecological resources, essential open space for clean airsheds, ,:)- �17 10-28-97 6 watershed protection, wildlife habitat as well as for aesthetic purposes." Mr. Fritz said the staff report does address aesthetic impact, but not ecological impact because the ground area being disturbed is very small. --Mr. Finley asked if the tower were moved to the 800 feet elevation level, "what legitimate reason would there be to deny it?" He said it appeared the visibility would be about the same, except from the far south and north. Mr. Fritz agreed you would see more of the tower farther away --from the north and south. The Commission could determine that a 200-foot tower within the mountain resource area would not have a substantial detriment on adjacent properties, but the Commission may determine that a 540-foot tower does have a substantial detriment on adjoining property. It could also have an impact on the setback modification. He said a move to a different level would require a re-evaluation of the request and would be an entirely different review. --Ms. Huckle asked if there is an existing road to this proposed site. Mr. Fritz said there is not an existing road and trees will have to be removed to construct an access road. Staffs recommended conditions of approval include conditions which will minimize the impact of the road. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Blain. (He was accompanied by Mr. Mark Gartley and Mr. Mark Keller.) His comments included the following: --US Cellular is licensed to do business in Albemarle County and part of the license includes the 29 South corridor, which is currently experiencing poor service. --Propagation studies performed by the applicant help to determine the locations where towers are needed. Mr. Blain had visual aids which showed how propagation studies are used to locate target areas. He also had visual depictions of existing service levels and proposed service levels. --This area has no co -location options. --He described other sites which were considered. --Issues considered when determining sites include: the target area to be served, finding a landowner who is willing to allow a tower; the impact to cultural and historical resources; the visual impact to surrounding areas; and local ordinance requirements. --Trying to serve the target area while at the same time causing little visual impact presents a real dilemma. --This site is in an area zoned for strip mining as a permitted use. The applicant feels this use is as consistent with the Open Space Plan as a by -right use. --He presented photos showing the visibility of the tower from different locations. --The applicant feels that if the Commission will balance the existing zoning, which allows mining, with the applicant's efforts to locate a tower here, it will reach a favorable ruling. For the record, Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant has exhausted all the potential useful sites in this area which would achieve the same desired service level? Mr. Blain responded affirmatively. He added that though it may be possible that there is another site that would provide the same coverage, the applicant has "bent over backwards to find the most viable site and the one with the least impact." 10-28-97 7 Mr. Nitchmann asked how far down on the slope the tower could be placed if service to the east is not a concern. Mr. Blain said it could possibly be lower, but the service to the east would be lost. Mr. Tice asked if, in its consideration of sites, any thought was given to possibly two shorter towers, instead of one tall tower. Mr. Blain said the applicant knows towers are not preferred structures in the County, so if the service can be achieved with one tower, half as many people will be impacted. Mr. Tice asked if the quarry site was considered. Mr. Blain responded affirmatively but said it was not suitable because active blasting is taking place. There was a brief discussion of co -location requirements. Mr. Fritz said co -located antenna must typically be 20 feet lower and 9 or 10 antennae on a tower is not unusual for a single user. He said he is not aware of any tower with 9 or 10 different users. Ms. Huckle asked about the status of the County's plans to hire a consultant to help find tower sites. Mr. Cilimberg said the Request for Proposal (RFP) is presently being prepared and must be reviewed by the County attorney. He said the clock is running out on this request so a consultant will not be hired in time to be of assistance on this proposal. Public comment was invited. The following neighboring property owners expressed opposition to the request: Tucker Johnson (directly across Rt. 29 from the proposed site); Montgomery Woods ; Michael Crawford; and David vanRoijen. Their reasons for opposition were as follows: --Visual impact. --The location of the quarry is not a good argument. The quarry is not visible from any of the ag/forestal properties. Also, the quarry re -seeds its sites and makes them attractive when they are not longer in use. A tower will be there forever and is an eyesore. --There are historic properties (Moorland -1890 and Anchorage - 1830) very close by. -The County needs to show its support for ag/forestal districts (adjacent to this property to the west) by protecting this land. --The neighbors were not canvassed. Neighbors were told by the applicant that the application would be withdrawn if there was strong neighborhood opposition. All neighbors signed a document expressing their opposition. --The property has very steep terrain. It will be impossible to construct a road without significant environmental degradation. --An access road will make the property more accessible to trespassers. --The tower should be located with the quarry (on Dudley Mountain). (Mr. Crawford, in response to Mr. Tice's question to him, said he would be less opposed to the tower if it were located on Dudley Mountain, close to the quarry.) cm 10-28-97 N. --Co-location on this tower (by other users) would result in multiple maintenance buildings being constructed. --Isn't the County trying to stop the proliferation of towers? There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked if the conditions of approval incorporate road standards from the proposed Mountain Protection plan, including that the road cannot exceed 16% grade. Mr. Fritz responded: "No it does not." Ms. Huckle thought the maximum had been 15%. Mr. Kamptner said the recommendation in the Mountain plan " is a 16% average, but within any 300 feet segment it can be up to 20%." The plan has not yet been adopted. Ms. Huckle said she has many problems with this request. If approved it would be the first tower in a Mountain Resource Protection Area. (Ms. Tice pointed out that a recently approved tower on Piney Mountain is in a Mountain Resource Area, but there were already several existing towers on the mountain.) Ms. Huckle said that some of the people in the Hardware Ag/Forestal District are already concerned and are questioning the reason to make a commitment to protect agricultural land if the County is not going to reciprocate by protecting land adjacent to the District. She said she does not feel the applicant has explored all the options. She pointed out that the County's aesthetic resources are some of its most valuable --they are what make people want to come to this area. She said she could not support the request. Mr. Tice said he is in a "quandary" on this request. He agreed with Ms. Huckle about being careful not to set a precedent that could open up the Mountain Resource areas to similar uses when there may be other alternatives. He also agreed that there are aesthetic impacts on the ag/forestal districts. However, he said there is little doubt that towers are going to be constructed on Rt. 29 south, whether this tower or some other, in the very near future. Even with the understanding that the same level of coverage cannot be expected in a mountainous area as in an urban area, there is still a considerable gap in coverage. Considering the significant use of Rt. 29, it is reasonable to assume there will be more than one tower, so the question is "where is the most appropriate place?" He said he was not convinced all the alternatives have been explored by the applicant. He said the site does have some favorable aspects. It is in a natural resource extraction area, and even though the possibility that this site would be quarried is very slim, it is certainly an area of intensive site disturbance. He felt that this characteristic could distinguish this site from other proposals which might come forward in Mountain Protection areas, i.e. in order to use this site as precedent, other sites would have to have the same extraction site argument . He wondered if there might be another site, closer to the quarry on Dudley Mountain, that may be out of the active quarrying activity but closer to the disturbance area. He concluded that he still had not made up his mind. He was concerned about the impact on the ag/forestal district and areas with conservation easements. ,�5 O 10-28-97 9 Ms. Huckle pointed out that people who live in this area have said that though their cellular service may not be perfect, it does exist and they can use their cellular phones. She said she feels the precedent issue is a significant one. She said a better decision could be made after the consultant is available to advise the county. Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with many of Mr. Tice's comments. He said he is concerned about visual degradation, an issue which is encountered with all tower requests. He said the applicant has not presented evidence which convinces him that all options have been considered. He said he is concerned about mountain resource and open space protection and about earlier comments that the county needs to support minimum land uses in land adjacent to ag/forestal districts. The County needs to show that it appreciates the commitments which landowners make when they put their land in ag/forestal districts. He said he believes, also, that there are significant historic resources in this area which would be impacted. He concluded that he feels a denial would not cause the applicant an "immense hardship" with the knowledge that the request could be resubmitted after the County's consultant is on board. He said he recognizes there is a need for cellular service in this area, but he is uncertain as to the best way to achieve that service. Mr. Finley asked what procedure would be followed if the applicant were to come back with alternative proposals and staff, after review, finds them even less satisfactory than this site. Mr. Fritz said: "if the review is deferred by the applicant, prior to Board review, for the purpose of submitting additional information, staff would review that additional information and revise the report accordingly. It would then be up to the Board of Supervisors to either hear the request or refer it back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation." Mr. Nitchmann said he does not feel all options have been fully explored. He said he understands that technology is driving the need for cellular towers, "but at some point the cellular companies are going to have to step back and ask 'how perfect does perfect have to be?' You can't expect things to work as well in mountainous areas. It may be possible to use shorter towers that will improve service, though it may not provide optimum service." He concluded that he could not support the application. Ms. Washington said she was concerned about the impact on the ag/forestal district. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-41 for US Cellular (Red Hill) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial for the following reasons: --Applicant has not provided evidence that all possibilities have been explored; --Agreement with findings in staff report; and --Impact to ag/forestal district and conflict with the purposes of the ag/forestal district. --Lack of staff findings on alternatives sites. 10-28-97 The motion for denial passed unanimously. 10 In the event the Board should recommend approval of the request, Mr. Kamptner asked the Commission to act on the waivers for a reduction in setback and requirement for a site plan, and also on the recommended 17 conditions. Ms. Huckle asked why a 75-foot width is needed for the road. Mr. Fritz said that is the maximum which can be disturbed and includes all the side slopes, grading, etc. The road itself would not be 75-feet wide. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 be approved for SP 97-41 US Cellular (Red Hill) to allow the tower to be located approximately 100 feet from the property line. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a waiver of the drawing of a site plan be granted for SP 97-41 US Cellular (Red Hill) in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. The motion passed unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that the 17 recommended conditions of approval attached to the Special Permit be approved (as stated in the staff report dated 10-28-97). No changes were suggested to any of the conditions. (No formal motion was made on the conditions.) Mr. Tice left the meeting at this point. ------------------------------------- SP 97-42 Our Lady of Peace Alzheimer/Dementia Care - Request to amend an existing special use permit [SP 90-65] to add an azheimer care facility [20.3.2.3] to Our Lady of Peace in the Branchlands PUD Complex. The property, described as Tax Map 61 Z, Section 3, Parcels 8 and 8A, consists of approximately 7.0 acres and is located on the east side of Hillsdale Drive (State Route 1427) north of the intersection with Branchlands Drive. The property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is designated Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. It is located in the Rio Magisterial District and lies within Urban Neighborhood Two. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert McNichols. He described the type of care that will be offered in this facility. He said this will be a residential facility. He asked that 111.Sa 10-28-97 11 the maximum number, stated as 1120" in recommended condition No. 1, be increased to 24 so that some indigent can be provide for as well. This addition will cause no substantial modification to the plans. The square footage will remain the same but some rooms will become double occupancy, with a partition in the sleeping area. There will be no change in traffic count as a result of the change. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about the height of the retaining wall, Mr. McNichols aid the retaining wall will be 16 feet tall, with a 6 foot fence on top of it. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said this use will fill a need in the community and she feels this applicant will do a good job of providing that care. Mr. Loewenstein agreed and added that this is a low impact use and a logical extension of services. The Commission discussed briefly the applicant's request for an increase from 20 to 24. The architect for the project said two, double occupancy rooms will be added, and will be accomplished by making some of the common spaces "more efficient." The number of rooms, therefore, will change from 16 to 18. (The number of rooms was not addressed in the conditions of approval.) No concerns were expressed about the requested increase. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-42 for Our Lady of Peach Alzheimer/Dementia Care be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (1) The dementia care facility shall be operated in accordance with the Treatise on the Rationale for the Development of the Our Lady of Peace Program (including a Proposed New Addition) dated May 16, 1990, and revised July 24, 1997, herein included as Attachment B; with occupancy not to exceed 24. (2) The dementia care facility shall not be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case. (3) The dementia care facility shall comply with the conditions of ZMA 88-07. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- en 10-28-97 12 WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 2 - Scenic Resources Ms. Scala reviewed the upcoming work schedule on various sections of the Plan remaining to be reviewed. She led the discussion on Chapter 2, pointing out changes made since the last work session, and changes yet to be made. Questions and suggestions of the Commission included the following: --(Huckle) Is there any plan to designate Rt. 649 (Airport Road) as an Entrance Corridor? ANSWER: There are two opinions: (1) That it is not an arterial, which is required by State Code for EC designation; and (2) That it could be construed to be an arterial because it connects to the airport, which leads to other cities. Even if it can't be designated, there may be other measures which can be taken. --(Loewenstein) Referring to Design Standards, he said he supports No. 8, but wondered if there is anything more or different that needs to be said about protection of historic structures. ANSWER: Ms. Scala said the Preservation Plan may go into more detail. Mr. Loewenstein also suggested that the word "buildings" be changed to "structures." --(Finley) Referring to page 5, he asked if the roads listed under Strategies are to be designated as scenic highways or byways, and, if so, will such a designation impose restrictions on the property owners which live along on this roads. Also, will the ARB ever be involved in scenic roads? ANSWER: These roads have been previously identified as scenic roads. The plan is to look at them to see if additional protection is needed. Scenic designation will not impose any restrictions on property owners, but may encourage tourists to use these roads because they will be included on a scenic highway map. This is an attempt to include roads which may have been overlooked to see if there is anything else we can do to protect them. The ARB will not be involved in scenic roads. There is a limitation of what the County can do beyond what can be done on an entrance corridor. A road would have to meet the criteria for designation as an arterial or access to a historic site. Nothing is definite at this point. Staff is simply proposing that special roads be identified and given some kind of consideration. Perhaps "protection" should be more clearly defined. Voluntary measures could be included. Mr. Nitchmann cautioned staff to be very careful in its use of words, so that recommendations or suggestions are not interpreted to be regulations or requirements. (Mr. Loewenstein said identification of these roads will give guidance to the Commission and Board that these are special areas. "Mother Nature" cannot be counted on to protect these special roads forever. He said he did not see scenic designation as a threat to property owners.) --(Finley) (Chapter 4 - Re: Economic Benefits) He raised the question of who is the beneficiary of rolling fields and what is the County doing to encourage a struggling farmer to continue farming. He said even with land use, taxes increase each year and "it eats away until the rural areas are all going to be in the hands of wealthy landowners who can afford to keep their land and pay the taxes." He said "no one seems to care about the vanishing species --the farmer --and they will soon all be gone and we will have manicured fields with weed killer on the fence rows and beautiful barns, but it will be few 10-28-97 13 and far between when it comes to people living there. It might be beautiful but it's lost a lot of our culture and our quality we price others right of the field. " ANSWER: There will be discussions about these concerns during the Rural Areas work sessions which will take place next spring. --(Finley) He recalled that he had been very impressed with the organization and presentation of the Water Resources Ordinance and the Noise Ordinance, recently reviewed by the Commission. He said these were written in such a way as to be very easy to understand by the public. He shared Mr. Nitchmann's concern about recommendations sometimes becoming "ordinances." Mr. Cilimberg stressed that the Scenic Resources Section of the Comprehensive Plan is not an ordinance. Rather, it is a document which outlines the Commission's and Board's desires as to the policies which should be pursued. Ms. Scala summarized: "I hear you saying your concern is about adopting additional regulations to protect scenic roads.... What staff means by 'protect local roads' is through voluntary actions, and making special note of the presence of these roads when applications come before the Commission and Board." Mr. Loewenstein directed staff to make adjustments to the Scenic Resources section, based on the Commission's comments, and bring it back to the Commission for one final work session. Public comment was invited. Mr. Scott Peyton, representing Scenic 250, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --There is a need to identify and recognize that a resource has value before a determination can be made as to whether or not it is worthy of protection. --The repeal of the county's Scenic Highway Overlay (1992) was done with strong belief that the Entrance Corridor Overlay would take its place. --He applauded the recommendation for design guidelines for corridors. He offered his organization's assistance as a resource to work with the County and to do an inventory and study of 250 West. He said this could serve as a valuable model to the county in a broader application. --He recommended that there be cross references between the Scenic and Historic Resources sections of the Comp Plan. --He agreed with Mr. Finley's comments about the need to protect the family farm. He said the County needs to "give us a means to keep us on a level playing field to help offset the significant impact of increasing taxes. The Comp Plan language recognizes that scenic resources exist and are of value to the residents of the county. Mr. John MacDonald, Vice President of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association, addressed the Commission. He said applying the existing EC Overlay District on a project-by-project basis to each of 18 highways will not function correctly. The existing ordinance will work for 14 of those 18 highways, which are not scenic nor will they have ,Qs 10-28-97 14 extensive commercial development. The other four--29 North, 29 South, 250 East and 250 West --are the primary entrance corridors. 250 West and 29 South are more in the category of scenic highways and will not have extensive commercial development. But 29 North already has extensive development and 250 East will have extensive development in the near future. There is still a portion of 29 North which is in a state where something can be done before it is too late. The County should do something now to protect the four -mile stretch of Rt. 29 North (from the River north to the UREF property). There is evidence that the existing ordinance isn't working. He gave as an example the small used car lot which is across from Forest Lakes on 29 North. Everything is in compliance, yet there are cars within 10 feet of the highway and huge signs on cars. He asked the Commission to imagine similar uses for the entire four mile stretch. He suggested that the staff look at what has been done on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina, which has been accomplished with service roads behind the main highway, adequate setbacks, landscaping in front and control over signage. He recommended the formation of a committee to deal with this stretch of roadway so the County can have a "head start," before UREF begins widening Rt. 29. There being no further discussion, the work session ended. ------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Huckle asked staff to look into a situation which is occurring on the property adjacent to Airport Auto on Airport Road (between the Airport and Rt. 29). She has brought this to staffs attention in the past. There was supposed to be landscaping and a parking lot developed on this site, but, at this time nothing has been done but the property is being used as a parking lot. She was concerned that the Ordinance is not being enforced. ------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m` U. a)"', , �i W en V. WaynEf'Cilim 1;�S6