HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 02 1997 PC Minutes12-2-97
DECF_MBER 2, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 2,
1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson;
and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development;
Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative. Absent. -
Commissioners Loewenstein and Washington.
A quorum was confirmed and the Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The minutes of the November 11, 1997, meeting were approved (4:0:1) as submitted. Mr.
Dotson abstained from the action because he was absent from the November 11th meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP 97-109 For Evea Season - Site Plan Waiver request and approval of one (1) off -site
parking space.
No concerns were identified by the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved, including the approval of one off -site parking space.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-54 Totier Creek Vineyard - Request to expand the existing farm winery tasting area
from 600 square feet to 1,800 feet, and to hold events, festivals and similar activities [Section
5.1.25e]. Property, described as tax Map 112, Parcels 18 and 18M1, is located at the end of
Route 720, Harris Creek Road, approximately 0.6 miles west of Route 20, Scottsville Road,
in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Access is also proposed from a private easement off
Route 20. This site is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
AND
SDP 97-134 Totier Creek Vineyard Site Plan Waiver Request - Request to waive requirement
of site plan for expansion of farm winery tasting area.
The applicant was requesting deferral of both items to February 17, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
�;20
12-2-97 2
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-54 and SDP 97-134 for
Totier Creek Vineyard be deferred to February 17, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 97-01 Add Off -site Parking for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas - Request to
amend Section 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow off -site parking for motor coaches in
conjunction with the operation of tourist related historical businesses and neighboring support
services by special use permit in the Rural Areas zoning district. (Amendment initiated by
Historic Michie Tavern)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the proposed
amendment. She explained that a couple of additions still need to be made to the
amendment and can be done prior to the Board hearing. Those additions are-
--Sec. 5.1.38 - Add that "this would be available for provided (sic additional) as well as
required parking, i.e. it will be available for more than just the minimum parking requirements
which exist in the Zoning Ordinance."
--Sec. 5.1.38 (possibly c., 4.) - Related to provision for access from the parking lot to
the historic site or structure, addressing the issue of what type of access --pedestrian or
motor coach --and how will it be accommodated.
NOTE: Ms. Echols made the following correction to the first paragraph on page 3 of the staff
report. The sentence should read as follows: "...Any proposed parking lots relating to
historic sites that are not in entrance corridors or historic districts would be referred by the
staff to the Architecture Review Board for comments...." (The staff report had incorrectly
included the word not, i.e. "...historic districts would not be referred by the staff to the
Architecture Review Board....")
Commission comments and concerns were as follows:
--Pg. 2, Sec. 4.12.3.4.a: Ms. Huckle asked if "residential uses" refers to an inn or bed
and breakfast. Mr. Cilimberg said this language already exists in the Ordinance. Only the
underlined portions of the amendment are being added.
--Pg. 2, Sec. 4.12.3.4.b: Ms. Huckle asked if this section (related to distance limitation
of 500 feet from the entrance of the use) will remain. Ms. Echols explained that 4.12.3.4.d
says that "the distance limitations established in this section shall not apply to off -site parking
for a historic structure or site authorized by sections 5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46." She explained
there may be instances where a motor coach will drop tourists at a particular point and then
pick them up, so there would be no need for the parking space to be located within 500 feet.
This will be considered on a case -by -case basis, depending on the circumstance.
--In response to Mr. Dotson's question, staff confirmed that this amendment will apply
to all parking, not just to motor coaches. Mr. Cilimberg explained: "It is important to note,
because this would be special use permit approved, that in any case you can review parking
for how it impacts surrounding areas, how it relates to the historic use and the distance...."
--Pg. 3, Sec. 5.1.38.b.: Ms. Huckle said she thinks the most important impact on the
rural area, the impact to water quality which is caused by the pollution from vehicles which
runs off and gets into the streams of adjacent rural land, has been omitted from the list. Mr.
12-2-97 3
``ftwl Tice agreed. (Later in the meeting it was decided this paragraph would be amended to
address Commissioner Huckle's and Tice's concern.)
--Ms. Huckle suggested another item be added under 5.1.38 which would require
water quality Best Management Practices, to be approved by the Engineering Department.
(It was later decided that this concern was addressed elsewhere and another item was not
needed.)
--Mr. Finley said he is glad this amendment was broadened to include all parking and
is not exclusive for tourist coaches. He thought staff had done a good job in the preparation
of the proposed amendment.
--Pg. 3, Sec. 5.1.38, First Paragraph: Mr. Tice questioned whether all the issues that
have been raised have been adequately addressed in this paragraph, i.e. "the issue of
whether the proposed off -site parking significantly impacts the character of the rural,
surrounding area and whether the use represents an intensification of use within the rural
areas." He thought it would be clearer for potential applicants, and for the public, if all those
concerns were included in the first sentence. He suggested the first sentence be amended
as follows: "Off -site parking for a historic structure or site is authorized only (a) when the
provision of on -site parking would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character
and setting of the historic structure or site to be served; (b) when the provision of off -site
parking would not significantly impact the character of the surrounding area and does not
represent a significant intensification of use in a rural area; and (c) when the level of use of
the property that necessitates the provision of additional parking is appropriate for
maintaining the historic integrity and character of the surrounding area .... To ensure that the
review...." (NOTE: These were modified slightly at the end of the discussion.) Mr. Finley
asked if it was Mr. Tice's intent that all these elements must be met before off -site parking
can be approved. Mr. Tice replied: "No. What I was trying to say is that the Commission
and Board, in considering the request, should take those elements into account when
reviewing it, that it should be clear that it is not just a matter of proving that on -site parking
would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character, but these other things
have to be taken into account also." (Mr. Anderson noted that Paragraph c. requires most of
those items to be dealt with in the submission.)
--Pg. 3, Sec. 5.1.38.a: Referring to the second sentence, Mr. Tice asked if a report is
submitted by the applicant, does this wording mean "we are essentially bound to say they
have satisfied that requirement." Mr. Kamptner said the report is just one item that "may" be
required. The quality of such a report would be a factor taken into consideration during the
Commission and Board's review. Mr. Kamptner said all of the criteria of 5.1.38 must be
satisfied. He said the language could be clarified so as not to appear "so absolute and that
the evidence is not limited to this report." (Later in the meeting it was decided the second
sentence would be deleted entirely.)
--Ms. Huckle said that though she agrees with Michie Tavern's proposal, she feels it is
premature to make such a broad amendment, including all parking, at this time. She said it
should be deferred until the Historic Preservation Ordinance is in place and historic
properties have been identified. She said the amendment could be expanded later. (Ms.
Echols said staff had reviewed this more as a "parking lot issue" and not the type of vehicle.
Staff felt the main question is " is there a reason a parking lot should be provided off -site in
relationship to a historic structure?" Staffs assessment was "yes, there may be instances
when a parking lot is necessary." Staff did not focus as much on the motor coach issue, as
12-2-97 4
1%0'" on the parking lot itself.) After hearing Ms. Echols statements, Ms. Huckle again raised the
issue of the distance. She said that though she understands that distance may not be an
issue for tourist coaches, there are many people who visit historic structures in private
automobiles, and for a lot of those people a long walk would be a problem. She thought the
distance restriction should be re -instated. Ms. Echols said the Historic Preservation
Committee had not concentrated on the issue of the type of vehicle. They were more
concerned about the preservation of the historic structure and site, and with the placement
of the parking lot and issues of design of the tot and screening.
--Mr. Nitchmann stressed the importance of tourism to the community. He said the
special permit process will give the County the chance to review each request individually.
He said "I don't think this is opening the door for anything." He said it may be years before
the Historic Preservation Ordinance is passed, if ever. He concluded: "I think this is a good
ordinance which helps the tourist industry. It will help traffic patterns at Michie Tavern and it
presents a safe solution to a number of problems. I am prepared to support this tonight, with
the additions discussed earlier." He did not think the distance restriction should be re-
instated. He said it is not possible to take care of every situation for everybody. Staff
confirmed that the distance issue could be reviewed individually with each request and could
be addressed with a condition on the special permit. Ms. Echols added: "The addition we
were talking about, in the conceptual plan they would need to make provision for access
from the parking lot to the historic site or structure. Perhaps we could add language if
pedestrian access is being used it either needs to have the 500-foot limit, or that would be a
consideration that the Planning Commission would be making, that it would be a reasonable
distance." (Ms. Huckle said it might be possible just to change item 4.12.3.4.d to say the
500 feet does not apply to motor coaches, but it does apply to automobiles.)
--Mr. Finley said he thinks the additions suggested by Mr. Tice will "cover the bases."
Any environmental concerns can be addressed during the special permit review.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Richard Carter. He said the applicant has no
concerns about any of the discussion which has taken place. He said Michie Tavern's
request will be before the Commission in a couple of months. The approval of this
amendment will allow the applicant to proceed as planned. He stressed a statement in the
staff report which said that staff believes requests for off -site parking for historic structures
will be very infrequent. This is a very important issue to Michie Tavern, and though not a
"burning issue" to the County as a ::hole, "it is an important issue when taking into
consideration the entire tourist industry which is very important to this County." He asked for
the Commission's support.
Mr. Dotson asked what the current parking situation is which precipitated this request. Mr.
Carter said presently Michie Tavern is parking buses at the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge,
across Rt. 53. This situation is not working out. Monticello has granted an easement to
allow parking on property of Monticello. The parking lot at Michie Tavern is not adequate.
There is no plan to enlarge the parking lot. Rather the plan is to "move the parking from Lot
A to adjacent Lot B."
Public comment was invited.
5
12-2-97
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. Her statement is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. She
expressed concerns about the proposed amendment's potential impact to the rural landscape
which will be caused by the traffic improvements which will be required to move buses
safely from road to parking lot." If approved, she asked that consideration be given" to
adding language to the supplementary regulations to discourage the construction of off -site
parking lots when substantial improvements to the road or significant alterations to scenic
highways would be required."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Echols reviewed the changes which had been discussed. She first repeated those which
staff identified as needing to be added, (as stated previously on page 2 of these minutes).
After discussion to clarify the other suggested changes, the following were confirmed:
--Sec. 5.1.38. b. - Add after the word "glare": and degradation of water guality.
--Sec. 5.1.38.c.2. - Add after the word "runoff': _and which will rop teat water ualit .
--Sec. 5.1.38, first sentence of first paragraph: _"Off-siteparkingfor a historic
structure or site is authorized only when the provision of on -site Parking would
substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the historic
structure or site to be served, IL and when the provision of off -site parking.does not
significantly impact the character of the surrounding area and does not represent a significant
intensification of use in a rural area, and awhen the level of use of the property that
necessitates the provision of off -site arkin is appropriate for maintaining the historic
integrity and character of the surrounding area....To ensure that the review...." (To address
the concerns in PEC's statement, Mr. Cilimberg noted that item (b) would address impact to
roads.)
--Delete the second sentence of Sec. 5.1.38.a. related to a report. (Staff said the
Virginia Department of Historic Landmarks has not agreed to prepare such reports, nor have
they even been contacted. Mr. Dotson said it would probably be very easy to find someone
who would prepare such a report for a fee, so he questioned what would be gained. Staffs
intent was that a report show why parking could not be provided on site without being
degrading to the site or environment. )
Though Ms. Huckle suggested the addition of e. under Section 5.1.38-Engineering approval
of proposed water guality BMP's.--Mr. Tice pointed out water quality is addressed under
Sec. 5.1.38 b. and c.2. and then it becomes something that the Commission, with a specific
application, could require that the Engineering Department approve these specific elements."
Mr. Cilimberg added: "You could have a condition on the special permit reflective of the
considerations that are listed in the Supplementary Regulations, so if you have specifically
spelled out runoff and water quality and you feel, for a particular application, that you need
some level of submittal and approval by Engineering, that could be a condition of the Special
Use Permit." He said that would not need to be included in this amendment because "it
would be a by-product of the Supplementary Regulations in your review."
On the issue of cross-referencing commercial and screening requirements, Ms. Echols
explained: "I think we have resolved that by having each site evaluated on a case -by -case
�7
12-2-97
0
basis, for the particulars of that site so that a commercial setback for the parking lot might
not be necessary, depending on the site characteristics that exist. Screening is similar."
Referring to setbacks which were touched on slightly early in the discussion, Mr. Nitchmann
asked staff for clarification about setbacks from adjacent properties. Ms. Echols explained:
"It would be handled in the special use permit. In the rural areas, we don't have commercial
uses by -right and that is why Zoning suggested if you have a commercial use which had a
special use permit, the parking lot setbacks for commercial districts be applied in the rural
areas. Because the request for this type of use will be rare, staff felt the site characteristics
should govern how far back you would want to put a parking lot." She confirmed this could
be addressed during the special permit. Mr. Kamptner asked if the minimum requirements
in Section 10.4 (page 95 of the Ordinance) would apply. Ms. Echols said those are just
building setbacks. Mr. Nitchmann said he is satisfied that setbacks can be addressed
through a condition on the special permit.
Mr. Dotson asked if staff is aware of the Zoning Department's rationale for the use of
"required" or "additional" parking. He said there has been an assumption that "we are not in
the business of trying to encourage more than the minimum amount of parking" and it has
been suggested that the parking requirements need to be reviewed to determine if they are
excessive. I am curious about why we would not only encourage encroachment further into
the rural area by providing more than what we have said is necessary parking." Ms. Echols
said that though she did not know the parking requirements for Michie Tavern, she expects
,. that the parking for the motor coaches is over and above what the minimum parking would
be for automobiles. It is those types of situations that we would be covering. Successful
tourist operations might need more parking than what our minimum requirement would allow.
The other thing to be considered is that right now the Zoning Department only regulates
required parking. If someone wanted to provide additional parking for a particular use, on
the same lot, and there was an existing special use permit on the property, they would
potentially allow an enlargement of that parking lot without bringing it back. Under the
Zoning Ordinance the site plan only addresses required parking. There are parking lots
which are built without a site plan because the Zoning Ordinance says it is only required
parking that requires a site plan. Mr. Dotson concluded: "So what this really reflects is that
we don't have confidence that we can anticipate what the required parking should be for
these tourist oriented businesses, and, therefore, we are going to leave it flexible." Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that our parking requirements state minimum number of spaces
necessary. They don't have a maximum. There are situations where parking greatly
exceeds the requirement. The chance to address that only occurs if the excess parking is
500 feet away from the use or if a critical slope waiver is needed to accommodate the extra
parking. Mr. Dotson asked: "So what is the advantage of adding a provision that says 'to be
required or additional parking?' Why not just be silent on that? What do we gain?" Mr.
Cilimberg answered: "Because this section of the Ordinance --Section 4--is the basic
regulation section for required parking." Mr. Kamptner added: "I think it would make it
clearer that 5.1.38 can stand separate and apart from what is required in 4.12 and what is
being considered is additional parking. Mr. Cilimberg added: What this does is gives the
Board the opportunity, with your recommendation, to allow required parking off -site. That is
what 4.12.3.3 and 3.4 provide for. But it also gives them, under 5.1.38 the opportunity to
12-2-97 7
allow parking that is not required, off -site. Staff confirmed that a staff report would state the
amount of required parking and the amount of additional parking, and then it would be left to
the judgment of the Commission and the Board as to whether or not to approve the request.
Mr. Kamptner added: "The other thing this does is clarify that off -site parking stands alone
as a primary use on a piece of property" (if approved).
Mr. Dotson said he wants to be sure that this language will not allow parking to be provided
in the rural area "to serve the needs of a use located in another zoning district." As an
example he said: "I can think of Highway Commercial on Rt. 250, where I wouldn't want that
whole site to become building and then parking to be located on adjacent, rural land." Mr.
Cilimberg explained: "It is only in connection with an historic structure." Mr. Dotson asked
about a situation where a historic structure is in a non -rural zone (but parking is requested in
a rural zone). Mr. Kamptner: "It doesn't really limit that. If a historic structure site is in
Highway Commercial, the language here would not prohibit off -site parking in the rural area."
Mr. Cilimberg added: But it would be a decision that you, and ultimately the Board of
Supervisors, would make to allow that. That is completely within your discretion if that
circumstance should come up."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that ZTA 97-01, to Add Off -site
Parking for Tourist Motor Coaches in the Rural Areas, Sec. 10.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, with the
changes discussed above and summarized as follows-
--Sec. 5.1.38 - Add that "this would be available for provided as well as required
parking, i.e. it will be available for more than just the minimum parking requirements which
exist in the Zoning Ordinance."
--Sec. 5.1.38 (possibly c., 4.) - Add language related to provision for access from the
parking lot to the historic site or structure, addressing the issue of what type of access --
pedestrian or motor coach --and how will it be accommodated.
--Sec. 5.1.38.b. - Add after the word "glare": and degradation of water ug ality.
--Sec. 5.1.38.c.2. - Add after the word "runoff': and which will protect water guality.
--Sec. 5.1.38, Change the first sentence of first paragraph: _"Off -site parking for a
historic structure or site, in order to provide the minimum parking required b-Sec. 4,12 or to
provide additional parkingword unclear is authorized o�when the provision of on -site
parking would substantially degrade or detract from the historic character and setting of the
historic structure or site to be served; b and when the provision of off -site parking does not
significantly impact the character of the surrounding area and does not represent a significant
intensification of use in a rural area; and (W when the level of use of the property that
necessitates the provision of off -site Parking is appropriate for maintaining the historic
integrity and character of the surrounding area .... To ensure that the review...."
--Delete the second sentence of Sec. 5.1.38.a.
--Add to second sentence of 5.1.38.a.c.: "its dimensions, its access to a up blic street,
and its distance from the historic structure or site and shall identify how persons will be
transported from the off -site arkin to the historic structure or site. The conceptual...
The motion passed unanimously.
M
12-2-97
WORK SESSION - Capital Improvements Program
Commission comments and suggestions were as follows-
--Mr. Finley asked how the Committee who had reviewed all the CIP projects had
handled the School Division requests. Staff explained that there was a decision a few years
back that the Commission would not be involved in the School requests. The School list is
developed by the School Board, who meets often with the Board of Supervisors. The Board
then makes the final decision. Mr. Finley voiced his frustrations with the School Division's
way of handling their budget requests in past years and hoped there were checks and
balances in place. He said: "The real money here is in schools and the driving force
behind taxes is schools."
--Mr. Nitchmann repeated a concern he has voiced several times before, that the
general public does not understand that there is another very large sum of money spent on
schools which is not a part of this CIP program.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked why $330,000 (over the 5-year CIP period) is assigned to the
Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Development project when the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Initiatives project is being "sacrificed." He said the Landfill project will serve only a limited
number of people in a particular neighborhood, whereas the Traffic project would benefit the
entire county. Ms. Huckle thought it would be wiser to wait a while before putting money
into a Landfill Recreation project to determine if there are going to be any lingering health
hazards on the site. (Staff explained that the Ivy project would provide playing fields (soccer)
which Parks and Rec have identified are deficient in this area. Only $30,000--for planning --is
budgeted the first year. The Traffic Calming project funding was delayed a year to see how
much funding is going to come from VDOT. Any money for Traffic Calming from VDOT will
be part of the Six Year Secondary Road Projects Plan.) Mr. Nitchmann said he would rather
see the tax dollars go to a project which will benefit the entire county. He pointed out that
there are two schools in the Ivy area (with fields) and a lot of open space. He said he also
feels the request to put cellular phones in the police vehicles should take priority over the
Landfill Recreation project. Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "I think we send a message that
Traffic Calming is more important to this community that more recreation fields in Ivy." Mr.
Tice pointed out that the fields will serve more than just the Ivy area, but he agreed with Mr.
Nitchmann the Traffic Calming project should take priority over the Ivy project.
--Mr. Dotson asked if it is possible to add more money to the Traffic Calming project if
the work of the Development Area Initiatives Committee should identify the need. Ms.
Huckle cautioned against putting a lot of money into this "new project" until it has been
tested. She felt we should wait to see "if it is going to do what we hope it will do." Mr.
Nitchmann said that is why the funding is spread out over the five years. Mr. Dotson agreed
with Commissioners Tice and Nitchmann that there should be funding for Traffic Calming.
--Mr. Finley asked if the $55 million dollar budget includes all debt service. Mr.
Nitchmann answered: "it stays within the guidelines that we set for debt service." Staff was
not able to give a clear answer to Mr. Finley's question.
--Ms. Huckle asked that the record show that she was opposed to the $620,000
funding for the Greenway. She was not opposed to the Greenway, if it can be done
voluntarily. But she feels "there are a lot more important things to spend the money on. It's
not like we live in Manhattan. There is a lot of green area in this County."
12-2-97
u
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Capital Improvements
Program be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, with the following
recommended change:
--Change the $330,000 funding of the Ivy Landfill Recreation Access to $120,000.
Change the Traffic Calming Project to show $200,000 funding.
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION - Critical Resources Inventory/Biodiversity
Referring to the reports which the Commission had received, Ms. Scala updated the
Commission on information obtained from other localities which have experience with a
Critical Resources Inventory.
Commission comments and suggestions were as follows:
--Mr. Dotson said some of the management plans for federal lands emphasize habitat
and wildlife and because they have more experience than local governments it may be
helpful to look at some of their plans, e.g. the George Washington and Shenandoah National
Parks. He said this may offer guidance as to the next step after an inventory is performed.
--Mr. Finley asked if there is any way to develop a program where "private property
owners can think of this as a resource and not a threat." He asked what will happen if an
area is identified as being so critical that certain actions are required by the property owner.
He said all citizens are going to be paying for these studies, without knowing what the impact
will be to the property owners where these critical areas are located. "Does it mean more
buffer zones, smaller lots sizes, cluster housing? Are you going to have to let go of
something you have!" He thinks property owners reel threatened. Ms. Scala said staff has
tried to write the staff report so as to emphasize the educational aspect of an inventory. A
second step would be to get landowners to provide voluntary measures such as a voluntary
conservation easement. She said "any other type measure would be as a last resort," and
she was not sure additional measures would be necessary of "even possible." Mr. Finley
said education is always the first approach, "but once it gets in the nooks, then there are
those who are given the responsibility of developing an implementation program." He
referred to a statement in the staff report that says "incorporate protective measures into
policies and ordinances." He said: "Once it gets into policy and ordinances then it is law
and you've got to do it. Once it is there and approved, whatever the Ordinance says, you've
got to do." Nis. Scala agreed that the final document should "convey that it is a resource and
is not a threat." Mr. Finley said private citizens are already doing a lot and he hopes the
landowners will be the major component of preserving and protecting these habitats. He
concluded: 1 would "hate to think that it is all going to brought into a government -regulated
program." (Ms. Huckle pointed out that properties are sold and "it would be good to have a
way to protect these resources in perpetuity.")
--Mr. Tice said that though he realizes there are landowners who may feel threatened,
he thinks the majority of county landowners would be very happy to find they have areas on
their properties which are special and would volunteer to protect those areas. He said he
feels "it is the job of this Commission and the Board, and Committees that are established, in
I/
12-2-97 10
future years when we review comprehensive plans and ordinances, to decide what is
appropriate in the way of protective measures." He said: "This inventory ...will help bring
predictability and cooperation and will foster the kind of atmosphere where we can take a
more comprehensive view and do a better job of managing our resources.... It is part of our
job to make sure that the information is used in the proper way to protect property rights."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, addressed the Commission. He read a
statement (Attachment B to these minutes). She said the information which has been
gathered leads staff to believe that "we are heading in the right direction."
Ms. Babette Thorpe, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. She explained what a Conservation Easement is and how it can benefit
landowners financially. She listed additional benefits of a Critical Resources Inventory:
--Can help protect habitat beyond the boundaries of one owner's property. It is typical
for landowners to join together to consider placing easements on several pieces of property
at one time.
--Can help focus the efforts of private conservation groups.
--Can encourage the protection of smaller parcels of land. A small parcel may
represent an important link in a chain of habitat.
--Can result in more and better conservation easements.
The Commission took no action. Another work session will be held on this topic.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Tice said he did some field research on various parking lots during the heavy shopping
times after Thanksgiving. Of the locations he visited, he estimated there appeared to be as
many as 3,000 unused parking spaces.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
V, L=L"
V. Wayne Vilimbetrg, Sec
P:
M
'JA