by Beecher Threatt
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
What should come first, identifying new roads as visual impact corridors or developing criteria for buildings within corridors? The county planning commission revealed deep divisions among its members in its update to the Board of County Commissioners on overhauling visual impact regulations in the land use code.
BOCC Chair Heidi Albritton made it clear that Tuesday’s meeting was simply to hear an update from the planning commission, despite the overwhelming attendance by citizens concerned with what direction the board would take.
Planning commission chair Ken Lipton presented preliminary recommendations from a majority of members, and the two alternates on the planning commission submitted “minority reports” which mainly disagreed with the... method used to come up with recommendations and the “one size fits all” approach to visual impact corridors and regulations.
The two alternates, Tim Currin and John Baskfield, and a voting member of the planning commission, Larry Kumpost, said the commission had not adequately addressed the economic impact of extending visual impact regulations.
Members in the majority, Lipton, Sheelagh Williams and Karen Risch, contended there was no reliable data on the cost to property owners of complying with visual impact regulations. Bob Luttrell, also in the majority, was not in attendance on Tuesday.
Preliminary recommendations include the addition of 45 county roads to the list of VICs. These roads, said the majority, have the characteristics of roads already named as VICs. Alternative energy structures, including solar and wind collectors, would receive special consideration in the recommendations. Historically accurate buildings would be exempt from the color requirements of VI blending regulations. Structures subject to VI regulations would include fences, gates, towers, artwork, free standing walls and retaining walls, in the majority report recommendations.
Minority members objected based, among other things, on the cost to property owners of complying with VI regulations. They also disputed the contention by the majority that tourism could decrease if VICs are not protected.
Currin said the issues the mostly lay-member commission is addressing need expert input from experienced planners, architects and legal counsel. He objected to the make-up of the planning commission as for the most part supporting “the objectives of a special interest group that wants to slow or stop growth and development.”
One issue is whether VI regulations increase or decrease property values. If a property owner cannot build where views are available on the property, the value may decrease. On the other hand, having stricter VI regulations in an area could increase a property’s value.
Baskfield objected to the method for exempting historically accurate buildings from blending rules. “Design guidelines beget more design guidelines. We don’t have to go to design guidelines if we create a point system that uses a variety of tools to mitigate visual impact,” Baskfield said.
He added that the commission should gather 3-D data to get more accurate visuals along proposed VICs. County commissioner Lynn Padgett offered help from the county’s GIS office.
Ed Folga, a Ridgway businessman, questioned whether the original goal of reducing subjectivity in land use staff decision-making was being met. “That will be a big consideration for me,” County Commissioner Mike Fedel stated.
Lipton said the next step for the planning commission is to address the point system for evaluating visual impact. He hopes to have a final report ready for the BOCC in April, at which time both commissions will discuss the strategy for packaging the report for a public hearing.