HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 17 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 17, 1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William
Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; and Mr. William Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Ms.
Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Mr.
Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman.
The meeting convened at 6:10 p.m. A quorum was established with 6 members present.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the November 3, 1998 minutes as
amended.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the November 11t" Board of Supervisors meeting. He told
Commissioners that the Board approved the two special use permits for the WQMZ towers as the
Commission had recommended, with additional modifications as to where certain types of
antenna related to cellular usage could be attached above the existing height of the current tower.
The Board denied the special use permit for Boudreau's dance hall, with concerns for the size of
the dance hall area, and noted the applicant could still have dance area not subject to a permit
and if they expanded the restaurant area then a larger dance floor area could be added without a
special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that a special use permit is not needed until the floor
area is greater than 1/8 of the restaurant seating area.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Thomas Starke restaurant permit in the Crozet was approved, as were the
William Patterson rezoning for an additional dwelling unit on the edge of the Crozet
Development area and additional lot for Wilton Country Homes development. Mr. Cilimberg
noted that the Board has deferred the Springridge and Forest Lakes rezonings until February at
the applicant's request. Since the time of the Commission meeting addressing those items, the
applicant and Forest Lakes Homeowner's Association representatives have been discussing
possible solutions for the concerns raised. Mr. Cilimberg said they are still discussing the "V"
connector and dam roads and the land owned by the homeowners association which the applicant
needs to gain access into Forest Lakes North.
Consent Agenda:
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the consent agenda, which
included referral of the agricultural/ forestral district applications to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that this includes an addition to the Panorama Agricultural/Forestral
District, not a continuance of the district. The Advisory Committee will have two reviews for
continuance of the Buck Mountain and Yellow Mountain districts and three additions:
Panorama, Carter's Bridge and Lanark.
Public Hearing: Wavland's Grant (ZMA 98-18)
Deferred from the November 3, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. Request to rezone 19.20
acres from R-6 Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development. The property, described
as Tax Map 55, Parcels 66 and 66A, is located on the north side of Jarman's Gap Road
84
approximately 3/a mile from the intersection with Route 240, in the White Hall Magisterial
District. Density of R-6 zoning is 6 dwelling units per acre. It is located in the Development
Area Community of Crozet, and is recommended for Urban Density Residential use of 6-34
dwelling units per acre.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, and noted that the parcels for proposed rezoning are
adjacent to Gray Rock Orchard. She said the PRD is governed by an application plan, which
shows the areas proposed for multi -unit development and a mix of offices with the remaining
areas available for a combination of single-family detached homes, single family attached homes
and townhouses. She noted that the application plan shows a series of loop roads and interparcel
connections, but mentioned that on the west side, only the northernmost interparcel connection is
being pursued, as it will better connect to the Gray Rock parcel.
Ms. Echols said that a park/community commons is planned for the center of the development,
and an open space area for active recreation and a "tot lot" is planned near the stream buffer the
rear of the development. She described the design as "neo-traditional" in many ways; it has curb
and gutter, sidewalks, shallow front setbacks, a mix of housing types and uses, but does not have
street trees. Ms. Echols added that this proposal contains a new type of concept in mixed use,
and referenced the designs presented to the Commission and the community, which were created
by the applicant's architect.
Ms. Echols mentioned that the proposal shows interconnections to adjacent parcels at the Gray
Rock side and the Haberly side; for Gray Rock the applicant would build the connection before a
building permit is issued for the 51st lot, for the Haberly side, the applicant only plans to retain
the right-of-way reservation for seven years. She added that it is unknown what type of future
development may take place on the Haberly parcel, which is zoned as Urban Density in the
county's land -use plan and currently has a single-family residence on 3.4 acres. Ms. Echols
stated that if the right of way connection is lost because of the size of the Haberly parcel, it isn't
viewed as being totally detrimental to the concept of interconnections; the proposal is to keep the
interconnection there for seven years to see if in the future the Haberly parcel will develop.
Dedication of street trees and right-of-way are proposed along Jarman's Gap Road, as well as a
right-hand turn lane; sidewalks are proposed on all streets in the subdivision except for the street
that enters Gray Rock — there's a note on the application that says a rural cross-section will be
done with that interconnecting street. The applicant has said that he will match what the Gray
Rock parcel does, and staff anticipates that some kind of path will be extended into that
intersection; the applicant has verbally agreed to put sidewalks on all public streets, and is
willing to proffer sidewalk connections.
Ms. Echols stated that 28-foot wide residential streets are proposed, except for a 36-foot road
section of round street parking proposed at the front of the development. The uses proposed are
all allowed by right in an R-6 zone, including boarding houses, tourist lodging and public uses in
buildings. The general conditions set forth by staff restrict the dwelling type restrict the dwelling
unit types by location; special uses available would be community centers for civic
organizations, fire and rescue stations, private schools, day care centers and churches. Ms.
Echols told the Commission that any of those special uses proposed for the development would
come back to them as a special use permit.
The applicant has requested a 20% reduction in parking for blocks A&B because they are
planning 2,000 square feet of office space in each block, and have proffered office uses there
85
from 8:00 to 5:00, so that there would not be an overlap of residential use and office use during
the day. Ms. Echols said with the 36-foot road section, there is room available on the street for
on -street parking, and staff feels there is adequate ability to accommodate the parking needed for
the development.
Ms. Echols said that BMPs are proposed along the intermittent stream and lots are left out of the
stream buffer. A nature trail is proposed in the open space near the stream. The applicant has
proffered to have the homeowner's association dedicate the trail and stream buffer when there is
a connection established (as with Gray Rock).
Ms. Echols characterized the development as more urban and in keeping with almost all
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan relative to design, environmental protections,
interconnections and pedestrian access. The density is somewhat less than the Comp. Plan
suggests, but more than by -right development would allow; the density is greater than Gray
Rock. Ms. Echols reported that the developer began his planning process by conducting
community meetings and has involved the community with design issues and innovations of
mixed uses in the blocks along Jarman's Gap Road.
She concluded that as a result of the design, the proffers and general conditions, and two
modifications relating to sidewalks, staff recommends approval of this plan.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Ms. Echols said she felt that the general conditions
attached to the proffers are binding. Mr. Rooker asked her what mechanism assures the
community that the development that is built is anything like what has been depicted. He then
asked, "What makes it urban in design that we can be assured will be followed through on based
upon the proffers, which don't seem to include anything about design?" Ms. Echols responded,
"The design of the development itself: the looped road and the setbacks that are proffered and the
location of the different types of uses, the parking lots, the stream buffers, the park. That is all
part of the application plan for which a commitment is made. As far as the architecture of the
buildings... the developer is developing a set of architectural regulations which will govern how
the buildings are designed and then constructed. The proffer to keep the facades to the street is
as close to the architectural restriction that we've done. We typically don't get into architecture
with a rezoning...."
Mr. Rooker said, "Sometimes we see the actual proposed covenants for a subdivision at this
point, and what we've got is a general description of what those covenants may be like, but they
don't include anything about building design.... there's nothing in there about what kind of
guidelines will be established for that architectural review committee or board to follow." Mr.
Rooker stated, "There is nothing before us that assures that the development we build here will
look anything like the rendition provided." Ms. Echols responded, "That is correct."
Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant provided a reason for not proffering street trees, and Ms. Echols
replied that in order to get street trees between the back of the curb and the sidewalk, the utilities
would have to be relocated to the back of the lot, which the applicant declined to do because of
the cost involved. Ms. Echols mentioned that VDOT doesn't want utilities in the streets; the
service authority doesn't want the manholes in the sidewalks, and street trees cannot be placed
between the back of the curb and the sidewalk without relocating the utilities to the back. "As
4*0- shallow as the front setbacks were, it looked as if it made sense to not try and crowd that area up
with the street trees right there in the front, but to allow the private property owners to allow
their own landscaping and own street trees as they might see fit." She added that outside the
86
easement on the other side of the sidewalk there would be eight feet that the service authority
would want to reserve for utilities. "It gets pretty tight in there .... they could potentially relocate
them to the rear of the lots to solve the problem."
Mr. Rooker commented, "Under the ordinance, there are uses that are permitted in a PRD, and
uses permitted in an R-6. We have a rezoning from R-6 to PRD." He asked, "Why is it
appropriate to maintain the right to use the property for any uses that are included in R-6 as well
as PRD once the property is rezoned?"
Ms. Echols replied that it would be appropriate in terms of the ability to mix the uses, which the
Comprehensive Plan includes. She added, "what the county gets from a PRD is a commitment to
a design that they might not be able to get from a conventional subdivision; the one that was
proffered — the one that was approved in 1992 had a conventional cul-de-sac design with only 51
lots in it, and the uses were all approved as were the lots ... what is appropriate about this is the
mix of uses and the planned design, the clustering concepts, the open space, those types of
things."
Mr. Rooker asked in the context of changing from an R-6 to a PRD, what uses continue to be
permitted under the proffers that would not be permitted if the property were simply rezoned a
PRD. "He's attempting to retain the right to all the R-6 uses after the property is rezoned to
PRD ... I don't see anything in the PRD that prevents mixing the uses. I don't know if [there is] a
rationale for retaining those use rights."
Mr. Finley asked if the 30-foot right-of-way being dedicated would be sufficient to accommodate
a 12-foot right turn lane, the bike lane, and the sidewalk. Mr. Kelsey said if there is not enough
right-of-way along Jarman's Gap, they would be required to provide whatever the additional
right -of way -would be at the time of subdivision.
Mr. Thomas asked if Jarman's Gap Road would accommodate the additional traffic from Gray
Rock and Wayland's Grant prior to its scheduled improvements for the year 2002. Staff
responded that the build -out of the developments would probably coincide with the
improvements to the road.
Mr. Loewenstein referenced the staff report, which stated the cost of providing services for this
development would exceed the amount of taxes anticipated per dwelling unit, which is true for
most residential developments currently in the county. He asked staff if the shortfall is greater or
less than average, and asked for the cost effectiveness of this development compared to other
recently approved residential developments.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the fiscal impact model for residential developments is fairly
standardized, and any type of residential development would show the same per unit costs. He
added, "These houses will likely be somewhere in the county, and they will have a similar cost
anywhere." He said the model has not been fine tuned to be sensitive to particular areas, but said
staff has been discussing breaking down the model on a more specific geographic basis.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Fiscal Impact Committee on which he serves is discussing
approaching capital improvements in a "lumpy" way instead of on an average basis, so that a
more defined cost analysis would be available during evaluation of planning and development
issues.
87
Mr. Benish added that this proposal is a mixed -used development which will have a non-
residential component to it which is usually more advantageous in terms of fiscal impact
development over the by -right solely residential one in terms of fiscal impact.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kamptner if it was appropriate in rezoning property to retain in the
proffers the right to use the properties under the old zoning. Mr. Kamptner said that additional
proffers are intended to add additional zoning restrictions to a particular rezoning. Mr. Rooker
said it looked as though the proffers in this proposal are used to expand the uses, and questioned
whether you could legally rezone property and in proffers retain some uses under the old zoning.
Mr. Kamptner reviewed the ordinance too clarify the issue.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there have been upzoning where the person was still able to utilize any
of the uses under the lower zoning category, and added that a planned development could
incorporate anything that the applicant and the Commission would want to include as uses. "I
think what they're saying here is they want the basic uses they have under R-6 as part of the
planned development, which they can have, plus additional as requested here in this."
The applicant, Cliff Fox, representing Wayland's Grant developer Barclay Development
Company, addressed the Commission. Mr. Fox said that what the developer is trying to achieve
is a development that is more in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
He mentioned that the only uses in R-6 to be carried over are for "touring lodges" or inns and
"boarding houses," and stated that the utility they get in using a PRD is the ability to incorporate
on a neighborhood scale some professional or home -based offices.
Mr. Fox said they have met with the community four times, and have worked a great deal with
Gray Rock representatives to work out the interconnection for the communities. He added they
are trying to create a pedestrian -friendly community, which has more rural aspects to it. Mr. Fox
said they have proffered a trail on the north side of the property.
Mr. Rieley noted that a sidewalk is planned for the Jarman's Gap Road side of the development,
but the applicant is not proffering any contributions to the improvements to the road. Mr. Fox
confirmed that as of now, they are not proffering any contributions toward improvements along
Jarman's Gap Road. In response to Mr. Rieley's question about specific plans for within the
development, Mr. Fox stated they have proposed approximately 85 units on 19 acres, and said
that their plan emphasizes vertical structures to achieve the square footage homeowners desire.
Mr. Fox added that they have structured the setbacks to force the design of a streetscape.
Mr. Rooker asked the applicant if he would be willing to proffer that the community as
developed will generally follow the schematic design provided with the application. Mr. Fox
said that the design presented to the Commission has been altered because VDOT would not
allow the entryway to the parkway offset from the connecting road to create greens in front of
each u-shape of housing. Mr. Fox said they want to follow the basic regime presented to achieve
the product that they want. Mr. Rieley added that it's a matter of nailing down within reason
what is planned so that when it comes to the subdivision level, the Commission has a reference
point.
Mr. Fox told the Commission that he ran numbers on the dwelling unit per cost to the County:
the old by -right subdivision of 51 units cost the county 19% more than the increased density
PRD. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question about the price range of the proposed units,
Mr. Fox stated that their "condominium" structure will allow them to get their cost per unit down
88
to approximately $110,000; dwellings in the rear and west side of the property will range from
$110,000 to $185,000+.
Mr. Finley asked what the mix would be, to which Mr. Fox responded that using current market
standards, approximately 40% of the new product would be attached, with 60% detached. Mr.
Fox said that the plan accommodates some professional office space with single family, duplex,
or quadraplex above it, and added that adjacent to the park/common green area, there may be
single family attached, single family detached, or townhouses. He added that they are trying to
create flexibility, and are trying to create the products so that they could evolve into other uses
over the years. Mr. Fox said that as the Crozet growth area increases, the Jarman's Gap area will
evolve. In response to Mr. Finley's question, he said most of the residents will work in
Charlottesville.
Mr. Fox added that in their proposed price range, there is not a lot of product currently available
with a common green, a trail, and other amenities. "If you want greater utility in the growth
areas, you've got to enable greater use. If you limit use, the zoning ordinance creates a lot of
traffic now, people have to go to a shopping center — they can't go to a local market."
In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding the time frame of building the proposed 85 units,
Mr. Fox responded it would take five to seven years to build all units, and added this capacity
would still not reach the land use goal in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that by accommodating VDOT requirements, county requirements, and utility
requirements, "we end up excluding the most tried and true neighborhood street cross-section in
America — trees on both sides of the road, sidewalks outside of that, and a small front yard..."
He asked Mr. Fox if he had explored alternatives other than moving all utilities to the rear of the
property. Mr. Fox responded that their initial plan was to put utilities in the roadway, but VDOT
decided two weeks ago that they did not want them there. "We had actually proposed a regime
where if the service authority would allow trees in a planning strip with the utilities [there] or if
VDOT would allow the utilities in the street, we would put the street trees in. We haven't had
the time to articulate how you get the street trees there and locate everything else because we
haven't been able to get a definitive answer other than it's got to go either in the front yard or the
back of the lot."
Mr. Fox added that in the front two blocks of the development, it would be potentially difficult to
do utilities in the back of the lot, and clarified for Mr. Rooker that if VDOT would allow them to
put the utilities in the road, they would do that and add the street trees. Mr. Rieley added, "The
thing that's frustrating about it is that the public's interest and your interest are the same, and
what we can't get is all of these bureaucracies to work in a way that mesh in a way that makes
sense, so that we can get a beautiful street that also has utilities that are easy to get to and work
on."
The applicant's engineer, Tom Muncaster, addressed the Commission. "The water lines are not
a problem — VDOT doesn't want the manholes in the street .... obviously, the reason is when the
road has to be repaved, it's a little problem to adjust for the manholes. Every time I've put them
in the street they say `get `em out', so I've tried in a situation like this to put them in the
sidewalks, that's the next best thing, but the service authority doesn't want the manholes in the
'Iftw sidewalk. So if you move behind the sidewalk, then there go your street trees. So the next
alternative is to put them in the back of the lot .... if you put the sewer in the back of the lots, then
89
there go all your trees back there because you have to have a 20-foot easement for a sewer, and
you can't have any trees within that 20-foot easement."
Mr. Rieley commented, "I know exactly what you're bumping up against, but we've got to solve
it. It's just ridiculous to try to build in this way and not be able to build the most successful
traditional kinds of streets."
Public comment was invited. Mr. David Haberly, a resident of property "directly to the right of
this plan" addressed the Commission. Mr. Haberly said, "This whole process over the last six or
seven years is in some ways for us and many of our neighbors been a kind of downward spiral
into despair as we confront development." He said the original 51-unit zoning for this piece of
property was opposed by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors because of very serious
questions that still remain about deficiencies in the infrastructure to support the development.
Mr. Haberly added that the new plan is "even worse," with high-rise style units and business and
professional facilities added. He expressed concern that there is a future feeder road planned that
will go across his property, and explained that if a road is put in, his property and the larger
neighboring properties would likely end up in development as well. Mr. Haberly concluded that
he is very much opposed to the development.
Mr. Eric Strucko addressed the Commission as a citizen, speaking in favor of the development.
He said that Wayland's Grant offers answers to growth management issues and affordable
housing concerns, and serves to bring people of various demographics and socio-economic
classes together as a community. He pointed out that the Wayland's Grant design complies with
the growth management principles from the DISC Committee, and affordable housing concerns
of the Housing Committee. Mr. Strucko concluded that the proposal includes elements
necessary to construct a community that concentrates development in designated growth areas,
preserves rural space, lowers the cost of public service, and offers homes to a wide variety of
people of different income levels. He added that Wayland's Grant serves as the initial building
block to an intelligent growth plan in Crozet, and urged the Commission to approve the rezoning.
Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident who lives off of Jarman's Gap Road, addressed the
Commission. He said that while he shares some of Mr. Haberly's concerns, he sees positive
aspects of the development, including provision of a variety of housing types at different prices.
"I think this mix is really truly representative of the diversity that has always existed in Crozet,
and if anything represents a step back to the future." Mr. Loach said that from a community
perspective he agreed with Commissioners that there needs to be some assurance that what is
presented from the applicant now is very similar to the finished product, and suggested that
architectural guidelines be proffered with the plan. "I think there is a lot that both the
community and the county have riding on plans such as this, and we have to go a little bit further
to achieve that...." Mr. Loach concluded that he also has concerns about the infrastructure being
able to support the new community, specifically Crozet Elementary.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner readdressed the previous issue regarding whether you could legally rezone
property and retain some uses under the old zoning. He said that the authority to carry over
some of the R-6 uses is authorized under the General Plan Development regulations in the
N~ zoning ordinance, and said he would continue to study the matter prior to its going to the Board.
He elaborated that if the application is approved, this PRD will include some of the R-6 uses in
addition to some of the uses allowed in the PRD.
.za
Mr. Rooker asked what the office space limit would be if an office is not "counted" as one of the
85 dwelling units. Staff confirmed that 2,000 square feet per block had been proffered. Mr.
Rooker said he could not find the authority in the ordinance to include office and commercial
space in a PRD. Mr. Kamptner referenced the General Plan Development regulations, which
encourage flexibility and allow an applicant to propose some uses that may differ from the
established regulations.
Ms. Echols added that in the PRD, professional offices are allowed by special use permit, and
with this particular request, the permit is being requested for approval at this time instead of
those that would come back to the Commission. Ms. Echols said in a PRD the special use permit
can included in the rezoning request, or could come later as a specific special use permit. Mr.
Rooker commented that the Commission may want to amend the PRD to be a little more flexible
if mixed use developments are going to be included. He mentioned that retail shops are not
provided for under the special use permit or by -right standards Ms. Echols replied, "The PUD
allows for more of that, and part of the problem with the PUD is it has a large minimum lot
size... The DISC as well as the staff are looking at ways to modify the ordinance to provide for
the mix of uses we're getting requests for.
Mr. Cilimberg added, "If we were to get our PUD requirements less in terms of acreage, you
wouldn't need a PRD. You could have PUD to cover all of these, and it would be based on the
individual application as to how much of a mix there was."
Mr. Rooker commented, "That might be a good way to approach it."
Mr. Thomas asked for a definition of "boarding house." Mr. Kamptner read from the ordinance,
"A boarding house is a building arranged or used for lodging with our without meals for
compensation."
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a limit on the amount of space in this development that could be
used for a boarding house.
Ms. Echols replied that the concept here was for someone to be using their home to operate the
boarding house use, and would not come out of the 4,000 total square feet designated for office
space. She added that the boarding house provision is very infrequently used, and clarified that
"lodges" refer to a Bed & Breakfast type operation.
Mr. Finley commented that it seems logical to include architectural guidelines in this type of
development. Ms. Echols said that it depends on what the applicant wants to proffer up front,
and haven't yet tied down their guidelines on what the want to propose. Mr. Loewenstein agreed
with Mr. Finley that it would have been nice to have some of those guidelines more specifically
addressed in the application.
Referencing the sketch of the development presented to the Commission, Mr. Nitchmann
commented that the applicant has agreed to proffer this sketch, and stated that his expectation is
that the development would be similar to that. "I think it's better to have this proffered than to
have nothing because we've .... even had a sketch and it comes back because it wasn't proffered
` completely different than what the sketch was .... if it's perfectly correct to put this as a proffer, I
think the applicant has agreed to do that, and I'm perfectly satisfied with that."
91
Mr. Kamptner said that if the applicant wishes, he can proffer the sketch to reflect what is
planned for the community.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think that strikes the right balance."
Mr. Kamptner elaborated, "The proffer would be that the actual development would substantially
conform or be in substantial accord with this particular plan."
Mr. Fox presented the architect's sketch of one block as planned for the community.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "We understand that it's conceptual at this time, but I have an idea of what
I think this thing is going to look like." He acknowledged there may be some changes, but the
proffer language used will ensure that the concept is there.
Ms. Echols said the trees shown next to the parking lot on the plan could not appear in the final
development because they would hinder fire department access to the parcels that don't have
public road frontage. She then asked the Commission for their guidance on some minor
elements such as the parking lot arrangement, individual building placement, roof pitch, porches
and doors.
Mr. Nitchmann said the sketch provides a conceptual drawing of what the development will look
like, and the record will show what was presented.
Mr. Kamptner raised the question of enforceability and said that in the past with architectural
design guidelines where the applicant would proffer a general outline of the standards to be
included in covenants and would ultimately be enforceable by the people who buy the property.
"So it puts the burden of enforcement, at least once the development has developed and there are
some people there, on the other owners rather than the county."
The County Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, addressed the Commission and asked that
the enforcement of the covenants and restrictions for design of the development lie with the
homeowner's association and the means set up by the Architectural Review Board through the
community itself, not with the county. She cited that that has been done in the past and has
worked really well in developments throughout the county, such as Glenmore, Forest Lakes and
Four Seasons. She also stated that the county's role is to ensure that the convenants are tied
down with the appropriate language, not to determine the identity of the community, as part of
the neo-traditional effort is for the community to find some diversity and establish its own
identity. She asked the Commission for their guidance in stating generally what they wish the
development to be, and asked the applicant to work with the county to tie it down through
sketches and language that would become part of their private covenants that they themselves
would enforce.
Mr. Rooker asked how the county would prevent the developer from "amending away"
covenants.
Ms. McCulley asked Mr. Kamptner if the county could write and review the language so that
changes could not be made to design. Mr. Kamptner responded that the architectural features
could be excluded from amendment, and mentioned that with covenants in a subdivision the
developer is probably going to be until 50% or so of the lots; the early stage is going to set the
tone for the development, and the owner would thus be enforcing himself early on. Mr.
DY)
Kamptner suggested that the proffer should include general appearance rather than specific
architectural features so that the county's review is less detailed, but assures the neo-traditional
appearance of the development, and leave the architectural features to the covenants.
Mr. Rieley commented, "I think there are two discreet levels to this, one is the general
organization and general character, and I think we do need to be assured of that, but we shouldn't
be in the business of what color the shutters are going to be. That absolutely should be the
homeowner's association criteria. I still think that our best vehicle is this drawing, and we have
the ability to call this back at the subdivision level...."
Mr. Cilimberg cautioned the Commissioners that once the property is zoned and the proffers are
accepted, the proffer interpretation doesn't rest with them, but with the zoning administrator. He
added that they will not have control of details when it comes back to them as a site plan or
subdivision. He then asked Ms. McCulley if a planned schematic which reflects the
Commission's wishes for the development layout provided her with enough information to make
a judgement if what's submitted would be in general accord with that. Referencing the sketch
provided, Ms. McCulley asked if it would come in to her office through a site plan. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that some would be subdivision, some would be site plan. Ms. Echols
clarified that the sketch shows only Blocks A & B, and would likely come in as a site plan.
Ms. McCulley stated, "I am less concerned about what will come in through the site plan process
than I am with what will come in as individual building permits, because that has a whole
different set of implications in terms of staffing and process... and it could set a precedent that
I'm a little concerned about."
Mr. Cilimberg said, "We do have potentially some code provisions that could effect the
schematic in some way, and we've included language before in accepting things for general
accord, and it's realized that there are those things that may have to be adjusted to meet code
requirements, which I think would be language to include in the proffer."
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms. McCulley said that zoning does not review covenants.
Mr. Rooker referenced the definition of "tourist lodging," in 5.1.17 of the zoning ordinance, and
expressed concern that no limit on the number of people lodging was given. He asked if the
Commission passed the rezoning, which contains tourist lodging as a proposed use under
retained R-6 uses, if the owner would have to go to the zoning administrator to obtain a permit.
Ms. McCulley responded, "Yes they do. By definition, accessory tourist lodging is five or fewer
rooms within a single family home with the primary use still being a single family residence.
Technical limiting factors would be capacity in the septic field and whatever it would take to
meet the fire code and building code." Mr. Cilimberg noted that tourist lodging is allowed use in
Urban Residential District, and is not particular to R-6 zoning.
Mr. Finley asked if there were setback requirements that would apply to the homes if they were
used for boarding houses or lodges. Ms. McCulley indicated that in her interpretation of the
ordinance, it would not be treated differently, and added that in her nine years as zoning
administrator she has never had a request for a boarding house, but has had accessory tourist
" lodge applications for single family homes.
93
Mr. Fox asked Commissioners if they would permit the developers to build a one-story building,
given the conceptual plan. Mr. Benish added that there is a lot of gray area using the drawing as
a guideline, and asked the Commission to clarify what they want in the proffer. Mr. Fox added
that they could build some one-story homes and still maintain the aesthetics of the development.
"I'm just trying to figure out how limiting this is going to be, because if every building in that
development has to be two stories, then I may have walked away from part of a market — older
people that would like a Cape Cod...."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "What I view here is more like a little village green concept. You drive in
the parking lot and you've got all of these quaint little buildings around here, some of which
could be businesses, some of which could be dwellings, some of which could be businesses with
dwellings on top of it, and not the typical subdivision that we see, where you come in the cul-de-
sac, you go around the corner and there's a whole bunch of little footprints that all look alike .... I
don't have a problem with it as long as it doesn't lose the flavor [presented]."
Mr. Loewenstein added, "Presumably, in order to achieve your density goal you're going to have
to create a certain mix of single and multi -level housing in any case."
Mr. Finley commented, "The little one-story style wise fits right in, and I think that's what we
are looking for. Generally, in terms of style, this is it. This is what we expect."
Mr. Nitchmann mentioned the design of the Shell station at Pantops (250). "I think that you as a
developer have to realize that you're treading on a little bit newer ground here, and you can't ask
for everything and expect us to give you everything, because we're kind of hesitant to give you
everything because we don't know what the end result will be .... there's some give and take here.
I'm personally willing to take this [sketch] as a proffer saying `in general accord' with this,
realizing there's going to be some changes to it. But I think I'd be very upset if we came back
and they were all single -story homes plopped in here all looking like what we generally see
today."
Mr. Cilimberg added, "The concept that I think this is telling us is that the housing is as Mr.
Nitchmann described in a block form with an interior area that is like a green, obviously
including parking, with most of the structures interconnected in a cluster format, and consistent
street setback with sidewalks along those streets.....the mix of one and two story, or whatever
that might end up being wouldn't be as important as how it's being laid out in terms of the streets
and the interior green area .... if you're comfortable with that, I'm not sure that the one-story issue
is that great."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "It would still allow for the mix of uses that we've been talking about."
Mr. Cilimberg said that in itself would dictate more than one-story uses all around.
Mr. Rooker added, "The schematic design has at least one one-story structure shown, so I don't
think we would interpret this as requiring every building to be multi -story."
Mr. Finley added, "I think architecturally there's a flavor here."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I think we're both going to have to sit back and say let's try this and see
what happens. I don't want to see us start nailing down what the color's going to be, how many
porches, how many pillars on the porches, is this two-story or one story, and get the government
94
so involved in designing these projects that there not going to be economically feasible for
anybody to build." Mr. Nitchmann said the developer understands from the Commissioner's
discussion what is desired, and this might be a signal to other developers that there are some
approaches that fit in with what the DISC Committee is doing and what's needed in the growth
areas. "I'm willing to take the risk if there is one here."
Referencing what Mr. Haberly stated in the public hearing, Mr. Rieley commented that, "When
we increase the density of zoning, we give up a quality that was part of the lower density, and I
think what we have been struggling with here is a way to assure that the quality that we end up
with added to this community is worth what's being lost .... one thing about the architectural
composition of this that appeals to me is that I do think we are building in a pattern, and we are
also trying to build in a way that will reduce the pressure on rural areas. There is something
about the quality of this that has appeal to people who might otherwise occupy a lot more land in
the county. I think it is important that we nail down the quality part of this to the degree that we
can [without overdoing it]."
Mr. Loewenstein added, "I think that it has been pointed out by Mr. Haberly that there is
currently an enormous deficiency in the infrastructure presently in this area — I know this is
something the Crozet community has been grappling with for a long time. I know there are
scheduled improvements for Jarman's Gap Road. I hope that these will be fully responsive to
the scale of the development that we are looking at here; I know that further along, there is
probably going to be additional development in this general area, which will as has been pointed
out, tend further to restrict development in the rural areas, and I think that's commendable. I
think as a county we do need to keep in mind that the infrastructure needs have got to be kept up
with, and that's my major concern about this proposal ... I'm prepared to support it, but I just
want to point out that note of caution...."
Mr. Rooker agreed. "It needs to be pointed out that the density proposed here is at the low end
of the scale recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, and there's no question that where we've
created designated growth areas and we've run the utilities and the infrastructure out to those
areas, it's intended in the general plan for the community that they will be developed at some
density that's within the reasonable range, and this is at the low end of that range. But we do
need to make certain that as we're allowing these designated growth areas to be developed that
we follow with the investment necessary to make the infrastructure work."
Mr. Loewenstein mentioned the difficulty with Springridge regarding this issue, and said "it
seems to come up over and over."
Mr. Finley added, "Our development plan for the last couple have been way ahead of our
infrastructure."
Ms. Echols said that staff could work with the applicant on the language that ties down what "in
general accord is" relating to the development's details, such as sidewalk and green maintenance,
roof pitch, etc.
Mr. Rieley noted there is no contribution planned for off -site improvements, and asked what the
dollar amount was for Gray Rock. Ms. Echols said it was $500 a lot, and staff looked at the
value of the off -site proffers versus the value of the on -site improvements and found the
amenities of the development had a high value but would not preclude any additional off -site
proffers.
95
Mr. Rieley commented, "I favor putting the money toward a quality development and dealing
with the off -site things off site .... I raise [the issue] just based on the fundamental issue of
fairness to the adjacent properties."
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of ZMA 98-18 with conditions as
set forth by staff including the request for 20% reduction in parking for blocks A & B, and
proffers which state that the development's design and format will closely mirror what has been
presented to the Commission as rendered in sketches. Mr. Kamptner will work on the exact
proffer language" prior to the item's consideration by the Board of Supervisors on December 9�"
and Commissioner agreed it should state the development needs to be "substantially in accord
with the schematic designs provided with the proffers." The motion passed unanimously.
Work Session: Capital Improvements Program
Mr. Benish introduced Ann Gulati from the County Executive's office, who presented the CIP
summary. Mr. Benish told Commissioners that what is presented has been recommended by the
CIP Technical Committee, and highlighted the issue of need for public input in the future.
Ms. Gulati presented the proposed CIP budget, which includes total spending of $55.5 million,
comprised of approximately $34.2 million in school projects, $20.7 million in general
government projects, $500,000 in tourism fund projects, and $100,000 in stormwater
management projects.
She said the majority of funds for the CIP are provided by bonds, which fund most of the school
projects, and noted that $17 million in general fund transfers are capital outlay from the general
fund, $2 million are from new state construction funds, $400,000 in VDOT funds as well as
other revenues from the city, U.Va. reimbursement for specific projects, and tourism.
Mr. Finley asked if there are any guidelines for turning back surplus funds at the end of the year.
Ms. Gulati responded that funds are not generally transferred between the CIP and the operating
budget: funds aren't used in the capital budget for a project; funds that aren't spent are basically
carried over for appropriation in the next year. She said operating funds are not generally
transferred over unless there is a specific project, and that has to be approved by the Board. Mr.
Finely asked what is done with a surplus, and Ms. Gulati said that it goes to the fund balance, or
"savings", which are used for one-time capital needs or unexpected emergencies in the operating
budget, land purchases, etc. She said there is a process that departments use to reappropriate
funds, and that is a specific request made to the Board.
Mr. Finley said that money used to go back into the CIP; Ms. Gulati said if there is surplus
money from the operating budget that's needed for a specific project, it's allocated on a project
by project basis. She clarified, "If it's in the CIP and it's unspent in the CIP, it remains within
the CIP fund balance, and those are monies that can be used for capital projects in the CIP — it
doesn't go to the Operating Fund balance; it stays within the CIP."
Mr. Rieley asked why the Parks & Recreation funds increased from $250,000 to $672,000. Ms.
Gulati said that it often depends on when projects are requested and come "on line," and says it
just has to do with where projects fall.
She said the General Government CIP totals $20.7 million, the majority of which is in
administration and courts - $9 million, $5 million of which is the county's share to implement
the recommendations of a consultant's study to improve the city/county courthouse and court
96
space. Public safety projects total $4.9 million and contribute about 24% to the CIP; highways
and transportation account for 14%; parks and recreation account for 13%, and utilities and
libraries take up about 3% of general government projects.
Ms. Gulati stated that the majority of general government revenues come from the general fund
transfer, which totals $12.7 million over the 5-year period; the courthouse project shows $5
million in borrowed funds, because those funds will probably need to be borrowed when that
project comes on line. She said they are budgeting about 6% for interest next year, and 6.5% in
subsequent years. She said the Juvenile Detention Facility will require about $1.5 million in
borrowed funds; current revenues make up the rest.
She said the CIP identifies project that are mandated and committed, defining mandated projects
as those required by state law or other mandates; committed projects are those that the county
has already put money towards, which total $14.6 million in this CIP and span the entire 5-year
period. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about funding ADA improvements, Ms. Gulati
said will be funded with surplus funds as needs arise.
In response to Mr. Rieley's question about the 29 North landscaping projects, Ms. Gulati said
that Phase III (landscaping from the Rivanna River to the airport road) is an out -year project, and
VDOT has not made a firm commitment to the funding or timing for that project. Mr. Cilimberg
said it is committed to as a continuance of the landscaping project of the first two phases, but
added they don't know when that money will be spent because the project doesn't have a date on
it yet. He confirmed that VDOT is revisiting the design because they might put in service roads
along 29.
`�*Aw Ms. Gulati said maintenance and replacement projects total about $3.8 in the CIP, the majority of
which are projects to upgrade the county office building and the old Crozet school ($2.9); other
miscellaneous projects are for Court Square, Juvenile & Domestic Court, Library and Parks.
She mentioned the "unfunded" column, and explained that the technical committee was forced to
make certain cuts in projects in order to achieve a balanced CIP with the available revenues. Ms.
Gulati said that approximately $7 million is unfunded, including $4.6 million to construct a
public safety facility to house the police and fire & rescue departments, and $1.5 million to
construct a new urban area gymnasium. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a new area of struggle for the
committee was trying to make the CIP balance, and had to put projects out of the CIP that had
been committed to previously. He said this raises the fundamental question to the Board as to
whether they need to increase the CIP "pot" to cover those, and in some cases even those monies
identified are just scratching the surface of potential needs and demands.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out there are several million dollars of sidewalk construction sites
identified, but limited resources for those projects. Mr. Benish added that the sidewalk program
is a "running fund," based on priorities established, and additional project would continue to e
added.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the same approach is used in the revenue -sharing program for roads
and traffic calming to be put in the CIP. Mr. Benish replied, "Revenue -sharing is slightly
different. We actually prioritize the projects in the Six -Year Secondary [plan] and your primary
road plan requests, and revenue -sharing can be used in those; we typically use them on the
secondary program projects. We just went through the process to recommend the secondary plan
to the Board, and VDOT drafted a financial plan based on that. They are assuming that we get
97
$1 million per year, $500 [thousand] we match of that million and then they allocate it to
particular projects.... the traffic calming would probably function very similarly; what's left over
is the money available for traffic calming projects, and we'd prioritize that need based on
demand. Mr. Cilimberg added that there are several traffic calming projects identified but staff
has not been able to work them through for actual adaptation of traffic calming measures by
VDOT yet.
Ms. Gulati defined out -year projects as those which are in the CIP but remain beyond the five
years provided for in the CIP, either because there is no identified funding source (such as
Meadowcreek Parkway), or because the timing of the project is undetermined (such as the Route
29 landscaping), or because additional related expenditures are expected (such as the Keene
landfill closure).
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about county funding for Meadowcreek, Mr. Cilimberg
said there is additional secondary road money which has been allocated to that project for the
design, environmental work, etc., but that does not show up in the CIP.
Ms. Gulati said there are administrative and court projects that total $9.4 million, including a $5
million project to fund the recommendations of a consultant regarding courthouse space needs, a
$1 million ongoing project to upgrade county computer equipment, and some maintenance
replacement projects. She said that public safety projects total $4.9 million in the CIP, with $1.9
million toward the ongoing fire/rescue building and equipment fund for the construction of two
new fire/rescue stations and for major fire/rescue equipment, and $1.5 million toward
construction of a new 40-bed juvenile detention facility for the city and county, $1.2 million to
construct a regional firing range to be used by county, city and U.Va. police departments, and
other miscellaneous projects.
Mr. Rooker asked if the city and University would contribute toward the firing range; Ms. Gulati
said that the $1.2 million is the total cost for the range, which will be used as a firing range and
training facility for qualifying firearms. Highway and transportation projects total $2.8 million,
and include $2.2 million in revenue -sharing for revenue sharing and traffic calming projects and
$250,000 for sidewalk construction.
In response to Mr. Thomas' question about sidewalks on airport road, Mr. Cilimberg said that the
Airport Road will be in the middle of a highly developed area, and the county is taking the
opportunity now to make it an urban roadway. Airport officials also want to give the road the
appearance as the entry to the city and the county; it has bike lanes and sidewalks because it is in
an area that is developing now. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that he sidewalk placement would be
part of a project that the Airport Authority, the county, and VDOT are jointly doing and funding,
and mentioned that there are Ice-T enhancement grants to do the sidewalk. Mr. Rooker
commented that one reason the county is doing this now is to take advantage of the other revenue
sources that may not be there later.
In response to Mr. Finley's question about the Meadowcreek Parkway, Mr. Cilimberg said that
Phase I is under design now and will be fully funded in the next two years, it is under discussion
in the city as to its relationship to McIntire Park. In the county (Phase 1I), it is in the six -year
secondary plan, but is many years from being funded. Mr. Cilimberg said work will begin very
soon on establishing location for Meadowcreek from Rio to 29, so developers can plan around it.
Mr. Cilimberg said the project costs presented are primarily planning costs.
98
He said that Phase II is listed as an outyear project, with $3 million as a continuing carryover to
"more or less be a placeholder" to show that the county wants to get the project done; most of the
money to do it is actually in the secondary program, and is way out in terms of availability. "It's
getting a lot of money each year, it's just going to take a lot of money to build it." He added that
it may end up being funded by all secondary road money and won't necessitate CIP; parts of it
may be funded by developments as they're built. He said that the county continues to try to get
Meadowcreek designated primary, and it's in the TIP because it's a project that could potentially
be funded with federal money in the urban area.
Ms. Gulati continued, stating that Parks & Recreation projects total $2.8 million over the five-
year period, most of which are continuation projects that have been presented before; the only
major new project is an Urban Area Gymnasium, which could not be funded with available
revenues. The only utility project in the CIP is the Keene landfill closure for approximately
$500,000, with some additional costs in the out -year.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the closing was taking so long, and Mr. Benish responded that the
state requirement for landfill closures requires at least 10 years of mitigation measures. Mr.
Benish said that the closing of the Ivy Landfill may be more expensive and take longer because
of its size and the fact that it is subject to more restrictive requirements than Keene.
Ms. Gulati said tourism projects total $500,000, including the Ivy Road bike lane project, the
Rivanna Greenway access and path and river access improvements. The county stormwater
projects total $110,000, and are contributions to projects which have been going on for some
time.
Ms. Gulati presented the school division CIP, which totals $34.2 million, even though the school
division has stated the need for $44.7 million. The school board will decide which projects to
defer; the technical committee just recommends funding levels and ensures coordination of
projects. In response to Mr. Finley's question, she said the school board holds meeting and work
sessions, but not public hearings, on the school CIP budget. Mr. Finely mentioned the media
coverage of the newly -built Monticello High School, which is already over capacity. Ms. Gulati
said there is a $330,000 project in the works for an addition.
Ms. Gulati reported there are $14.7 million in school renovation and addition projects, including
$2.3 million for computers in schools, $245,000 for ADA improvements, and $6.5 million for
maintenance projects.
Mr. Rooker commented that the total cost of the entire Northern Elementary School is $11.2
million, while the Burley Library addition of 3,600 square feet and renovation of 10,000 square
feet is $6.8 million, and will only increase school capacity by 108 students. "You have to
wonder about whether or not it would make more sense to build a new school, to start budgeting
to build a new school, rather than doing a renovation of an existing school at that expense .... it
just seems to be an awful high price for an addition."
Mr. Benish commented that strategically, Burley's location is ideal in terms of redistricting, and
that site may not lend itself to construction of a new school. He suggested that staff could check
%-Awl and see if that had been evaluated.
99
Mr. Finley asked if all of these questions were decided in-house. Mr. Nitchmann commented
that in order to ask these questions, a lot of expertise about the school system was needed. "Now
that you've got an elected school board, it really behooves them to be able to answer these types
of questions when [someone] gets up to ask these questions... and they're reviewing this before it
goes to public hearing, I would assume." He asked if a school board member is present at the
public hearing that the Board of Supervisors holds on the CIP to answer these questions. Mr.
Gulati said that Al Rieser is present at the meetings, and Mr. Finley added that Mr. Rieser does
the planning because school board members don't have the time and know-how.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "As elected officials, they certainly do need to be fully responsive
to the fact that we're talking about millions of dollars of tax revenues here, and presumably there
needs to be a close connection."
Mr. Benish said that Mr. Rieser works with the school board as planning staff work with the
Commission. "We respond to you and the Board of Supervisors, but we also get individual
requests that get funneled to us for sidewalks and public improvements."
Regarding the public hearing on the CIP, Mr. Benish suggested that the Commission discuss in
the future how to get public input in the CIP, particularly as rezoning projects raise concerns
about certain infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Rooker said that the technical committee should possibly hold the public hearing, because by
the time the Planning Commission gets the document the priorities are set based on a lot of
study. "Meaningful public input prior to the time of going to the board ought to take place to the
committee that is putting this together."
Mr. Benish said that it is important to know on the front end of the planning what the general
public concerns are. He suggested that possibly the public should be notified at the beginning of
the CIP planning process to elicit input on concerns and issues.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think if we can get that input before the development [of the CIP] has
reached this stage, that's really helpful, and it sound to me like the committee is the appropriate
place to do that."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "If the committee doesn't put some time into developing some laundry list,
people aren't going to know what you're talking about if you go out and advertise the [CIP]" and
ask for input. He suggested instead informing the public of the areas being addressed in the CIP
to provide some direction.
He added, "We stopped having the public hearings here because we found that we were kind of a
`dress rehearsal' for what was going to go on two weeks later at the Board," and said that maybe
next year public input could be solicited early on. He said that much of the input may pertain to
schools, rather than sidewalks, etc.
Mr. Benish said one idea mentioned from staff is for the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing at the beginning of the process, and the Board of Supervisors hold the public hearing at
the end. He added that perhaps there is a question to the School Board regarding their public
input process.
100
Mr. Finley commented that the School Board receives a lot of comments on their operating
budget, but very little on the CIP budget. He expressed concern that the public gets very little
chance to "dig in" to their CIP.
Mr. Loewenstein said the point to consider is whether the Commission wants to take on that role.
"Given the relatively short time -span between when we get this and when it goes to the board —
it's very difficult for us to hold a meaningful public hearing. I think the whole `dress -rehearsal'
syndrome does enter into this, particularly if we were to hold these public hearings... that's the
reason undoubtedly why five years ago, it was determined that we should not be addressing it
that way. I still think it's worth looking at the possibility of capturing some of that public input
earlier in the process .... It seems to me that this falls a little bit outside the purview of the
Commission."
Mr. Benish said staff would ask Al Rieser to explain what their public input process is, and
added that the School Board has reviewed the plan. He suggested that when the committee
meets again, they will discuss possible avenues for early input in the process. Mr. Benish said
the CIP is presented to the School Board and they have a meeting similar to the Planning
Commissions' to discuss the document.
Mr. Finley suggested that public input be given at the point which the projects planned and
revenues available are determined, before the document is in its final form. Mr. Finley said the
School Board and Planning Commission used to have joint meetings to discuss the CIP, but the
meeting were configured in such a way that made it difficult to have productive discussions.
Mr. Nitchmann mentioned his support for the $40,000 police transfer vehicle proposed for
14 " transporting arrested individuals. "I think the police department really needs a vehicle like that
in order to operate in safer manner for themselves." He added that this vehicle would enable
them to pick up more than one offender at a time, and asked that the funds for that item be
moved up especially in light of the county being short magistrates.
Mr. Rooker questioned the Commission's role in approving the CIP at all, and whether it's really
required. "We have no expertise in any of these areas... we have no input into the prioritization
of the expenditures. In my mind, it might be better just to go directly from committee to the
Board of Supervisors, because there's almost an implication that we had a part in crafting this,
which we didn't."
Mr. Benish said their role is really is just to forward it on, and staff will attach general comments
in the record for the Board to consider. "It's your opportunity to give general observations." He
mentioned that the process has evolved from a time when the Commission was responsible for
generating the CIP to the present, when just a "courtesy" type of review is given. "The CIP
concept began as a planning document and ended with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Benish
said their role now perhaps is to point out things that have been missed that from a planning
perspective should be focused on.
Mr. Nitchmann said he looks at the CIP for mandated items and those related to public safety,
then reviews it in the context of what's provided for his district, to make sure they get a "fair
shake" of the funding.
Mr. Finley agreed with Mr. Rooker that the Commission's role in the CIP is minor, but the
process does give them an idea of what's budgeted. He said he was glad that a Commission
101
member sat on the committee, and added that the technical committee should have a few more
people that are not necessarily in governmental departments to give it more balance.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested the Commission get access to the CIP earlier in the process, because
the current system provides a very short time frame for review prior it going to the Board of
Supervisors. "It really gives us very little opportunity even if we wanted it to add a lot of
thought or comment to it .... I'm not suggesting that we take on a bigger role, but I am saying that
if we want to consider this in any real detail, it's pretty hard to do within the span of the time
we've spent tonight at a meeting."
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that perhaps the Commission have a work session to discuss how the
technical committee functions and comes up with the CIP. Mr. Rooker asked if they could
possibly get a draft earlier in the year, and said it was not clear to him if his district had requested
items that were not funded.
Mr. Loewenstein stated, "I don't think we should get into a lot of discussion about prioritization
because we don't have the taxing authority, we haven't had the benefit of all of the input and all
of the wrestling that goes on in the committee... we're kind of in a peculiar situation, in no man's
land ... we don't have all that input, and that process has already been [done] at the committee
level. I don't want to see us replicate that." He added that the Board of Supervisors ultimately
will decide how to spend the money, and are the only ones in a position to raise the funds
needed. "Maybe what we're having trouble with .... is why our role exists, and how to better
define that, and once we understand how that definition should apply, maybe that will lead us to
a better way of grappling with the review of this."
1'""1' Mr. Benish described their role as advisory, and said that some of the items within the CIP,
especially regarding infrastructure, can overlap with planning issues and decision -making about
new development. Mr. Loewenstein added, "Even if we don't do anything else about it, I'd like
to have more than a week just to look at it."
Mr. Nitchmann said the CIP calendar would need to be adjusted to accommodate this. He added
that each item is put in the CIP with a specific set of criteria using point assignment based on the
questions developed by the technical committee to prioritize each item. Mr. Nitchmann added,
"It depends on how involved we as a Commission want to become in doing a lot of things that
we're paying staff people to do."
Mr. Finley said it's the implications to the public that the Commission needs to be concerned
about. "It's one thing to delegate, it's another thing to abdicate. It used to be that the Planning
Commission did this, now .... we just get it and pass it on."
Mr. Rooker commented that the committee does follow a stringent set of guidelines, and said he
would just like to see a draft during the process so the Commission could have some meaningful
input before the CIP is in its final form.
Mr. Nitchmann emphasized the need for a Commission work session so they understand the
mechanics of what goes into the CIP, where the ideas come from, and how the dollars are
attached to the ideas, and how that links to the Comprehensive Plan, but added "You have to at
some point trust the people that are running the planning staff." He said that perhaps the
Commission could get the CIP document a month in advance to allow additional review time.
102
Mr. Loewenstein stated, "We as a Commission and the public at large need to comprehend
precisely what our role should be in this and why." He added that it is important for the
Commission and the public at large to understand the connection between the CIP and the
Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of the CIP budget as
presented to forward to the Board of Supervisors, with items noted: concern over the $6.8
million renovation expense for Burley Middle School; and desire to assure funding of the
proposed special police transport unit vehicle. Mr. Finley asked staff to clarify where the deficit
is made up when the annual school allocations increase without revenue assignment. The motion
passed unanimously.
Old Business
Mr. Rieley mentioned that the Commission's previous discussions over the question of a
potential conflict of interest regarding his consulting work with the City on McIntire Park and
Phase I of the Meadowcreek Parkway had received a lot of radio attention. He said the answer
from Mr. Kamptner and himself was clearly no. "The question got a considerable amount of
radio airtime, and the answer got none, I want to make sure that the record is clear that these very
separate issues pose no conflict at all." He then asked Mr. Kamptner to reiterate his view of the
matter.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the County Attorney's office examined the question and determined
that "Phase II of Meadowcreek Parkway is a completely separate project from Phase I for
conflict of interest purposes, and we determined that Mr. Rieley did not have a conflict of
interest in his participation in the Dunlora Subdivision application."
Mr. Loewenstein commented that based on Mr. Bob Watson's comments at their November loth
meeting and "other things in recent weeks," the Commission may need to revisit some of their
procedures, and he has been discussing this with the County Attorney, as the by-laws are 14
years old. He mentioned that the Commission may want to consider making procedural changes
to parallel what the Board of Supervisors has implemented in their meetings. Mr. Loewenstein
said that the item will be discussed in a brief work session in their December 8th meeting.
There will be no meeting on November 24th.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimi
Secretary
cm
103