Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-07 adjMay 7, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7, 1986, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 95, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from April 16, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: and Peter T. Way. Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:14 P.M.), BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley and C. Timothy Lindstrom. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. David Bowerman, Tim Michael and Richard Cogan, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Messrs. Harry Wilkerson and Peter Stark. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:14 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Cooke. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John for an opinion, since there was not a quorum of the Board present. Mr. St. John said the three members present constitute a meeting, but no action may be taken. Minutes can be taken. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Working Plans for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Horne said the staff had prepared for the Planning Commission a revision of all the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the members of the Planning Commission to review these goals and objectives and tell staff which issues they find significant. Once the Planning Commission has identified the concerns it finds most pressing, Mr. Horne said, the staff and the Commission can begin working together on the details. Mr. Bowie asked when public input would be solicited. Mr. Horne said he thought public comment was most helpful when it was directed toward a specific topic. For example, he said, the Commission and staff might set up a working session to meet with members of the public who were interested in environmental issues. Mr. Bowerman added that he thought concerned citizens should submit their opinions in writing to the staff, who would then distribute these letters to the Commission. He said he feels this is the best way to solicit public input early in the process; later on, the Planning Commission could hold meetings in each district and encourage the public to attend and make comments. Mr. Bowie said he was not as concerned about special interest.groups, because they can usually make themselves heard. He said he wants to make sure that the average citizen can have some input on the Plan before it is finished. Mr. Way asked when the revision of the Plan would be finished. Mr. Horne estimated between one year and 18 months. Mr. Bowerman said the last revision of the Comprehensive Plan, five years ago, was really just a fine-tuning of the one before it. This time, he said, the Planning Commission would like to delve more deeply into policy-making, particu- larly for areas such as the southern regional area and how growth there may affect Stone- Robinson School; the Crozet community and its lack of sewer and water; and, the infra- structure of the County and its impact on growth. Mrs. Cooke said she hoped the Commission and staff also studied the urban area in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Even though this is marked as a growth area in the Comprehensive Plan, she said, she is concerned that development there might be overdone. Agenda Item No. 3. Comments: City/County/University of Virginia Proposed Agreement. The Planning Commission presented its recommendation of the proposed agreement: "On April 15 and April 22, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed agreement between the City of Charlottesville, County of Albemarle, and the University of Virginia. The Commission unanimously recommends approval of that agreement by the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation is made with the following three provisos. Item 91 on page 3 contains references to 'land use plans or regula- tions.' It is the Commission's clear understanding that this would only include legislative actions of the Board of Supervisors, such as adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, adoption of ordinances, rezoning, and special use permits. It is the Commission's understanding that it does not include ministerial actions such as site plans and subdivi- sions. These ministerial reviews could be circulated to the two jurisdictions but they are not subject to the terms of this agreement. e Item 97 on page 4 would appear to be an attempt to state that all the jurisdictions would remain neutral in discussions of legislation designed to either limit or enhance the power of any of the three jurisdictions. It would appear that the intent of this section would be that none of the jurisdictions would oppose legislation having this effect, should that legislation be proposed by some other jurisdiction in the State of Virginia. It is the understanding of the Commission that there will be a proce- dural document attached to this agreement that will be finalized at a later date. The Commission would recommend that the County staff and Planning Commission have the ability to review and influence the content of that procedural document. The Commission feels that the following points should be addressed in the document: May 7, 198~ (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 537 Se There needs to be very serious consideration as to what effects, if any this 'arbitration' and its results could have on a private developer. The majority of development taking place in the County will be by private developers and not by the County government. The Commission does not feel that there will be the basis for arbitration until the Board of Supervisors had taken the action. That legislative action, however, cannot legally be rescinded based on the results of an arbitration process. Timing of the arbitration will then become very awkward and an attempt should be made to clarify procedures for arbitration under the agreement. Where the agreement calls for submission and review of plans among the jurisdictions, it must be clearly understood that those reviews should take place under the normal review schedule now followed by all other reviewing agencies. This is particularly important to Albemarle County in that the great majority of current planning items are processed through the County government and, therefore, any lengthening of the review schedule or reviews outside the normal schedule will severely affect the workload by County staff. Ce The City Planning Commission has recommended a structure for implementation of this agreement very similar to that now used by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Attached you will find a copy of that structure which essentially calls for a Technical Committee of largely staff persons and a Policy Commit- tee of largely elected representatives of administrators. The Commission finds this overall structure generally acceptable. Finally, the Planning Commission is anxious to support the concept of more cooperative planning between the three jurisdictions and stands ready to assist the Board in any way necessary. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any memberS of the Planning Commission." Mr. Horne said staff questioned several clauses of this agreement and he outlined these areas of concern for the Board. Since staff will be the ones who must carry out the details of the agreement, he said, they want to make sure that all parties interpret the agreement in the same way. First, he said, the agreement calls for the circulation of certain plans and proposals among the three jurisdictions. He said staff interprets this to mean that only legislative actions, such as rezonings, special permits, adoptions of Comprehensive Plans, will be circulated. What staff believes will not be circulated, he said, includes administerial actions such as site plans, or subdivision plans. He said he hopes this is the interpretation held by the other jurisdictions. A second problemmatic area, Mr. Horne said, ~s the clause stating that none of the jurisdictions would support or sponsor legislation to limit the powers of the other two jurisdictions. He said staff interpreted this to mean that none of the jurisdictions would oppose legislation, arising from some other source, that would affect the powers of the other jurisdictions. Mr. Horne said staff understood that there w~s to be a procedural document attached to this agreement that would go into much greater detail on how this agreement was to be imple- mented. He said the Planning Commission should involve itself in writing this document. Most of the development in this area, Mr. Horne said, will probably take place in the County. If all legislative actions are circulated as this agreement says they must be, he said, most of what is circulated will concern private developers and their plans for their property in the County. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission supported this document with reservations. Some members, he said, were concerned that the agreement might prove detrimental to the County. Mrs. Cooke said she did not understand all the provisions of the agreement and their ramifications. She said she would like some assurance that the private sector will not find itself in direct competition with the University Qver County real estate. Moreover, she added she does not think the general public knows enough about this agreement and the effect it may have upon real estate investments in the COunty. Mr. Bowie said he does not understan~ why the County is in a negotiating position. He added that he disagrees with the staff's interpretation of the clause concernin the D g sup_ort and sponsorship of legislation which would limit one party's power. Nor does he see how this agreement will protect the large blocks of land the University has bought in and around the County. Mrs. Cooke said this bothered her, too: the effect these purchases will have on the County's tax base and the competition the University may pose to local developers. She said she cannot support this agreement until she knows more about it. On the surface, she said, it sounds wonderful that the three jurisdictions have begun discussing matters of mutual concern. While she would never stand in the way ~f this kind of progress, she said, she will not support this agreement until she is sure it will not give the University an unfair advantage in the purchase of real estate. She said it also troubles her that the agreement is non-binding; a party to the agreement may cease to be bound by its conditions at any time. Mr. Michel said his problem is not with the University, since it would do what it chose to anyway, with or without an agreement. He said he is worried about the City's interpreta- tion of the agreement: must the County have the City review everything that happens in the County? Mr. Cogan added that he too had some reservations about the agreement. He said he does not see the necessity for a three-way agreement. He said the City and the County are two 538 May 7, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) very different entities, one developed and the other not, and what the University does in one area will be very different from what it does in the other. He suggested that it would be better to have two agreements, one between the County and the University, the other between the City and the University. When the University first decided to begin investing in real estate, Mr. Cogan said, its representatives promised to pay taxes on the property and comply with zoning legislation. While the University would be exempt from these requirements as a state institution, Mr. Cogan said he is not sure the University is exempt now that it is buying, investing and speculating in real estate as a private individual might. He said he feels that representatives of the University believe this too, and that is why they are volunteering to pay taxes and comply with zoning. Since the University is willing to do this, he said the County does not need a formal agreement which could cost the County some of its privileges without bringing any benefits. Mrs. Cooke said another provision concerned her, the clause that would prevent any party from seeking legislation to protect itself. If the County signs the agreement and this clause becomes a problem, Mr. Wilkerson pointed out, the County can always back out of the agreement. After all the criticism he has heard from the Planning Commission, Mr. Way said, he wonders why they unanimously recommended that the County sign the agreement. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission approached the document in the spirit in which it was intended, a spirit of cooperation between the three jurisdictions, and recognizing that the University as an independent body can, under certain conditions, accomplish their purposes without regard for County legislation. Mr. Bowerman said one of the reasons the Planning Commission supported this agreement is because it is a first step toward encouraging the University to comply with County land-use policy. Mr. Bowerman added that he thought the Board supported this agreement. When the procedural attachment becomes available, Mr. Michel said, it may alleviate some of the problems the Board and the Commission have with the agreement. Agenda Item No. 4. Receipt of the 1985 Development Activity Report. One continuing trend in County development, Mr. Horne said, is the residential growth in rural areas, which has been much higher than intended by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne said this growth is largely the result of developing lots which existed before the Zoning Ordinance took effect or lots created by-right under the Ordinance. If this trend continues, Mr. Horne said, he believes the implementing ordinances must be changed. Mr. Horne said the areas of the County showing the least growth are the Village areas, which show almost no growth. Mr. Bowie said perhaps the County should begin studying where citizens want to live and direct growth there. Mr. Horne agreed and said the staff is beginning to concentrate on the implementation of the Plan. He said it is all very well to have goals and objectives, but the County needs a plan to reach them. Agenda Item No. 5. Memorandum dated April 21, 1986, from Mr. John Horne re. receipt of the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association Award by Department of Planning and Community Development for the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Phase One. "This Department has been informed by the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association that we will be the recipient of a Meritorious Planning Award from the Chapter for work on the Pedestrian Obstacle Study, Phase I: A Survey of Existinq Conditions. This study was developed by this Depart- ment with funding from the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Major work on the study was done by Kat Imhoff, Joan Davenport, and Jan Sprinkle of this Department. Many other members of the Department, however, worked on this report and contributed significantly to its success. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for your support of the Department which is crucial to the continued production of work of this caliber." Mr. Horne said much of the credit for the award should go to Ms. Kat Imhoff, Chief Planner; and Planning staff members Ms. Joan Davenport and Ms. Jan Sprinkle. Mr. Horne said these awards usually go to much larger jurisdictions and he commends the Planning staff for successfully competing against bigger staffs. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Since Mr. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present, Mrs. Cooke asked him about the progress of the South Fork Rivanna River Bridge on Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said the project was on schedule but will not be completed before December 1, 1986. Mrs. Cooke complimented the Highway Department on the smooth flow of traffic during the construction project. Mr. Way suggested that the Board set a tentative date for the next meeting with the Planning Commission. After some discussion, it was decided to hold this meeting on October 1, 1986. May 7, 1986 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 539 Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Way to move to executive session to discuss legal matters and the acquisition of property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr Way. None. Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom Mr. Bowerman adjourned the Planning Commission portion of the meeting. Agenda Item No. 7. immediately adjourned. Adjourn. At 7:29 P.M., the Board emerged from executive session and - CH'A-I~ /