HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 25 2000 PC MinutesMA
Albemarle County Planning Commission
DISC Worksession
July 25, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a worksession on the Development Areas
Initiatives Committee findings. Commission members present were Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Ms. Tracey Hopper; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Pete Craddock;
Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Staff members present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Ms. Elaine Echols,
Ms. Lee Catlin, and Mr. Tom Foley.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this is the first of several worksessions to review Volume 1 of the
DISC Report — the Neighborhood Model — which contains 12 principles that came out as
recommendations from the Committee. He noted that later worksessions will pull together these
results and begin discussion of the transect and the master plans to be done in the future as a
result of the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Cilimberg said the goal for this worksession is to get
through the first two principles, and mentioned that the Board of Supervisors has adopted all 12
in principle.
Ms. Echols reported that the goal for the DISC Committee and the Board is to consider the
Neighborhood Model (Volume 1) as part of the Comprehensive Plan; Volume 2 references the
tools in order to make that happen.
Principle #1: Pedestrian Orientation
She explained that DISC has found that neighborhoods need to be walkable, and has listed ways
to make them pedestrian -friendly. Ms. Echols noted that DISC has recommended having a
surface and a location of a path, which should be adjacent to a roadway.
Ms. Echols said that the county usually ensures that some pedestrian access is provided in
subdivisions through the Subdivision Ordinance — which states that a sidewalk may be required
on one side of the street; and in the Site Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance — which states that
sidewalks shall be provided to allow pedestrians to walk safely and conveniently. She said that
the current standards are not as "concrete" as the recommendations in the Neighborhood Model.
She noted that DISC believes sidewalks should be a mandatory part of new development, and
pedestrian access should be a major part of the master plan process.
Referencing the "Principles of the Neighborhood Model —Pedestrian Orientation," section from
the policy and regulatory changes, Ms. Echols reviewed the DISC recommendations for making
pedestrian -oriented neighborhoods. She noted that the one difference from the Comprehensive
Plan is the recommendation to build new schools in short distance from residences, so that
children can walk to school, and to give priority to development area children to attend the
school closest to their home. Ms. Echols said that the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes
would require pedestrian access rather than making it optional, as it currently is.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession 17/25/00 423
Om
Ms. Echols emphasized that the recommendation brings up several questions in staff s mind:
♦ Who is going to construct the pedestrian access, and under what conditions?
♦ Who will own and maintain them?
♦ What increased needs does construction, ownership and maintenance place on county
departments in terms of public works?
♦ What level of maintenance is required?
♦ What impact will be had on maintenance and safety if manholes are put in the sidewalks?
She added that achieving a pedestrian -friendly will require identifying who will provide, own
and maintain the amenities. Ms. Echols stated that there need to be places to walk to, including
schools and parks. She emphasized that in order to achieve pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods,
the ordinance would need to change, the design standards would need to be in place, and there
would need to be a greater level of inspection and greater involvement from the public in
amenities.
Mr. Thomas asked what affect the recommendations would have on schools in terms of
redistricting.
Ms. Echols responded that there would probably need to be some redistricting.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the principles are exemplary, but wondered what sorts of
policy implications there would be in terms of how the sites would be selected in the future. He
mentioned the elementary to be located on the north side of the county which is on the fringe of
the development area, rather than in a more central location.
Ms. Echols said that DISC recommends separating the school sites from the park sites, which
conflicts with the county's current provisions.
Mr. Rieley noted that this recommendation is also contradictory to other parts of the
Neighborhood Model, which suggests that parking be doubled up for various uses.
Ms. Echols responded that if you don't have such a high acreage requirement, getting acreage
might be easier, and dedication might be easier.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that if the county is committed to inflll, schools will need to be
located more centrally in order to promote the kind of neighborhoods DISC calls for. He said
that at the level where selection of the sites is considered, this emphasis on pedestrian access has
to be strongly articulated.
Mr. Loewenstein asked what kind of policy decisions will have to be made in order to promote
interconnectivity between neighborhoods, noting that residents of many existing developments
don't want interconnectivity through their neighborhoods.
Ms. Echols suggested discussing interconnectivity when that specific principle comes before the
Commission for discussion.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00 424
n
Mr. Rooker asked how play fields and playgrounds are separated.
Ms. Echols responded that playgrounds are those needed for normal operational use with the
school and would be adjacent, whereas playfields used in excess of the school's normal
operational day are considered recreational and would be separated.
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Benish to clarify the difference in uses for varsity sports.
Mr. Benish explained that elementary school requires muti-purpose field space with a
playground, with a blacktop. He noted that the best example of a school with the minimum
required space would be the Woodbrook Elementary School, which sits on 12 acres.
Mr. Rieley asked if any analysis had been done on what level of residential density would be
required to provide a community of students that would make a neighborhood school a reality.
Ms. Echols replied that DISC decided it did not want to set a number, but wanted to make
schools centrally located within a development area so they could walk to school, because the
density would be so high.
DISC member Mr. Steve Runkle of the Kessler Group said, "It's much higher density than we're
anywhere close to achieving today."
Mr. Rieley expressed concern that while having walkable schools is a good objective, he
wondered if achieving that is real.
Ms. Hopper wondered if the school accessibility is the point that should be focused on at this
time, because there are so many other good points.
Ms. Catlin suggested focusing on the actual section from Volume 1, which the Commission will
eventually recommend to the Board of Supervisors for their further consideration.
Mr. Thomas asked fellow Commissioners to discuss their impressions of the recommendation for
pedestrian accessibility.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission would be approving the Neighborhood Model (Volume 1)
step by step, then approve Volume 2.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that representatives from the Board of Supervisors, the Planning
Commission, etc. met after DISC released its recommendations to discuss a time frame. He said
that the first step in the schedule towards adopting all recommendations was the adoption of
Volume One (the Neighborhood Model). "That is step one. That was to happen during the next
several months, first at the Commission level and then the Board level." He added that that
adoption would give the principles their standing in the Comprehensive Plan, and the transect
would be how the model is applied, and would set out the basis for the master planning work in
each of the communities.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00 425
Mr. Cilimberg said that at that point the Commission would discuss Volume Two, which
includes regulatory and policy recommendations. He noted that the Commission should mention
any thoughts on regulatory items along the way, but the focus should be on adoption of Volume
1.
Mr. Rooker said that general words can mean different things to different people, and right now
the Commission is dealing with general language in Volume 1, with regulatory issues to be dealt
with at a later time.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed, noting that the process is similar to the Historic Preservation ordinance,
which began with discussion of principles.
Mr. Rooker asked if the issue of separating parks from schools is in the general language.
Ms. Echols responded that it is not in the pedestrian orientation section, but is in the parks and
open space section.
Ms. Catlin suggested not "wordsmithing" every principle now, but just focusing on the policies
in principle.
Mr. Cilimberg added that if the Commission adopts Volume # 1 they have set out a broad frame,
with the specifics to be ironed out later.
1%r Ms. Catlin noted that the pedestrian orientation language includes sidewalk provisions for both
sides of streets, with separation from the road by a planting strip.
n
Ms. Hopper said that on Page 13, which references the "true test of walkability," it may be better
to include reference to the 5-minute transect/walkability instead to make it more general.
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley agreed.
Mr. Rieley added, "It's essentially a 1/4 mile radius."
Mr. Craddock commented that many kids are driven to school, even though they live close to
their school.
Mr. Rieley asked for clarification on Page 13 of the term "meaningful destination," and
suggested that it either be defined or removed.
Kathy said that the reason destination was included is that there's no point in having walkability
if there's no place to go.
Everyone agreed just to remove the word "meaningful."
Ms. Hopper asked if various widths of sidewalk are proposed depending on the density of the
area.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession 17/25/00 426
M
Mr. Rieley said that he also had concerned about the recommended widths.
Ms. Hopper asked for the rationale behind the recommended widths.
Ms. Echols responded that the widths were the consultant's recommendation.
Kathy said that they relied upon the consultant, who has extensive experience in new town
development.
Mr. Rooker said that the higher -density areas which warrant wide sidewalks are not defined.
Mr. Rieley noted that higher density needs to be discussed with the same specificity as the width.
Mr. Rooker suggested that the width be dealt with in text amendments.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to see a "finite correlation" between the density and width.
Ms. Echols interjected that staff had sent the Neighborhood Model sent to Richmond, and
VDOT's comments were generally supportive for pedestrian access. She stated that VDOT had
some standards that may need to be reviewed before taking out the specificity.
Mr. Runkle asked if the sidewalk requirements were more severe than road geometry.
Mr. Rieley responded that Ms. Echols had cited just one of the sources to take into account
Mr. Cilimberg said that the recommendations are a minimum width of 4', with a minimum of 9'
in commercial areas; otherwise, widths will be based on density.
Mr. Rieley commented that there are no documented safety problems with pedestrian
underpasses in our area, and suggested it be removed.
Mr. Rooker agreed, adding that pedestrian bridges over a road facility might also be advisable, so
the statement recommending against them should be removed.
Mr. Rieley suggested that there may need to be a category between paths and sidewalks, to allow
for a different kind of asphalt pathway in a situation where a sidewalk isn't appropriate.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there may need to be a distinction between a pedestrian path and multi-
use/bicycle path.
Mr. Rooker clarified that under present language, there may be circumstances under which the
county may require a sidewalk where a path might be more appropriate.
Mr. Rieley indicated that density and terrain may make it impractical to have a sidewalk
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00 427
M
He suggested having a bullet in the sidewalk section stating "where density and topography
dictate, a path separated from the roadway may be appropriate." Mr. Rieley agreed it was
important to clarify pedestrian versus multi -use paths.
Mr. Craddock asked if the path at Monticello should be paved between the boardwalks.
Mr. Rieley said it is not necessary to pave bike paths is you use the right kind of stone.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested stating under paths: "paved or other suitable surface."
The Commission had no comments on the "Blocks" section.
Ms. Catlin reviewed the recommended changes for Principle # 1:
♦ Change language on first page to redefine true test of walkability, taking out specifics
♦ Get rid of word "meaningful" under destination point
♦ Establish a minimum sidewalk standard width of 4 feet, 9 feet for commercial; increase
width as density increases
♦ Remove last two sentences under pedestrian crossings referencing overpasses and
underpasses
♦ Add a bullet regarding density and topography dictating paths v. sidewalks
♦ Separate from path section pedestrian use v. multi -use and requirements for each
♦ Add statement about paved and other suitable surfaces where appropriate
♦ Make bicycle paths at least 10 feet
♦ Remove Illustration 5.4
Principle #2: Neighborhood Friendly Streets
Ms. Echols explained that this section calls for curb & gutters, sidewalks, street trees, and other
elements that make for neighborhood -friendly streets, emphasizing that this section suggests that
a street is part of the neighborhood. She acknowledged that VDOT is going to be a challenge in
because while they support pedestrian access, they are less keen on street trees in grassy areas,
and have concerns about who will own, install, and maintain these streets. She said that the
theme of this section is to find ways to move traffic that are "more gentle."
Mr. Rieley stated that he agrees with most of the definitions included with the exception of
"parkway," which is defined as a rural version of a boulevard. He said that should be called
"rural boulevard," with the term "parkway" reserved for a linear park that contains a scenic road.
Mr. Rooker asked if the only roads called boulevards under the new standards would have more
than one median.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the "residential boulevard" would have only one median. He said
that the boulevard is an urban arterial made to look nice, but moving a little slower.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00 428
M
Mr. Rieley asked if there was an urban model included in this section that had a four -lane road
with one median in between.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the residential boulevard uses Monument Avenue in Richmond as an
example, with heavy travel, onstreet parking, and wide median four -lane road.
Mr. Rieley said that Washington Avenue in Pulaski is a great example of a residential model
with onstreet parking.
Mr. Rooker noted that there is no maximum or minimum width set for any road.
Ms. Echols mentioned that that is intentional, to allow the Commission flexibility.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that there be more definition for avenue and residential boulevard.
Mr. Runkle emphasized that geometry is as important as width, and recommended using some
design speed for a typical residential road.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if he would like staff to include a maximum design speed for all roads that
did not have one.
Mr. Runkle replied, "As long as it is less than today's design speed by VDOT."
Ms. Hopper mentioned that at the last Commission meeting, they agreed to convey to the Board
the desire to keep road widths and speeds in check.
Mr. Rooker said that stipulating lower design speeds would provide some basis for countering
VDOT recommendations.
Mr. Rieley noted that because of the different nature of some streets and roads, there may need to
be some language that states "at some scale a street does not adhere to the same standards as a
road does."
Mr. Rooker suggested including a general statement that says design speed shall be in keeping
with the density of the urban setting in which they are designed.
Mr. Rieley cautioned recommending lower design speeds overall, because it may allow for
substandard road development that only meets lower speed requirements.
Ms. Catlin asked the Commissioners if they wanted to deal with maximum design speed in a
more general way.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the bracketed design speed recommendations may be too restrictive.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding the word "generally."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession 17/25/00 429
Mr. Thomas asked for some elaboration on Page 58, and wondered if there was a difference
between that language and what was being discussed.
Mr. Rooker responded that that information does not cover all circumstances, and said that they
still need language as recommended by Mr. Rieley.
Ms. Echols mentioned that the problem has been that higher volumes of traffic for VDOT tend to
call for widening of the streets also increase the street requirements for a higher speed of traffic.
Roads get wider to accommodate more traffic, and to allow traffic to go faster. She asked how
the Commission wanted to reference the design speeds.
Mr. Rooker wondered if there needed to be a reference to certain road improvements in design
speeds.
Mr. Rieley said they should qualify the design speeds with statements about general design
speeds being a specific limit, such as 35 miles per hour on boulevards, etc.
Commissioners agreed that each category should have a general design speed statement, and
another qualifying statement that states that in certain case design speeds need to be slower due
to other design approaches or devices.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that these would be applicable on neighborhood streets and ways.
Commissioners agreed to change the name "Parkway" to "Rural Boulevard."
Staff clarified that "core" and "center" mean essentially the same thing.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would clarify what streets are appropriate in core areas.
Mr. Rooker suggested adding "generally" to appropriate locations references. He asked about
the location of highways in development areas, noting that they are depicted differently than
boulevards in the model.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the highways would serve more as connectors, and would be made
to be more neighborhood friendly. He added that in development areas, highways could come
boulevards.
Ms. Echols said that staff was trying to accommodate existing access corridors.
Mr. Rieley suggested adding a statement on Page 67 that the highways are generally more
appropriate located outside of the development areas.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that on that same page, the term "Parkway" should be "Rural
Boulevard."
Mr. Loewenstein noted several spelling errors, which staff agreed to correct.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00 430
n
Ms. Catlin clarified recommended changes of this section:
♦ Deletion of popular myths box;
♦ Amend statement regarding studies showing narrow roads/safety connection;
♦ Specify numbers of lanes in "Residential Boulevard,"
♦ Page 58 — general statement about establishing maximum design speed, and pointing out that
certain amenities may require lower design speeds;
♦ Include qualified design speed statement for each category of road;
♦ Change term "Parkway" to "Rural Boulevard" throughout;
♦ Specify road types appropriate in core areas;
♦ Add "generally" to appropriate location;
♦ Redefine highway definition, emphasizing its location outside neighborhoods;
♦ Spell -check all proper names.
The Commission adjourned their worksession at 6:00 p.m., and reconvened their regular meeting
at 6:30 p.m.
V. Wayne f iliml
Secretary
Albemarle County Planning Commission — DISC Worksession I 7/25/00
431
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 25, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a joint meeting with the
Charlottesville City Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 25, 2000. Commission
members present were Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Ms.
Tracey Hopper; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Pete Craddock; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Staff
members present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Ms. Elaine Echols.
Charlottesville officials present were: Mr. Blake Caravati, Mayor; Mr. Marshall Slayton,
Chairman of the City Planning Commission; Mr. Ron Higgins.
Ms. Echols gave a Power Point presentation which demonstrated current development
patterns and DISC -recommended development concepts. She explained that she has been
working with DISC for three years, and indicated that the earlier worksession included
Planning Commission deliberations on what should be recommended to the Board for
Principles # 1 and #2. Ms. Echols noted that Neil Payton, who is also working with the
city, is the DISC project consultant. She said that DISC came up with the title of "The
Neighborhood Model as the Building Block for the Development Areas."
Ms. Echols stated that the Neighborhood Model attempts to plan for growth in Albemarle
County, with development areas filled out and rural areas preserved; this is articulated in
the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Echols noted that the Comprehensive Plan talks about
facilitating infill development within development areas, and minimizing expansion into
the rural areas, providing for more flexible residential land use densities, having a mix of
uses, and having the necessary infrastructure in development areas.
Ms. Echols said that the Board asked DISC to make recommendations on how
development should occur, in addition to where it should occur. She explained that DISC
came up with the Neighborhood Model, that would change the form of development in
the development areas of the county and provide a functional, sustainable, high quality of
life. Ms. Echols noted that DISC quickly realized that current regulations promote
conventional sprawl, with segregated land use and housing, and realized that there are
few pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods.
She said that DISC is suggesting neighborhoods with walkers, bike trails, and public
transport, with an emphasis on reuse of sites and a clear edge between development areas
and rural areas. Ms. Echols presented images of the existing conditions in Pantops area,
and a depiction of how the area would look if conventional sprawl development
continues. She stated that the Neighborhood Model suggests less horizontal and more
vertical buildings, which face the road and have parking behind buildings, using multi -
stories rather than large paths of land that extend outward.
Ms. Echols explained that DISC calls this "density by design," which purports that urban
density can facilitate pedestrian access, serve a broader population, and allow for efficient
delivery of county services. She emphasized that the City of Charlottesville has a vital
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 432
community life that could be replicated in the county. Ms. Echols said that there are lots
of myths around high density — such as more traffic, higher county expenditures, and
increased crime. She emphasized that the Neighborhood Model demonstrates that the 12
DISC principles create a more urban form of development within development areas and
provide for a higher quality of life:
♦ Pedestrian orientation
♦ Neighborhood friendly streets and paths, with sidewalks and street trees
♦ Interconnected streets and transportation networks
♦ Parks and open space
♦ Neighborhood centers
♦ Buildings and spaces of human scale
♦ Relegated parking, behind buildings, with sidewalks leading to entrances
♦ Mix of housing types and affordability with dignity,
♦ Mix of uses & integration of residential with retail
♦ Redevelopment rather than abandonment
♦ Site planning that respects terrain, more effective use of grades
♦ Clear edges between development areas and rural areas
Ms. Echols presented slides depicting implementation of the DISC principles. She
emphasized that the goal of the Neighborhood Model is to develop more livable
development areas, and help preserve undeveloped rural areas.
►" Mr. Thomas asked about storefronts on streets, with parking behind.
M
Ms. Echols explained that the Commission felt it was very important with the Airport
Road project to get onstreet parking next to the sidewalk, so people could park on the
street and go into the offices. With that project, there would also be the ability from
building to building for people to walk along sidewalks to enter buildings. "It runs
contrary to a lot of current practice about having all your parking in front with your main
central door right there in front."
Mr. Thomas noted that it is also contrary to the Downtown Mall.
Ms. Echols responded that there are parking garages there, and also onstreet parking to
access buildings.
Mr. Slayton asked if the county has had discussions with developers about establishing
this type of neighborhood.
Ms. Echols indicated that developers served on the DISC committee, and there was a lot
of discussion on the marketability of the Neighborhood Model, She said that the only
concern raised was the possible cost of changing the development style with additional
amenities. Ms. Echols said that most members agreed that people will pay for those
additional amenities, knowing that it will be of benefit to county in long run. She
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 433
n
indicated that the mixed -use development seems to be an issue with the finance
community, which doesn't always favor funding of heavy-duty mixed -use development.
She cited the Crozet Commons development as an example of combination retail and
housing with its own parking, adding that there was no hesitation on the person proposing
that development that it was saleable. Ms. Echols said that this is being done in other
places around the country, noting that Burlington (Vermont) has a similar situation, with
an incorporated area surrounded by a rural county.
Ms. Echols commented, "Some people are embracing it, some people are hesitant, and
then there are other people that think it is totally going to fail." She noted that some
people in the development community feel the market will not support this type of
development.
Mr. Slayton asked how many development areas or town centers are envisioned, and
asked how the county would zone for it.
Mr. Rooker suggested the master planning process be discussed.
Ms. Echols replied that the fourth chapter of Volume 1 discusses master planning the
urban neighborhoods. She said that DISC recommends that the seven urban
neighborhoods, three communities, and one village that surround Charlottesville should
each have a master plan, with the community coming together and deciding how each
neighborhood should look, including density and amenities. Ms. Echols said that if the
Neighborhood Model is adopted, and the board appropriates the money for master plans,
the first master plan will be done in 2001 and used as a pilot project. She noted that a
"transect" — with a high density center and decreasing density outward — would be used
as a template for the first development.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Town Center had substantially more residential units,
and more retail/office space while allowing significantly more open space under the
Neighborhood Model. "There's an incentive for a developer to follow that model."
Mr. Caravati asked, "Why do you think there is a reticence... on the part of the
development [and finance] community."
Ms. Echols replied that mixed use is not traditionally financed, and individual sites are
easier to get financing on than projects with mixed uses in a speculative arrangement.
Mr. Cilimberg said that it is an accepted fact that a lot of the finance resources are very
conservative, and they are used to the models that work, and that make money — such as
the traditional suburbanization models. He added that the last issue of the New Urban
News talked about an evolution occurring with finance sources, which are beginning to
better comprehend and understand how these projects make money. Mr. Cilimberg
added that the market is so used to responding to what it has seen, it has accepted that as
the norm. "But in fact, there are studies now showing that if you take attributes of much
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 434
denser mixed -use development, people are saying they want that, and they are moving
out to less dense, segregated development to get a little piece of that, rather than having
available to them what they really want." He added that there are different socio-
economic populations that are prime candidates for supporting these kinds of
developments that currently don't have them available.
Mr. Cilimberg added, "It's just an evolution, and nationally, it is an increasing propensity
for areas to be looking into this kind of scheme, and I think part of it is evolving out of
the anti -sprawl movement."
Mr. Rooker mentioned developments such as Kentlands, Maryland as successful models.
Mr. Higgins noted that it took them a couple rounds to market the Kentlands property,
but they have decided to keep it and build it out, with an interested market created by
anti -sprawl movement.
Mr. Thomas asked about Columbia, Maryland.
Mr. Higgins said that the problem with neo-traditional developments like Columbia is
"we are asking developers to come in and buy land and develop something that we all
have longed for, but what we're going back to are communities that have evolved over
three or four generations — infrastructure, amenities." He added, "We're asking them to
do four generations worth of evolution up front before they can even start making
money."
Mr. Cilimberg commented that Maryland's "Smart Growth" legislation is geared to areas
that are planning, and the infill concept is the core of that program.
Ms. Echols noted that she has presented the DISC information to CALAC, homebuilders,
realty companies, Albemarle Neighborhood Association, etc., and the criticisms have
been minimal. She said that there have been a few criticisms about "social engineering,"
and criticisms about financiers not supporting this. Ms. Echols stated that the other
concern has been that with increased density, smaller lots will cause people to want to go
back into the rural areas.
Mr. Rooker said that Forest Lakes has been very successful, even with smaller lots. He
mentioned that the Kessler Group has been interested in pursuing this development style.
Ms. Echols said that she had received a letter from a realtor who had seen the DISC
presentation and who stated that this is a good way to preserve the community.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that "this is not for everybody, but people who are interested
can make a big difference."
Mr. Slayton thanked the county for their work and the presentation, and apologized for
not having a better turnout from the City Planning Commission. He said that this is a
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 435
M
great program for moving forward with better planned development and looks forward to
working with the county. Mr. Slayton said this is a "wonderful beginning."
Mr. Rooker explained that this process will take 1-1 1/2 years to complete, and said that
along the way, the county would like to get input from the city. He suggested having a
future joint session, where perhaps the City could be incorporated into the DISC sessions.
Mr. Slayton said that the City is in the middle of their Comprehensive Plan. He said that
the City has set up many neighborhood meetings to elicit comments, with great success
and a strong turnout.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the City is using the same consultant for design/land use
and business development as the county used for the DISC study.
Mr. Rooker asked how the City has incorporated neighborhood ideas into the current
Comprehensive Plan process.
Mr. Slayton said they hosted a kick-off with a high -profile speaker, and had a turnout of
350 people. He said they then broke out into neighborhood groups with a Planning
Commissioner assigned to each neighborhood. Each group came up issues — both
positive and negative — then analyzed ways of dealing with them. He said that each
neighborhood had four meetings, each of which were attended by a neighborhood planner
and a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Slayton said that the planners will then draft a plan
for each neighborhood and present it to their groups. He said that the Planning
Commission will then try to meld the ideas together, noting that each group has raised
similar issues and concerns.
Mr. Higgins noted that the format is a workshop facilitation method, and there have been
78 meetings. He said that everything that comes out of the workshops will be included in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Slayton emphasized that the City is planning to use the document as a blueprint with
each neighborhood plan.
Mr. Rooker asked if the neighborhood requests will be prioritized.
Mr. Slayton said they would be filtered through the Planning Commission, and would be
prioritized by the Commission.
Approval of Minutes — June 27, 2000
Commissioners noted that they did not receive minutes of June 27, 2000 for approval.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if they would be getting packets on Thursday for next week's
Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said that they would.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 436
M
Old Business
Ms. Hopper said that she and Mr. Loewenstein said that had not yet had an opportunity to
discuss the Executive Session with Mr. Kamptner and Mr. Cilimberg.
Mr. Cilimberg asked how the Commission felt about the format of the DISC discussions,
with advanced copies of two principles, then a worksession to discuss them.
Ms. Hopper said it may be somewhat tiring to have a worksession followed by a long
meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would like to get the work done as soon as possible, noting
that staff is eager to adopt the Neighborhood Model so that there is a guideline in place.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed that it is problematic for applicants, the Commission, and staff
not to have something in place.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that although the concepts may be new for the county, they are
not at all new planning concepts. He explained that when the Commission considers a
rezoning, they often require things by way of proffers and conditions, which incorporate
good planning ideas. "Applying some of these concepts that one or more of us may
consider to be good planning concepts — whether or not [DISC] is ever adopted — I don't
think is inappropriate."
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Town Center concept was proposed as a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. "If you want to introduce every piece of DISC's
concepts [that way], you can."
Ms. Hopper mentioned the standard for imposing conditions — a rational nexus.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the current Comprehensive Plan has statements that lead right
into what DISC is proposing, emphasizing that DISC is just more precise in the way it
describes things.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the degree to which the county can try to bring entire
development community along, the sooner it can achieve these goals. "When we see
applications, we often end up having to do a tremendous amount of tinkering that might
not be necessary if the applicants came in with something a little closer to what the
Comprehensive plan already points to in general terms." He commented that having
something in place would be very helpful for staff and the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg commented, "It's always good to have something to hang your hat on."
Didn't want to entertain expansions in development areas.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 437
n
Ms. Hopper said that it is important to have a rational nexus in the event of a legal
challenge. She expressed concern that there could be a misunderstanding about DISC,
and cautioned that they not "mobilize the opposition" before DISC is adopted.
Mr. Rooker responded, "You don't have to make reference to DISC to talk about good
planning ideas — to talk about sidewalks, street trees, interconnecting pedestrian access.
Those are planning ideas that are good planning ideas regardless of whether or not this
particular report is ever adopted and put in place."
Mr. Rooker emphasized that there is a difference between a rational nexus from special
use permit conditions and proffers given to get a rezoning. "With a rezoning, we have a
right to turn it down or accept it."
Mr. Cilimberg cautioned, "We lost a case in court... because it was turned down when it
was totally in accord with the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Rooker said, "A lot of the rezonings we look at don't necessarily fit into that
category."
Ms. Hopper stated that it would be helpful to have information on what the tests are for
approving or denying a rezoning.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Board's standard is that the decision has to be based on sound
zoning principles. He cited a case from Chesapeake where a palmist wanted to get a
special use permit. The staff and Planning Commission recommended approval, but at
the Board public hearing, there was a lot of neighborhood opposition. He indicated that
the courts found that public outcry was not a sufficient reason for denial, when the
proposal met all other criteria. Mr. Kamptner also mentioned a Fairfax case, where the
owner wanted to upzone property, and the county denied the request although having a
history of approving similar rezonings. The court deemed the denial "arbitrary and
capricious."
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission always a staff report and analysis of how the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. "You always have something in the
record, you always have some basis on which to make a recommendation."
Mr. Rooker said that you can usually find statements in the Comprehensive Plan that
support the decision for approval or disapproval as long as it is based on what is in the
public interest.
Mr. Kamptner commented that the Commission does a great job of stating reasons for
acceptance or denial, and always connects it to the Plan or applicable zoning principles.
Ms. Hopper said that her concerns are specific to the implementation of DISC.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 438
M
Mr. Loewenstein said that the Commission has long-standing patterns of approval, noting
that there are some differences in what DISC purports and what is currently in the
Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concern that applicants would point to existing
patterns of development.
Ms. Hopper stated that her fear is magnifying the 12 guidelines and having people
descend upon them. She indicated that she has already received some negative
comments.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is trying to lay out various standards in the Comprehensive
Plan. He said that the 12 DISC principles haven't been through Comp Plan Amendment
yet.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Board has adopted them as a resolution, and the Commission
can take them as a land use policy from the Board.
Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission could base its recommendations on that policy.
Mr. Kamptner commented that the Board has asked staff to analyze every application that
way. He said that it is a policy of the Board, and it is indicative of the climate under
which applications are being processed.
Mr. Rooker stated, "We are recommending to the Board. So to me, it's completely
appropriate to look at things that the Board has passed and use them as a partial basis for
our decision."
Ms. Hopper said, "I don't think we want to create the inadvertent consequence of making
this look like an awful tool....one more thing the Planning Commission can do to trip up
applicants."
Mr. Rooker emphasized, "We're just making a recommendation."
Ms. Hopper said she has been hearing some pretty strong feedback, and encouraged
Commissioners to "step lightly."
Mr. Rieley commented that within the general framework of the discussions and
decisions made over the last several years, there have been these same principles. He
cited Crozet projects as examples of plans that were "reshaped" by discussions at the
Planning Commission level. "They're the same principles that we're talking about
today."
Mr. Thomas stated that it may not be fair to the applicants to incorporate DISC principles
before they have been formally adopted. He also mentioned the lack of a decision on the
Keswick ZTA because the Rural Areas planning was not complete.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 439
Mr. Rooker emphasized that DISC is just one tool to be used in evaluating proposals,
along with all other tools and knowledge Commissioners may bring to the table. "It
seems to me it's appropriate what you think is good planning in your decisions."
Mr. Kamptner said that the matters that come before the Commission such as special use
permits and Zoning Text Amendments are legislative decisions. He said that the
document has seeped into the consciousness of each Commissioner. "It's going to be
part of the way you look at every discretionary application now."
Started with the Comprehensive Plan. Urban planning, as opposed to conventional
development, could take every one of these,
Ms. Hopper continued to express concern that they might come under fire for referencing
the principles.
Ms. Echols emphasized that the 12 principles came from the Comprehensive Plan, and
suggested utilizing the existing Comprehensive Plan language.
Commissioners agreed that that would be a good idea.
Mr. Loewenstein said there is a contingent in the community that is going to be very
negative about DISC.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff could incorporate the principles into the standards of the
%4W existing Comprehensive Plan
M
Mr. Rooker stated that if there is negative opinion about DISC, he would like to hear it.
"I think you're liable to get a lot more input on DISC by general members of the public
out there in neighborhoods where there is a specific proposal coming before us that may
affect their neighborhood." He said that there have been 11/2 years of meetings in order to
get input on the principles as a whole.
Ms. Hopper expressed concern that things may just be misunderstood, such as the
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission may not be able to control this, adding that 25
years ago, the county implemented rural areas designation for the first time, which
eliminated the allowance of dividing properties into as many 2-acre parcels as desired.
He stated that there is always going to be a vocal minority of people who don't like what
you're doing in planning, and encouraged Commissioners to do what is good for the
community.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he got the neighborhoods of Woodbrook and Carrsbrook to
meet with Wendell Wood, who is planning a development in between the two
subdivisions. Mr. Thomas stated that he hesitated to give an opinion, and found it better
not to take sides.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 440
M
Mr. Loewenstein emphasized the importance of the Planning Commission's making
decisions on behalf of the entire community.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned the opposition of interconnection of neighborhoods at Spring
Ridge, and reminded Commissioners that they made their decision based on the benefit of
the entire area.
Ms. Echols mentioned that the biggest changes DISC will bring has to do with making
the environment receptive to the density in the Comprehensive Plan, because the built-in
environment is receptive to suburban -style development. She said that most of the new
residential subdivisions in the county look the same, with rural cross section roads,
driveways, and cul-de-sacs. "That's not receiving of the kinds of level of density that the
Land Use Plan says you have to have in order to keep our boundaries firm."
Ms. Echols commented, `By making some of those changes in form, you're setting the
stage to accept that density, and over time, the greater density will be more
acceptable .... there's no expectation by DISC that any of this stuff is going to happen
overnight."
Mr. Rooker said he does not come at this with a mindset that everything they do should
be shaped toward adoption of these principles. "What bothers me is not hearing it along
the way, but hearing it all at the end." He cited Creekside as an example of not getting
input from the developer along the way.
Mr. Rieley said that DISC gives Commissioners a new tool for evaluating building on
sloping sites.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the one thing that is different about DISC from other examples
across the country is that Albemarle is actually trying to reconfigure an entire
development area along these lines, rather than just project by project. "It's a community
planning principle over 37 square miles rather than just a set of regulations being applied
to individual developments."
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Ms. Echols had received a call from New Urban News.
Ms. Echols reported that she has been asked to speak on the DISC model to planners in
the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
They noted that the mix of uses is different for what is presently happening in Albemarle.
Mr. Rooker said that the growth is going to occur, and a rural model does not work if the
density recommended in the current Comprehensive Plan is going to be achieved.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 441
M
M
New Business
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Commissioners have received registration packets for
the Certified Planning Commissioners Institute, which will take place in October. Ms.
Hopper stated that Mike Chandler is an excellent speaker. Ms. Echols mentioned that
Mr. Chandler is a very interesting individual with some progressive planning ideas.
Mr. Thomas mentioned that he would not attend the August I't Planning Commission
meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
\V
Secretary
Albemarle County Planning Commission — 7/25/00 442