HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 15 86 PC MinutesApril 15, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, April 15, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice
Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Richard Gould, Ms. Norma
Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner;
Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Joan Davenport,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community
Development. Absent: Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the April 1, 1986 meeting were approved as
written.
WORK SESSION
City/County/UVA Planning Agreement - Discussion of the content
and implementation procedures for the proposed planning agreement
among the City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia,
and the County of Albemarle.
Mr. Horne presented the staff report and stressed that the
proposed agreement was not a binding legal document, but rather
a moral or ethical one which relies on the good faith of the
participants. A draft of the proposed agreement was reviewed,
including staff's recommended changes to the document and
staff comments on certain issues which they felt to be significant.
Also included in the staff report was a copy of a Procedural
Memorandum drafted by the City. Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing
the Board of Supervisors, was present to answer questions.
Staff recommended the following three changes in the document:
(1) Page 2, numbers 4 and 5: The staff felt a clear
definition of the term "land held for investment
purposes" should be included" so as to distinguish
it from land held for educational purposes.
(2) Page 2, number 7:Staff felt the City and County
should be involved in the site selection process
prior to land acquisition. Thus, number 7, would
read: "Involve City and County representatives in
land acquisition and site selection studies...."
(3) Page 4, number 7: Staff felt the words "or oppose"
should be inserted between "support" and "legislation,
thus number 7 would read: "Not sponsor, seek, nor
support or oppose legislation restricting the powers
of each other...."
April 15, 1986
Page 2
Mr. Horne pointed out that it was very important that all
parties involved have the same understanding of the document,
and this understanding should be set down in an
accompanying memorandum.
Additional staff concerns and comments included the following:
--How the arbitration procedure will work is very unclear
and may be very awkward.
--City has reviewed the document, but no comments have
been received from the university. (Mr. Lindstrom stated
it was his understanding that the agreement has been
unofficially agreed to by the university and no further
comments are anticipated.)
--Staff was in favor of reviews following the normal
schedule since they will be most effected by an adnormal
review schedule.
--Staff was in favor of the procedural document being much
more detailed than that proposed by the City.
--Of the three parties involved, the County will be under
the most pressure in terms of joint planning since the
majority of large scale or controversial actions are
likely to take place in the County's Area B.
--The Board would like to hve the Commission's comments
by the end of April.
--Mr. Keeler stated that staff's suggested changes
were not meant to change the meaning of the agreement,
but rather to clarify it.
Mr. Lindstrom's comments included the following:
--The original document was negotiated by a committee
composed of himself and the Chairman of the Board,
representing the County, the Mayor and P"_s. Gleason,
representing the City, and the President and two
vice presidents, representing the university.
--A subsequent document is anticipated which will
detail how the policy statement will be implemented.
Some of staff's concerns will be addressed in that
document.
--The agreement is a statement of principle to guide the
three entities.
--The agreement of the university to submit all of its
activities, in more than 980 of the County, to County
land use regulations, is a very significant step.
--Some procedures implied in this agreement are over and
above what is required and possibly will involve more
delays on certain decisions.
--Responding to Mr. Bowerman's question about the value of
non -binding arbitration, Mr. Lindstrom felt its merit
lies in the "force of moral persuasion."
--There is a significant distinction between planning and
decision making at the Comprehensive Plan level and that
diculd be incorporated in the procedural aspect of the
"implementation package."
April 15, 1986
Page 3
--The final procedural document is yet to be produced.
--The University is anxious to get started with
joint planing in area B.
--The Board would like to take action the first of May.
--If the County enters into this agreement, it must be
willing to follow through and if the Commission has any
reservations, they should make them known now.
--Trying to further define the term "land held for
investment purposes," as suggested by staff, will make the
agreement more complicated.
--Making the agreement more specific, in terms of being
involved with land acquisition, could narrow the
ability to deal with this issue in a procedural memo-
randum.
(The Commission indicated agreement with Mr. Lindstrom.)
--This process does not give the parties the same satisfaction
felt when dealing with the preciseness of a contract.
--Though staff's concerns are important, it would not be
appropriate to incorporate all of them in the document
since it is not the nature of the document to be
that precise.
Commission comments included the following:
Bowerman:
Disagreements among the parties to the agreement might
force the County into a more "finely tuned"
Comprehensive Plan.
The agreement should be given a chance to work as a
good faith document.
The County has much to gain by entering into such a
document. (He was in favor of passing the document
on to the Board "as is" with a recommendation for
adoption.)
Cogan:
The document should be referred to as an "understanding"
rather than an "agreement."
The simpler the agreement, the better its chance for
survival.
The County must be mindful of the relationship this
document will be creating with the City, independent
of the university's involvement. (Mr. Horne agreed
this was a legitimate concern.)
The document must not be so specific
viewed as too "burdensome" by the
thus invite them to abandon it.
d 4 t t
that it will be
University and
(He agreed with the spirit an in en
Diehl:
(She was in favor of staff's suggested
words "or oppose" to number 7, page 4,
the statement totally neutral.)
Gould:
Certain issues will have to be avoided
is to work on a good faith basis.
of the document.)
addition of the
so as to make
if this document
April 15, 1986
Page 4
The Commission did not indicate agreement
changes suggested by staff. It was felt
be addressed in the procedural document.
to any of the three
these matters could best
The Commission indicated conditional agreement to the agreement
as presented, with formal recommendation being withheld until
after staff has prepared a memorandum setting forth the
Commission's understanding of the agreement, and a second
memorandum pinpointing concerns that should be tied down.
The issue was to be discussed again at the April 22, 1986 meeting.
The meeting recessed from 9:00 to 9:10.
Comprehensive Plan - Preliminary discussion between the staff and
the Commission of the major issues of the upcoming review of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman explained to those members of the public who were
present that this was the very beginning of the process and
advised that those groups who have an interest in the procedure
should make their concerns and ideas known in writing and
submit them to the Planning Department who will pass them on
to the Commission so that they can be dealt with at the
appropriate time. He stressed that the Commission and staff
wish to include public input as the process proceeds.
Mr. Horne discussed his memorandum and explained the anticipated
process. He added that he felt what the Comprehensive Plan
needed most was a "very clear set of specific implementation
methods (referred to as "strategies" in staff's report)."
He also stated that it was very important that a comprehensive
plan be "understandable by someone other than the people
who wrote it." Mr. Horne explained further that the process
was intended to be an "issue identification procedure" so that
the Commission could identify the significant issues.
Mr. Horne confirmed that he felt the current Plan was deficient
in "clarity."
Ms. Diehl stated she felt Mr. Horne's suggested approach was
a "dynamic" one. Mr. Michel agreed and added that it would
give the Plan "direction."
Mr. Horne began reviewing the proposed goals, objectives and
strategies as presented in staff's report.
The Commission asked staff to further research the following
issues:
--Goal 1, Objective 1: The identification of problem
water areas. Possible resources mentioned were
well -drilling reports and Health Department soil
analysis reports. Staff was to compile a list of
available data so that the Commission could decide
how feasible this objective was.
In
107
April 15, 1986
Page 5
It was suggested that a requirement might be attached to
a well -drilling permit which would supply certain
information to the County.
--Goal 1, Objective 2: Is it practical to try to encourage
the use of Best Management Practices? What can the
County do to encourage such programs? Find out why
such measures have not been successful in other areas
(e.g. Chesapeake Bay program).
The following issues were of concern to the Commission:
--Goal 1, Objective 4 (Re: Mineral Resource Extraction):
Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel felt this was best left to the
private sector. It was the consensus of the Commission
that a minimum of attention should be given to this issue.
--There was considerable discussion as to how public input
should be gathered. Ms. Diehl indicated she was under
the impression that Mr. Payne had stated that care must
be taken not to single out certain groups. Mr. Keeler
stated he felt Mr. Payne's comments were directed to
issues involving specific ordinances and specifically
political groups and single interest groups. Mr. Keeler
pointed out that singling out certain groups invites
the possibility of omitting others. Mr. Horne felt it
was important to include groups which nay have particular
expertise in certain areas. It was determined the
Commission would not solicit comments from specific
groups, but rather would make progress known to the
public and allow comment that is freely offered.
All agreed that public input was important in the
process.
--There was some concern as to how realistic it is to
expect that staff will have time to work on all the
issues related to the proposed "strategies." It was
determined a priority list will ultimately be established
and the most "approachable" issues will be studied.
It was also pointed out that because some of these
issues are "strategies," it is not absolutely necessary
that all the information be available before adoption
of the plan. Ms. Diehl stated her understanding of
strategies was that "they were on -going programs to
accomplish the objectives."
--Mr. Cogan expressed concern about the possiblity of
"over" regulation.
The Chairman invited brief comments from the public.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle, asked
that his organization be involved in this process and also
asked that staff make the pertinent materials available to
the public.
It was determined the Commission would attempt to hold
monthly work sessions (two each month) to deal with this
review. One work session would be added to a regular meeting and
the other would be scheduled as a "pre -meeting" work session.
No formal actions were taken at this meeting.
April 15, 1986
Page 6
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:30 p.m. v
DS
�36IE4,
ohn Horne, Secretary
�v 1