2015-03-10March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An afternoon-adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on March 10, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from March 4, 2015.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Ms. Jane D. Dittmar, Ms. Ann Mallek, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel,
Ms. Liz A. Palmer and Mr. Brad L. Sheffield.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Travis O. Morris.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m. by the Chair, Ms. Dittmar.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Interim Report – Proffer Policy.
Mr. Boyd stated that there is a great and diverse group of people on the Fiscal Impact Committee,
with a lot of time spent with the difficult task of balancing development and infrastructure costs with land
use capabilities. He said that there are two developers serving on the committee. One of the challenges
has been trying to come up with appropriate credits for proffers, including affordable housing as it is
technically a proffer because it is required as part of zoning developments. Mr. Boyd said that the
committee is focusing on two primary areas. He has asked Steve Allshouse to recalibrate the proffers
with the current CIP – with just the CIP, and with both the CIP and the capital needs assessment. He
stated that it has been done on a 10-year basis previously, and they are going to break it down to see the
difference between the two. Mr. Boyd stated that then they will start looking at the different
methodologies for how credits might be given, and whether credit should be given for commer cial
development within the Neighborhood Model, since that is not generating impacts such as school
enrollment. He stated that the real problem is to come up with proper credits to give people who are
following the Neighborhood Model and Comp Plan, and who are working with the County’s priorities. One
of the ideas the committee has contemplated is whether they should give credits for redevelopment of
existing blighted properties.
Mr. Boyd said that these are all difficult issues to work through. At the last committee meeting
they decided they will not be able to complete this on a timely basis with the other Comp Plan
amendments, to be able to incorporate it at the same time, given the timeframe of Planning Commission
and Board review of the Comp Plan. He added that the item will probably come through over the
summer, when they have adequate time to take it through the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyd said they
are meeting once per week now, and are hoping by the end of the month to have recalibrated numbers
based on the current CIP and the capital needs assessment.
Ms. Palmer asked if they are looking at the actual items in the capital needs assessment, or an
average or representation of how much is usually spent. Mr. Boyd stated that there are certain types of
things that can and cannot be included in it. Mr. Davis explained that there are five categories of capital
facilities that are included in the cash proffer policy: schools, transportation, libraries, parks and public
safety facilities. He said that when Steve Allshouse does the formula, he culls those facilities out of the
capital needs assessment, and those facilities are the base for the formula. Mr. Boyd said they do include
all of the projected cost of what those might be.
Ms. Dittmar asked if those are state categories. Mr. Davis responded that those are categories
that the Board of Supervisors determined are appropriate, and in 2007 when they enacted the proffer
policy, it was a similar model that had been used by Chesterfield County and a number of other localities.
He said that it was deemed to be a policy that can withstand challenge.
Mr. Boyd noted that at that time, there were a lot of lawsuits around the state over proffer policies,
and the Chesterfield model had sustained two suits and come out ahead – although he understood they
are being challenged again. Mr. Davis said that the policy was adopted in Albemarle in 2009.
Ms. Mallek mentioned that it has survived modifications in the General Assembly last year,
although they made some changes in things such as timeframes, distance from the projects, and other
technical aspects.
Mr. Davis said that the legislature had done some tinkering since they had adopted the policy.
The legislature determined three years ago that the only facilities that can be funded by cash proffers are
those that have expanded capacity, and those funds c annot be used for maintenance projects unless
they expand capacity. He stated that this is also a factor that limits some of the CIP projects that can be
included.
Mr. Boyd said that it also represents some of the things that Mr. Allshouse has to take out of the
CIP and capital needs assessment in order to ensure it conformed.
Ms. Palmer asked if courts will fit into one of those categories. Mr. Davis responded that the
courts could be included as part of a public safety facility.
Ms. Mallek said that there is certainly an expansion involved. Mr. Davis stated that the cost was
not in there in 2009.
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Boyd agreed, stating that there was no plan in any category that included the courts
expansion.
Ms. Mallek said that some of the proffers are designated for within the project vicinity, with fewer
available for countywide use, so they will need the countywide designated ones for the courts purpose.
Mr. Davis stated that the policy referred to certain proffers being subject to countywide use, such
as public safety facilities, transportation and libraries. The ones that are limited to the area of the project
are school proffers.
Mr. Boyd said there is a question as to when they start working against the land use policy. That
is what the committee is struggling with – with the desire to cover necessary infrastructure costs but not
having everyone choosing to go by-right.
Ms. Dittmar said that at her town hall meeting in Scottsville the previous evening, the topic of
impact fees came up, and she explained that impact fees are not legal, but proffers are voluntary. She
stated that she explained to constituents that by right is not carrying its weight, and land use policies are
actually encouraging it.
Mr. Boyd said that the committee has recognized this issue, and the other challenge for them is
that this does not apply to the rural areas, as people can build out there without any concern – and impact
fees would alleviate that situation.
Ms. Mallek said that it was passed three years ago, and someone was supposed to be working
on a model ordinance, but she does not know where that stands.
Mr. Davis explained that there is limited authority for transportation impact fees, and that has
expired. Stafford is the only locality that has it, and it is limited solely to transportation.
Mr. Boyd stated the committee has concluded that there does not seem to be a monumental
increase in building in the rural areas that has been caused by what is happening, which is good, and
there has been a reduction in development in the rural areas.
Ms. Dittmar said that one of her constituents at the town hall meeting has moved here recently
from Wisconsin, where they have impact fees, she told her that there was a perceived extra value on
existing housing because the cost to build a new house would cost a lot more given the fees and the
general increased cost to build housing.
Mr. Boyd stated that one past member of their committee stated that they felt the proffer amount
should be part of the closing statement.
Ms. Mallek said that is how it worked in Montgomery County, Maryland, with the information
about the fees imposed spelled out right on the closing statement.
Mr. Boyd said that it could drive existing housing stock, because people would not have that fee.
Ms. McKeel said that could be a catalyst for sales of homes in older neighborhoods.
Ms. Dittmar stated that in meeting with her Planning Commissioner, they discussed the possibility
of having the committee discuss different financial models and ideas for the County. She asked how this
changed the wording in the Comp Plan if they are going to adopt it without an updated proffer policy. Ms.
Elaine Echols said that it just retained the existing wording, and when the new wording changed it would
replace what is in there currently.
Ms. Dittmar stated her appreciation on behalf of the Board for the committee’s work, and
recognized members in attendance – Tim Keller and Jeff Werner.
Mr. Sheffield asked what the next step will be. Mr. Boyd said that the committee is trying to
establish an accurate number for the proffer, and what the threshold will be for taxes on a house to pay
for itself, with the estimated level being about $650,000.
Ms. Mallek said that will be for households without children.
Mr. Boyd said it would cover it even if they have children.
Ms. Mallek said that at $12,000 per child, it probably would not.
Mr. Foley stated that Steve Allshouse is looking at that and has a model that fully accounts for the
cost of students.
Ms. Mallek said that it is a very conservative model, and there is no way that a new house can
cover the costs it is bringing to a community.
Ms. Palmer asked for a link for what Mr. Allshouse has produced in terms of a model. Mr. Boyd
indicated that it will be part of the committee’s overall report, and said that it is a “CRIM” model. Mr. Foley
said that it is a model that the County used to use every time a development project came forward, and it
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
has been six or seven years since they had used it. Mr. Allshouse is going back to update some of its
variables.
Ms. Dittmar asked if they looked at the list of proffers that are worked out for very specific sites to
see if they can be applying them, versus those that might be applied countywide. Ms. Palmer stated that
Mr. Trevor Henry, Director of the Office of Facilities Development, reviewed this with the CIP Committee
and is suggesting things for some of the broader proffers, including things like trails.
Mr. Davis said that they used to have very specific items for things the proffers will be spent on,
but after adopting a cash proffer policy, they no longer encourage that level of specificity, which gave
more flexibility to the Board to decide how the proffer money will be spent. He stated that they do track
the proffer money for projects, such as proffers for schools only serving the feeder pattern in which the
project exists, but for things like public safety facilities, libraries, and transportation, the money c an be
used for any infrastructure required because of the new development.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the proffer money is carried as assets on the balance sheet. Mr. Davis
responded that it is reflected as revenue, but he is not sure exactly where on the balance sheet
specifically. He said that the quarterly proffer report detailed the amount of money on hand and
specifically where it has been used, and added that it is a significant source for the CIP.
Mr. Boyd said he has asked Mr. Allshouse for a comparison between CIP expenditures and what
is covered by proffers, and eventually that will come back to the Board as a report.
Ms. Mallek stated that about $800,000 of proffers in Crozet went into the library, which is a
tremendous amount of money, generated at a time when there was a lot of development going on there.
Mr. Davis noted that Stonefield money was used for the Northside Library and the Seminole Trail
Fire Station.
Ms. McKeel commented that there was a missed opportunity at Stonefield, and she hoped there
might be a way for a second set of eyes or broader view.
Mr. Foley said that would come before the Board to decide.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: CPA-2013-01. Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment, to
begin with public comments and possible Board direction.
Review of red-line changes to Chapters 7-13
a. Chapter 7: Rural Area
b. Chapter 8: Development Areas
c. Chapter 9: Housing
d. Chapter 10: Transportation
e. Chapter 11: Parks, Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
f. Chapter 12: Community Facilities
g. Chapter 13: Implementation
Review of priorities for Chapters 7-12 (in Implementation Chapter)
The executive summary forwarded to Board members states that the Planning Commission’s
recommended Comprehensive Plan has been provided in the draft dated January 23, 2014 and
previously provided to the Board of Supervisors. The Comprehensive Plan may be found online here:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Community_Development/Forms/C
omp_Plan_2013/Comp_Plan_Round_3/Table_of_Contents_Final_1-23-14.pdf.
Recommendations regarding focused topics and information since the Commission’s actions
have also been identified for the Board’s consideration. This work session is the eighth in the series of
detailed Comprehensive Plan chapter reviews based on the Board’s agreed upon review schedule which
can be found here:
http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=17151
The Board’s direction to date has been recorded in Action Memos from Board me etings at which
the topic was discussed.
At this meeting, the Board will review Changes to the Land Use Table, the Woolen Mills land use
request, redline versions of the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan, and redline versions
of Chapters 8 – 12. In addition, the Parks and Recreation staff has requested changes to Chapter 11 for
Board discussion.
Changes to the Land Use Table – As staff began reviewing the Woolen Mills, request
and scrutinizing possible alternative categories to the Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial
designation of the current Draft Plan, staff found that corrections to the chart were
needed for consistency with other Master Plans. Staff took these minor modifications to
the Planning Commission who endorsed the changes. Since that time, staff noticed that
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
the zoning text amendments for industrial uses in commercial districts had not been
accommodated in the chart. Attachment A provides additional information and shows
recommended changes to the Land Use Categories and Guidelines.
Woolen Mills -- At the February 3, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, staff
recommended changes to the Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan for the
Woolen Mills Area that would have retained the recommended land use designation for
the old Woolen Mills building and property as Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial with the
provision that no more than half of the building square footage could be devoted to
residential use. The Planning Commission was persuaded by the applicant that a higher
percentage of residential use might be necessary to retain the resource and there should
be greater flexibility for residential use than staff recommended. At its February 10, 2015
work session, the Board noted appreciation for the applicant’s efforts to preserve the
historic resource through redevelopment and asked staff to bring back options for future
land use. Economic Development staff and Planning staff met with the applicant to look
at options and Attachment B contains a summary of the meeting with two options for the
Board’s consideration.
Southern and Western Neighborhoods Master Plan – At the October 7, 2014 Board of
Supervisors meeting, the Board of Supervisors affirmed the following change to the
Master Plan: Add language that specific land uses for the County owned property near
Monticello Fire Rescue Station should be determined during the development of a small
area plan for this area. At its October 8, 2014 meeting, the Board approved the Spring
Hill Village development with an expectation that the land use recommended the Master
Plan be modified to reflect this rezoning. Attachment C contains information on the
recommended land use the Spring Hill Village land (the former “Parham” parcel) and a
redline version of changes for those areas in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods
Master Plan.
Potential Changes to Chapter 11 Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and
Green Systems – When the Parks and Recreation Chapter was written in 2012, staff
worked to combine these topics contained in several parts of the existing Comprehensive
Plan into a single chapter and appendix. In a final review of that Chapter, staff has
realized that the proposed changes need further tweaking and some additional language.
These tweaks and additions are described in Attachment D. They have been
incorporated into the redlined chapter and are highlighted in green.
Redlines of Chapters 8 – 12 – Attachments E – I contain the redlined and “clean”
versions of changes to the five chapters containing the Board’s recommended changes.
Chapter 8, the Development Areas Chapter includes the Planning Commission’s
recommendations for improvements to existing neigh borhoods as a new Objective 3.
Prioritization of Strategies -- Strategies have been taken from Chapters 8 – 12 and
provided as Attachments J – M. An asterisk identifies the strategy as a priority identified
by the Planning Commission in June 2014. They are identified as “policy,” “continuation
of an existing program,” “enhancement of a program,” or a “new project or program.”
Implementation of priority strategies will have impacts on future capital improvements and
operations budgets.
_____
Ms. Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, addressed the Board, stating that she would be covering
recommendations from the Planning Commission, including changes to the land use guidelines, the
Development Areas chapter, Woolen Mills recommendations, changes to the S outhern Neighborhood
Master Plan, redlines of Chapters 8-12 of the plan – including recommendations from the Commission for
the neighborhood preservation strategies, items that Parks and Recreation staff had asked for
consideration, and priority strategies from the Commission. She said that staff was just providing that
information to the Board right now and would be working with the County Executive’s office on how to
best get their priorities established, which may have a relationship to the strategic plan work being done.
Ms. Echols said that the normal process had been to accept public comment at the beginning of the
meeting, and then again after their dinner break.
The Chair opened the meeting for public comments
Mr. Brian Roy addressed the Board, stating that after the last meeting, discussion of a mixed-use
site in Woolen Mills and a ratio of residential to commercial and industrial got a little confusing, especially
without looking at a layout of the building and the property as a whole. Mr. Roy said that he has reached
out to Board members individually to show some visuals of how breaking up the building would look and
how impacts of the overall split would look between residential and non-residential. He stated that he
would enjoy the opportunity to meet with them individually and give them a tour of the property, if it allows
with their schedules. Mr. Roy said that he appreciated staff’s efforts, especially Ms. Echols, Claudette
Grant, and Susan Stimart. He stated that while they may not agree with his arguments about attraction of
residential in a historic building compared to commercial, he recognized that they are working with him to
achieve that balance. He stated that there is the desire for businesses to be in this location, and he has
spoken with a number of potential tenants – but he is not sure that a historically preserved building with
the strict interpretation that it will entail will be conducive to some of these businesses. Mr. Roy said that
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
some of the targets in this employment sector have gone to other markets, given their drastically lower
rental rates, versus Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It was reported earlier that day that a similar
type property in Waynesboro is being repurposed as a mixed-use site, and they are getting some state
grant money to do it. He stated that it makes it a challenge from a business standpoint to go to a property
like that, as he certainly cannot compete, and residential use is a more mitigated risk on a project like this.
Mr. Roy said that it can be a frustrating proposition to convert a private hidden treasure into a semi-public
property that can be a benefit to more than just the residents who live there. He stated that he hopes
they will approve the County mixed-use designation as proposed by staff, and he appreciates the Board’s
time in addressing the property’s unique challenge.
Mr. Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council addressed the Board, stating that the
Fiscal Impact Committee is indeed an interesting group, which is diverse but also open to the discussion
and to ideas. Mr. Werner said that it is a group that is willing to explore ideas on the Board’s behalf, and
there are new and changing dynamics in development, such as the County competing with the City on
issues like those in Woolen Mills. He stated that he also hopes to get something into the Comp Plan
regarding a “community resilience plan,” whereby a lot of communities have looked ahead as to what may
happen, looking at it from a fiscal point of view. Mr. W erner said that one community in Vermont looked
at the culverts in their roads to assess them in the event there is an increase in heavy precipitation, to see
how they can prevent washouts; or strategies for helping the elderly in the event days get hotter . He
stated that nothing complicated needs to be in the Comp Plan, but community resilience is a term he has
started hearing more frequently.
There being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public comment period.
Ms. Echols stated that the first item they will discuss preceded the Woolen Mills discussion
because there is a strong relationship between what is being recommended as changes to the land use
guidelines. She said that there are redline and clean versions of tables in her staff report, and the
Planning Commission has suggested that some changes be made primarily for clarity. Ms. Echols said
that in this particular item, they looked at the different categories of mixed use and saw that there is a bit
of a disconnect between these mixed-use areas and what the zoning ordinance is trying to introduce in a
light industrial setting. She stated that they have made some suggestions with the land use tables to take
away the prohibition of industrial uses from neighborhood mixed use – so Office R&D Flex/Light Industrial
will be allowed in a neighborhood mixed-use setting, with a maximum single building footprint of
approximately 15,000 square feet. Ms. Echols stated that the images provide an idea of what a
neighborhood mixed-use area would be, and stated that the 15,000 had always been in as a single
footprint for a building, but the “approximately” has been added to clarify that there is not a hard and fast
rule through the Comp Plan; it is to give guidance about size. She stated that the second one will be to
allow a single building footprint in community mixed use, for Office R&D Flex/Light Industrial, of
approximately 20,000 square feet. Ms. Echols said that the use changes bec omes quite relevant when
they talk about some of the land use designations for places that have been of concern and discussion to
many residents, and the two highlights of their conversations at this meeting will be Woolen Mills and
Spring Hill Village, the property between Avon and Route 20 that the Board had approved about six
months earlier.
Ms. Echols asked the Board if they have any questions or concerns about the changes to the
guidelines, to help provide some direction.
Ms. Mallek said that her understanding is that they are achieving what people had requested for a
number of years – fewer hard and fast barricades that prevented one tenant from growing and moving
into the other end. She said that she understood what retail meant, but is not sure what is meant by
“institutional” in this sense.
Ms. Echols said that it might be a public office, such as a post office, and retail w ill also be
permitted if it worked within a particular setting. She stated that the changes intended to open up some
opportunities that are consistent with some of the recommendations and changes to the zoning
ordinance, providing they are in the appropriate location and are not having adverse impacts on
neighboring employment-type uses.
Ms. Echols reported that the Southern Neighborhood Master Plan currently has a center in
Woolen Mills, with a recommendation in the current Comp Plan for Office/Flex R&D Light Industrial. She
said that the Board has discussed seeing whether or not the flexibility the applicant is seeking in order to
create a mixed-use area is going to be acceptable to them, so she, Susan Stimart and Claudette Grant
sat down with the applicants and talked through their expectations. Ms. Ech ols said that the applicants
have sent some images and shown how mixed use can be accomplished on that particular site. Staff’s
recommended changes provided at the last meeting were not the ones the Planning Commission had
recommended. She noted the land use chart, which detailed the uses appropriate in that particular
category, and in the plan staff is suggesting is a more comprehensive description with emphasis on the
importance of preserving the historic buildings and what happens with fill in the floodplain for residential
uses. She said that staff’s recommendation was that less than half of the total built square footage could
be used residentially. That was an attempt to put an emphasis on the importance of the jobs at this
particular location. Ms. Echols said that the Board is not totally convinced this was the best approach, but
they were not convinced it was not either – so they asked staff to look into other opportunities. She
stated that one of the things staff considered is a site-specific designation, like Crozet has, but when they
looked at the Community Mixed-Use designation, they saw an opportunity to tweak that description a bit
and qualify this project. Ms. Echols said that the distinctions between the Office R&D Flex Light Industrial
and Community Mixed-Use designation have to do with the mix of uses there, with Community Mixed-Use
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
having an expectation of more residential. She stated that the two options staff saw for the Board,
depending on how firm they wanted to be on the job-generating aspect of the property, CMU stipulated
that at least 45% of the site should be developed with employment-generating and commercial uses.
Which would mean the area is more residential than non-residential, but at least provided an idea of the
extent to which that would take place. Ms. Echols said that this is a judgement call, and staff has made a
recommendation to the Planning Commission – who did not agree with it – and the Board was not sure,
so staff has now provided another option.
Ms. Mallek said that they are also going to discuss whether outdoor activities could count toward
those percentages, and she personally thought they should but wondered how staff felt. Ms. Echols said
that staff agreed, as long as it is leasable space, as there are developers that like to stretch the limits and
include things that they might not think should be included. She stated that staff is trying to provide some
definition, and thanked the applicants for helping with that by identifying a leased area. Staff is fine with
including that in the amount of square footage, since it is devoted to a particular use.
Ms. Mallek said that she hopes they will take advantage of the proximity to the river and the
neighboring park.
Ms. Dittmar said that her bias is towards jobs, and asked how many more residential units 5% will
give this project. Ms. Echols said that they had not really looked at this in terms of specific numbers of
units, and looked at it in terms of the large building and the flexibility of the saw toot h-roof buildings and
potential flexibility, in terms of a new structure. She said that where the flexibility is desired is the number
of live/work units you can get out of the saw tooth buildings, so the residential units would be in the
mixed-use area. Ms. Echols emphasized that they have not looked at it in terms of number of units, they
have looked at it more in terms of square footage.
Ms. Dittmar asked how much square footage would be lost in commercial space for 5%. Mr.
Brian Roy stated that the split of residential versus non-residential is roughly 85,000 square feet versus
72,000 if you did a full 55/45% split, and it does not actually increase the number of residential units. He
stated that he is concerned that a new residential building at a 50/50 split might mean extra space that is
vacant. The light industrial piece will decrease the size of the building, so it does not actually increase the
number of residential units because they are all limited into the existing building. Mr. Roy clarified that
they will be losing roughly 5,000-7,000 square feet if more is given to residential.
Ms. Mallek said that the applicant has indicated that with the higher residential square footage, he
will consider building a larger LI structure, at 40,000 square feet instead of 30,000. Mr. Roy said that it
will be up to 45,000.
Ms. Susan Stimart, Economic Development Facilitator, stated that in taking a range of 250 square
feet per employee up to 500 square feet per employee, capturing the average classification of industrial
rather than office, and apply that to Mr. Roy’s 7,000 square feet, there will be 15-28 jobs potentially. She
emphasized that this is conceptual, though, and how the building gets divided is more of a practical
consideration as you cannot fit a small company into an area with more of a residential character.
Mr. Boyd asked if there is any credit given for home occupations in terms of jobs, as this seemed
to be the type of project where a lot of people would like to work from home. Ms. Echols said that the
applicant’s proposal included live/work units, and there is credit given for that. She stated that the
buildings really lent themselves for having space for doing work.
Ms. Dittmar asked for clarification of staff’s recommendation. Ms. Echols stated that staff’s
original recommendation was the higher percentage of Commercial Mixed-Use, but when they took it to
the Planning Commission, the Commission felt that the historic preservati on aspect was the most
important for this particular site, and if a residential development is the only practical way to preserve the
structure, they wanted to allow for that kind of flexibility. Ms. Echols said that staff ha s tried to work with
the applicant on different scenarios of how to make it more non-residential, but the Commission is
persuaded to have the higher residential component.
Mr. Boyd asked if the building might have a conference room or computer lab that might be
usable for the people who are working from home. Mr. Roy stated that the first floor of the four-story
warehouse has an area designated as residential but is not residential units, and is meant to be a club
room or open space, to be used by the residents. He said that what it look s like would evolve, but it could
be used for workspace for individuals that live there, and there is a lot of flexibility. Mr. Roy stated that
the first floor allowed for a transition area, with the potential for a retail/restaurant component on the front
side, and the back side open to uses.
Ms. Palmer commented that she feels it is extremely important to preserve the historic character,
and it is important for the applicant to have a financially viable project – and she feels the County needs
to give him flexibility. She added that they have worked hard to try to get as much commercial in the site
as possible, and she is happy with what they have done.
Ms. Dittmar asked Mr. Davis if they are setting a precedent in any way if they were to approve
this.
Ms. Mallek said that “site-specific” came to mind for her.
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Echols said that this is a subjective decision the Board has to make as to whether the site
should be developed with more employment-generating uses, or less employment-generating uses.
Ms. Dittmar said that she wants to know whether other developers will have a legal standing, and
be able to come back and say that the Board did it for Woolen Mills . She asked if this is setting a legal
precedent of any kind.
Ms. McKeel noted that it is an historic structure.
Mr. Davis said that everything they did always established a precedent.
Mr. Boyd stated that it is not unique for the Board to do this, and he looked at it as preserving an
historic site.
Ms. McKeel said that this is an unusual site.
Mr. Davis stated that any zoning decision the Board makes does not obligate them to make a
similar zoning decision in the future, but when they establish any action, it is a basis for determining in the
future whether a similar decision is arbitrary and capricious. They have to be careful in making zoning
decisions, because they are a precedent for future decisions, but that does not mean that they could not
make a decision and distinguish it on its facts.
Ms. Palmer said that the question is whether they are being arbitrary and capricious.
Mr. Davis said that if they are doing it consistently with their comprehensive planning, generally
the answer is no – and establishing a Comp Plan and following it with a zoning decision is one factor
used in defending actions of the Board. He stated that the process they are taking is the right process, by
first considering something in a Comp Plan before they rezoned property in a way that is inconsistent with
the Comp Plan.
Ms. Dittmar said that she wants to be sure that they understand they may see this type of
application again, and should always be concerned about fairness – because for the next good project
that came along, if the applicant can demonstrate a parallel, the Board would need to follow their thinking
in that.
Ms. Mallek said she would like to know where else in the County “Community Mixed Use,” which
is an existing land use designation, is located. Ms. Echols said there are several different places, such as
the southwest corner of I-64 and 5th Street Extended. She stated that each of these are somewhat
specific, and in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods master plan, staff has called out most of th ese
areas and described what the expectations are for that particular area. Ms. Echols said that is what they
have done here, by noting the things in the Woolen Mills location that are important to them. She stated
that the types of uses and extent to which certain uses might be allowed w ill come through their zoning
application. Ms. Echols said that this is setting them up for some parameters for decision-making, and
the detailed work comes with the rezoning. She stated that staff is recommending a Community Mixed-
Use area for Springhill Village, which is a little bit different, and they have a zoning plan that shows a
number of residential units and three areas that can be available for a mixture of uses – Office R&D,
retail, etc. Ms. Echols noted that when the Board approved this development, they left open th ese
particular opportunities, and it seems like this is the right designation for this area, which is primarily
residential in nature but also provides a certain level of non-residential use – 20,000 square feet – with
more opportunities up to 60,000 square feet.
Ms. Dittmar asked if the Board is okay with that designation for Spring Hill.
Ms. Mallek asked if they are not limiting the applicants by doing this. Ms. Echols responded that
they are not at all, as it is in keeping with what is approved with the rezoning.
Ms. Echols stated that another area for consideration is the Monticello Fire Station area in the
Southern Neighborhood master plan. She said that the Board has received a lot of feedback on that
particular area, and staff wrote up some text that talked about the civic uses being expecte d on County-
owned properties, the importance of a collaborative community process that w ill result in a small area
plan. Ms. Echols said that some of the things that are important to the neighbors in that area are the
attention to size, scale, massing, wa lkability, preservation and environmental features.
Ms. Mallek asked if there are any uses being given up that the Board may not realize by these
descriptors. Ms. Echols said that she did not know, but there is a very strong emphasis by the people in
the community that they did not want a convenience center – and the decision will be made together, not
just sprung on people.
Ms. Mallek said that this land has been stockpiled for future government activity and she wants to
ensure they were not boxing themselves in, adding that she is happy to do the public process.
Ms. Echols proceeded with a discussion of Comp Plan chapter redlined versions, stating that the
Development Areas chapter has a bit of additional information she wants to review with them. She stated
that in keeping with what the Board has asked staff to do, they made changes to the text on “Villages,”
and added the text related to urban development areas (UDAs) back into the body of the plan. She
explained that UDAs were required several years ago, then they became not mandated – and the staff
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
took them out of the plan because the County was already doing planning and growth management in a
way that was in keeping with this. Ms. Echols said that they felt that since it was not needed, they did not
put it in the plan – but then they found out that a lot of transportation funding is going to be tied back to
the UDAs and recognition of those areas. She stated that they never went away, just the text that went
into detail about what this was and why it was. She said that they have two areas – one in Pantops, and
one in Places 29 – and they are also the County’s priority areas.
Ms. Echols said that staff reordered the objectives, because with all of the information that took
place at the Board’s last meeting to infill, redevelopment and density, they wanted to make it flow a little
bit better. At the Board’s request, they changed the tenor of the text to clarify that the Development Areas
were great places, not just the place where all the density will be put. She stated that staff made some
distinctions in the plan between greenfield and infill development, and those terms are not hard and fast;
a lot of it is how you interpret what is going on around a property that will be developed. Ms. Echols said
that by and large, if it is infill and something brand new within a larger context, it needs to be treated more
sensitively, but not looking at the upper end. She noted that in greenfield development, where the
impacts on nearby and adjoining property owners might not be so great, you would want to promote as
much density as possible. She stated that Mr. Boyd had mentioned the Northpointe development, and
that is definitely a greenfield development, with not a whole lot around it – so the emphasis on density in a
place like that makes sense. In a smaller area, she said, it might not. Ms. Echols said that staff also put
in the recommendation what the Board had asked regarding resolution of zoning and Comp Plan
discrepancies as they relate to density calculations, and linked the economic development
recommendations to vibrant employment centers. She stated they also added a new objective that
recognized the work of the livability project and doing more, to ensure they are working with neighbors –
including Scottsville, which was requested at the last meeting.
Ms. Dittmar asked if there could be a link put over to Scottsville’s Comp Plan, so that people c an
see how the town is going to be handling development. She mentioned that she had learned recently that
the population of Scottsville proper is 570, but there are about 1,600 people in the immediate vicinity who
want to be part of the town but are not technically within its borders. Ms. Echols responded that they can
link directly to the town’s comp plan, and there is a picture in the background chapter of the Comp Plan in
which staff showed the land use expectations for the Scottsville Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Echols stated that the Planning Commission has worked really hard, having two meetings on
the idea of a new objective three for neighborhood preservation, and had a lot of conversation around the
text staff had proposed for them. Ms. Echols said that they came up with four strategies. The first has to
do with working with the people closest to those neighborhoods to figure out what the nature of the needs
are, and how to help them become safer and more attractive. She stated that staff had originally started
out with the community advisory councils, but the Planning Commission said that needed to be broader,
as the CAC’s may not know the nature of all the neighborhoods . The people who are in the
neighborhoods need to be part of that conversation. Ms. Echols said that the first strategy recommended
is to work with neighborhood groups and/or advisory councils. She stated that the second strategy is to
invest in public services and improvements for those older neighborhoods. Ms. Echols said that the third
strategy had the most conversation, because it was about property maintenance. She stated that at the
first Commission meeting, there was a lot of discussion about whether or not they wanted to adopt a
property maintenance code. By the time they got around to the second worksession, the Commission
said they did not want to get into that yet. Ms. Echols said that the Commission wanted to find out what
was going on in the neighborhoods and see what options exist to get neighborhood improvement before
going into a property maintenance code. They agreed that once those expectations are established, the
resources needed to be determined to help make the programs the most effective. She stated that the
final strategy is to identify the interconnections needed between neighborhoods and services, with a
special note about Route 29 and Route 250.
Ms. Echols stated that these Planning Commission’s recommended strategies were before the
Board made some changes to that particular section. At the time the Commission said it is still important
to help educate the public on the County’s growth management policy and the benefits of density,
important that complete streets are built in new developments, and to ensure there is capacity for the
future. The Commission thought it was important to update the capacity analysis every two year that was
done for the Comp Plan.
Ms. Mallek said that the capacity analysis must have been based upon some kind of accelerated
growth rate, and there seems to be more to it than what is written. Ms. Echols explained that the way the
Commission did the capacity analysis was to know what amount of developable land existed and then
look at what capacity it has at different densities. She stated that anything related to the growth rate gave
an idea of how quickly they might fill up, so staff is not suggesting a particular pace for development, but
want to ensure that there is enough land to accommodate the population projects done by the Weldon
Cooper Center.
Ms. Mallek said that is a philosophical decision that has to be discussed over and over again
every five years or so, and just because Weldon Cooper said there will be 250,000 people does not mean
the County will be happy about that – so it does not need to be a given. She emphasized that she has
grandchildren and does not want to close the door on any growth, but wants to get some detail on the
growth projections. She stated that the Board already has the ability to require minimum standards for
abandoned lots and other problems, and asked whether the maintenance to which staff is referring is
broader in scope.
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Davis explained that under the County’s nuisance authority, there is the authority to require
grass to be cut under certain circumstances, adopted as an ordinance for vacant properties. He stated
that for buildings, they have the authority under the nuisance ordinance, to make sure buildings are safe.
If they impose a danger on the community, the County could require them to be put in a condition where
they are no longer unsafe. Mr. Davis emphasized that the County does not have the authority to address
aesthetics of vacant or dilapidated buildings, so they are somewhat limited. There may be other
strategies that are appropriate to revitalize those areas.
Ms. McKeel stated that there are several neighborhoods with older homes that have been
abandoned completely, so those neighborhoods are concerned about the structural integrity of those
homes. The County has no ordinances to help with these situations, although the neighborhood
associations have contacted the owners.
Ms. Mallek said that it sounds like those will qualify as safety issues.
Mr. Sheffield said that they do not. He has a house in his district with a pool that is full of water,
so kids broke through the fence and it is still not considered a safety issue – even though no one has
lived there for years.
Ms. Dittmar said that the fire marshal has all kinds of authority, at least with commercial
properties.
Mr. Davis stated that if a building is a fire hazard and is not properly secured, and is in danger of
falling down and endangering life and/or other property, a building official or fire marshal can make certain
determinations. The County can declare those buildings a nuisance and require certain things to be
done. He said it would require that finding from the building official or fire marshal that they are, indeed,
unsafe structures, but sometimes they will make the determination after inspection that a building be
properly secured, so it can stand as is even though it may not be particularly attractive.
Ms. McKeel said that sometimes the recommendation to make it safe is as bad or worse, and
does not solve the problem for the neighborhoods or property values. She mentioned an example of a
home in her district that has been abandoned, with the chimney in danger of falling, and by the time they
had finished the repairs, the neighbors were even more distressed.
Ms. Dittmar said this is getting into aesthetics, and she did not mean that in a light way.
Mr. Foley stated that these are all issues that need more consideration in terms of how they will
carry out these strategies, and this gives them the push they need to look further into how to better
address them.
Mr. Sheffield said that based on the Planning Commission’s discussions, they did not even talk
about these things.
Ms. Palmer said that the County has the ability to make an aesthetic judgment for abandoned
cars, and asked why they could not do a different type of aesthetic judgment on these properties.
Mr. Davis said that there is specific enabling legislation for inoperable motor vehicles, and specific
enabling authority allowing the County to limit them to one or more inoperable vehicles that are visible.
Ms. Dittmar asked how the Board wants to leave this, or whether they want to pick it up after
closed session. Mr. Sheffield said that the Planning Commission has left this with wanting to ask the
residence what the maintenance issues are.
Ms. Echols said that the Commission wanted to start at the bottom, and did not want to
immediately jump to adopting a property maintenance code.
Mr. Sheffield said that he would rather see the Board draft something that the public could react
to, rather than starting with a blank slate.
Ms. McKeel said that the neighborhoods that she is working with, neighbors have been dealing
with these things for years. She stated that the neighbors in one case has been dealing with an
abandoned home for 15 years and have done everything they could. Now there are roofs about to cave
in, mold, and floors collapsing in houses.
Ms. Dittmar said that fire marshals can cite it and take care of those types of issues.
Ms. McKeel said that the fire marshal will come in and put something around it that says “do not
walk on this property,” and that does not solve the problem for the neighborhood.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she was not certain that is a fire marshal issue, as it seemed like more of
a building inspection issue.
Ms. McKeel said that she would like to continue this conversation at some point.
Ms. Mallek asked if this was a good starting place, or if they should strengthen the language.
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Foley said that the Board can put stronger language in the Comp Plan that said the County
would evaluate alternatives to address this, as opposed to getting with the residents to see what they
think. He said that this does not stipulate exactly what they intended to do, but said they are going to look
at alternatives, and they will have to see if the y are legal and so forth. If that is a stronger statement the
Board wants to make because they are seeing some decline in urban areas, it is appropriate to make a
change.
Ms. McKeel stated that what they are able to do now did not work and does not solve the
problem.
Mr. Foley suggested that Ms. Echols draft something a little bit stronger, then when the y come
back they can see if it reflected what the Board is interested in doing.
Mr. Sheffield said that the Planning Commission is probably just being cautious, because the
County will likely get pushback from some that this is government overreach, in the sense they are
dictating the aesthetics of someone’s property.
Ms. Mallek commented that what Ms. McKeel is describing is radically different than a house that
is waiting for insurance to kick in after a fire.
Ms. McKeel said that the homes to which she is referring do not even have insurance carried on
them any longer.
Ms. Palmer said that she wants them to consider the rural area versus the development area.
There are a lot of abandoned houses in the rural areas, and she is concerned about the implications to
staff with all of the abandoned buildings on old farms.
Ms. McKeel agrees that is an entirely different issue, just as they have focused on the abandoned
car problem in urban neighborhoods on quarter-acre lots and such.
Ms. Palmer said that they did have quarter and half-acre lots in rural areas as well, and she just
wants to make sure the Board is making a distinction.
Mr. Foley said that is what is intended.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Closed Meeting.
At 6:25 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board go into a closed meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3.711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with and be briefed by legal counsel
and staff regarding specific legal matters requiring legal advice concerning agreements related to the Ivy
Landfill. Ms. Mallek seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 5. Certify Closed Meeting.
At 7:20 p.m., Mr. Sheffield moved that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of
each Board member’s knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting
requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting. Ms. Mallek seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 6. Continuation of Work Session to include public comments and possible
Board direction.
Ms. Echols reported that with the Housing chapter, the Board did not have any changes for staff,
so they just did editing; and there are only two things the Commission came up with, the first being an
enhancement of a program – encouraging developers to include housing for seniors and individuals with
disabilities in new development. She said that staff has the option to talk with developers to suggest that
they do things, and this is an opportunity to influence their thinking on housing for seniors and those with
disabilities. Ms. Echols stated that the new program or project pertained to making sure that affordable
units stay affordable, which is in the existing Comp Plan but has not yet been done. She noted that if it is
to be a strategy that gets a high priority, it will come from here.
She stated that staff has done some reorganizing with the Transportation chapter, but the primary
thing that has been requested is an update of information such as the long-range transportation plan. Ms.
Echols said that they did not include information about Places 29 and the Rio Road interchange, and the
origin of that was when the Transportation chapter was being developed by the Planning Commission,
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
the bypass had just been added to the list of projects, so they wanted to be sure there was a prompt to
reflect that. With the change in that particular project, she said, one of the Supervisors had asked for staff
to put in the new projects in the Places 29 area – and the reason staff did not do that is because much of
that is contained in the master plan, and having that piece of information sitting by itself and not related to
anything else did not seem to make sense.
Ms. Mallek asked if there is a cross-reference that will go to the Places 29 master plan. Ms.
Echols confirmed that there is, and said this is in the long-range transportation plan.
Ms. Echols stated that the strategies and priorities which the Commission has recommended are
to emphasize with developers the importance of making multi-modal connections, especially between
residents and employment centers, enhancing that and improving the funding for people to be able to
walk – specifically for walkway, greenway and sidewalks. Ms. Echols said that for new programs and
projects, their priority is the dedicated bike/ped connections across the physical barriers that came from
the Livability Project.
Ms. Echols stated that Parks and Recreation – Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems, are
all related to each other. Staff added the school parks to this chapter to ensure they have a
comprehensive list of the parks in the County. She said that the Board has asked staff to add some
information on the recreational use of Sugar Hollow Park, and they are putting in the information on the
reservoirs.
Ms. Palmer commented that she hopes they are not calling Sugar Hollow a “park.”
Ms. Mallek asked if they have changed strategy 1C, because it emphasizes the water quality –
with those attributes being much more important in that location, and this should not be considered a
recreation area. Ms. Echols said that 1C refers to the County’s drinking water supply reservoirs, and that
came mostly from the existing Comp Plan, with the one relating to Sugar Hollow as the next strategy,
which talks about work with the City on ways to make City-owned parkland in the County’s rural areas
available for greater public enjoyment of these natural areas and resolve misus e of resources. She said
this section also addresses the fact that City-owned areas are not available for public use, but that
residents and non-residents alike are overwhelming the resource and some of the issues that relate to
that – and these issues should be resolved through cooperation and collaboration with City officials and
the National Park Service.
Ms. Mallek said that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority needs to be principle in these
discussions, as it is the water quality that they are concerned about. She agreed that the word
“park” should be removed from Sugar Hollow, because that and Ragged Mountain are rural water supply
reservoirs where people can walk – but they somehow have to get away from the notion that they need to
provide picnicking and camping and other activities all over them. She suggests substituting “reservoir
areas” for the word “park.”
Ms. Dittmar recalled that during the Ragged Mountain dedication, Clarence Roberts was talking
about the fact that there will be a place for weddings and so forth.
Ms. Palmer clarified that the Ragged Mountain area is primarily used for a reservoir, but the Ivy
Creek Foundation opened up a natural area there and put in trails – and the City took that over. She said
that it is a little bit more of a park, but it has been clearly defined by the City as a reservoir first and
foremost, with many restrictions such as no pets, etc. – whereas Sugar Hollow is not a park or a managed
situation.
Ms. Mallek said that County Police and Parks and Rec staff are out there, but there is no MOU to
be out there – and they are the only ones that get called when something happens.
Ms. Echols suggested having the language state, “Ragged Mountain Reservoir and Sugar Hollow
Reservoir are public water supply reservoirs that are owned by the City of Charlottesville but located in
the County.”
Board members agreed with the language inclusion.
Ms. Echols said that the Board has also asked that the needs assessment be updated, and for
some information on ways to provide for neighborhood parks in the development areas. She states that
Parks and Rec has asked to remove the complementary and non-duplicative language, and that
language related to ADA requirements that are no longer applicable, because they now have to comply
with a higher standard. Ms. Echols said that another item pertained to school parks, and in discussing
the number of school parks that staff maintains and the amount of acreage, it got to be a fairly large
number. She states that one of the things they noted is that most people do not know that these parks
are supposed to be public, so Parks and Rec staff feel that making them more user-friendly is an
important strategy. Ms. Echols said that staff has tried to map the greenways, but the mapping is not
great, and they are working to get those into a better format. She stated that the greenway trails,
sidewalks, and walkways have a very close relationship, so sometimes a piece of a walking path is a
greenway, and sometimes a piece of a greenway trail is a sidewalk to make sure you get all of those
connections. Ms. Echols said that staff wants to be working on better demonstrating that so it is clearer to
the public that this is a system that allows for multiple uses – transportation and recreational – and the
new transportation planner is already working on some mapping with that. She stated that Parks and Rec
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
staff would like for that to be made clearer to the public, and their suggestions ha ve been put into this
draft.
Ms. Mallek asked if they have used the mapping done by the Planning District Commission. Ms.
Echols said they have that and used it with the Livability Project, and ha ve put all the information together
for the regional component – and now are pulling back out to get at just the individual Albemarle County
information. She said that some of what that uncovered is the amount of work being done to make sure
that City parks can be accessed from the County, and vice versa, and that has been going on for a long
time.
Ms. Echols stated that Parks and Rec staff asked for two projects to be addressed: Hedgerow
Park and Buck Island Park. Ms. Echols said that staff is not proposing improvements without getting
public input, and sometimes they have received general input without seeking it, but they need better
public participation from the beginning. She stated that the place where they would like to show
something on the map has to do with a trail, not assuming it will happen, but calling it a potential trail to
Hedgerow Park. Ms. Echols said that Buck Island Park is located in the eastern part of the County,
directly on the Rivanna River. She stated that the recommendation is to put the potential trail on the
greenways map so they know there is consideration for a trail being there, but before anything else
happens, they will hold public meetings and get input on those improvements. After getting public input
and using it, she said, Parks and Recreation staff would be recommending improvements as a CIP
project, and anything done would be subject to compliance with the Comp Plan by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Echols said that those improvements have not been vetted by the public, so they do
not want to put them in the Comp Plan to indicate they are going to do them, before getting that public
input.
Ms. Palmer asked who holds the public meetings for the parks. Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning, said that the Board’s process, which they had agreed to the previous year, was for any public
project not specifically located in the Comp Plan to go through compliance with the Comp Plan, which is
essentially the same process used for rezonings – which would involve a community meeting for each
project. He confirmed that County staff will work with Parks and Rec to set those meetings up.
Ms. Echols said that Buck Island Park has been on the maps, and it has been through the public
process as a potential acquisition or gift. They are considering it to be a potential trail, but if they went
through the public meeting process and find it is not going to fly with the community, it will not be looked
at as being in conformity.
Mr. Cilimberg said that ultimately the determination of compliance is made by the Planning
Commission. So, if these are two projects they are moving forward, the community meeting will be to
solicit input, and the Commission’s public hearing will determine compliance and report that to the Board.
Ms. Mallek asked about the timeframe for the public process. Mr. Cilimberg said that he is not
sure.
Ms. Echols said that they are planning to have the Hedgerow one as soon as possible.
Ms. Mallek said that for Buck Island, they are working on grants for boat launch improvements
and other amenities.
Ms. Echols said that as soon as some of the administrative items are taken care of, staff will help
them with that next step, and the community engagement specialist w ill likely be helping with the public
process. She noted that they all work together to ensure everyone is prepared to present the project and
get the input.
Ms. Mallek asked if they will have an open house at Buck Island, because there is a whole
different clientele of people who will use it if they are coming to it from the water. Mr. Cilimberg said that
the Supervisor and Board member in each of the districts will be invited, and others can come as well.
Ms. Echols said that if it were possible for Parks & Rec to get the meetings done and everything
worked out OK and the timing worked out, they can get it in the Comp Plan before the Board adopted it –
but staff is not counting on that.
Ms. Echols stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendations are enhancing activities to
coordinate adjacent land development going on with greenways, and the new program is to get the
greenway trail advisory committee established, appointed, and moving on helping the Parks and Rec staff
to have those projects come to life. She noted that one need that generates participation from many
volunteers was greenway construction, as people like to do that.
Ms. Echols reported that in the Community Facilities chapter, they have reordered the objectives
and added a strategy for public/private partnerships that the Board asked for – and to use volunteers to
help provide cost-effective facilities and services. She said they ha ve added help volunteer fire/rescue
station funding, solid waste changes, wireless and broadband – and the Planning Commission’s
recommended strategy priorities are to increase outreach to the public on reduce, reuse and recycle;
cooperation with solid waste management; building facilities to make it possible for students and parents
to walk and bicycle to school. Ms. Echols stated that there are some issues of school security, but there
are things that can be done to make it easier for children and their parents to get to school, and the
Commission did not identify any new programs, wanting just to enhance what is being done now.
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Echols said that at their last meeting on the Comp Plan, they had talked about prioritizing
items, and had also talked about establishing a process for doing that.
Ms. Mallek asked if they were going to revisit the Rural Areas chapter, because the agenda
referred to a “review of redline changes.” Ms. Echols acknowledged that it had been added by mistake.
Ms. Mallek said that under that category, she would like to introduce something, and explained
that in the last week or so she has learned that there is likely a lot of tourist lodging going on in the rural
areas, with or without inspections, licensing, or transient occupancy tax. She stated that the Board had
previously discussed removing a section that she now thinks they might need to include, and they need to
consider the possibility of making these informal B&Bs operate legally.
Ms. Echols stated that the version brought to the Board from the Planning Commission described
the kind of lodging that is going on currently in the Rural Area, and the Planning Commission’s
recommendation was to consider amending the zoning ordinance to allow for a greater lodging use in the
Rural Area.
Ms. Mallek said that she is not advocating for Holiday Inn-type hotels, but wants to consider doing
some work on the small, individually-owned tourist lodging. She stated that many people use Air BnB
lodging now when they travel, and she wants to make sure that the County does not miss an opportunity
to deal with this – because she would much rather have people licensed and inspected and paying TOT,
rather than pretending they do not exist. She said that there are some farms that have five and ten
houses, so it is a busy activity, and some communities are concerned because they are seeing
neighborhoods become more like transient housing instead of actual neighborhoods.
Ms. Echols said that a good place to start with this will be to look at what the City is doing, and
they have done a study on the extent of what is happening. She stated that there are older facilities that
have been there a long time, B&Bs, tourist lodging, and rural area retreats. Ms. Echols said that the first
step is to find out what is going on and the extent to which these issues are occurring, and then go from
there to see if the Board wants to change the regulations or to find ways to bring these people into
conformity. She stated that Charlottesville has done some good research approaches that can benefit
the County.
Ms. McKeel stated that she would also like to do this for the development areas, as well as the
rural areas.
Ms. Echols said that the strategy will be to study what the problem is, find out the extent of what
is going on, and discuss it to find out whether they want to change the regulations or bring people into
conformity.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that she wants to affirm that there are many people who are compliant
and are licensed through Guesthouses and Stay Charlottesville. They paid their TOTs and follow all the
rules – and it is a very unfair situation to them to have others doing it without licensing.
Ms. Mallek said that the only other item not on the list is related to climate change, and asked
staff how it is included.
Ms. Echols said that at this point, staff has not made any changes because they are all going to
be done after all edits are made. At the Board’s last meeting they had said that in the Natural Resources
section they wanted staff to add something about the effects of climate change and to make reference to
the LCAP report. She stated that if there are other places in other chapters that are effected by climate
change, the Board had wanted them to put the references in there – so staff will be bringing that back to
the Board. Ms. Echols said that effects may be temperature shifts, more frequent events, more erratic
weather, more flooding, etc. She stated that some of the impacts are going to affect infrastructure, but
these are not known yet so it is a matter of looking into a community resiliency plan, as Mr. Werner has
mentioned.
Ms. McKeel stated that this is the time to have that conversation, and she would like to see
something included.
Ms. Palmer asked if the community resilience plan is intended to be site-specific. Ms. McKeel
said that Mr. Werner has citied models from other places – Hampton Roads, and specific cities in
Vermont and Florida. She added that it is worthy of some work and discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff’s thought was to have the Comp Plan recognize the need to address
it as a starting point, and then it will become a strategy that they would have to prioritize as to how and
when they do that. He stated that staff is intending to do that for the Comp Plan document that is going to
public hearing.
Ms. Echols confirmed that the LCAP will be in the reference documents, as the Board has
directed.
Ms. Palmer said that she had sent one change to Ms. Echols, which she has agreed with, for
strategy 5C in the Natural Resources section. She stated that the suggested language change w ill clarify
the most important steep slopes, and that it be stipulated that the slopes to be protected in the
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
development area are those designated for preservation. Ms. Echols agrees that it needs to be changed
to be made more current with what they have done with the steep slopes section.
Ms. Dittmar stated that her suggestions pertained to libraries and broadband under Community
Facilities, but she does not have them with her and asked if she can email them. Ms. Echols said that
staff is recommending setting a public hearing on May 13, so the next Comp Plan version will come
before them with all of the changes.
Ms. McKeel stated that staff has done a wonderful job with the plan, especially interpreting and
including items that are generated from the Board’s discussion.
Board members agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff’s thought is for the final draft to be completed by the time the public
hearing is advertised, so it will be available to the Board at that time.
Ms. Echols said that staff will get with them as to the process for setting priorities, and said that if
they need to have a separate meeting for prioritizing, staff will need to get back with them.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 7. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Dittmar said that she has spoken with Ms. McKeel about sending a letter to the Chamber of
Commerce and North Charlottesville Business Council asking if they want to team up with the County on
the business assistance program. She asked Mr. Davis what his sense is of the lawsuit pertaining to the
Route 29 Solutions project, and asked about the timeframe for that suit.
Mr. Davis responded that an answer will be due within 30 days, and how they answer it will
probably determine how long the litigation may last. He said that if they tr y to get an immediate dismissal,
it could be heard within several months; if it has to go to trial, it would probably be a year. He stated that
the key will be whether or not an y injunctive relief is granted to slow down the project moving forward, and
if that is not granted, the litigation may happen very quickly.
Ms. McKeel said that her feeling is that the Chamber is a big player in the work with the business
community and should be at the table, and she would be interested in having them work with the County
– because otherwise, she does not see the County as having the staff and money to do some of these
things. She emphasized that a lot of the items they ha ve talked about the previous week for the program
needed involvement from the Chamber and the North 29 Council.
Ms. Palmer commented that she does not see any reason to wait.
Ms. Dittmar agreed to draft a letter and bring it back to the Board.
Ms. Dittmar reported that she has a meeting with a constituent regarding an alternative fuel tax
for personal property, which allows them to set a lower clean fuel tax rate through enabling legislation,
and asked if they are interested in discussing it further.
Mr. Davis said that there is some enabling authority in regards to that, but he has not reviewed it
in a while and will need to revisit it.
Ms. McKeel said that she has been to various public parking lots around the state that offers
closer parking spaces for alternative fuel vehicles.
Ms. Mallek stated that the County needs to be applying for grants for charging stations.
Ms. Dittmar stated that she had been a guest at Ms. McKeel’s police advisory committee, and
they heard a report from UVA Chief of Police Mike Gibson, who had raved about the relationship among
the three localities’ police departments and has said that many areas do not have that type of
cooperation. Ms. Dittmar said that Captain Greg Jenkins had also attended her town hall meeting, and he
and the Town of Scottsville’s police chief had shared how much they cooperate.
Ms. McKeel mentioned that the bids are due back soon for the police training facility, stating that
26 groups had shown up at the meeting – with 12 of them being viable.
Mr. Foley said that it is hoped the competition will keep them under the $6 million level, and the
item is tentatively set for the Board’s April agenda in the event staff has to come back to them.
Ms. Mallek said that once the bid num bers come in, there is the option to go to the state Attorney
General for support.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 8. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Foley reported that staff had sent out an email regarding the citizens’ survey, with information
on all of the past survey questions, and Louise Wyatt has asked for input from the Board in two weeks.
He asked the Board if they feel that is enough time, as the goal is to try to get the results in by the end of
March 10, 2015 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
the June, in a draft report format that might help the solid waste committee and other groups. Mr. Foley
noted that they have the opportunity to add some customized questions.
Ms. McKeel suggested that they reach out to schools to see if there are one or two questions they
want to have included.
Ms. Mallek noted that they are only allowed to have five total questions, and said that she has
thought there would be more information coming back to the Board regarding the questions and the cost
for adding local questions.
Mr. Foley said that they went through that process and voted to proceed, and recalled that Ms.
Palmer and Ms. Mallek had voted against it, but emphasized that they did have a full opportunity to add
questions as the County was able to secure a competitive price.
He stated that at the end of their meeting tomorrow is a discussion of solid waste alternatives,
and there are some questions raised that staff feels needs to go back to the RSW A for consideration –
and the terms of an agreement also needs to go back to Rivanna. Mr. Foley said that in light of that, staff
planned to do just a brief overview covering the basics of the alternatives, with the idea that no decisions
will be made until this goes to the RSW A.
Ms. Palmer said that the abbreviated version will be appropriate, but she would like a chance to
explain to the Board why she does not feel that any of the options on the table currently are not the right
ones – and they do not need the Draper Aden representatives in order to do that.
Mr. Foley said that if there are questions on the alternatives, he wondered if it might be prudent to
include the engineers.
Ms. Mallek said that getting the other answers first is probably more appropriate.
Mr. Foley agreed to do the overview, with the understanding it will have to come back to the
Board eventually.
_______________
Agenda Item. No. 9. Adjourn.
At 8:20 p.m., Ms. Mallek moved to adjourn the Board meeting to March 11, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in
Room 241 of the County Office Building. Ms. Palmer seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Palmer, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Boyd and Ms. Dittmar.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 10/07/2015
Initials: EWJ