Loading...
HRAB 08-19-08 Meeting MinutesFrederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) August 19, 2008 Board of Supervisors Executive Session Room of the County Administrative building 107 North Rent Street Winchester, VA Members Present: Rhoda Kriz (Chairman), Elizabeth Fravel (Vice Chairman), Gary Oates, Stacey Yost, Martin Killingbeck Claus Bader Members Absent: Mary Turner Staff Absent: Maral Kalbain Staff Present: Amber Powers Agenda Items: Route 50 Commercial Development Property Rezoning application, Shenandoah Mobile CUP Application, and Route 11 North Study Area's Potential Historic Preservation Priorities. Call to order at 6:30 PM. The minutes of April 15, 2008 were unanimously approved with the addition of Mary Turner's name to the attendance list. Item One: The first item presented was the request for comments regarding the Route 50 Commercial Development Property Rezoning application. Specifically, the HRAB was to evaluate the rezoning proposal's possible impact on the potentially -significant historic properties immediately to the North of the property's frontage along Sulphur Springs Road. Major Points. • The property's northern section runs along Sulphur Spring Road and lies across from the Carper — Wynn House (04-1129) — identified as potentially significant and the Carper -Cunningham House (#34-1130). These two homes are identified in the Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County Virginia. * The applicant included a non -proffered GDP illustration of the property's potential design which showed multi -tenant commercial spaces, however the applicant acknowledged that the property may also be developed for a single tenant. o It is noted that the proffers for this proposed rezoning were being revised and that the HRAB had not yet seen these proffers. During the meeting, the applicant's representative submitted a copy of the proffers which were not yet officially approved by the owner of the property, but would soon be. • Chairman Kriz, with the support of other HRAB members pointed out that the HRAB would not be in a position to issue a comment until members had received and reviewed an official copy of these proffers. Concerns were voiced regarding the visual impact of this development on the historic sites immediately to the North, and the impact on the visual character of Sulphur Spring Road itself. Despite the proffer to protect the woodlands along Sulphur Spring Road with a preservation easement, the property's terrain is such that the area to be developed may still be visible due to its elevation above the road's level. The unofficial draft of the proffers presented at the meeting did include the designation of an additional landscaped and fenced buffer as a means of addressing this possible issue. • Ms. Krempa with some support from the group pointed out her preference to see the proffers include an assurance of a multitenant design, and also stated her desire to see the development's buildings shifted closer to the edge of Millwood pike in order to improve the streetscape. After some discussion, HRAB members agreed that should the proffer official statement include the woodland and stream preservation easement area as shown on the drawing, and should the landscaped buffer with a fence also be included, the Board would be able to support the rezoning proposal. The applicant agreed to supply staff with an official copy of the proffers as soon as they were available. Staff would then forward the proffer language to the Board for review and approval via email. Item Two: The second item presented was the request for comments regarding the Shenandoah Mobile CUP Application for a 195 foot Cell Phone Tower on Redbud Road. Specifically, the HRAB was to evaluate the CUP proposal's potential impact on the State -designated Scenic Byway: Redbud Road and on the surrounding area which is designated as a Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) in the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, and is within view of protected portions of the Third Winchester battlefield. Major Points: r The applicant has completed a phase I archeological survey of the property, and received a comment from DHR indicating that the tower would not cause any of the currently qualifying historic site's from no longer qualifying for state or nation historic registry designations - 0 The group spent a great deal of time discussing the potential benefits of the tower in terms of added service levels, while also the sensitivity of the proposed location. 0 Members did agree that an alternative location would be preferable to the currently proposed site. The applicant's representative pointed out that the appropriate location for the tower was limited to a small area and that there were no feasible alternative co -location sites. The group then inquired about the Millwood High School site, but the applicant indicated that that site was beyond the radius that Shentel had defined as a potential tower location area. 0 Puts. Krempa voiced here concerns about the visibility of the tower from protected battlefields, and members also inquired as to whether there were any limitations on locating the tower along a scenic byway or within the redbud agricuitural district. Staff pointed out that there were in fact no specific County restrictions on the location of a tower within the agricultural district or along a scenic byway. 0 The group considered possible design options that could assist in minimizing the visual impact of the tower, including paint colors, reduced height, and the option of disguising the tower as a flag pole. It was decided by members that the flag pole option was not desirable. 0 Staff recommended that the Board consider the proposal in two parts, first, deciding whether a tower should be located at the proposed site in light of the potential impact it may have on the surrounding area. Then, staff suggested, if the Board should decide that the benefits of added service outweigh these impacts, the HRAB should include a set of recommendations regarding the tower's height and design. 0 Members then further discussed the possible benefits of adde4d service, considered the applicant's ser4vice improvement illustrations as well as the viewshed analysis documents. Some disagreement remained about the appropriateness of the tower at the proposed location. Action: Ms. Krempa recommended a vote on the motion stating that "the benefits, in terms of additional coverage levels as shown in the applicant's coverage map, did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower's impact on the area's viewshed." The motion was seconded, and passed by a majority vote. Based on this decision, the Board forwent any further discussion on regarding methods of mitigating the visual impact of the proposed tower. Item Three: The third item presented was a review of the Route 11 North Study area's potential historic preservation priorities. In reviewing this area's long-range plan, the County requested the Board's opinion regarding which sites should be identified as priorities for preservation in the future. HRAB members marked -up a large map of the area, selection about half -a -dozen historic sites identified within the rural lands study which remain relatively intact and particularly worthy of preservation. Following this discussion, members briefly addressed the need for a meeting in the month of September, and agreed that unless an application was submitted for review, the Board had no pressing need to meet. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30.