Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-17 AdjournedOctober 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 17, 2001, at 5:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from October 10, 2001. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 5:07 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 5:07 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 5:10 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis and Clerk, Laurel Bentley. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Samuel A. (Pete) Anderson, Mr. William B. Craddock, Mr. William W. Finley, Ms. Tracey C. Hopper, Mr. William D. Rieley (arrived at 5:15 p.m.), Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Jared S. Loewenstein. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Chief of Planning and Community Development, David Benish, Principal Planner, Elaine Echols and Senior Planner, Susan Thomas. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m., by the Boards Chairman, Ms. = Thomas, and by the Planning Commissions Chairman, Mr. Rooker. = _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Neighborhood Model Implementation Strategy. Mr. Benish made the presentation saying that after adoption of the Neighborhood Model on May 16, 2001, the Board of Supervisors instructed staff to bring an implementation strategy and timetable back for its review. Staff has furnished a set of documents which represent the activities necessary for implementation. These documents provide information on the lead department and the timetable for implementation. The timetable represents staff's best estimate of what can be achieved based on current resources. A staff team is being developed to closely monitor implementation activities to assure targets are met or to report adjustments that might become necessary during the work. Staff also forwarded a copy of a report entitled: "Master Planning the Development Areas - Which Development Area Comes First?" This report describes current land use issues relating to the different neighborhoods, communities and villages. Staff recommends that after review of this information, the Planning Commission and the Board endorse the strategy and select the first area to be undertaken for master planning. Mr. Benish brought everyones attention to a chart attached to the Executive Summary entitled = Implementing the Neighborhood Model, Proposed Strategy 10/17/01. He said that Item 2B is to modify A@ the Community Facilities Plan so it is in keeping with adopted changes in the Neighborhood Model. A tentative date of delivery of this information to the Planning Commission is set for July, 2002 depending upon the necessary involvement of the School Board. He said School Division staff feels it is important for the School Board to be involved in this work. Mr. Benish pointed out Priority 4D, Master Planning, and said that development of the first master plan is scheduled to begin in March, 2002. However, there is a lot of work which must take place from this date until then. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee which will be working in that first area has to be organized and trained. They will begin work on a master drainage study within the targeted neighborhood area which will establish some important groundwork for environmental features. Staff will also develop other background materials to prepare for working with a consultant who is to be hired in March, 2002. He offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said there are two completely separate issues to be resolved. She suggested following the priority list for discussion purposes. Priority No. 1A is listed as Modify Comprehensive Plan A references to update them with the Neighborhood Model. She said it is noted that this information will be @ delivered to the Planning Commission in October, 2001. Mr. Benish said that date will need to be changed based on the Planning Commissions schedule, so it will probably be moved to late November or = December (several meetings have been canceled because of elections and the Thanksgiving holiday). Mr. Bowerman asked if staff has the resources to do this work. Mr. Benish said the schedule presented is reflective of available resources. More resources could help staff do the work in a more timely fashion. Staff still has to react to any development proposals presented, but staff thinks it will be able to adhere to the schedule presented. Mr. Bowerman said an increase in development proposals would push the work on master planning aside. Mr. Benish said because the master planning project is significant, staff will try to avoid any slippage in its work schedule. Mr. Dorrier said that proffers are allowed at this time, so he wonders if any of the new neighborhood model standards could be accomplished through proffers. Mr. Benish asked Ms. Echols to address that question. He said staff is presently using the Neighborhood Model Principles as a basis for evaluation of rezoning requests. Staff looks to implement those in development proposals and proffers are a tool which can be used. October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Dorrier said there is then no big rush to do all of this immediately. Ms. Echols said staff is developing a new zoning district to make it easier for the development community to do developments in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. There are some tools in the Zoning Ordinance now which are somewhat cumbersome. Staff is trying to get those tools modified, that is one of the items on the priority list. Ms. Thomas said that Priority 2B is to Modify Community Facilities Plan to be in keeping with A adopted changes in the Neighborhood Model. It sets out a long list of proposed modifications. @ Mr. Martin said the first two items listed (allow for acquisition of school sites separate from recreational playing fields, and, development of standards for new types of parks and recreation facilities) will take some time to get right. It is not just a matter of money, rules and regulations, State law or State specifications. It is a matter of convenience, and a matter of parents being able to get their children to and from school. Hopefully, something can be worked out that will be acceptable to everyone. Mr. Bowerman said it might be productive to prioritize the items listed in Priority 2B. From a practical point of view, some of the items can be done sooner than others, such as the ones Mr. Martin mentioned. Also, at the Boards last meeting, he mentioned his concerns about public access to the Senior = Center, and that is one of the modifications mentioned (require pedestrian access to public facilities built in the Development Areas). Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Bowerman is talking about actually doing these things, or just changing the Plan to say that they can be done. Mr. Bowerman said the Plan has to be changed first. Mr. Rooker said that is all this strategy is talking about. Ms. Humphris said the Board has been hung up on what problems might be faced in doing these things (separating recreational facilities from the Schools was one of those). She said 2B only says the Community Facilities Plan will be modified to allow for that option which the Plan does not presently allow. She hopes it will allow flexibility so these things can be done in a new way, but that it is not set in stone. Mr. Martin said since the Neighborhood Model was adopted, pressure has been exerted on every development proposal to use a broad array of the concepts in that Model. Before the Board adopts something to allow for this (acquisition of school sites separate from recreational fields and development of standards for new types of parks and recreation facilities), it has to realize that this will put pressure on it being that way. Simply saying that will be listed as something which is allowed sounds innocent. He does not think the Board should just tell the Schools it will be this way. He can foresee proposals coming from the Schools and the Board saying they are not moving toward the Model. He thinks the Schools need to come along with the Board in this process. Mr. Rooker said it was originally proposed that the size of school facilities be changed. The Planning Commission did not go along with that recommendation. He said there should be provisions for parks and open spaces of many different kinds, associated with the schools, or not associated with the schools. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Martin is right in that staff has been judging development requests on how they fit with the Neighborhood Model. This is just saying that the County will follow the Neighborhood Plan for its own public facilities. If the Comprehensive Plan is not changed to make this statement, then the County is being inconsistent in what is being required of others. The School System does need to be brought into this discussion, since it would be no good to do so after a new school site is chosen. They need to be in the discussion from the Comprehensive Plan planning stage. Mr. Perkins noted the following statement under implementation steps: Attempt to obtain needed A community facilities such as schools, playing fields, libraries, fire stations, etc. during Comprehensive Plan amendments and major rezonings based on principles of the Neighborhood Model. He said this statement @ addresses the question. He said a lot of the things mentioned here have been proffered in the past, and he thinks they will continue to be proffered in the future. Ms. Thomas said if there was no further discussion of 2B, the discussion would move to 3C, Regulatory Changes. She said that subdivision changes are listed as being delivered to the Planning Commission in October, 2001. She asked if that will happen. Mr. Benish said staff will probably have those recommendations ready by the 30th. Based on scheduling adjustments, it might go over into November. Mr. Rooker said he saw no mention of the new Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)Ordinance. Ms. Echols said it is listed as PUD changes (initiated by the public) that need to be tied into the Neighborhood Model District. Mr. Rooker said it is important that it stay on the time schedule. There are people who have development proposals which they have framed as TND developments, but they cannot move forward because there is no TND Ordinance now. Ms. Thomas asked if that will be part of the PUD changes. Mr. Rooker said it is now a TND Ordinance, but it will a separate zoning district. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are any changes envisioned on the zoning map. Mr. Rooker said nothing on the existing map would change until someone requested a rezoning to that new district. Mr. Martin asked if the difference between the Fire/Rescue and the DISC Committee recommendations was ever resolved. Mr. Benish said staff met with Fire Rescue Management people about developing a schedule. There is an understanding of what is hoped will be achieved in the long term with the Neighborhood Model. There are a couple of subdivision ordinance changes proposed which will October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) engage them in the process. It is his opinion that the more they hear about this Model and the more research they do, the less afraid they are of the concept. Ms. Thomas asked what staff wants from the Board and Commission (at bottom of page 2 it states: Staff will need to get Board verification on specific changes desired with this step which refers to a A@ statement which says: Proposed changes (from pages 6 - 10 of Volume 2) to the Zoning Ordinance that A affect character and form. Ms. Echols said there are some things in the Zoning Ordinance changes >=>=@ which relate to character which staff would like for the Board to discuss to be sure staff is working on the changes desired by the Board members. The Board does not need to take any action on this request today. Mr. Rooker noted a statement on Page 2: Decide if and when consultant assistance is needed for A zoning changes to implement the Neighborhood Model. He said that last night, Mr. Steve Runkle @ representing the Kessler Group for the Rivanna Village, came before the Planning Commission and said they had originally retained Frank Coxs Company to draft changes to the PUD to permit a neighborhood = model type of development. They offered Franks service to create a draft ordinance, or to work with staff, = in whatever capacity staff thought might be helpful. Their company has drafted a couple of TND type ordinances for other communities. To the extent the Board might think it is wise for staff to take advantage of that offer, it might speed things up, and it is also good to have another pair of eyes to look at things and get ideas. It might also save the County money. Mr. Benish said given the opportunity for them to help staff along those lines, staff will consider that offer. At this time, however, there are internal issues which need to be resolved, and that has not allowed staff to bring in someone from outside to help draft anything. (Note: At 5:30 p.m., Mr. Martin left the meeting.) Ms. Thomas moved to 4D, Master Planning. She said this might require assistance of different sorts. There may need to be a design planner which is different from having someone facilitate the process. She asked if the Board needed to discuss this. Mr. Benish said staff is discussing this particular issue right now while putting together an RFP for how to implement the overall Neighborhood Model process. Mr. Dorrier asked the difference between a Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Benish said the Comprehensive Plan provides the overall guidance and the Neighborhood Model General Principles would be a part of that Plan. The Master Plan takes those general concepts and applies them to the realities of that neighborhood and the unique circumstances of that neighborhood, and the desires of the community. Mr. Dorrier asked if that takes place after a public hearing. Mr. Benish said there will be a Public Advisory Committee as an integral part of the process. Mr. Rooker asked if staff will be holding charettes to allow for public participation beyond the advisory committee. Mr. Benish said yes. Staff hopes these committees are very active and will take on A@ some of the responsibilities of this work. He said the consultant will do a lot of the leg work. The input A@ process should be recognized as an important part of what will go into the expectations of the RFP. Mr. Rieley asked when the consultant will be hired. Mr. Benish said the RFP should be ready in December. By then, staff needs a good understanding of the types of services needed. Ms. Echols said staff is working toward getting the RFP out so everything can be negotiated and the contract started by March, 2002. It is hoped that a year from March is all the time it takes to have the community participation needed to develop the master plan that is then brought to the Planning Commission. Staff wants to get the citizen group active before bringing in the consultant. Mr. Benish said staff does not want to wait for the second study which will come in a year or so, but wants to get a community organized and then start the groundwork for doing two master plans at a time. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board should be deciding on the first area and the second area tonight. Mr. Benish said efforts should be focused on getting one area done first. Any directions from the Board as to priorities would help get the planning for the next one started. Ms. Thomas said when she looked at the seven proposed areas, many of them looked desperate to get started. She hated to think about having the first one totally completed before beginning the next area. Mr. Benish said staff hopes that as the work proceeds on the first area, groundwork can begin for the second. Mr. Dorrier asked if in setting the timetables for this work, staff had considered whether there is any pressure from growth, or imminent growth in the area. Mr. Benish said staff tried to give the Board all the information as to various issues in all the development areas. Growth is an important issue. Crozet and Hollymead are both receiving significant growth pressures. There are all sorts of unique issues in each area. Ms. Thomas said that discussion can occur a little later when the Board decides which area should come first. She asked if anyone had questions about the implementation steps set out in this report. Mr. Finley said applicants who have already developed plans using the Neighborhood Model guidelines will have had experience and be able to give advice as to whether something will work or not. For example, last night it was pointed out that in hilly terrain, if you go down a ridge line, the only way to get out is to have a cul-de-sac. They are already into design, and he thinks they would have a lot of knowledge October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) that could be shared with the master planners. He asked if there will be any communication with local A talent. He understands that Hollymead already has a master plan. Mr. Benish said in the development of @ the neighborhood plans, it will be important to engage the significant property owners. They will have the land to be developed, and they need to participate in this process. If they are involved, there will be fewer frictions by the time the process is complete. Staff fully expects the development community, and property owners who in some cases are one and the same, to be involved in this process. Their willingness to sit at the table and be a part of the exchange will be one of the benefits of doing neighborhood planning. Mr. Rooker said that part of the Comprehensive Plan language says that owners and developers will be included in the process. Another thing to recognize is that putting all of this into place does not change the zoning category on a single parcel of property in Albemarle County. If someone owns a piece of property and is not seeking a zoning map change or a special use permit, they cannot be required to follow the master plan for that area. Unless there is a rezoning requested, doing something required by the Master Plan is voluntary. It has to be recognized that a lot of getting this accomplished is voluntary or can be done in situations where a rezoning is requested. In Crozet, a lot of property is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as development property, but is still zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Dorrier said the present procedures allow for proffers in terms of development rights being given up in return for public benefits, and it is basically a negotiation. Mr. Rooker said that only applies if a person requests a rezoning of his property. He said the process, as he understands it, will not change that. Ms. Thomas then proceeded to discussion of 5E, Work with VDOT to Change Subdivision Street A requirements. She said Albemarle County is a member of the High Growth Coalition and has taken a lead @ in helping it work with the shelter industry to see if there can be some changes in VDOT subdivision road standards in urbanizing areas. Staff prepared a position paper which is now being circulated statewide. She said there are other things going on in the way of transportation such as the work of the MPO, CHART and committees studying pedestrian, bike routes and transit. She asked how all of those studies fit into implementing the neighborhood model. Mr. Benish said some of those studies are regional processes. It is hoped that the guiding principles of the Countys Comprehensive Plan and the master planning process are brought to bear in the = CHART process. As to pieces like a bikeway plan, it will be guided through what is developed in the neighborhood plans. Some of those issues will be addressed in future amendments to the Comprehen- sive Plan. He said 5E is of critical importance because of its impediment to the design wanted in the Development Areas. Mr. Rooker said he thinks there is a need to change the Countys private road standards, which at = this time are mostly VDOT standards. One option is to allow PND developments to have private roads, in which case VDOT standards do now have to be followed if they are not workable in that neighborhood. The private road standards in the ordinance would need to be changed to permit what is to be accomplished in the neighborhoods. Mr. Bowerman said the reason the private road standards now mirror those of VDOT is due to the potential of changing the roads to public at some point in the future. When developing private road standards, the County wants to be sure there is a mechanism in place so those roads can remain private, and be maintained as private roads in whatever configuration they are in, and not be assumed by the public sector. Ms. Thomas said that should be a separate item of discussion. She is not ready to change the Countys private road standards. She said the Board has learned some lessons by things which have = occurred in older subdivisions. Mr. Rooker said if there is a completely contained subdivision done in a PND fashion by a single developer, it is easier for that developer to develop a property owners association to make sure that = maintenance is taken care of. Ms. Thomas said she would prefer to work on VDOTs road standards. = Mr. Reiley said there is precedent for VDOT to relax its standards. The next item for discussion was 6F, Affordable Housing - Consider DISC recommendations for affordable housing in Volume 2 to introduce methods of providing affordable housing in the community and provide recommendations to DISC II, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Benish said the Countys Housing Committee is ready to start working on this item. = Next was 7G, Acquiring Parks and Recreational Facilities - establish in the Community Facilities Plan a program for accepting neighborhood parks into a County system for ownership and maintenance; A@ establish in the Community Facilities Plan a program for parks and playing field acquisition. Ms. Thomas asked if the Parks & Recreation Department can begin work on this item earlier than May, 2002. Mr. Benish said the P&R Department knows that staff wants to get them involved earlier in the development review process. A lot of the timing is driven by the principles guiding them in the Community Facilities Plan. 7G is the first step before updating the Community Facilities Plan, and then going into actual acquisition efforts. Next was 8H, Water and Sewer Provisions. Ms. Thomas asked if stormwater provisions are October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) included in this item. Ms. Echols said when staff thinks about the impact of stormwater and development, it thinks about how to get the streetscape wanted, and how to get stormwater system and utilities all together which is Bullet #1 (Find ways to accommodate street trees and sidewalks in relation to utility lines.). She A@ said the stormwater situation is being dealt with through the drainage area master plan which the Engineering Department is working on. It is not specifically in the strategy for the Neighborhood Model. Mr. Rieley asked if the Engineering Department is looking at the issue of curb and gutter in development areas. One argument against having curb and gutter is that it creates more impervious area and more water should be allowed to percolate back into the ground. He said that is a legitimate argument which does have technical resolutions. Ms. Echols said they are not trying to promote the use of the rural cross section in the Development Areas. Mr. Rieley said his question is, how can there be curb and gutter and achieve the same environmental benefits with percolation, etc.? He said there have been a lot of studies made of this issue. It is not a very expensive thing, but it needs to be put into the standards and looked at in a vigorous way. Mr. Perkins said this is one of his concerns. The impervious surface is being increased by two or more, twice as many houses will be allowed in an area, so there will be more concentrated runoff. A solution needs to be found so it can be incorporated into the standards. Mr. Benish said staff will be sure the question is included. Mr. Dorrier asked if the purpose of the master plan for water and sewer and drainage is to be sure the development pays for itself. Mr. Benish said that is true. Mr. Dorrier said that further out in the County there are problems with stormwater drainage. Ms. Hopper asked when the Groundwater Study will be completed so it can be used in the master planning. Mr. Benish said he is not sure. Mr. Rooker said it might be helpful for the groundwater study to follow the order of priorities established for the master planning process. Ms. Echols said as part of the groundwork for the base mapping of environmental resources, the 70 miles of stream in the Development Areas will be walked in November, December and January. The study will be done in the spring. Ms. Hopper asked if that will help define perennial stream issues. Ms. Echols said it will, but will also be used by Planning as part of the Environmental Resource Plan. Mr. Rodney Thomas asked if a measure of value will be placed on these streams. Ms. Echols said the value by the community living in the area near the individual streams will be used during the master planning process. Mr. Rieley asked if there will be a definitive answer by spring as to which are perennial streams beyond what is shown on the U.S.G.S. maps. Ms. Echols said she does not have a positive date for completion of this work. Ms. Hopper said Mr. David Hirschman had addressed the issue of giving streams a value as to whether they are perennial or intermittent. Mr. Rooker said Mr. Hirschman has said that the streams would be classified according to their environmental values. Mr. Perkins said the Soil Conservation Service has some techniques they are recommending for catching and using water. He suggested that they be listed as a resource. Item 9I is Fire Protection. Ms. Thomas said there was a question earlier about the fire/rescue departments being part of the planning. Mr. Dorrier said as to the narrower streets which are recommended as part of the Neighborhood Model, it is recommended that a type of truck which can negotiate a new street system be purchased. He said those fire trucks are very expensive. He asked if this provision will be used throughout the County. Mr. Bowerman said some of the new fire trucks already meet that requirement. Mr. Benish said new equipment is constantly being purchased. Everyone needs to be aware that there is a new emerging pattern of development which must be accommodated. He said the fire/rescue representatives recognized this fact. They have a person who will be researching highly urbanized areas to see what services are provided in these areas. Mr. Dorrier asked if the fire/rescue department signs off on every development proposal filed. Mr. Benish said they are part of the Site Review Team so they see almost every proposal, and they do make comments about design issues, although they are more focused on fire protection code requirements. The last item for discussion was 10J, Promoting in-fill within the City and the Development Areas. Mr. Benish said this bullet is seen more as part of the political process. Ms. Thomas said the question to be decided now is which Development Area is to have its master plan done first. Mr. Perkins said the first study should be Crozet. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board and Commission assume that Mr. Perkins suggestion was a motion, and take a straw vote so that all members = get to vote. Mr. Rieley said he would second the motion. Ms. Thomas asked for a show of hands, and the majority voted yes. A@ October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowerman said he is mindful about what was said about being able to stagger the implementation of the beginning of different studies. Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board and Commission discuss which study should be second in line. Mr. Benish said that after doing No. 1 and No. 2, staff hopes to be able to work on multiple areas at the same time. Mr. Perkins said he thinks one of the urban areas should be done just as quickly as possible in order to decide how to develop the other urban areas since that is where in-fill will take place. Mr. Rooker noted the listing for Belvedere Farm area and other potential developments near Free State Road A@ because that area is part of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bowerman noted the area south of Rio Road which is also part of the Meadow Creek Parkway study. Ms. Humphris said the area listed as No. 1 in Neighborhoods 1 & 2 (Contains highest population area and large inventory of commercial and office space [several shopping centers including Fashion Square Mall plus Sperry and former Comdial facilities]) should come first. Ms. Hopper said Neighborhoods 6 & 7 are important (These neighborhoods are located in the southwestern part of the urban neighborhoods.). Mr. Craddock suggested that Neighborhood 3 (Pantops Area) be considered because a major employer (Martha Jefferson Hospital) will be moving into that area, assuming everything goes well. There is an internationally listed facility on Monticello Mountain which will be greatly affected by what is placed on Pantops. Ms. Thomas said she had thought that Hollymead and Piney Mountain should come second in line for master planning. Mr. Bowerman said for the areas receiving the most pressure from development, is there a way to incorporate some items from the neighborhood plan without doing a whole neighborhood plan. Mr. Benish said one of the purposes of the Neighborhood Model is to get a good macro picture of that neighborhood. When you start to fragment it, you are back to the existing situation of reacting to particular areas without having a context of the larger area. Mr. Bowerman asked how staff can react to someone who is pushing for development in the absence of any plan to deal with anything other than just his property. Mr. Anderson said that is partly the strategy that the master planner takes. You look broadly at the whole picture and then come back and deal with the specifics. Mr. Thomas said that last week the Commission was discussing the area on the south near Fontaine Avenue. There are three entities which need to work together here, the City, the County and UVA. It is an important area that is totally wide open. The City is getting ready to approve a proposal on Stribling Avenue. There are a couple of others proposed in the County in that area. All three entities need to work together for development between Fontaine Avenue and Sunset Road. Mr. Bowerman asked if the consultant might develop a strategy while working on the Crozet plan which conceivably could deal with interim problems. Mr. Anderson said there are ways to look at the whole, and then come back and look at the details of individual pieces. He has encouraged the Planning Staff not to start more than one plan until one master plan is completed and in use, and any mistakes are discovered. From his own experience, he knows it cannot all be done at one time because mistakes will be made. He said that the Neighborhood Model sets out broad principles which everyone agreed to, but within each area there will be a subset of broad principles that apply throughout the area. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 6:05 p.m.) Mr. Benish said any directions the Board gives staff now will help them prepare themselves for the budgeting process, and help them select the areas which are of the most interest to Board members. The idea of prioritizing is to give staff an idea of which areas are of the most interest. He thinks there was a consensus on Neighborhoods 1 & 2 being first. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board should state its priorities because that might help with pre- planning for the next area. One reason to have Crozet come first is because it has a Community Association in place. Since other areas do not have such an association, she wonders how staff will bring the people in that community into the process. Mr. Benish said if staff knows where the next focus areas are to be, they can consider that in the process. Staff is not yet ready to decide how to break down the study of other areas. Mr. Rooker asked what happens during the interim. After master planning is begun for the Crozet area, if the County receives many proposed development plans which will ultimately define the area, what happens? The Planning Commission has before it now a proposal for 1.7 million square feet of development on the Sperry property. Ultimately what happens on that property will greatly define what the neighborhood looks like. He said that at this time there are a number of proposals of large size moving forward yet the master planning process has not started yet. October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Rieley said he shares that concern. He thinks it is important to recognize that the same thing is not needed from master planning efforts in all of these various parts of the County. In some areas it is important to understand framework, particularly transportation in Neighborhoods 1 & 2, and it is needed fairly quickly. Fine grain design is not necessarily needed because of the amount of attention being paid to that area. In Crozet, it is a different situation. It is expensive to do the studies, but it is not expensive to figure out what needs to be done. Mr. Bowerman said that is true. Conclusions can be drawn about different issues in a neighborhood without going after the whole neighborhood. The traffic issues connected with the Sperry property and the associated neighborhood around that property are extremely important. Mr. Benish said staff will, in the next couple of weeks, discuss this whole process with the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas asked if staff wants the Board to wait until it has advice from the Commission as to which area should be No. 2 for master planning. Mr. Benish said that would be a good approach. Staff is going to talk about the concept and how to do the study, and how to implement the model. If the Board wants the Commission to give it a recommendation, staff will work with the Commission on that. Mr. Rooker said that is okay with him. When he looked at the neighborhoods listed, he felt Crozet should be first, but beyond that it will be a difficult decision to make. The Commission can engage in that discussion and make a recommendation. Mr. Rieley said a work session on emergency planning comes to mind. Mr. Rooker asked what Mr. Rieley meant by emergency. Mr. Rieley said that quite often when the Commission is looking at a A@ proposal, it is not able to put it in anything except the roughest framework. If the Commission had some framework or strategy to use for specific proposals, that would be helpful. On the Sperry proposal, the issues about Route 29 were not even discussed. That is a huge issue and will change the parameters in which the proposal is evaluated. There is a base level of information that would be useful. He thinks the Commission could get to that level without detailed master plans. Mr. Bowerman said the area around the Sperry project is known so the issues of traffic and interchanges could be defined. What he hears is that there are certain parameters which can be brought to a specific discussion because they already exist on the ground. Mr. Rooker said he thinks there needs to be developed preliminarily a general description of what a neighborhood should look like. He asked if that is what Mr. Anderson referred to earlier. Mr. Anderson said it is more than that. It sets the broad boundaries, establishes what is to be achieved in the target area. A framework plan is extremely useful, but the more specific the plan, the sooner it is out of date. Mr. Rooker said the Commission has talked about going through a more thorough neighborhood planning process. He asked how that task is achieved, and how is the public brought into the process. Is it an abbreviated process that ultimately will be followed in more detailed neighborhood planning. Mr. Benish that is a very significant implication on staff workload. There are other initiatives in the = Neighborhood Model which are very important, such as getting ordinances updated. It will quickly get to a place where resources and priorities will have to be adjusted. Mr. Anderson said there probably will need to be a consultant hired to do the first master plan. A consultant could also be brought in to a rolling framework plan. Following behind that would be a master plan. It is a complex situation. Ms. Hopper asked if that could incorporate more of the regional concerns, such as CHART and the MPO and then neighborhoods. Mr. Anderson said the danger is that you end up with a lot of framework plans and no master plans. It has to be thoughtfully organized. Mr. Rooker said there is an RFP ready which can be put out for the Crozet plan based on the discussion today. The idea of framework seems to be something the Commission should hold a work session on to discuss all the implications and the costs. He said the Commission has no information on that item before it at this time. Ms. Thomas said she believes the Board would like to have the Commission tackle this issue, rather than the Board trying to make that decision. With no further discussion at this time, Ms. Thomas thanked the Planning Commission for meeting with the Board this afternoon. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no matters presented. _______________ Agenda Item no. 4. With no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. October 17, 2001 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 12/12/2001 Initials: EWC