Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-24 adjAugust 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000092 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 24, 1994, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Rooms 5/6, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from August 17, 1994. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin, Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Not Docketed. Mr. Perkins welcomed the following persons who were present from Girl Scout Troop #595: Lindsay Hansborough, Sarah Conroy, Joana Olson and Jeanne Inge. Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission. Planning Commission Members Present: Mr. A. Bruce Dotson, Mr. Thomas Blue, Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Mr. Thomas H. Jenkins, Mr. William J. Nitchmann and Mrs. Monica G. Vaughan. Also present was Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development. Mrs. Huckle called the Planning Commission to order. Item 2a. Discussion: Community Visioning Statement. Mr. Tucker summarized the results of the community visioning process conducted jointly by the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia. The Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) has accepted the Visioning Statement and recommended that each jurisdiction adopt the statement and follow it as a common starting point for their respective Comprehensive Plans. The City of Charlottesville has adopted the Visioning Statement as recommended. Mr. Tucker said Board and Commission members have received several letters expressing concern with the Visioning Statement and the process. He feels these letters include some constructive and important comments that should be considered. The staff feels, however, that most of the comments are policy oriented and should be considered as policy issues during the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the comments seem to be unique to the County and not all three jurisdictions. Mr. Tucker said the Visioning Statement is present for adoption by the Board and to be incorporated into the Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Perkins commented that several persons had expressed an interest to speak at this meeting on the Visioning Statement. He suggested that comments be taken at the end of the meeting. The Commission could then review the comments and make suggestions to the Board. Mrs. Humphris felt that procedurally PACC should have forwarded the Visioning Statement to the Board for input. She reviewed all of the informa- tion submitted by the various organizations and found merit in some of the comments. She agreed with the request from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to change some of the wording in the statement of values. Some of the wording in the NAACP's statement is better than the wording proposed in the Visioning Statement. She feels the same about some of the ideas proposed by other organizations. She feels these ideas need to be considered before the Board adopts the statement. In response to a question from Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Tucker said he does not think the University of Virginia has adopted the statement. Mr. Marshall asked if the City received these letters from the various organizations. Mr. Tucker replied, "no"; most of the comments relate primari- ly to the County. Mr. Nitchmann asked what is the process if this Board recommends changing some of the wording in the Visioning Statement. Mr. Tucker said the document would go back to the City for reconsideration. He added that part of the problem then becomes when does the review process end. Mr. Martin said when he read the Visioning Statement he did not have any significant problems with the wording. He thinks the Visioning Statement balances a lot of different issues. He feels the comments related to special interest groups trying to give weight to one issue over another issue. He has no problem with adopting the Visioning Statement as it is written realizing that it is not a perfect document, but that it balances a lot of different issues. August 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000093 Mrs. Humphris said the Visioning Statement states: "... a strong and vital urban core ... rural area that remains predominantly green and urban .... " This language is specific. She can understand why the Crozet Community Association felt the importance of the small communities, villages and towns were omitted. Mr. Martin said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris on that issue. Ms. Imhoff suggested that instead of adopting the document tonight, the Board allow the public an opportunity to discuss some of these issues with the Commission. Mr. Dotson suggested that provisional approval of the statement by the Board is a possibility. The Board could then direct the Commission, public and so forth, to discuss the statement in conjunction with policy issues and the Comprehensive Plan. At the end of the review process, the Board would return to the statement for final adoption. The statement would then also be forwarded to the City for its reconsideration in light of its revised Plan. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Dotson. He sees the Visioning Statement as being a dynamic document reflective of where everyone is at when the process is finished. The City, University and County are in the process of reviewing their respective Comprehensive Plans. He thinks it would be appropriate to revisit the Visioning Statement after each jurisdiction completes that review process. He does not want to get bogged down in detail trying to make specific changes at this time. He thinks it is a good idea to approve the Visioning Statement provisionally. Mr. Martin agreed. He also has a problem with trying to change certain words to make the document better at this time. In response to several comments from members of the public, Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board should adopt the Visioning Statement tonight as it is recommended. He emphasized that there are two other jurisdictions involved and the document has already been adopted by the City. If the Board makes any changes at this time, the document would have to go back to the other juris- dictions to reconsideration. He agrees with the suggestion to adopt the Visioning Statement, instruct the Commission to take public comments and then at the end of the process, adopt a final statement. He restated that the Board will take some comments tonight, but this is not a public hearing. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, said he understands this is not a public hearing, but he is concerned that this document will serve as an element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinarily these type documents are held up to considerable public review and scrutiny, and the Board seems to be driven tonight by the fact that the City has already taken action. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the comments made by the various organiza- tions are relevant and important. He believes those concerns will be fully addressed in the context of the Plan. While the Visioning Statement is dynamic, it is not a final document. Mr. Martin said other than procedural methods used during the visioning process, most of the concerns raised by organizations dealt with putting more emphasis on certain issues in the Visioning Statement. He thinks the Board can move forward and then discuss all these issues at a later time. Mrs. Humphris said her understanding of these letters is that the organizations felt the emphasis that was placed by members of the public at the two visioning forums in January and February were not given proper weight and clarity in the Visioning Statement. The organizations felt that what the public wanted was overlooked or diminished. The Visioning Statement is supposed to reflect what the people want. Mrs. Humphris said she does not like the idea that the Board seems to be driven by the fact that the City has already adopted the document. That should not be a concern of the Board. The Board and public should feel comfortable with the document. There is no reason to go leaping forward until everyone is satisfied. Mr. Martin said he did not know the City had adopted this statement until tonight and that is not a part of his decision-making. He can point to certain things in the comments, in particular the Piedmont Environmental Council's letter, that this Board would have some aggressive arguments about and get bogged down in just that one statement. Mr. Tucker then suggested that the Board request the Commission to hold a public hearing, incorporate whatever changes they feel are appropriate and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks that would be a good idea. He does not consider provisional as being a hard and firm document. He looks at it as an interim document. He attended both of the visioning forums and there were a lot of different ideas. He does not agree with the statement that the process should have been more open. He thinks the process was very open and it was democratically run. He thinks everybody at the forums had a chance for input. Everybody is not going to like the input that comes out of this because there was so much input. Mr. Nitchmann said he realizes this is a community with complex issues, but he envisions a visioning statement as being one paragraph. He does not want to see the community visioning process that went on to be repeated in front of the Commission. If there is going to be a public forum, he thinks it should be clearly understood that the Commission will hold one August 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 3) 000094 public meeting and then, possibly, hold a work session afterwards to get its thoughts together to make a recommendation to the Board. He thinks that a lot of these issues are covered in the broad spectrum of the statement but they may not be emphasized to suit one particular group of individuals. Mrs. Huckle said she has reservations about recommending changes to the statement. In her opinion this will be a helpful document in the Commission's review of the Plan and she thinks the letters received will be helpful in that review. This statement has no particular force or weight. Mrs. Humphris said this statement becomes the County's history. She is not advocating opening this up to more visioning. She wants to make sure that people are satisfied that what happened at those two forums is reflective in the statement. Mrs. Huckle asked if it would be useful to incorporate the points in these letters into the Visioning Statement rather than holding a public hearing. Mr. Jenkins said it seems to him the Board should adopt the Visioning Statement, as recommended, and add these comments as addendum for the County's use. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the Visioning Statement is a wonderful document for reacting and adopting. She thinks the document should be included with the information for the community meetings held in the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martin then offered motion to adopt the Community Visioning State- ment as proposed, provisionally, as a working document. The Board will use and review this document as it goes through the update and study of the Comprehensive Plan. All comments are to be attached to the Statement so that it provides all additional information, feelings and thoughts by members of the public. Following completion of the Comprehensive Plan process, the Board will revisit the Statement and along with all the attached documents, attempt to develop a final Community Visioning Statement that the University of Virginia, City 'of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle can all agree upon. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mrs. Thomas commented that there are grammatical and spelling errors in the Statement that should be corrected. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Mr. Bowerman. None. Mrs. Thomas and Item 2b. Discussion: Telephone Survey. Mr. Thomas M. Guterbock, Director of the Center for Survey Research, thanked Wayne Cilimberg and David Benish who worked closely with the Center in many aspects of developing and carrying out the survey. He thanked Board and Commission members who gave the Center the benefit of their input on the questions. He, also, thanked Mr. Jeff Gulati, co-author of the report. Mr. Guterbock said it is a bold step to ask the public how they feel on planning issues. It has been about a year since the Center started this process. He commented that rarely has he worked on a survey that generated so much nervousness on so many sides. It seemed that the people who are pro- business were afraid the survey would show that everyone in the County wanted growth to stop immediately. The people who were for preservation and natural resources were afraid everybody in the County wanted development on every corner. None of those ideas are totally accurate. There are certain issues on which people agree and then there are other issues where the people are divided. He thinks this survey provides a lot of good information for the County as it undertakes its planning process. Obviously this survey is nothing more than an informational document. Mr. Guterbock said the Center tried to pose the questions in a manner that everyone in the County could understand and would not have to be highly educated or an expert in planning to respond. The Center tried to make the questions fair. Basically technical issues were left out of the survey. Mr. Guterbock said the survey was designed to: 1) determine the level of public support in the County for key planning and land use policies that have been implemented under the current Comprehensive Plan; 2) determine how County residents feel about various emerging planning and land use issues that are being considered in conjunction with review of the Plan; 3) assist in the community visioning process by identifying the most important goals County residents have for the future of the Charlottesville-Albemarle area; 4) assess residents' support for several specific proposals regarding cooperation between the County and the City of Charlottesville; and 5) determine the level of citizen satisfaction with the area's quality of life and with the provision of services by Albemarle County government. Mr. Guterbock said as the Board read these results it should keep in mind how to read such a survey. The Board needs to read it in broad focus. This type of survey can tell areas where there is broad agreement, issues that people are divided on and ideas that nobody supports. When the public is August 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000095 divided on an issue, a survey like this may be misleading if the reader starts to look at the 35 percent or 37 percent of the public that thought one way or the other. The margin of error in the survey is ±4 percent. The Center surveyed 500 residents of the County using a random digit dialing methodology. There was a 56 percent rate of cooperation. They dialed the telephone 3300 times in order to complete these 500 surveys. A computerized system was used to do the questioning which allowed the sequence of questions to be random- ized. On some of the questions, two versions of the question were asked. Mr. Guterbock then summarized and discussed the results of the survey. Mr. Marshall commented that he conducted a survey for his business in which he found that approximately 75 percent of the people who have Medicaid cards in the County do not have telephones which means they could not be reached for purposes of this survey. Mr. Guterbock agreed that is a disadvan- tage of using the telephones as a means for a survey. The two other main ways to conduct a survey is by mail or in person. It costs a lot more to do a survey in person. There is a much higher response in a telephone survey than by mail. One of the hopes of a telephone survey is to reach low income persons. Mrs. Thomas said one of the things she noticed in the comments that people were allowed to make at the end was that they hoped people would use the survey. She thinks it is a useful survey and will be used. Item 2c. Discussion: Comprehensive Plan Schedule. Mr. Benish said staff made the following assumptions in developing the schedule for the Comprehensive Plan review: The Board of Supervisors desire to have the revised Plan adopted by December 1995. Staff resources are fixed. No significant increase in staff or consultant assistance is anticipated. Based on the findings of the telephone survey and visioning process, the major goals and policies of the current Plan are consistent with community desires. Issues and initia- tives should focus on refinement and update of the Plan. The Land Use Plan is the highest priority component of the Plan to review. A necessary input to develop the Land Use Plan would be an economic development policy. Therefore, an economic development policy (goals, objectives, strategies) should be developed early in the process. A second tier of components for review (listed in schedule) will be undertak- en after the Land Use Plan is forwarded to the Board for its review. No major changes to the rural areas development policy are undertaken. Emphasis durin9 this Plan review should be placed on expanding growth areas and making development more feasible in those areas. Recent development trends indicate that the rural areas district is becoming more effective (65 percent of growth now occurring in the growth areas since 1989). The survey results indicate a general satisfaction with current growth management efforts and control of devel- opment in the rural areas. Furthermore, the Agricultural- Forestal Industries Support Committee, which consisted primarily of farmers/foresters, stressed a need for consis- tency and predictability in regulations. They have recom- mended against changes to the rural areas District. Should the rural areas development policy be reviewed, staff would recommend that it be undertaken after the completion of the Land Use Plan as a second tier priority. Control of the Plan review process and schedule, once ac- cepted by the Board/Commission, is at the staff level. The staff will develop complete packages of information and deliver recommendations on major components of the Plan for Commission review. The Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors will want to have public input meetings throughout the County on a re- vised draft of the Plan, similar to those planned for this September/October. In order to meet the December, 1995, timeframe, the use of Growth Area Citizen Committees will be de-emphasized. Staff proposes to establish the committees and meet with each, one to two times, to review the proposed draft Land Use Plan. The committees would remain as standing committees and staff would utilize them for the development of specific neighbor- hood/community/village plans after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. 000096 August 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Benish then reviewed the timeframe for the review of the Plan. Staff has identified six areas (in the second tier of components for review) it thinks will be the most significant changes to the Plan. Staff is not suggesting that the entire Plan will not be reviewed with possible changes, but feels the other areas will not require as extensive review. The areas where staff feels will have the most substantive changes are: water resourc- es; housing; agriculture and forestry; human services; education (new to Plan) and culture/arts (new to Plan). Staff is open to suggestions of other areas to consider. Mr. Blue said the rural areas constitute most of the land in the County, yet all the other districts focus on density of some type. Density in the rural areas varies considerably. There are a number of subdivisions in the rural areas which are relatively dense. He asked if any thought was given to whether these subdivisions should be operating under the same guidelines as forests and farmland, or whether the rural areas could be more refined. He believes that most of people who live in the rural areas live in subdivisions. Mr. Blue said he is referring to subdivisions that are already developed such as West Leigh and Key West, and he does not necessarily think they should be called Growth Areas because they are already fully grown. Mr. Benish said that is an issue that needs to be addressed. Staff feels strongly that there needs to be a sense of consistency in the development regulations, particular- ly in the rural areas. If there are areas that truly do not function as a rural area then there is justification for redefining those areas. Mrs. Huckle said if the Planning Commission is to make meaningful and timely land use recommendations, policy decisions need to be made by the Board of Supervisors on the two essential issues of water supply and transportation. These subjects impact economic and residential development potential, location and viability. The County Attorney gave her the understanding that Chris Greene Lake and Jacobs Run can be protected as future drinking water resources but still allow swimming until such time as that water was needed to supple- ment the South Rivanna Reservoir. If the County waits until added development takes place the use of these resources will be foreclosed. She understands that more information is pending from VDoT regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway. When this information is received and if the Planning Commission makes a requested recommendation, the Commission hopes the Board will make prompt and professional decisions for the good of the whole county. Mr. Nitchmann said, in an effort to preserve rural space and maintain open space, he wonders if it is time for the County to consider directing growth to certain areas by agreeing to pay for some of the infrastructure in those areas if the developer is willing to build the homes. That approach may also help provide more affordable housing. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Commission has decided that expanding the growth areas is necessary to prevent sprawl. Mrs. Huckle said the Commission has talked about it but has not reached a consensus. Mr. Marshall said he thinks staff needs to come up with some ideas that would entice people to go into a growth area, i.e., making it look like a rural area, building parks. Ms. Imhoff asked about the process for the public input meetings. Mr. Benish said the public input meetings will begin on September 19 at Sutherland Middle School. They will be in an open forum style meeting. Staff will educate the public on the current planning efforts, and then provide general information on the major goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. There will be a five minute introduction explaining the process. Eight stations will be set up to cover the major areas of the Plans with staff at each station to provide information and respond to questions. Advertisements are being placed with the media, neighborhood associations, churches, etc. Staff will hold meetings at eight locations around the County. The meetings will be held on Mondays and Thursdays for the next four weeks, from 5:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. Staff anticipates appointing the committees in the fall. At this time, the Chairman took comments from the public. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, presented a statement (on file) expressing concerns about the procedures that were followed in holding the community vision forums and analyzing related data. Citizens for Albemarle suggests that in a summary vision statement, less would be better. They believe the statement should be brief and strongly focused. They have proposed a revised, one page summary vision document. They, also, believe that public affirmation should be obtained for a vision statement that is to be incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan. They urge that the affirmation process include opportunities for suggestions by residents on revisions to any and all proposed vision summary documents. Mr. Olivier said, in response to the action taken by the Board tonight, his concern is that a vision summary document should represent the kind of essential priorities that is examined when a difficult decision is made. He fears that there is some sense on the Board that anything wrong in the draft can be fixed by simply adding more expressions and concerns. If there are too many expressions or concerns added, the citizens will be unable to get a clear 000097 August 24, 1994 (Adjourned Night Meeting) (Page 6) sense of priorities. He thinks that certain people do not consider the statement to be essential to the Comprehensive Plan which is why Citizens for Albemarle urge the statement to be brief. Mr. James King said he lives in the City of Charlottesville. The demographic changes that occur in the City and County affect one another. Even if the City's population is not growing, as long as the County's popula- tion is growing and the region is changing, people are coming into the City with problems that are more difficult to resolve. He thanked the Board and Commission members who do take this document seriously. He thinks there has been a cavalier attitude towards the document. This is a policy document. He does not think the Board should adopt the Visioning Statement just because it has been adopted by the City or University. He thinks the Board has time to revise the statement without getting bogged down. The proposed changes could be an improvement. He thinks the statement is too extensive which is discour- aging to people. He thinks the statement should be cut down to a single page document and eliminate all the detail. Ms. Cynthia Hash, Chairperson of the Meadow Creek Parkway Committee, handed out a statement (copy on file) opposing the "T" connectors. She expressed support for the "W's" behind the commercial property on the western side of Route 29 North. She reiterated the necessity of the "W's" in light of the master plan for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the incredible amount of growth in that plan during the next 20 years. Ms. Hash then expressed concerns about some of the statements made by residents of Forest Lakes regarding the AdventureLand Family Fun Park. She does not want the attitude of those people to affect how her position on the Meadow Creek Parkway is received. Ms. Hash said she thinks the way the Board and Commission have kept a tight hold on the amount of economic growth is admirable. She thinks the survey is contradictory in the finding that people had huge support for economic growth but small support for population since one goes hand-in-hand with the other one. She commented on statements in the visioning document that related to industry and education which were contradictory. She did not see anything in the visioning document about special schools for behavioral delinquent children. She did not see anything in the document about social well-being or the elderly. She feels that growth either needs to be contained in the growth areas or expand the current growth areas but maintain the rural areas. Item 2d. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters. Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Cha i rman