Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11112014actions 1 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 11, 2014 November 12, 2014 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT PODCAST 1. Call to Order.  Meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m., by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar. All BOS members were present. Also present were Tom Foley, Larry Davis and Travis Morris. Listen 2. Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to begin with public comments and possible Board direction.  Development Areas.  HELD. Wayne Cilimberg: Proceed with Commission as directed. (Attachment 1) Recess. The Board recessed at 6:39 p.m., and reconvened at 7:09 p.m. 3. Continuation of Work Session to include public comments and possible Board direction.  Development Areas.  HELD. Wayne Cilimberg: Proceed as directed. 4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.  There were none 5. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.  There were none. 6. Adjourn to November 12, 2014, 3:30 p.m., Room 241.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. ewj/tom Attachment 1 – Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion 2 ATTACHMENT 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION AND COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT AREAS November 11, 2014 Direction from the Board  Staff is directed to prepare a flyer about the Comp Plan update that Board members can share with citizens. The flyer should provide information about all the ways that citizens can offer their comments and input on the Comp Plan update.  Objective 3: promote commercial, industrial, non-residential development within the development areas. o Modify the text and/or strategies under this objective to better reflect the desire for active vibrant employment centers. o Within the strategies for Objective 3 identify tools such as overlay or service districts that would help to create vibrant employment centers.  Objective 4: Achieve high quality development through application of the Neighborhood Model Principles. o The language about the Neighborhood Model should emphasize that this is the preferred form of development but is not the required form. o The language under this objective should clearly state that not all of the Neighborhood Model principles will be appropriate in every development and that the policy should be flexible. o The interface between existing neighborhoods and new development should be better emphasized in the Neighborhood Model text. o The Board affirmed strategies 4p and 4q which discuss respecting terrain and the handling of re- graded slopes.  Objective 5: Facilitate infill development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new development of vacant and underutilized land. In doing so, respect the cohesiveness of existing neighborhoods and minimize impacts from new uses. o Articulate the differences between expectations for redevelopment of non-residential places and infill in residential neighborhoods. Be clear that redevelopment of existing neighborhoods is not intended and that reinvestment in existing neighborhoods is the preferred approach. o Add a strategy to develop infill guidelines for developers. o Acknowledge that infill will require a more engaged public process with neighbors. o Add a strategy to study techniques and measures for successful redevelopment, including incentives and funding for projects that help create jobs and accessible centers for employment. o Add a strategy stating that areas of the County that have shared jurisdictional borders with the City should be considered through cooperative planning with the City. o Add a strategy or text that describes the County’s expectations for infill, specifically in relation to context for infill development. o Clearly state how the Neighborhood Model principles should be analyzed when reviewing rezoning proposals for new infill development. New infill development should not contrast so starkly with existing development that it is considered to be grossly out of place. o Strategy 5b: Encourage infill development within designated Development Areas to help avoid rural development pressure.  Remove the second part of this strategy about rural development pressure. Development areas should be good places in their own right regardless of the Rural Area. o Strategy 5c: Encourage developers of by-right projects to meet with neighborhoods to find ways to minimize any negative impacts of infill. Use neighborhood meetings to help find solutions to potential compatibility issues; and o Strategy 5d: Continue to require screening, buffering, and, where necessary because of impacts such as noise, odor, and vibrations, require physical separation of incompatible residential and non-residential uses.  Strategies 5c and 5d currently have a negative tone. Create a more positive tone for text and strategies and explain that the Development Areas are collectively the place for high quality neighborhoods, not just the place for new neighborhoods.  Add a new Objective 6 that discusses the need for neighborhood preservation and public investment in sidewalks, street improvement, amenities, and other activities needed to ensure that existing neighborhoods do not become blighted. o One strategy under Objective 6 should be to encourage connections between neighborhoods especially near wide busy roads such as Route 29 and Route 250. 3 o Develop the new Objective 6, text, and strategies and take to the Planning Commission for feedback prior to the February 2015 Comprehensive Plan Worksession. The Commission should review the changes and provide comment. Detailed strategies for a neighborhood preservation and investment program aren’t needed at this time; however, the strategies should set the stage for future work in this area. The Commission’s work can be done in a worksession and would not need a public hearing.  (Existing) Objective 6: Preserve natural systems which are shown for preservation on Master Plan Land Use Plans. o Provide clearer language about the areas designated for parks and green systems areas shown on Master Plan land use maps and how this designation impacts the developable acreage of a site. o Strategy to 6b: Review County Code requirements for preserving environmental features and, where needed, tighten restrictions so that these features can be preserved in the Development Areas.  Strategy will be removed since steep slopes ordinance has already been adopted for the Development Areas.  Objective 7: Match infrastructure availability and capacity with new development, especially in Priority Areas.  Provide information on ways the County can support and incentivize redevelopment to help create the employment centers of tomorrow. It may be most appropriate to have this information in the Implementation Chapter, but hyperlink it to the Development Areas chapter. o Include a new strategy and some enhanced language about identifying areas for additional study and investment for future mixed use areas that could become vibrant job centers. These specific areas should be identified in more than just Route 29 and Pantops; we also have areas such as Avon Street Extended and Woolen Mills that do not have Master Plans. o Soften the language within the strategies to clarify that public investment in the Development Areas is not restricted to Priority Areas.  Objective 9: Consider allowing for urban agriculture practices to increase access to healthy, local, and affordable foods and encourage the productive use of vacant land. o Retain Strategy 9a: Study opportunities for chickens, goats, bees, and other forms of agriculture in the Development Areas and Strategy 9b: Allow community gardens as a standalone use. Additional Direction from the Board:  Supervisor Sheffield will get together with staff to discuss what to do with “ghost roads” shown on the Places 29 Master Plan. The expectation is that these roads will be reviewed by the Places 29 Advisory Council, and then sent to the Planning Commission for review. Changes to the Places 29 Master Plan transportation plan are not necessarily expected to take place with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.  The Development Areas Chapter should include a cross reference to the Com munity Facilities Chapter discussion of broadband capacity. This is not currently an issue for the Development Areas but it could become a problem in the future as our Development Areas increase in density.  Staff will work with Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Recommendations (Attachment C) and amend wording of Development Areas Chapter where it will not create a significant change.  Provide information on how Scottsville acts as a service center for the County’s southern rural area. Show how it is similar to a Development Area, but different because it is an incorporated area. Highlight the need to continue the practice of coordinating between the County and the Town on activities that may affect the other.  The Board will revisit the discussion of accessory unit apartments when reviewing the redline draft of the plan. This is an appropriate discussion for the Housing Chapter. Other Board Comments  Board members recently attended a meeting of VACO and the Board and County were commended on their efforts for citizen engagement on the Comp Plan update process. The Board must continue to work to strike a balance between having too much engagement and not enough. If there were too much engagement they would never get the plans adopted and implemented.  A business owner within the Scottsville District and a recent editorial in the newspaper by Neil Williamson stated that the Board has given Monticello “veto power” of development in the Monticello viewshed. This was not the intention of the Board with the recent revisions to the Rural Area chapter. The Board directed 4 staff to amend the language to clearly state that compliance with Monticello’s viewshed guidelines would be voluntary, not a requirement.  There is some confusion about the Board’s direction on the handling of recreational uses in the Rural Area. The Board’s changes to the Rural Area chapter did not call for a ban on specific recreational uses in the Rural Area. The Board’s intention with the revisions is to consider adverse impacts of rec reational uses within the Rural Area.  The Board’s previous revisions to the Comp Plan are still not final. There will be additional opportunities to review the revisions prior to adoption of the plan so the Board can be sure that the changes accurately reflect their wishes.  Some community members have expressed concerns that the Board is not supportive of economic development; however, the County has recently advertised a position for an Economic Development Director, which shows the Board’s commitment to promoting economic development in the County.  Board members have heard feedback that there is not a lot of flexibility in the Neighborhood Model. It is important to know when staff is reviewing proposals which items within the Neighborhood Model are deemed absolutely essential. Most of the older neighborhoods in the County do not feature the items listed in the Neighborhood Model and the people who live there like these neighborhoods the way they are.  When new Neighborhood Model developments are built adjacent to existing older neighborhood this can change the dynamics of the older neighborhoods and the new developments do not always mesh well with these older neighborhoods.  One issue that has occurred in Crozet is dealing with the maximum density that some sites will allow in infill developments. Having 36 units per acre adjacent to a neighborhood with half acre lots can cause a lot of conflict.  Some of the older neighborhoods in the urban ring are experiencing deterioration of infrastructure. This causes the newer neighborhoods to become more attractive and creates huge turnover within the older neighborhoods.  The goal should be to make the Development Areas attractive places to live. Crozet is a great model but we cannot use this same approach in the urban ring areas with existing and older neighborhoods. We have to figure out a different approach for these neighborhoods. It may be a good idea to revisit the criteria the county has for building sidewalks so some of the deteriorating infrastructure in o lder neighborhoods can be replaced and older neighborhoods that do not already have sidewalks can get them.  We don’t want the Development Areas to be an apology for the Rural Area. We want Development Areas to be where people choose to live.  We say we want people to live in the Development Areas where they will have services yet some parts of the Development Areas do not have available services. There are people living in the Development Areas who are replacing outdated septic systems that have never been able to connect to public sewer.  The older established neighborhoods have concerns about allowing accessory units in their neighborhoods. Allowing accessory units within existing neighborhoods is essentially changing the zoning of these neighborhoods and some of the older neighborhoods were not built for these types of changes.  There have also been complaints to the contrary where residents are complaining that it is too difficult to get approval of an accessory apartment within their homes.  We say we want pedestrian orientation and mixture of uses in the Neighborhood Model yet we have structurally built barriers such as Route 29 and Route 250 that prohibit these things. We need to figure out how to make these areas more pedestrian friendly.  How successful have we been in creating places where residents can live and play and work? It does not seem that the types of jobs in our mixed use neighborhoods pay enough to live in the neighborhood.  Tech companies are looking for specific things in a community. But the plan doesn’t seem to talk about a commercial model that will meet the needs of some of these tech companies. We have corridors where we could focus infrastructure improvements to meet the needs of these companies.  Millennials want to be able to walk and bike to work. Building bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure might help the business communities who are looking for these types of features for their employees.  Other counties are taking a different approach to economic development focusing on the employment and industrial growth where Albemarle seems to be focusing on residential growth. Albemarle’s approach seems to be to build the neighborhood first and then later locate jobs around the neighborhoods. Which comes first – the rooftops or the jobs?  Master Plans get updated every five years. We are coming up on the need to update the Places29 Master Plan. The current plan seems too extensive and an update is needed to recognize the changes that have occurred since it was written. We need to think about how we update this plan to make it what we want it to be. 5  Master Plans should set the expectations for the Development Areas and we have deviated from the expectations set by Places29. These expectations should be revisited and rearticulated in the p lan update.  Master plan updates may need to focus on the smaller priority areas rather than doing an entire rewrite of Master Plans.  We adopt master plans stating the desired land uses in the Development Areas but then the Board gets push back from the public when a rezoning comes in, even though it is in compliance with the Master Plan. We need to get ahead of this issue.  In updating the Master Plans we should identify hurdles to redevelopment. Some neighborhoods want changes and others do not. During the Master Planning process we can vet the existing neighborhoods and identify areas that are more appropriate for growth. This will allow developers to know the areas where they may face challenges to redevelopment.  Dividing Places29 into smaller pods might make for more efficient Master Planning.  We should include strategies to incentivize job growth and commercial redevelopment.  Allowing Community Gardens via Special Use Permit seems unlikely. No neighborhood is going to spend $2500 to plant peas and carrots on the next door lot.  Board members have heard both pros and cons of urban chickens and goats.  There is a standard of care for chickens that is difficult to achieve in a very small space and odors can become a nuisance rather quickly for urban chickens. A concern is the life of a chicken stuck in subpar conditions.  Slaughtering of chickens and goats on property can be another issue to consider with urban agriculture.  It seems like the real weight and from tonight’s discussion will come in the implem entation chapter and how we prioritize strategies.  Attachment C provides recommendations from the Village of Rivanna Advisory Council from their October meeting. The Community Advisory Council spent many hours on the wording of these recommendations and we should consider these in the update of the Chapter. 6 ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT AREAS November 11, 2014 5:00PM Public Comment: John Lowery, Samuel Miller District, commended the Board as they approach finish line on the Comp Plan update for an epic effort to update the County’s most important policy document. He said the new draft plan is eloquent, readable and available online. He said the plan is built on a conflict between wanting the County look and feel rural while maintaining development areas which are intended to accommodate commercial and residential growth. He said this conflict is played out through the zoning code which directs population growth into the development areas. He said that one consequence of this is large homes being built in country side. He said these retirees pay real estate taxes on their large homes. He said there is a cost which is paid by less well off who come here to work but cannot afford to live here. He said this is obvious with traffic coming in and out of the area every day. He said these issues will become worse with the draft plan. He said that tax on rural land is leased. He explained that tax on industrial and commercial properties are much greater yet we see mos tly homes being built. He asked where young professionals will find jobs. He said that the Planning Commission pulled most of the light industrial land use out of the Development Areas. He asked the Board what they would do if Google or Apple asks to locate outside of the Development Areas and want to hire 500 people. He asked if the Supervisors would say yes to such an opportunity for young people and that he hopes they would say yes. He said just as Monticello received a Comp Plan amendment to allow water and sewer to be extended to their properly, his hope is that the Board and staff would approve a similar request for businesses to do the same. He said that this Comp Plan is not an end; it’s a beginning. Jeff Werner, PEC, said that in the past the Board has added land to the Development Areas for industry. He said in 1992 Motorola wanted to come to the County and land was added at Piney Mountain, but Motorola went to Goochland. He said there is currently a lot of light industrial land available in the County. He said that if property owners do not want to develop these areas for industry then we should take them out of the Development Areas and add land elsewhere. He provided a map to the Board members that showed the encroachment on military facilities in Piney Mountain. He said the Department of Defense facility is land locked and the County should consider the needs of Rivanna Station and how this is reflected in the Comp Plan. He said there is information in the State Code on how to treat federal facilities. He also suggested the County commit to working with UVA to encourage more housing on Grounds for faculty and students. He said currently there are only 100 units on Grounds for faculty and staff and that only 35% of students live on Grounds. He s aid this is a significant cause of traffic. He said there are also a lot of terms thrown around in the Staff Report about different types of infrastructure and capacity. He asked for a more complete picture of what these terms mean.