Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 17 1995 PC Minutes1-17-95 JANAURY 17, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of the January 3rd meeting were discussed briefly. Ms. Huckle commented: "On the election of officers, when I made the motion it was with the understanding that the Chairmanship would rotate yearly and that was not (reflected) in the minutes." Mr. Blue responded: "Ms. Huckle, I believe I recall your saying that the Chairmanship 'should' rotate annually, but I don't....'" Ms. Huckle interjected: "I said 'with that understanding."' Mr. Blue responded: "You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but for the record, I did not understand that at that time." Ms. Huckle: "Is there anyone else here, who was there, who understood what I said?" Mr. Dotson responded: "In a sense I think you're both right. I think it was your understanding and I think it was put forward as an idea; it's not a policy that is written down in our bylaws." Ms. Huckle: "It was part of my motion." Ms. Imhoff: "I agree with Bruce. I think the statement was made at the time of the motion. Perhaps we should go back to the tape and put the exact wording (into the minutes)." The minutes of January 3, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended with the understanding that Ms. Huckle's motion, as discussed above, would be quoted verbatim. Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the January 11, 1995 Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA SDP-94-069 _Thomas Jefferson Adult Health Care Center Minor Modification - Modifications to allow grading on critical slopes and one way circulation. Ms Huckle expressed serious concerns about this request. She asked that the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed as a separate item. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The Commission was being asked to grant 3 modifications as follows: 5.. 1-17-95 2 --Section 4.2 to allow grading on critical slopes - Both staff and the Engineering Department supported this modification. "Staffs opinion is that there will not be significant aesthetic resources lost and the majority of the trees will remain on the critical slopes and we can require some additional plantings." --Section .4.12.6.2 to allow one-way. travel - Though the. Engineering Department did not support this modification, it was staffs opinion "that given the majority of traffic will be drop-off traffic ... the one-way circulation pattern will work." --Section 4.12.6.5 to allow angled parking - Staff supported this modification. Ms. Hipski explained that staff has consistently supported angular parking with one-way circulation. Ms. Huckle asked if it was possible to enter the site from both access locations. Ms. Hipski explained the applicant has agreed to mark the westernmost entrance as being "For Service Vehicles Only," though it will be physically possible to enter from both locations. The applicant was.represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. He was accompanied by Mr. Gordon Walker, representing the Jefferson Area. Board for the Aging. Mr. Roudabush explained that the facility is designed specifically to accommodate the elderly. Mr. Roudabush explained the grading plans and storm drainage plans. He said that there will be no slopes created which are greater than 2:1, which is the maximum allowed under the Site Plan Ordinance. Ms.Huckle asked where the drainage from the site will go. Mr. Roudabush explained: "It is our understanding, and it is a matter of record within the chain of title to this property, that there is a unified storm drainage plan and a regional stormwater detention plan that was approved for this project in the beginning when Branchlands PUD was initially approved by the County, and that drainage plan was a big element of approval. And I think it has been adhered to with all of the development that has taken place there and this site is well within. any limitations that the County has already approved.... The difference between the pre - development runoff and the post -development runoff is 1.1 cubic feet/second additional drainage that is being contributed to that entire Branchlands site, which was some 60 or 75 acres. So there is a negligable amount of additional runoff being generated by this development." Mr. Gordon Walker explained why the one-way traffic pattern is needed. He said 75% of the people using the center do not drive and will be dropped off either by JAUNT or by family members early in the day and then picked up at the end of the day. He explained the safety concern of having these elderly persons dropped off on the street side of the facility and then having to cross the street, against traffic. Use of the "left" entrance is sought for patients using the gereatric clinic and for regular service vehicles. He stressed that all persons using the facility will be by appointment only. After Mr. Walker's comments, Mr. Blue summarized: "As I recall one of the Engineering Department's objections to the one-way traffic, was because they felt there might be people coming to drop off somebody and having to get back out into Hillsdale Drive and come back 1.1'7-95 3 around. I didn't hear that the concern is right at the exit, but the fact that you have to go back out onto Hillsdale Drive and come back around again to park. And I think with the suggestions that have been made by staff, and agreed to by your engineers, that that is probably pretty well taken care of. I guess what you are saying is that you don't think there are going to be very many people who are going to have that conflict of coming in at the western entrance at the same time people are going out to go about their daily business." Mr Walker replied: "Right." Mr. Dotson asked if this building was sitting "below the road" making evaucation of people difficult in the event of flooding. Mr. Roudabush said he could not envision any problems. He explained: "Generally, the road is set at a level approximate to the average road elevation." Mr. Blue pointed out that the property "slopes toward the street" and is not a "bowl" as suggested by Mr. Dotson. Ms.Imhoff noted that there continues to be concern about whether the stormwater drainage plan for this entire area (Branchlands PUD) is working. She invited comment from Mr. Jack Kelsey, Assistant County Engineer. She asked particularly that he address the impact of the development of this site "on the bigger picture." Before Mr. Kelsey's comments, Ms. Huckle read the following statement: "I am really torn about this because I can see that the JABA Health Care site center is a community service and I would like to see it happen. Nonetheless, I feel that consideration should be given to other seniors, some of whom have invested their life savings in condos downstream and who report water almost to their doors at times since the Food Lion and it's parking lot were built. Since then, this 11,000 sq. ft. building, a children's gym, two restaurants and their parking lots have been approved, and more condos are under construction in this drainage basin. With all due respect to Mr. Kelsey, he is using the only information available to him at this time. His letter speaks to hydraulic and hydrological model of the watershed on which his decision is based. Another respected engineer in private practice has told me that when a computer model and anecdotal evidence do not agree, that one must assume the computer is wrong. Mr. Kelsey's letter goes on to say that additional field data and analysis is necessary to refine and calibrate this new model. His letter also speaks to a new trash rack designed to prevent debris from clogging the overflow pipe in the Branchlands wetlands pond. When we visited this site on Sunday after a rainfall of less than 2 inches, the water had risen to about 1 foot from the road --Hillsdale and Greenbrier --and the new trash rack was out of site, under water, and the water was whirlpooling, vortexing with its load of debris. (She presented some photographs she had taken on the day she had mentioned and also some photographs taken last summer by some residents which show a drainageway before and after a rain). Personally, I would rather err on the side of caution waiting for the completion of a new Meadow Creek Drainage Basin and part of the Branchiands Channel Study, as well as needed ordinance changes before more structures are built in this drainage area." She concluded: "I was hoping when I talked with Mr. Walker this afternoon -- I understand he has a capital fund drive that he is hoping to get started soon to raise money for building the building --and I 1-17-95 4 was in hopes that if that drive took a while, maybe we would have this information by that time. But I don't know what the time tables are for either one of those things." Mr. Kelsey addressed the Commission and offered the following information and answers to Commission questions: --The regional timetable for the Branchlands Channel Study "was to have a preliminary report from them by the end of January. Once that has been reviewed, we will send our comments back and they will make whatever revisions we note and then they will give us the final." Changes made in the channel as a result of the Brookmill development have slowed the study down. --The 1.3 cubic feet/second additional drainage which this development will cause will have no impact. (He estimated the total drainage to be approximately 1,000 cubic feet/second). --Recent calculations are still consistent with previous studies. Even with different people doing calculations in different ways, the results are still "coming up consistent." --The drainage basin for the Branchlands channel is not really the controlling factor, rather it is Meadow Creek. (Ms. Huckle asked what the solution was for the problem.) Mr. Kelsey explained that once the model is complete the problem areas can be identified and solutions considered. Ms. Huckle expressed the feeling that it is not just the effect of one of these developments which "will push it over the edge," rather it is the combination of development. She had concerns about approving something "which could seriously impact some of the people." Mr. Blue summarized Mr. Kelsey's comments: "What I understood you to say is that even if there is a problem downstream, the JABA site that is proposed, is not going to increase that problem whatsoever. I understand Ms.Huckle is concerned about several projects incrementally getting worse, or making the situation worse, but this particular site, if I understood you correctly, is going to have a negligable effect, if any." Mr. Kelsey responded: "Right. Looking at the 10-year flow which Mr. Roudabush has calculated, it is going to have a negligable impact." Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Kelsey knew what percentage of development has already taken place in this drainage basin area. Mr. Kelsey responded that typically modeling is based on 80% development of each site in the area. Mr. Dotson asked if this was one of the last pieces to be developed, or are there others. Mr. Kelsey thought there were a couple of sites left in the Branchlands PUD. Mr. Kelsey added that the unified drainage study and the calculations done by the County Engineer in 1984 all assumed full development of the PUD. Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission could have a presentation on the results of the Meadow Creek Drainage Basin Study when it is complete. Mr. Kelsey responded affirmatively. Ms. Imhoff asked that landowners and businesses in this area be notified of the date this presentation will take place. Ms. Imhoff said her questions and concerns on this project had been addressed. ,;Z9 1-17-95 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that a modification for Sections 4.2, 4.12.6.2, and 4.12.6.5 be granted for the Thomas Jefferson Adult Health Care Center including the requirement that the westernmost entrance have signage identifying it as being for "Service Vehicles Only." Mr. Blue asked: "Is it the intent of your motion if we put the signage as 'service entrance' only that will preclude the applicant from allowing people who want to come straight to the front to go in that way?" Mr. Dotson replied: "Yes." Ms. Imhoff expressed support for Mr. Dotson's motion. She had been concerned about the confusion of some people being able to use it as two-way access while others were only supposed to use it as a one-way access. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed (6:0:1) with Ms. Huckle abstaining. WORK SESSION lftw CPA-94-04 Economic Development Policy - Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include goal, objectives and strategies for economic development that would replace the existing economic development section of the Plan. The Commission reviewed and commented on the draft policy developed by staff, dated January 10, 1995, which had been composed following the Commission's comments at the December 20, 1994 work session.. (A copy of the draft. policy, dated January 1.0, is made a part of this record as Attachment A.) The Commission discussed the draft policy section by -section. Preamble Nitchmann - He felt it was too long. He suggested more comparison should be made to the Vision statement. Dotson - He shared the concern about "rambling." He agreed with the first paragraph but suggested that the first sentence be omitted. He suggested in place of the first sentence:. "Albemarle County has a strong economy. He felt there should be. reference to not only major employers, but also to sectors. He felt: "We are not talking just about stability, but about diversity. At the end of the first paragraph he preferred the wording: "We would seek to maintain." He was in favor of deleting entirely the fifth paragraph (the one beginning "This economic development policy stresses..." on the second page) which he felt summarized 1-17-95 6 *``, what came after. On the second paragraph he stated: "I don't disagree that it's important to address wages and housing; I didn't feel that this quite captured what I felt were the major issues there." He offered the following alternative language for paragraph 2: "We are like other university communities in that we have an above -average labor force participation rate, and an above -average number of part-time workers, both students and adults who prefer part-time work. As a university community, we have a somewhat captive labor force as well as people who live here for quality of life reasons knowing that wages would be higher in more urban parts of the state. We are a growing community with rising property values and a large share of our housing stock is new and priced accordingly. The high demand for both new and used housing, and the desirability of the community produce well -above housing costs relative to wages paid by many employers. As we fine-tune our community we seek to maintain a diversity of employment opportunities and define ways to add housing to the lower half of the incomes in our community. We also have residents who are poor or who are unable to work regularly or work for minimum wages. Possible increases in the minimum wage nationally would benefit those who continue to work in minimum wage positions. Local efforts to enhance skills and to develop the work force may also provide ways to move individuals out of minimum wage jobs." Huckle - She liked the first paragraph but felt the second paragraph could be omitted. Though she felt Mr. Dotson's suggested second paragraph was an improvement, she wondered if a reference to minimum wage really belonged because the County really has nothing to say about the minimum wage. Imhoff - She supported Mr. Dotson's comments on the first paragraph. She suggested that the word "generally" be omitted. Regarding Mr. Dotson's suggested second paragraph and Ms. Huckle's concern about the reference to minimum wage, she felt "it was O.K. to say something about the region and the nation in the preamble ... if we're setting the stage, I think it's O.K. to say it." Blue - Referring to Mr. Dotson's suggested second paragraph, he felt it was acceptable to reference the minimum wage since the last sentence speaks to local efforts. Without that last sentence, he felt the statement about minimum wage would be "looked upon as our lobbying for an increase in minimum wage." There was determined to be no objection to Mr. Dotson's alternative paragraph 2. Mr. Dotson offered the following alternative language for paragraph three (beginning "The purpose of this economic ...), 130 1-1.7-95 7 "We do not seek growth. or to add population, but accept that more people will move to our community and that jobs, goods and services will be needed to meet their needs. Accordingly we will plan sites to address future growth needs in ways that will not detract from, but will add to, the strengths of our community. We will provide information about those sites to those who request it and will answer all questions promptly and directly." Ms. Imhoff raised a question about the language "we will plan sites." She suggested "We will designate appropriate areas to address future growth needs." Mr. Nitchmann expressed support for the first sentence of paragraph 3 as originally stated by staff. He wondered if Mr. Dotson's language could be fitted in after that sentence. Ms.Imhoff suggested keeping the first sentence of paragraph 3, striking the last sentence and then working Mr. Dotson's ideas in. Ms. Huckle liked the third paragraph as presented by staff and she also liked Mr. Dotson's ideas. She wondered if both could be used. Mr. Dotson suggested that staff could work on "blending" the two paragraphs. Mr. Cilimberg felt that using the staffs original first sentence, deleting the second sentence entirely, and then adding Mr. Dotson's wording would work for the third paragraph. On the fourth paragraph of the preamble (2nd paragraph on page 2), Ms. Imhoff stated she liked it. Mr. Dotson felt it could be shortened. (There was no support for Mr. Dotson's suggestion.) Ms. Huckle expressed concern about a lack of definition for the term "supports." She favored the use of the word "recognizes" instead. It was decided the fourth paragraph would remain as presented by staff with the word "supports" changed to "recognizes." It was a consensus that paragraph 5 (3rd paragraph on page 2) would be deleted. It was agreed that the "note" about business and industry at the end of the preamble would remain. Goal 1 and Goal 2 (Goal 2 was offered as an alternative) Commissioners Huckle and Dotson expressed support for Goal I. Commissioners Imhoff, Nitchmann and Vaughan expressed support for Goal 2. It was agreed both would remain until after the public hearing. Mr. Dotson felt Goal 2 had so many different ideas it was not really one goal. 1-17-95 Objective I No objections were expressed. Objective I -Strategy 2 Ms. Huckle questioned the meaning of "high value." Mr. Blue also pointed out that the term "quality" is often used without a qualifying adjective (e.g. high quality, low quality). He knew it was meant to mean high quality, and as along as everyone else assumed it meant high quality, he did not object. It was ultimately decided the objective would read: "Recognize the relationship of high quality schools and public services and the outstanding natural and cultural amenities to positive economic development and maintain this attributes." Objective 1 - Strategy 3 Mr. Dotson suggested the following wording: "Encourage low -impact tourism focused on the rural, agrarian, and historical resources of the County without compromising those resources." There was some question about the definition of "low impact." It was finally decided the strategy would read: "Encourage tourism focused on the rural, agrarian, and historical resources of the County which will not threaten or compromise those resources." Objective 1 - Strategy 4 Mr. Blue felt the term "as appropriate" should be changed to "when appropriate." Objective 1 - Strategy S Mr. Dotson suggested the following wording: "Work with the University of Virginia and its associated entities and other major developers to identify and communicate with business and industry which can utilize its resources." Mr. Cilimberg later explained it was staff s intent that this strategy focus on the University. Ms. Imhoff suggested that the strategy needed to be reworked to clarify the idea that "the University is one of the community's strengths, and the community should work with UVA to identify the resources it can bring to existing and new businesses." After Mr. Cilimberg's comments, Mr. Dotson withdrew his suggested addition of "and other major developers." Objective I - Strategy 6 Mr. Dotson suggested the following substitute for Strategy 6: "Compile data on County plans, zoning, sites and policies and make these available on request." There was no objection to Mr. Dotson's suggestion. 1-17-95 Objective I - Strategy 8 W Mr. Dotson felt this was too abrupt. He suggested: ""When an opportunity is presented, encourage employment of the local labor force rather than heavy reliance on re -located workers." (There were no objections to this suggestion.) Objective I - Strategy 9 Mr. Nitchmann suggested the addition of the words "or friendly" after the word "sustainable." (There were no objections to this suggestion.) Mr. Jenkins suggested that the word "new" be added before the word "business." Some Commissioners questioned this suggested change. Mr. Blue felt this was an issue which should be discussed: i.e. "Are there businesses and industries within in the County now we would like to discourage from expansion because of these reasons?" Ms. Imhoff said she did not want to discriminate between "who's here and who might walk in the door five seconds from now." She was not in favor of Mr. Jenkins' suggestion. Mr. Dotson was comfortable with the statement as presented, though he did not have a strong objection to adding the word "new." Objective I - Strategy 11 Mr. Jenkins was uncomfortable with measuring this against the vision statement because it means that the reader would then have to look elsewhere to find the vision statement. He suggested either some elaboration or possible omission of the strategy. Ms. Imhoff felt if the visioning statement were going to be referenced, it would make more sense to reference it under Objective III which relates to the regional economy. Mr. Dotson agreed with Ms. Imhoff, but he also agreed with Mr. Jenkins that there should be some direction as to where the visioning statement can be found in the document. Ms. Huckle felt Strategy I 1 could be better placed somewhere else in the document. Objective I - New Strategy Mr. Dotson suggested the following additional strategy: "Designate the County Administrator's Office (or "an office") as the contact point for economic development information about the County." Objective II Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the use of the word "adequate." She recalled that the Commission had determined its "planning horizon" to be 5 years. It was decided that the word "adequate" could be omitted from the objective. It was noted that the issue would be addressed in Strategy 2. 1-17-95 Ito] Ms. Huckle asked if anyone had a concern about the use of the word "plan" rather than "identify." No concerns were expressed. Objective II - Strategy 1 Mr. Dotson suggested adding "'price and location' to some of the diversity that we are looking for." It was agreed that location should be added but not price. Objective II - Strategy 2 Mr. Blue again expressed the same comment he had earlier about the term "quality." Ms.Imhoff suggested that the second sentence should be deleted. She suggested that the sentence read: "Designate in the Land Use Plan high quality areas for office, commercial and industrial land use that meet the appropriate development standards of the Comprehensive Plan for the next five-year planning period." Mr, Cilimberg pointed out that utility planning, out of necessity, must be for a 20-year period and, the land use plan is also a 20-year plan, theoretically, with 5-year updates. He explained: "In terms of where those places are going to be, when we are starting to build roads and extend utilities, and talk about community facility support, we have to be looking at the total package beyond just 5 years." Mr. Blue understood the 5-year focus to be on land that is ready for rezoning. Ms. Imhoff recalled that in a previous discussion there had been concern about staffs definition of "adequate" as being "2 or 3 times the supply." She thought a consensus had been reached, "that if that was somehow the yardstick, that you somehow had to have that much quantity, then our time horizon was going to be shorter. Otherwise, you could end up with a very large supply." Mr. Dotson commented: "I think we've gone the extremes. We were saying 'let's plan 20 years, mutiply it by 3, so that we had a 60-year supply. The way this is is that it is a 5-year only supply, and I think we've come back the other way. I think what Ms. Imhoff is suggesting is we use a 5-year time frame but then build in this flexibility factor of maybe 2 times." Mr. Blue also pointed out that it was his understanding that "we are zeroing in on laud that is practicably available, i.e. land that can be developed." Staff was to re -write the strategy. There was be no reference to "2-times", with focus to be on a 5-year planning period. b&. Dotson suggested that the wording include some allowance for flexibility. Objective II - Strategy 3 Mr. Dotson expressed a lack of understanding of this strategy. Ms. Imhoff explained her understanding: "You want to be sure that your Land Use Plan allows for some areas for people to rezone, but the County doesn't want to rezone that land; you want people to have the flexibility to make proposals." (Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that was staffs intent, based on Commission comments at the December 20 work session.) Mr. Dotson said he did not disagree with "having some land zoned, some land unzoned, some proffered zoning, some unproffered zoning." He felt it comes back to a "diversity of sites." He felt it could be stated more clearly. Mr .Cilimberg said that this may actually happen as a natural course of events and may not even need to be included as a strategy. Mr. Jenkins felt omitting this strategy 1-17-95 11 would not detract from the document. Ms. Imhoff suggested that it be left in until after the public hearing, with the understanding that there is a question as to whether or not it should be included. Objective II - Strategy 4 Ms. Imhoff felt a statement should be added at the end saying "and implements the Comprehensive Plan." It was decided the strategy would be reworded to say: "Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in areas appropriately designated in the Comprehensive Plan." Objective II - Strategy 5 Mr. Dotson objected to the words "plan and provide" at the beginning of the second sentence. He suggested instead "Develop a strategy for inftrastructure improvements...." There were no objections to this suggestion. Objective II - Strategy b Mr. Nitchmann asked if the statement was meant to be "actionary" or "reactionary." Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was reactionary, i.e. "we are waiting for them." Ms. Huckle questioned the use of the word "accommodate." She felt this could be interpreted as meaning the "County is out there doing it." She suggested that the word "identify" be substituted for accommodate. Mr. Blue also felt the word "major" should be omitted. Ms. Huckle agreed. There were no objections to these suggested changes. Objective III (dealing with the regional partnership) There were no objections to the proposed wording as presented by staff. Objective III - Strategy 1 Mr. Cilimberg explained that this strategy was meant to define the extent to which the County saw itself participating. Mr. Dotson felt that the opening statement for strategy 1 should be reworded. He suggested instead: "Cooperate with other jurisdictions, in the region, PVCC and UVA for..." (Note: PVCC and UVA were added later in the discussion.) Ms. Imhoff felt the use of the word "cooperate" leaves the door open for the Board to decide whether the cooperation will be through the regional partnership or will it continue to be through TJPDC, or if it will be some combination. (Mr. Dotson agreed.) 1-17-95 12 Mr. Jenkins commented: "I have sort of taken the position that the regional partnership is sort of a done deal and it is a matter of just fine tuning it, but I can see where you are coming from (referring to Commissioners Imhoff s and Dotson's statements), so I don't know that it really matters that much. The Board is going to decide whether we are going to participate or not." Mr. Nitchmann expressed support for the County being a part of the regional partnership. (Mr. Jenkins agreed.) Ms. Huckle felt that cooperating with other jurisdictions is regional cooperation, "whatever you call it." She concluded: "I think the main thing is that we cooperate with other jurisdictions." Ms. Imhoff was in favor of another "bullet" which more clearly emphasizes that the regional partnership will actively promote citizen participation. Ms. Huckle felt the "regional partnership" needs to be more clearly defined. She felt there are many different perceptions as to what the partnership is. Mr. Dotson felt there should be another bullet under strategy I saying that "this partnership would also develop ideas to link housing and wages as part of a regional effort." Mr. Dotson was in favor of deleting the word "clearinghouse." He suggested the word "vehicle" be used instead. He did not think the partnership should have a "gatekeeper function." Mr. Blue felt the regional partnership was "the crux of the whole thing." He stated: "I look at it with the idea that when you going to cooperate, or join group, I don't think you should expect to dominate the group and that everything the group does is going to be exactly what you want. It seems to me that maybe that is what we want. Maybe we do. Maybe we want to give the impression that Albemarle County will join this group as long as the group does exactly what Alemarle County wants. I'm not sure that is exactly what we should expect." Ms. Huckle commented on Mr. Blue's statement: "That's why I think it would be good to do what Mr. Dotson suggested and say 'cooperate with other jurisdictions', which doesn't say that we are going to try to force them to do what we want them to do." Mr. Nitchmann suggested the following alternative to Mr. Dotson's suggestion: "Cooperate with other jurisdictions in working in a regional partnership atmosphere." (There was no support for this suggestion.) Commissioners Imhoff, Huckle, Blue and Jenkins expressed "no problem" with Mr. Dotson's suggested opening statement for strategy 1. 1�41 I-17-95 13 Objective III - Strategy 2 Mr. Dotson felt this strategy should be another subset of strategy 1. Ms. Imhoff was not in favor of Mr. Dotson's suggestion. She explained: "I think the regional partnership has some really good roles with information and coordination, but not necessarily on every development project. I almost want the County to be in the situation of (developing Memoranda of Understanding with individual counties). That should be information that is available to the regional partnership but I don't think it should have to be funneled through the regional partnership. I see the regional partnership as more of the information, coordination, cheer leading project." It was agreed that Strategy 2 would remain as a separate strategy. Objective III - Strategy 3 Ms. Huckie was in favor of deleting the word "support." She mentioned examples where the County might recognize the City's objectives (such as a landfill), but questioned whether the County would want to support certain objectives. Mr. Blue pointed out that if the County is a member of the regional partnership, it will at least have a voice on projects. Mr. Blue expressed support for the County being a part "of that sort of group." Mr. Dotson suggested that the strategy be reworded to reflect that "we want to work together, as appropriate." One possibility suggested was: "Recognize and support the City of Charlottesville's economic development objectives, and the objectives of the other counties in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Objective III - Strategy 4 Mr. Dotson was in favor of deleting this strategy. He objected to the partnership speaking for the region or the localities. (Only Ms. Imhoff commented on this suggestion.) Ms. Imhoff agreed, though she suggested that if it remain, it should be a subset of strategy I. Objective III - Strategy 5 Mr. Dotson suggested that this strategy be moved to the beginning of the bullets under strategy 1, and the sentence begin with "Evaluate local, regional, statewide, ...." Objective III - New Strategies Ms. Imhoff recalled there had been a suggestion earlier that there be a strategy dealing with the University's role in the region. She also recalled that it had been suggested earlier that .. this would be the place to add a statement referencing the visioning statement. 1-17-95 14 Mr. Dotson felt there should be a strategy to "develop and coordinate a strategy of regional work force development." Objective IV There were no coments on the objective. Objective IV - Strategy i Mr. Nitchmann reminded the Commission that the fiscal impact model is just another tool which will help us define what is going to happen. Objective IV - Strategy 2 Mr. Blue noted that there is not yet a good definition for historic areas. He asked why historic areas and open space are included in the list. (He did not suggest that they be removed.) Ms. Huckle felt that historic areas are one of the reasons tourists come to the area. She also pointed out that farmland and open space are very essential to protection of water resources. Objective IV - Strategy 3 Ms. Vaughan asked why the word "local" was underlined. It was decided that the underlining would be removed. Objective V There were no objections to Objective V. Objective V - Strategy 1 Ms. Huckle said she supported this strategy up to the first semi -colon. She did not support the remainder of the strategy. She understood the strategy to say that the County would "reduce obstacles" (e.g. allowing development on critical slopes or in floodplains); would provide infrastructure; and would provide financing. She was opposed to the county doing these things. She was not opposed to the county addressing work force deficiencies and training needs. Mr. Blue felt the "meat" of the strategy was that which Ms. Huckle suggested be removed Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to explain what was meant by the phrase "primarily through identifying opportunities." He questioned how local government could do this. After hearing staff s explanation, he suggested that the strategy needed to be reworded to reflect the county's desire to "work in a more cooperative nature with businesses." He agreed that "financing" 1-17-95 15 should be omitted, unless it was accompanied by a clear definition. (He noted that he had supported the County's recent decision for GE-Fanuc, but he did not consider this to be a "financing situation.") Mr. Dotson said he had concerns only about the last part of the strategy ("providing assistance in their expansion considerations..."). He said he had not viewed "reducing regulations" in the same way Ms. Huckle had. He said: "If there is aregulation we all agree serves no purpose, then it's an obstacle; good regulations aren't obstacles." Ms. Imhoff felt this strategy was too general and was lacking good definitions. She felt "some specifics" needed to be added to the strategy (e.g. an engineering handbook, working with Vo-Tech). (Mr. Blue addressed this suggestion: "I think the idea of specificity is good, but we run the risk of missing something.") Mr. Jenkins did not think it was possible to address all possibilities which might present themselves to the Board with this document. He suggested: "So to say that we have an open-door policy for businesses here and we'd like to hear what their needs are, that takes care of it." It was agreed staff would re -write strategy 1, focusing on the "open-door policy of communication and exchange of information." (Mr. Dotson added: "Or concerns, also.) Objective V - Strategy 2 Mr. Dotson felt it sounded as if there was already a program in place which was to be evaluated. He suggested the sentence begin "Develop a strategy for assisting new small (There were no objections to this suggested change.) It was suggested that the words in parenthesis at the end of the sentence ("financing, training") be deleted. Ms. Huckle noted that SCORE already offers a local program which assists new businesses in getting started. She was in favor of this strategy being deleted. There was some feeling that this strategy (and perhaps this entire objective) should be deleted. It was agreed that it would remain until after the public hearing. Objective V - Strategy 3 There was a discussion of the difference between the Regional Partnership and an Economic Development Council. Ms. Huckle reported that Mr. Tucker had told her "when they are talking about regional partnerships, this is what they are talking about, is the Economic Development Council." Mr. Cilimberg said it was not intended that way, rather it was -1q 1-17-95 16 understood by staff to be a two level situation. The level at the County's initiative would be the Economic Development Council. Ms. Imhoff reported on a similar concept in the Roanoke Region (The New Century Council). She explained that group had not been established by the County, but by the Chamber of Commerce and it now has almost 1,000 members. She was uncertain whether it was the role of the County to establish such a group, or if it was the role of the County to work with certain groups to get such a concept going. She particularly liked the Roanoke model because it had been "very much inclusive of environmental groups, school board members, (etc.)." Referring to the Economic Development Council, Mr. Dotson commented: "We are getting an awful lot of groups established, and I'm just not sure we need this one." He continued: "My sense is that nobody is saying the County ought to have one. If it's going to happen, maybe it's regional, but we're not real sure exactly how it ought to happen." Ms. Huckle felt that a regional partnership was entirely different from an economic development council. She explained: "If we're talking about regional partnership, we've got to make sure whether we're talking about just a group of jurisdictions who communicate with one another and plug into a data collection base, or whether we are talking about something like an economic development council (which involves a financial investment)" It was decided the first word ("establish") would be changed to "consider." It was also decided the first sentence would end at the word "citizens." (The remainder of the first sentence would be deleted. Objective VI Ms. Huckle and Mr. Nitchmann felt this should be placed in a higher priority. Objective VI - Strategy 1 Ms. Imhoff suggested that the sentence end at the word "habits." The majority of the Commission agreed with this suggestion. Objective VI - Strategy 2 It was decided the first word of the sentence ("provide") would be changed to "support." Objective VI - Strategy 3 There were no objections to the strategy as stated. Objective VI - Strategy 4 It was suggested the first word of the sentence ("consider") would be changed to "identify." 1-17-95 17 Mr. Nitchmann did not want the county to be placed in the role of providing such services as day care and transportation in its efforts to provide better job opportunities for its citizens. Mr. Cilimberg suggested a possible rewording: "Develop related goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan that can address the barriers experienced by the local force, particularly those in greatest need." (Ms. Imhoff liked the emphasis on barriers. Mr. Dotson felt it was useful to include "education, housing, day care, transportation" because it is a list of some of the barriers. He suggested the use of the words "such as" at the beginning of this list. Objective VI - Strategy 5 It was the consensus of the Commission that this strategy be omitted. (At this point, the Commission's section -by -section discussion of the draft document ended.) There was a brief discussion about the prioritization of the objectives. Staff said they had not placed them in any particular order. Though Mr. Nitchmann had some suggestions as to placement, it was ultimately agreed that they would remain as originally presented by staff. Public hearing on the Economic Development Policy was set for January 24, 1995, with Commission action to take place at a later meeting. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Mitchell Toms, a resident of 5476 Brownsville Rd., Charlottesville, addressed the Commission. He expressed appreciation for the Commission's time on this issue. He expressed the hope that the word "partnership" would be used more between the City and the County, between the adjacent counties, and between the different committees which serve the entire area. MISCELLANEOUS It was decided CPA-94-04 on the Economic Development Policy would be moved to the beginning of the list of public hearing items on the January 24, 1995 agenda. There being no further business, the meeting adjouthed at 9:55 p.m. ` i W. V. Wayne Yi