Central Virginia
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors Regular Night Meeting 2/14/2018
Auto-scroll
Board of Supervisors Regular Night Meeting
2/14/2018
Attachments
Agenda.pdf
Minutes.pdf
Actions.pdf
1. Call to Order.
▶︎
0:00
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
▶︎
0:57
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
▶︎
2:19
6. Recognitions:
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
▶︎
4:23
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet)
▶︎
6:22
Action Item:
9. Old Trail Creekside V, Phases I & II Subdivision Acceptance of Dedication of Open Space
▶︎
9:39
Resolution.pdf
Old Trail Creekside V Ph.II Deed of Dedication.pdf
Old Trail Creekside V Ph.I Deed of Dedication.pdf
Old Trail Creekside V Ph.II Open Space Dedication Plat.pdf
Old Trail Creekside V Ph.I Open Space Dedication Plat.pdf
Old Trail Creekside Ph.III Trail Exhibit.pdf
Old Trail Creekside Ph.III Trail Exhibit.pdf
Passed 6-0-0
adopted
Work Session:
10. Rio/29 Small Area Plan - Overview of Implementation
▶︎
17:10
11. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
▶︎
1:14:30
12. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Closed Meeting. (if needed)
14. Adjourn to February 16, 2018, 12:00 p.m., Room 241.
▶︎
1:24:48
CONSENT AGENDA
8. FOR APPROVAL (by recorded vote):
8.1. Approval of Minutes: November 29, 2017
8.2. Ordinance to Amend County Code Chapter 5, Building Regulations
Proposed Ordinance.pdf
8.3. Bucks Elbow Mountain ECC Replacement Tower Special Use Permit Application
Attach.A Bucks Elbow Mountain Map.pdf
Attach.B Special Use Permit Application.pdf
Attach.C Resolution.pdf
8.4. Resolution of Intent to amend Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
ROI Section 5.pdf
8. FOR INFORMATION (no vote necessary):
8.5. VDoT Monthly Report (February) 2018
VDoT Report (February).pdf
1. Call to Order.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:00:00
Uh oh, six o'clock.
00:00:02
Welcome everyone to the Board of Supervisors meeting on February 14th, 2018.
00:00:07
And we will begin by inviting you to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
00:00:39
Very good.
00:00:40
We'll now have a moment of silence.
00:00:54
Thank you.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:00:57
Next on our agenda is the adoption of the final agenda.
00:01:01
Board members, are there items you would like to add to the agenda for sort of prior additions so that we can take action later if we choose?
00:01:13
The only thing I would add is under matters from the board, in addition to some announcements that we talk about whether we want to make any joint statement about the 1148 Delegate Landis' bill as it moves to the Senate.
00:01:30
All right.
00:01:32
So do we have a motion on the final agenda?
SPEAKER_03
00:01:34
I'll make a motion.
00:01:35
We accept the final agenda.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:01:39
Second?
00:01:40
Second.
00:01:41
Thank you.
SPEAKER_12
00:01:42
Mr. Galloway?
00:01:43
Yes.
00:01:43
Ms. McKeel?
00:01:44
Yes.
00:01:45
Ms. Mallek?
00:01:46
Yes.
00:01:46
Ms. Palmer?
00:01:47
Yes.
00:01:48
Mr. Randolph?
00:01:48
Aye.
00:01:49
Mr. Dill?
SPEAKER_03
00:01:49
Yes.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:01:51
Thank you, everyone.
00:01:52
And let me introduce to our right Officer Beach and, whoops, Officer Vandiver, there he is in the back.
00:01:58
Thank you both very much for being here.
00:02:00
County Attorney Greg Kamptner and our County Executive Jeff Richardson on the left and
00:02:06
Claudette Borgersen, our clerk is there behind so if you need anything to leave with us please talk to Claudette and she will make sure that we get whatever information you want to provide.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:02:19
And are there brief announcements by board members as we move on to that item?
00:02:25
I'll just have a couple of shorties.
00:02:32
This Thursday at noon, tomorrow, the ribbon cutting will occur for the new dementia unit at the Mountainside Senior Living in Crozet, which has been a long talked about and very, very needed 20 more beds there in that third floor.
00:02:47
So all are welcome to come.
00:02:49
You may have seen on the news that last Saturday night was a big stampede of the spotted salamanders on Polar Grounds Road.
00:02:55
We did not get over to Rio Mills to check on the ones on that side, but 40-some transplanted and only three casualties, so that was a record for success over the last 20 years, and we're very excited.
00:03:07
There were more than 30 people who showed up during a five-hour period, which really made a big difference.
00:03:11
and they're still on rainy warm nights going to be moving either uphill or downhill for the next several weeks so drivers please beware.
00:03:19
Appreciate that.
00:03:22
Water went over the Sugar Hollow Dam starting yesterday which makes me feel a whole lot better.
00:03:26
and the last thing is September 28th.
00:03:30
The last Friday in September in this building will be the third of the River Basin Renaissance Conferences and the focus is about the built environment and how it affects the river and vice versa from history and today and tomorrow and the program is still being worked out.
00:03:48
Keep that on your calendars.
00:03:49
And then Saturday, September 29th, there will be, God willing in good weather, all sorts of wonderful activities on the water.
00:03:56
So hopefully you will be able to mark that on your calendar.
00:04:00
And if there are no other things that have been remembered, we can move on.
00:04:05
I do not see any proclamation.
00:04:07
Oh yes, did you have one?
00:04:08
Go ahead.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:04:08
No, I was trying to remember.
00:04:09
I just looked at my calendar.
00:04:10
No, I don't have anything.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:04:12
Okay.
00:04:13
Very good.
00:04:16
And then, I do not see any proclamations or recognitions at the moment, so we will move on to matters from the public.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
SPEAKER_03
00:04:23
Okay, and we have one person signed up on our list here, Paul Grady, if you could come forward and give your name and where you live, and you have three minutes to speak.
00:04:34
I think you know how that works.
SPEAKER_01
00:04:38
Thank you.
00:04:40
My name is Paul Grady and I live just outside of Crozet and I am speaking as a private citizen.
00:04:47
There have been a number of discussions going on recently about the revenue sharing agreement between the county and the city of Charlottesville, but there is one subject that has been consistently overlooked.
00:05:01
Whereas annexation is under a moratorium, a negotiated boundary adjustment is still quite legal.
00:05:09
No one can say that the Charlottesville boundary is logical.
00:05:13
One would think that I-64 was the southern boundary, but instead it is Bent Creek, which is just north of the 5th Street Station Parkway that now connects 5th Street and Avon Street and is the northern boundary of the 5th Street Station development.
00:05:31
One would think that the Rivanna River was the eastern boundary, but yet part of the Woollenbills neighborhood is in the county.
00:05:39
While I believe all of Penn Park is now in the city, the CHS football field is still in the county.
00:05:46
The university is in the county, not the city.
00:05:50
The Albemarle County Courthouse is still part of the county.
00:05:54
Perhaps the Ragon Mountain Reservoir should become part of the city, which would eliminate a point of contention between the city and the county.
00:06:02
So as you continue to negotiate with the city on many levels, I would hope that you would add a boundary adjustment to your arsenal of options.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:06:12
Thank you.
00:06:13
Thank you, Paul.
SPEAKER_03
00:06:14
Thank you.
00:06:14
Is there anybody else who would like to speak that didn't get a chance to sign up?
00:06:19
I guess not.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:06:20
All right.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet)
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:06:22
Then we will move on to our next item, which is the consent agenda.
00:06:28
Does anyone have any questions in addition to myself about any items on the consent agenda?
00:06:33
All right.
00:06:34
Then I will ask Attorney Herrick to come up because my question is about 8.2 and the building regulations, especially referring to sort of maintenance issues and that kind of thing.
00:06:45
So if you can give us a little extra information on that.
00:06:48
Thank you.
SPEAKER_08
00:06:48
Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Herrick with the County Attorney's Office.
00:06:51
Ms. Malek, I think your question was about specifically the proposed section 7-302.
00:06:56
Yes.
00:06:57
Or excuse me, 5-302.
00:07:00
And that has to do with a special provision of state law that allows derelict structures to be demolished with the written consent of the owner.
00:07:09
It's an enabling authority that we don't currently exercise.
00:07:14
We do have the authority to remove dangerous structures under current section 5-300.
00:07:19
This would be taking advantage of some enabling authority that we don't currently have.
00:07:24
And again, the enabling authority that we don't currently exercise is only with the consent of the owner.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:07:31
So adopting 302, which we have the authority to do but haven't adopted yet, will give us more ability to do things differently.
SPEAKER_08
00:07:41
One more tool in the toolbox, again, that can only be exercised with the owner's consent.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:07:46
And then if we had a stronger maintenance ordinance, that would give us more influence to require something to be done if we pass that later.
SPEAKER_08
00:07:55
That's correct.
00:07:56
And the maintenance code isn't something that we're addressing through recodification.
00:08:00
We're looking at addressing and sort of cleaning up the existing sections.
00:08:05
We weren't looking at the maintenance code, although that's certainly an option for the board in the future.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:08:09
But this is the category where it would live if we-
SPEAKER_08
00:08:11
That would be in Chapter 5, yes ma'am.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:08:13
Alright, thank you very much.
00:08:15
And I will take this opportunity to remind the board that when we adopted the blight ordinance we said at that time we would come back to the maintenance code and look at it.
00:08:25
And it's interesting that you mention it because I pulled out my little purple maintenance code book the other day and I'm starting to read it to just see because there is state enabling legislation.
00:08:36
But that's a discussion for another time.
00:08:39
But I would like to at some point come back to that.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:08:41
Well, we need to keep reminding that that's on the list.
00:08:43
Thank you.
SPEAKER_05
00:08:44
I think Mark may know better, but based on a very brief discussion that I had yesterday, Monday with Amelia, was that they're still doing some of the research.
00:08:59
I don't know if they've completed the inventory yet.
00:09:04
Inventoring the housing stock for the second part of the Chapter 5 provisions, the maintenance code part, and other amendments that we might be considering.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:09:18
Lisa Green mentioned that it was still underway.
00:09:20
That's great.
00:09:21
Thank you, Andy.
00:09:22
That's great.
00:09:23
All right.
00:09:24
Do we have a motion on the consent agenda?
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:09:27
Motion to approve the consent agenda.
00:09:29
Second.
SPEAKER_12
00:09:31
Mr. Galloway?
00:09:32
Yes.
00:09:32
Ms. McKeel?
00:09:33
Yes.
00:09:34
Ms. Mallek?
00:09:34
Yes.
00:09:35
Ms. Palmer?
00:09:36
Yes.
00:09:36
Mr. Randolph?
00:09:37
Aye.
00:09:37
Mr. Dill?
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:09:38
Yes.
9. Old Trail Creekside V, Phases I & II Subdivision Acceptance of Dedication of Open Space
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:09:39
Thank you all.
00:09:41
Next item is our action item, Old Trail Creekside phases one and two.
00:09:46
And Cameron Langeal is going to help us.
00:09:47
Good afternoon.
SPEAKER_09
00:10:02
Good evening, everyone.
00:10:03
My name is Cameron Langell and I'm a senior planner with the Department of Community Development.
00:10:08
I will be presenting the staff presentation and recommendation on this agenda item, which is the acceptance of 2.085 acres of open space to the county.
00:10:24
So to begin, I just want to talk about the parcels that we're looking at.
00:10:28
Both these parcels are associated with two separate subdivision plats that we have in for review right now.
00:10:34
The first one is Old Trail Creekside 5 Phase 1, which is located on Tax Map Parcel 5578A.
00:10:39
It's the parcel at the bottom left of your screen.
00:10:44
It measures 4.107 acres and is zoned R1 residential.
00:10:48
Old Trail Creekside 5 Phase 2 is located on Tax Map Parcel 5578C, which measures 3.109 acres.
00:10:58
Both of these parcels are located in Crozet.
00:11:02
Creekside 5 Phase 1 is about a half mile to the west of the intersection between Old Trail Drive and Jarmons Gap Road.
00:11:10
both these parcels front Orange Armors Gap Road 5578C which is where phase 2 is located is about 1,500 feet west of that intersection.
00:11:22
So this image shows the proposed division of Creekside 5 Phase 1.
00:11:28
They're proposing to do four lots, which are located on the right hand side along Birmingham Court.
00:11:34
The area that you see in blue is the open space parcel that they're proposing to dedicate to us.
00:11:40
It measures 0.941 acres.
00:11:44
So both Creekside 5 Phase 1 and Phase 2 are what we call bonus level cluster development subdivisions.
00:11:50
The applicant is asking for three separate bonus factors.
00:11:54
Two of those are administrative in nature and they include doing internal streets within the development and then also doing landscaping along the street.
00:12:02
That would grant them a 15% bonus density.
00:12:06
With the dedication of land to the county, they would get an additional 15% to make a 30% overall bonus density increase.
00:12:15
By right, they could develop in phase one, three lots.
00:12:19
With this dedication of open space, they'll be able to go up to four.
00:12:24
If they didn't do the open space and they just did the other 15%, they would still only be able to do three lots.
00:12:30
One thing I do want to talk about on this image here is you can see, if you look closely,
00:12:38
that the applicant is proposing a trail across the open space parcel as well as onto some adjacent open space which we currently own.
00:12:49
That trail does not exist yet, but the reason they're doing it is to provide a pedestrian connection for the current residents of Old Trail Creek side as well as the residents that would move into these two new phases.
00:13:01
This is an exhibit that was included in the staff report.
00:13:06
What it shows is the extension continuation of that new proposed trail across the open space that we currently own.
00:13:13
So it's up here again.
00:13:14
You saw this in the previous slide.
00:13:16
And then it continues further to the south.
00:13:19
And this inset exhibit on the slide itself actually continues the trail further down.
00:13:25
And it will connect to an existing trail we have
00:13:28
on other open space parcels that run through the center of Old Trail Creekside.
00:13:34
So this is Creekside 5 Phase 2, the subdivision plat.
00:13:37
They're proposing five lots in this phase.
00:13:41
The area in blue, again, is the open space parcel that they're proposing to dedicate.
00:13:45
It measures 1.144 acres.
00:13:48
They're asking for all the same bonus factors in this phase.
00:13:51
By right, they could develop
00:13:54
Three lots right now in phase five if they didn't do any bonus factors.
00:14:00
With the first 15% that's administrative, they could do four lots.
00:14:04
And with the additional 15% through the open space dedication would bring them up to five.
00:14:10
You can also see the trail again that they're proposing to do.
00:14:13
It will actually go all the way up to where the property fronts on Jarman's Gap Road.
00:14:18
Then it continues down across this parcel here, which we currently own.
00:14:24
and then continues on to the west to the same pieces of land where that existing Greenway Trail is right now.
00:14:32
So staff recommends approval of this request.
00:14:34
We've worked with the applicant and staff from Parks and Rec, and these trails will be either built or bonded with the review of the road plans that are associated with this subdivision plat.
00:14:47
I believe that the applicant's here tonight, but they're proposing to actually build them, not bond them.
00:14:51
Once they're constructed and installed, the Crozet Trails Crew, which is a 501C3 non-profit organization, they have said that they would be willing to take over maintenance of these trails.
00:15:04
They currently maintain some other trails out in Crozet.
00:15:07
Dan Mahon with Parks and Rec works with them very frequently, and he's talked with them about this request, and they're all for it, so there's no concerns about maintenance costs if we do accept this open space.
00:15:23
So these are the motions.
00:15:26
I can switch back to these, but that pretty much concludes the staff presentation.
00:15:29
If anyone has questions, I'd be happy to answer.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:15:31
All right.
00:15:32
Questions, everyone.
00:15:36
One extra tidbit I was told by Parks is this will also connect the folks who live in Gray Rock to the north of Germans Gap.
00:15:42
There are four neighborhoods all interconnected on the north side, and to get them on trails across to the south side and then be able to connect to Western Park off the road will really be great.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:15:54
Sounds great to me.
00:15:55
I'm glad to see them going in.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:15:57
Yes, I'm glad to see them being constructed right away.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:16:00
That's really exciting.
00:16:01
And the community's willing to take them over and it's just, I don't know how you could ask for anything better, but I'm sure there's something out there.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:16:09
The Crozet Trails crew is a very busy group of test masters and they require Dan to have an assignment for them every Saturday.
00:16:17
And that's a big job when you're
00:16:19
have all these people with shovels and whackers ready to go to work.
00:16:23
So that's great.
00:16:23
So our recommendation is to adopt the resolution in attachment A, approving the acceptance of the dedication of open space and authorizing the county executive to execute the deed of dedication in easement.
00:16:37
And the easements are in attachments B and C after approval by the county attorney.
00:16:42
So I will move that long-winded motion and hopefully someone will second.
SPEAKER_12
00:16:49
Gallaway?
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:16:50
Yes.
SPEAKER_12
00:16:51
McKeel?
00:16:52
Yes.
00:16:52
Ms. Mallek?
00:16:53
Yes.
00:16:54
Ms. Palmer?
00:16:54
Yes.
00:16:55
Mr. Randolph?
00:16:56
Aye.
00:16:56
Mr. Dill?
SPEAKER_03
00:16:57
Yes.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:16:59
Thank you, Cameron.
SPEAKER_09
00:17:01
You're welcome.
00:17:01
Thank you.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:17:02
I'll do better to try to pronounce your name right next time.
00:17:04
It's difficult.
00:17:05
You may have to remind me four or five more times, I'm afraid.
00:17:08
Very good.
10. Rio/29 Small Area Plan - Overview of Implementation
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:17:10
Next on the agenda is a work session on the Rio 29 small area plan.
00:17:15
Overview of implementation and Rachel Falkenstein is going to help us.
00:17:24
and Andrew Gasparay.
00:17:29
Thank you, Scott.
SPEAKER_10
00:17:32
I have the, Madam Chair and members of the board, I have the privilege of starting us off tonight.
00:17:40
We are talking about a lot of the hard work that has been going on trying to connect with a lot of moving parts to create a new potential center of some sort at the Rio 29 area.
00:17:55
We are going to be talking briefly about where we've been because we need to be cognizant of the schedule.
00:18:04
We are trying to make sure that the schedule addresses the needs of where we are today.
00:18:13
That is the focus of the discussion this evening.
00:18:16
However, we do have slides about implementation to whet your appetite to some of the discussion that we're going to have since the last time we spoke.
00:18:25
You had expressed a lot of interest in implementation, but there's a lot to chew on, so we're trying to introduce some concepts to you.
00:18:33
So if we have some time, we might introduce some of those things, but there's nothing that you have to decide tonight about implementation.
00:18:39
We're simply looking for guidance mostly on the schedule this evening.
00:18:45
So as a reminder, and I think that there is, this is a difficult concept for many to grasp and I think that that's been some of the challenge we faced.
00:18:56
This is an opportunity plan.
00:18:58
We are presenting what could hopefully happen at this area, not what will happen.
00:19:06
There is no forcing of any particular agenda other than trying to encourage the
00:19:13
Landowners, the stakeholders, the developers to hopefully be enticed to join us in making some of these things happen that the residents of Albemarle County have expressed a desire to have.
00:19:27
That is mixed use development with transit orientation.
00:19:31
and all of the goals that are in our comp plan this is a great opportunity for that but no one's forcing anyone to do anything we are simply trying to demonstrate that this is feasible and this is something that we can all do and I think that that
00:19:47
illustrates in a sense the difficulty of expressing that concept has some people nervous about being forced to do things.
00:19:55
So that's why we are going to look at the schedule and see if we can't revisit that in a more constructive, proactive way.
00:20:02
With that, I turn it over to Rachel.
SPEAKER_07
00:20:05
Thank you, Andrew.
00:20:07
So I wanted to start by talking about sort of where we've been.
00:20:10
I'll start with a quick summary of engagement.
00:20:14
I'm not going to go through this line by line, but I wanted to show some of the efforts we've made during the first two phases of the project.
00:20:21
We've tried to vary the opportunities for engagement to reach out to people in different ways.
00:20:26
So rather than asking everyone to always come out to us to community meetings, we've tried to go to them.
00:20:31
We've done PTO meetings, outreach at soccer games, HOA meetings, tried to do a little bit different things to reach different groups of people.
00:20:41
Phase two was a more focused attempt to work with our stakeholders.
00:20:46
We formed steering committee and work group, compromised of stakeholders, property owners, business owners, developers in the area to start to work through some of the draft products.
00:20:56
and then not shown on this is a lot of one-on-one conversations we've had with property owners and stakeholders as well as focus groups comprised of practitioners and staff with special focuses.
00:21:11
So we hope to continue to have a robust engagement process but we welcome any feedback on how we continue to get better on this engagement moving forward.
00:21:21
I also want to touch base on where we've been sort of milestones on the project and see how that lines up with the strategic plan.
00:21:29
So your strategic plan objectives that you set back in 2016 are on the top of the timeline, the big milestones you've laid out as to how you'd like to see this project proceed, and then we've got our timeline showing the three phases, two phases we've completed to date, and then on the bottom are the board actions to date.
00:21:47
I think this timeline demonstrates that we've tried to be responsive to the desire from the board to hear, to get more information on the project, to see more detailed design plans.
00:21:59
We've hopefully been responsive to that feedback.
00:22:03
We also feel like we've heard from the board a desire for more engagement.
00:22:08
So we've tried to do that, but what we think, where we are today, we're not really set up to bring a form-based code to you by the deadline of May 2018.
00:22:20
So that's what I want to talk about moving forward, what the schedule should look like today.
00:22:25
So I'm going to present two alternatives for moving forward.
00:22:28
One we're calling the more expedited process, loosely based on the strategic plan deadlines, but delays built in based on where we are today.
00:22:40
and then what we're calling option two is a more comprehensive process and you'll see it provides more opportunity for engagement and feedback.
00:22:51
I will point out both schedules assume a form-based code.
00:22:54
The board really hasn't decided on that specifically to date.
00:22:58
You'll have an opportunity at an upcoming meeting to do so.
00:23:02
But as you'll see between the two, the level of engagement between the board, stakeholders and citizens vary drastically between these two.
00:23:11
So option one, the expedited process would take us quickly into, and I should, I'm sorry, I should explain what the acronyms are.
00:23:20
FPC is form-based code, CPA is comp plan amendment.
00:23:25
So the next step in the expedited process would be to move quickly into comp plan amendment drafting and then take that through the legal process of public hearings with the board and planning commission.
00:23:36
Shortly after that we would have an opportunity for input on the form-based code design elements where we ask for input from the board and stakeholders and the public and then staff would turn that into code writing over a couple of months of intense code writing and hopefully be able to bring back to you a draft code by the end of the year.
00:23:56
You'll recall you're working with SanTech to do the pre-marketing work that's going on now scheduled to be completed in early summer.
00:24:04
That will parallel the comp plan amendment process and won't have opportunity to allow staff to refine the comp plan amendment just because of the compressed timeline.
00:24:17
So we'll talk about pros and cons of each approach.
00:24:19
The benefit to the compressed timeline is we've actually heard from property owners who would like to develop to a form-based code, and they're waiting to see if the county's going to adopt a form-based code.
00:24:29
So this is more advantageous for those property owners.
00:24:32
And as I mentioned, this more closely resembles your strategic plan with the previous delays built in.
00:24:39
The cons of this approach is it's pretty resource intensive in the short term.
00:24:43
It will require reprioritizing across departments.
00:24:47
We would need a lot of work with the county attorney's department to write a code in such a short timeline and may take work from other priorities ETAs that you all have identified.
00:25:00
As you can see, limited public engagement with this compressed timeline.
00:25:05
Less opportunity to refine the designs based on the consultant work.
00:25:08
As I mentioned, the timelines don't work out well if we proceed on this route.
00:25:13
And then the resulting code may be less comprehensive.
00:25:16
We're not sure if we have an ability to write a really sophisticated code in this amount of time, but could probably get something more basic with the basic form-based elements built in.
00:25:28
Option two, we're calling a more comprehensive process.
00:25:32
Option two would be staff's recommended timeline.
00:25:35
This is because the schedule reflects the feedback we think we've heard to date from the board, though.
00:25:40
Welcome your discussion on this.
00:25:42
Not to rush towards a comp plan amendment and to provide ample time for public education, public input, and back and forth feedback with the property owners.
00:25:54
So as you see, the timeline allows a little bit more time for comp plan amendment drafting and refinement.
00:26:00
It lines up better with the consultant work, even builds in time for additional analysis if needed.
00:26:06
And then another public outreach opportunity prior to moving the comp plan amendment to public hearings and adoption.
00:26:14
and that would get us to adoption by the end of this year of a comp plan amendment and then the next year would be focused on the form-based code drafting.
00:26:23
And the way I've laid this out here is showing a sort of back and forth negotiation process where we have a public outreach opportunity, we go back and do some code writing, another opportunity for outreach and feedback based on what we've written and repeat that process throughout the year to get us to a form-based code by December 19th.
00:26:46
Pros of this approach is it's more proper sequencing of events, allows the consultant work to happen prior to the comp plan amendment drafting and adoption, followed by the form-based code drafting and adoption.
00:26:58
It's a more robust opportunity for engagement, as I had pointed out, allows time for additional analysis, and more time to plan for and identify resources that will be needed to do the work ahead of us.
00:27:13
The con for this approach is it delays for those who are ready to develop.
00:27:17
As I said, we have talked to property owners who said they would like to develop to a form-based code.
00:27:21
It would be their preference rather than having to go through a rezoning process.
00:27:26
We think a possible solution for this could be staff to provide some technical assistance and an expedited review process for a neighborhood model zoning district if we had an applicant who was willing to do so.
00:27:38
And if we did that, it could sort of act like a pilot test for the form-based code elements, though one caution is that if we did it that route, it could pull staff resources away from the comp plan amendment and form-based code work.
00:27:52
So I'm gonna bring it back to this slide showing option one and option two side by side.
00:27:57
As I said, option two would represent staff's recommendation for moving forward.
00:28:03
We think this lines up with the feedback we've heard from you all at previous meetings and also more closely lines up with staff's previous experiences in doing master planning and code amendment work.
00:28:16
So I'd like to pause here for feedback and discussion.
00:28:18
Happy to answer any questions.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:28:22
I'll throw out one question to start the ball rolling.
00:28:24
So give us an example of what the Complan amendment would say.
00:28:30
We're allowing newer uses in this quadrant, changing the definition of the quadrant.
00:28:37
I mean, how extensive is that?
SPEAKER_07
00:28:40
This is the comp plan amendment would be sort of a mini master plan.
00:28:44
It would be a standalone document that would talk about the connectivity plan that we showed you last time.
00:28:49
It would talk about the forum and the designs, the expectations for performance.
00:28:54
It would talk about implementation recommendations.
00:28:56
that would talk a little bit about land use, but it'd be less focused on land use because we're shifting towards a form-based code.
00:29:05
Form-based code would be the recommendation.
00:29:08
There might be, for example, we would talk form-based code looks at uses on the first floor.
00:29:16
We would want activated first floor uses so that you'd have public coming and going.
00:29:20
Your residential and office might be on the top.
00:29:24
We don't anticipate getting very prescriptive on uses other than that.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:29:29
That would to be avoided is the prescription but so I did I was mentally thinking that the CPA would be the umbrella that would enable the Formase code to operate under it and we wouldn't have to have all that duplication of blah blah blah that's all so that was my first part of the question which sounds like I was wrong about that but the only experience I have with Formase code is our version in the Crozet downtown district which is how tall we want them to be how close we want them to be the street and that we want
00:29:58
active things on the first floor and let the rest of it go and leave that up to the applicants.
00:30:03
So is that still sort of the same idea or are you planning to do something a lot more detailed in which case then we run the danger of going back to the color of the doorknobs and I don't want to get back to that either so help me understand this please.
SPEAKER_07
00:30:18
Well, a lot of that would depend on the feedback we hear from you and from the community and from the stakeholders.
00:30:24
We think it would be somewhere between the color of the doorknobs and what Crozet, downtown Crozet district is, but we don't know that.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:30:33
But it wouldn't necessarily have to be a lot more detailed than what we can, basically what we've already done in 2010.
00:30:39
Just make it a little more described to this particular crossroads.
00:30:44
Correct.
00:30:45
Okay, I'll stop there.
SPEAKER_03
00:30:45
Would the comp plan amendment be applicable just to a certain geographical area or how does that...
SPEAKER_07
00:30:51
Yes, it would be the Rio 29 area.
00:30:55
Would that be defined?
SPEAKER_03
00:30:57
Would we have specific areas so that the property owners would know whether they're in or out of the district?
SPEAKER_10
00:31:07
One of the possibilities, and again we have not decided this, is offering an optional form-based code so they could stay with what they have but have an area of overlay that would enable those within that district to opt for this
00:31:25
More intense development that meets our performance guidelines for proper form, proper connectivity, etc.
00:31:32
That's one of the things we're looking at but again that all has to be determined and agreed to because again we're not buying a whole bunch of land and making this stuff happen ourselves so we really need to partner with the community so that's one of the reasons why we wanted to make sure we had enough engagement time to make them comfortable with that.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:31:51
and some of that engagement may be getting somebody to be the pioneer and once that happens and that's if it's optional then when one comes forward others will go oh yeah I either hate that or I think that's really great and I want to do it too there's almost no way to achieve it without I don't see anybody jumping into this on paper but anyway that's just me sorry
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:32:10
Liz, I don't mean to interrupt but I need this clarified because you said this would be specific to the Wario 29 quadrant and I asked this question yesterday and was told the exact opposite.
00:32:19
It wouldn't be limited to just one node.
00:32:22
So I need that clear.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:32:22
Oh no, it's all four corners for sure.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:32:24
But I mean in everything in between.
00:32:25
Not all four quadrants.
00:32:27
I'm talking about everything up and down the 29 corridor.
00:32:30
Pantops would be included.
00:32:31
Let me let me clarify that the intent is this is a pilot
SPEAKER_10
00:32:48
I want to thank you all for being here today.
00:33:04
Not necessarily identical, preferably not.
00:33:07
There would hopefully be opportunities for different character, but hydraulic might have a similar organizational structure for the part that's in the county, Pantops, etc.
00:33:18
But we wanted to start somewhere where we could vet it, get it working, and see what it is.
00:33:23
Because remember that if we have a certain kind of development at Rio that takes from our pool,
00:33:30
and we have to be cognizant of that at Pantops, Crozet, the southern and western neighborhoods and the northern areas as well.
00:33:41
So we want to be able to adjust the model to suit the character of the area that is designed.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:33:47
So we would be doing separate comprehensive plan amendments for every node?
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:33:51
Yes.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:33:53
And what about in between the nodes?
SPEAKER_10
00:33:56
At this point we are looking at concentrating on the nodes to get them right because we get 80% of what the county is hoping to achieve by focusing on the nodes.
00:34:06
The residential areas are a little bit more reticent to have major changes to them in between.
00:34:13
So we try to, we may offer guidance, kind of like Crozet has guidelines that may recommend things.
00:34:20
But they have been showing a little bit of reluctance to embrace this overall.
00:34:25
Although that is obviously, if it were really successful, it could be a future evolution in which we'd extend a form-based code to the county as a whole.
00:34:33
But that's unusual nowadays because it is such a large county and that's a lot of things to take into account.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:34:39
Well, I mean, when you look at the hydraulic area, then going up 29, and then to the Rio 29, then continuing up, and then to Hollymead, I mean, that's all, you know, is a cohesive corridor.
00:34:51
If you want to take Pantops down that, etc.
00:34:53
But I would think all of that would need to align, and these comp plan amendments would all be similar.
00:34:58
So why wouldn't you do an umbrella for that entire corridor that would fit in the nodes and the tweeners?
00:35:07
I don't know what to call these places between these nodes, but it just seems like a lot of extra comp plan amendments if the concept is going to be the same all the way up the corridor.
00:35:19
I get pilot if you want to do a pilot.
00:35:21
and I'm hearing from folks that maybe are interested in getting rolling that aren't in the node and can they can they go for it if they're not in one of these four quadrants and I personally don't think that that should be restrictive I'd like to see them get at it but you know there again this goes to a question that I thought I thought a very different answer when I asked it before that I heard a different answer tonight
SPEAKER_10
00:35:46
Well, I think that it's important to clarify a couple things.
00:35:50
We are trying to, and phase one was very distinct about developing in the form of nodes.
00:35:56
So in pulse nodes they were called based on the ULI terminology such that
00:36:02
We don't want, you know, part of the problem with sprawl is it tends to make everything the same and that's sort of the way that the zoning has been hitherto and what we're trying to do is concentrate in a more cost effective for the county and better revenue generating situation for the county and not impacting as many neighbors by concentrating the efforts and key locations up the corridor and we do plan to have multiple nodes up there but the format
00:36:30
will be determined largely by the performance of a given node.
00:36:35
So we might have other nodes up there.
00:36:38
In fact, a lot of the patterns that have been posited are already thinking along those lines.
00:36:45
You've had development proposals a lot with that in the mind.
00:36:50
And let's remember that
00:36:52
we want to make this transit accessible and if we have a transit that stops every block essentially down 29 it's no longer rapid transit and so we really need to concentrate our efforts in order to get a better efficiency of all the offerings of the area and this has been shown to be the best so I think I see the confusion in that we
00:37:15
Once we develop the pattern, it seems like, oh, we have to do this and reinvent it every time.
00:37:21
But we're actually developing patterns that are more suited to the way we live and hope to live.
00:37:26
And that's what we'll be replicating rather than just spreading out a given code over an entire area.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:37:33
I will jump in and ask Mark to please come up and remind us of the history of Places 29, which took five years because it was too big.
00:37:41
And each neighborhood kept saying, wait a minute, we want to be in a small area so that we can have our ideas addressed in this lump here, so please.
SPEAKER_11
00:37:51
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development.
00:37:54
Before I start with that I just might say Mr. Galloway is being very gracious in not calling me out.
00:38:01
I was the person he was talking to and the point I was trying to make
00:38:06
yesterday was, when we talked, was could you have a similar form of development happening between these nodes?
00:38:14
Could you have the same buildings pushed to the street with the same vertical mixed use?
00:38:20
And my answer is yes, of course, you could do that.
00:38:22
But the nodes are where we would put our focus and our efforts, recognizing we have limited resources
00:38:29
that we can't invest in the infrastructure everywhere at once so we focus it on these nodes and try to work there and then work out from there over time but if somebody in the meantime outside of one of those nodes wants to come in
00:38:46
with that form of development for their property, I think we'd be very open to allow them to do that.
00:38:53
So I hope that kind of- Now that helps.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:38:56
Look, the public service delivery part of this, the nodes make perfect sense.
00:39:00
I get that.
00:39:02
The private development part of this doesn't fit in my head into these nodes.
00:39:07
And I guess I'm trying to marry that.
00:39:10
And if we're writing code for the private development piece,
00:39:13
I don't think it efficient to write code for separate quadrants all over the place.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:39:21
I would expect the standards are going to be consistent.
00:39:24
It's just the description of each individual one is what's going to be different.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:39:28
But I get it.
00:39:29
I mean, the transit station in these nodes and the public, the green spaces, that's not going to exist everywhere.
00:39:34
That wouldn't make sense to.
00:39:35
I get that.
00:39:36
But the economic development needs that I would like to see happen in the Rio district seems to me to say, well, let's not just focus or limit it to the quadrant if opportunity exists.
00:39:50
And if we get fenced in on these four quadrants, I don't want to miss an opportunity somewhere else.
00:39:58
And if that means that this can help or if we do a comp plan amendment just for this quadrant, I don't want it to be restrictive enough in nature that it can't help us get something else in motion.
00:40:08
And I'm late to the party here, but I don't know if anyone would agree with that, but that's where I'm at on it.
SPEAKER_03
00:40:12
I don't think there's that much difference in what you're saying.
SPEAKER_11
00:40:15
I don't think so either.
00:40:16
Back to Ms. Mallek's question about the Places 29, we anticipated a similar thing type of development in the Places 29 process.
00:40:27
We talked about a midtown and an uptown as being those no
00:40:34
priority node areas where we were going to focus.
00:40:37
So Places 29 kind of recognized already that Rio 29 would be the first place we would take a detailed look.
00:40:46
and try to figure out how this is really going to all fit together.
00:40:51
And if the county's got a limited amount of resources, where are we best positioned to spend those resources to support development efforts that match our land use plan?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:41:06
and in phases.
00:41:07
So this is the first phase.
00:41:09
The second phase is either north or south.
00:41:11
We don't know which.
SPEAKER_11
00:41:11
That kind of thing.
00:41:13
Just as Andrew said, this would be a pilot.
00:41:15
This would be something we would roll out to all the other areas as we finish up with the pilot.
00:41:23
A beta, if you will, if you want to think in terms of software development.
00:41:28
This is our test case to make sure we're getting it all right as we move forward.
00:41:34
So we've got to be a little flexible.
00:41:36
as we're doing this.
00:41:37
But the intent is that if somebody wants to develop to this form, they're not going to be limited to doing that by being in a node.
00:41:47
The same form can happen outside of the nodes.
SPEAKER_04
00:41:52
But you're also, and to answer Ned's question here and his point,
00:41:59
The previous model of development was uniformity.
00:42:04
And what Andrew was speaking to is the need to not impose a uniform paradigm that is consistently applied node by node by node.
00:42:16
determining the characteristics and the character of the community that is around that node and centered in that node.
00:42:24
What is appropriate in terms of coding and that will be slightly different.
00:42:30
It will not necessarily be exactly the same as you look at all of these localities including Pantops.
00:42:36
So we have to throw out the old paradigm of conformity and consistency and just look at the fact that you're going to have to have much more flexibility and it's more suitable to the location.
00:42:49
I think that's the point that you're trying to make here.
00:42:52
and he's not, Andrew therefore is not suggesting that this is the only site and you know that you cannot then try to incorporate what is going to be utilized in this first note elsewhere but it's going to be refined, tweaked, it's going to be slightly different as we move forward and that's part of the creativity
00:43:16
here are this process.
00:43:17
So it's unlike anything we've done in the county outside of Crozet before, so it's going to be distinctly different.
00:43:26
I did want to get to a question that I think is the central question, one of two central questions that you are putting before us for the two alternatives for moving forward, and that is
00:43:40
In looking at the longer schedule, the more drawn out schedule, it does imperil the possibility there could be developers who are ready to step up and participate in this process.
00:43:54
And really I think to help the board make a decision on which scenario seems to be best and most appropriate.
00:44:04
is to try to give us an ideal right now without getting into providing any kind of privileged information.
00:44:12
How many developers are there that are in fact are eager, willing, and motivated to step forward?
00:44:20
How many people do we have on our dance card currently that if we were to say, let's go with the shorter schedule,
00:44:29
that those individuals would be prepared to tango with the county and move forward on this.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:44:38
And may I just add something to this because this is my same question.
00:44:42
The second half of that is that we've heard from property owners and managers with long leases where the leases are locked in.
00:44:55
So could this be a disadvantage for some of those?
00:45:00
And of course I am worried about the issue with showing roads that could interfere with future work and leasing.
00:45:10
So anyway, second half of that question.
SPEAKER_10
00:45:13
Well, I'll try to answer some of them.
00:45:16
If I forget one of them, please let me know.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:45:19
Pros and cons.
SPEAKER_10
00:45:19
Pros and cons, yes.
00:45:22
I think to your first question, which was how many, we've had differing levels, we've had a number of people interested at differing levels.
00:45:31
some are more chomping at the bit than others but we've had a lot of interest in this some are waiting to see what other people do but it is by no means just one entity by any means and differing degrees of that so someone may be wanting to cabbage off of somebody else doing that as soon as they go forward so at this point that's why I had Rachel show this because I think this is a great idea that they came up with
00:46:00
the expedited review through using the neighborhood model district which allows us to do this
00:46:09
that we could embed a form-based code within that and staff could help develop one as a regulating code if an applicant comes forward with that.
00:46:20
So it would allow us to sort of have a pilot within a pilot, dare I say, in which we could actually test this out to see if it generates the kind of work that we have, limiting it to somebody who's willing to try that without impacting negatively
00:46:37
on a larger scale.
00:46:38
So that is an opportunity for us to look at, which could be done independent of this schedule.
00:46:44
Although keeping in mind that we don't want to fall prey to what member Galloway had just said,
00:46:52
You don't want to keep going through and reinventing this for every single one.
00:46:55
But I think in an early phase, it's a great opportunity for us.
00:46:59
The second piece of that was as to the nature of roads.
00:47:05
We already require in our current developments that there is connectivity.
00:47:09
That is so key to almost everything that we do.
00:47:13
And that is most important for those trying to develop, whenever that is.
00:47:21
if you do not have the proper connectivity you are forcing the same kind of development we've had which is you basically have to drive everywhere so you need a huge parking lot so by having this connected network now we're not forcing people to do that
00:47:36
out of turn or when they're not ready, we are simply mostly getting out of the way and trying to remove obstacles to help enable this connectivity when most of those developments or redevelopment if they chose to do this so would be required to have connectivity based on the ordinance that we have now.
00:47:57
So I think that's all to the good.
00:48:00
Did I miss something there?
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:48:02
I guess my part of the question that I added to Rick's was if we went with the shorter timeline, how would it affect those folks with the longer leases, would it, that are not ready at all?
00:48:16
I was trying to take what staff has not recommended if we did the shorter timeline.
SPEAKER_10
00:48:22
If we did that, it is possible that we might gain a little bit of an advantage in time for those who are in the most hurry because we'd be opening it up more quickly.
00:48:33
There is, by the way we've been hearing and the way we are programming right now, it will not affect those, you can stay doing what you're doing now.
00:48:43
Not, you know, your zoning, you're not being zoned out.
00:48:47
By looking at this as an optional form-based code, you're not forced to do this.
00:48:54
And you would stick with what you have now as your zoning.
00:48:58
And that would stay.
00:49:00
If you want to redevelop,
00:49:02
you're probably going to be forced to put that connectivity piece in anyway if you were going to apply for a rezoning so why not go with the better zoning that we're trying to put in which is this form-based coding that we're trying to do and so we're offering that as an option again this is an opportunity plan we're not at this point envisioning that being a requirement.
00:49:23
Does that answer your question?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:49:24
Yeah, I guess.
00:49:26
So it's an opportunity code.
00:49:28
Now, in response to Ned's earlier question about between properties, would they then have to have rezonings to get into this, or would this county-generated rezoning that is what this process is that we're talking about now, that would also be available for others who want to just adopt that form, even though they might be just outside the line, without a rezoning process?
SPEAKER_10
00:49:53
Well, eventually yes.
00:49:56
I think at first we're probably not trying to charge forward because if you try to do too many things at once, the law of unintended consequences might nip us.
00:50:06
And so I want to make sure that we are vetting this.
00:50:11
The beauty of the longer schedule is it would again allow the NMD process.
00:50:17
We could then take an example that would be on the outskirts or on the edge or in another area that we'd like to see.
00:50:24
Because when you think of a form-based code, you can actually say, well, I really see the main street being very different than what might be in a more residential quarter.
00:50:34
And so we might like to vet and take an opportunity if we have a willing development to say, oh, I'm in this area that's much more residential and I'd like to participate.
00:50:46
I'm not in that core, that tight area, but we'd like to do that.
00:50:50
This would be the same mechanism would go and it would meet the performance that we had set out for that area, but hadn't necessarily gotten to the code yet.
00:50:59
And that would allow us to vet that code in that context.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:51:03
What sort of application process would one have?
SPEAKER_07
00:51:07
So kind of a, I'll add that staff's recommendation in the short term would be form-based code is just focused on the Route 29 area as a pilot.
00:51:16
Now if someone else came to the board and said we'd really like to develop to this form-based code, there's nothing to say that they couldn't rezone to that as well.
00:51:25
But as Rick and Andrew both said, the code is gonna be focused on the area, the characteristics of the area, and we're really focusing on Route 29 when we write it.
00:51:37
We'll still have neighborhood model zoning district.
00:51:40
We'll have our existing zoning in place.
00:51:42
So if someone wanted to come and do a mixed use development, they'd still have the other tools that we have available.
SPEAKER_05
00:51:48
And under the current regulations, the county could not proactively rezone land to neighborhood model district because it requires an application plan and a code of development that the applicant has to prepare and submit.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:52:05
So unless we geographically establish the form-based code over all of the geography, then they would still be having that other process, the old process that you just described.
00:52:17
which is applications and okay.
SPEAKER_05
00:52:21
So if the county wanted to proactively rezone lands to the neighborhood model district, we would need to change those regulations just to change the process and the application requirements and all of that.
00:52:37
Those who have been on the board a long time may recall it would be a similar scenario when the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1980.
00:52:46
The county simply carried over the prior rezoning and we had planned districts, but there was not the application plan.
00:52:55
So we had people who couldn't do anything with their new plan district designation until they went through the process and submitted the plan.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:53:06
I'm probably just speaking for myself, but I am very surprised that we're talking about two years.
00:53:13
I'm taken back.
00:53:16
Not your fault.
00:53:18
I'm not being critical.
00:53:20
I just had no clue this last fall and winter when we were talking about foreign-based code that all of a sudden we were going to have a presentation that said you were recommending two years.
00:53:31
Andrew, help me out with this, or Rachel.
00:53:35
I'm very surprised and maybe I missed something along the way.
SPEAKER_04
00:53:43
Did you want it faster or slower?
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:53:47
I had no idea we were talking about two years from now.
SPEAKER_10
00:53:54
Well, I think that what Rachel has shown, if I may chime in.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:53:58
I'm sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding.
SPEAKER_10
00:54:00
No, no, no, no.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:54:01
That's what November 19 looks like, actually.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:54:02
That's November 19, yeah, which folks come to me and say, let's just do it.
00:54:09
I don't, anyway, okay.
SPEAKER_07
00:54:14
I think that's fair.
00:54:16
This is the first time we've brought this before you as a longer timeline, but we think it's reflective of a lot of the feedback we've heard.
00:54:24
This is an educational process.
00:54:26
It's something completely new for us, and to bring the community along, it just takes time.
00:54:31
Now, that's not to say that you can't go with the faster timeline, and we're perfectly willing to move forward with the faster timeline, but we wanted to sort of put on the table this as an option and some of the pros and cons of each.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:54:44
So the faster timeline, and my takeaway is the faster timeline requires more staff than we have.
00:54:53
I think that's my takeaway is that it's a staffing issue, because two years
SPEAKER_10
00:55:06
Let me phrase it this way.
00:55:07
I think that the factors are similar to Mr. Katz's talk.
00:55:14
He said that there's tweaks that are necessary that are coming if you go with the fast track.
00:55:20
In other words, you start it, and you vet it, and you actually get it in place, and then you get some push-backs that this doesn't work.
00:55:27
Apparently it was similar to what happened in Crozet.
00:55:31
And that's that timeline.
00:55:34
The second option is
00:55:39
already acknowledging that you're going to have this iterative thing that's going on.
00:55:44
It doesn't necessarily require going all the way to November of 19.
00:55:48
We're just giving the opportunity knowing how this process goes.
00:55:53
You could be ready as of right now the option one says December 2018 for the option one.
00:56:04
It is possible if we've come to agreement that we don't need to keep iterating and we could move straight ahead and come up with the code then.
00:56:13
We're just trying to be realistic given that we've had a lot of feedback at every phase that we've brought to you that you
00:56:22
that the public seems very much engaged with.
00:56:26
Let's see how this goes.
00:56:28
Let's test it out and let's make some tweaks and come back.
00:56:32
And that's what the second option is discussing.
00:56:35
It does not mean that we will not have a form-based code until November of 2019.
00:56:43
That is just what we're
00:56:46
Looking at being realistic and based on what has happened hitherto.
00:56:50
It's always taken longer than we thought for instance We thought we would be where we are now in August and you wanted more detail and I think it's all good stuff But we were thinking a very simple form-based code not really moving a whole lot of detail And now we've got more detail more performance, which I think strengthens us But it takes a long time to bring the public on board with that And so we're just trying to accommodate that in our time frame
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:57:16
But two years.
00:57:20
I mean I'm all for public outreach and public engagement, but at some point everybody burns out and they say are we ever going to do this?
00:57:29
I mean we've been talking about this for two years, three years, and my concern is we have a timeline, we're going to follow that timeline.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:57:38
Well, we're going to adjust it if we need to.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:57:41
You've been on the Planning Commission.
00:57:42
You're certainly much more knowledgeable than I. I am just sitting here very taken back that all of a sudden it's two years.
SPEAKER_04
00:57:50
But I think staff is being realistic here in giving us an outer parameter where it would occur within that time limit.
00:58:01
but there is allowance under the second option that we find a very motivated developer
00:58:09
or a couple of developers who want to get going early on under the second scenario.
00:58:16
Would you come back to that?
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:58:17
Well, if they see this, they will just say, they'll just walk away.
00:58:21
I mean, I don't see, but maybe so.
SPEAKER_04
00:58:24
But if you look up here, delays for those ready developed, solution, technical assistance, expedited review, and connect as a pilot test.
00:58:34
So within that time period, trying to,
00:58:38
Do the longer implementation schedule.
00:58:41
Could actually have a motivated developer come in and say, I'm ready to go.
00:58:46
Are you ready to go?
00:58:47
And all of a sudden, we take off.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:58:49
It's kind of like when we go ahead and- So that's going to be in bold on everything or with underlined or- I don't know about that.
00:58:59
Because it seems like to me they're going to look at this and say, well,
SPEAKER_04
00:59:02
I think we'll find that maybe I'm being unrealistic I think we're going to find that things are going to happen sooner rather than later as long as the economy stays healthy I think they're going to happen sooner rather than later and so two years is really the outer limit there
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
00:59:20
and I would assume that if you took your time and did this and did the community engagement, you would learn a lot more about applying this to other areas and we could more quickly move to other nodes or other things and I guess I, you know, it sounds very reasonable to me and I like the fact that you've got flexibility in there to take care of people who are ready to do it and as long as we're sure that we're gonna support that,
00:59:47
I think we're
SPEAKER_03
01:00:06
We've really already started.
01:00:07
We have Stantec.
01:00:08
We just are paying them $50,000 to find people right now that are interested.
01:00:13
We're talking to landowners.
01:00:17
We've already had people interested, and they can accelerate things.
01:00:20
I don't think we're waiting two years to start until we get the whole plan done.
01:00:25
I think we've already started on this, and things are in motion, and we're going to keep fine-tuning it as we go along.
01:00:33
I think we should look for opportunities.
01:00:35
I don't know if writing form-based code is something that our staff has to do, or is that something that could be made faster by using ULI or something like that.
01:00:48
I'm not suggesting that, but there may be shortcuts along the way, and hopefully you'll have as many of those as you have unexpected delays so that the dates don't stretch out.
01:00:59
I think we're running at a fast pace at this point.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:01:05
and I'm not sure from our questions so that we understood and made sure that we were, that you all were having meaningful engagement with landowners.
01:01:15
I hope you didn't get a sense that all of us wanted to have a super detailed code either.
01:01:23
I mean, I'm very much in favor of the more flexible umbrella and the sort of basic elements because that allows
01:01:32
Changes over time and changes for location and changes for market and things to happen.
01:01:38
I think the most criticism we've had over the last ten years as far as the ability of our home grown businesses to expand is they're limited to square footage and different uses and different floors and if we can figure out a way to get rid of a lot more of that even than we did two years ago with the new matrix.
01:01:54
then I think we will be taking the handcuffs off in a meaningful way and yet not causing a failure of our community standards in any way.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:02:04
My comment on the timeline would be you made a point somewhere along the line about what we put in writing and taking the proper time to get that right.
01:02:16
I don't know if that's four months or two years, but that would be what I would be most concerned about.
01:02:22
Take the time to whatever we're going to put in writing relative to everything else we feel pretty solid about.
01:02:28
Extra time for extra sessions.
01:02:32
Last week's meeting I made the comment about it's the type of session you have.
01:02:38
You know the public comment at this point seems to be has been clear on what they want in the nodes and it seems like some of the feedback that we're getting from now are from developers and at this point if you if
01:02:52
From paying attention the last couple of months pretty intense, if I go into this outreach session and I'm a developer, I'm seeing everybody else's ideas for my property.
01:03:03
And now it's probably time for them to come forward in a public outreach and goes, here's what we think.
01:03:09
And what do you guys think about that?
01:03:11
And that could probably happen very quickly.
01:03:13
It would happen very quickly for those who are ready to roll.
01:03:16
and for those who have concerns about something maybe being forced on them we'll have the opportunity to go well we think this and maybe the roads over here and maybe this is the building and that would probably help with some of their lease folks so I'm not so much concerned about having more public outreach sessions just for the sake of having more of them and taking longer I want to have more substantive sessions and understanding what we've gleaned so far from the public who I'm saying is the community and now it's time I think to get into the
01:03:44
the nuances of what the developers would like to see happen and what they can bring to the table and help us figure this out.
01:03:51
The Stantec piece that they're going out there should play right into that.
01:03:56
And there's the encouragement to come in and talk with the county lease piece as a tenant, et cetera, as part of it.
01:04:03
But I'm hoping that that process will also help with that.
01:04:06
Now I could be wrong in speaking for that, but that's just my take on it.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:04:11
If his take is right, I have no problem with that.
01:04:14
What I was fearful of when I'm looking at this is that it looks like we're not really open for business right now, and we're delaying another two years, and that's oversimplification.
01:04:28
I'm oversimplifying, but I really don't want to spend another two years
01:04:36
We really, as Ned said, we've done a lot of public outreach.
01:04:40
We will continue to do more, but we kind of know what people have been saying.
01:04:45
And I'm sure they have other things to say, but we don't need another two years.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:04:51
Am I correct that the next step really would be
01:04:55
if we agree that you should charge on with the CPA umbrella and tell us more what you think if you had late or another time about the consequences of how deeply that's going to be described so we know whether that's a one month or a three month or whatever and the other process is running and
01:05:17
I think it's going to turn out somewhere in the middle just by my intuition.
01:05:21
I know I'm a Pollyanna and I know that things are never as easy as I think they're going to be, but they're also not often as hard as some people think they're going to be, so I do hope that we will get there.
SPEAKER_04
01:05:32
I just, if I could make one comment.
01:05:35
I do think going forward, if we do embrace the second option, that we should be thinking as a county not about public engagement, but strategic engagement.
01:05:48
And by strategic engagement, I mean looking at the key land owners that are there and developing a one-on-one dialogue process with them.
01:06:00
to gain their input and to factor that into what they're looking to do with their property and how appealing, unattractive, or moving into a form-based code, no type of development will be for them.
01:06:19
And that really will play into what Ann has just pointed out here.
01:06:23
that with that kind of strategic engagement just instead of having public session upon public session, really focusing in on the critical parties that I think you can get to a scenario that is the second but it allows for much greater level of dialogue with the critical players that need that dialogue currently.
01:06:49
and gain a level of trust and confidence and have everybody working together on the same page and I think you can move forward in a fashion that it will be under two years.
01:07:02
I'd be confident it will be under two years.
01:07:05
But let's be sensitive of the staff resources because we need to be aware of that as we move forward.
01:07:14
We can't overwork staff in embracing this.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:07:18
Andrew, what Rick is referencing I thought was part of the work with Stantec right now.
01:07:26
Isn't that accurate?
SPEAKER_10
01:07:26
That's sort of the distinction between the two options as far as I see.
01:07:31
I think we've put in a lot more robust opportunities because remember as Mr. Galloway stated there are different areas that have different performance requirements and so we may be concentrating on certain strategic areas and as we flesh that out it's going to take what it takes in a sense.
01:07:51
I think you're wanting to seize these opportune moments for that and I think that's in here.
01:07:57
The only distinction that I see between the two from where we sit today is that we, in the earlier version, the one that follows the strategic plan, we were looking at
01:08:11
the modeling to validate the very simple form-based code that we had originally projected doing.
01:08:18
We needed a little bit more fine-grained in order to make it unique and palatable if you recall and I think we've gotten to that point but that took a little bit more time and I think that now we've also I think fortuitously really engaged in a meaningful way with Stantec and the consultant
01:08:38
and the difference I see is being able to integrate their work directly into the product as opposed to having them validate a product.
01:08:46
And so the CPA is just waiting for a little bit longer to make sure we've had that input first before we really launch the CPA process.
01:08:57
and that's the big difference.
01:08:59
I think the other things are just sort of whether you say it's going to end here and then make some tweaks after or you allow some possible iterations that tweak.
01:09:10
I think that's somewhat irrelevant in the sense that we know we're going to do what we need to do to make a happy public and a happy and a good public.
01:09:18
Good development pattern for us and that may take one iteration may take three as we've shown up there We don't know that's crystal ball.
01:09:26
I think though to your point.
01:09:28
It sounds to me that you're In haste to make sure we have this alternative plan to act now where we have that opportunity We want to engage strategically which is the stan tech work that we've got going right now or
01:09:43
We want to integrate that into our process so we're willing to delay a little bit but not too long to make sure that we get some action on the ground.
01:09:51
And that will probably, dare I say, probably end up somewhere in the middle.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:09:56
So I guess, yes, I do feel better.
01:09:59
Then maybe we don't want to show a lot of people this to your time.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:10:04
Just saying.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:10:06
I think a recheck on the timeline after the Stantec results will... That would be a great idea.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:10:10
That's what I was suggesting too, to just not try to bite the bullet right this minute, but to see how the next couple of months comes out.
SPEAKER_04
01:10:17
That's more realistic.
SPEAKER_00
01:10:18
Madam Chair, the only thing that I would add to the conversation, and it's really just a clarifying comment, is that also I don't want, I don't believe that the major driver between option one and option two is staffing.
01:10:29
I don't believe that to be the case.
01:10:33
Our staffing level, staffing workload and such is always a factor in everything that we do and it's a little bit unpredictable in the world of community development because as we all know private sector development at times we don't know exactly when a larger project is going to come forward and how much staff time it's going to take.
01:10:53
But with that in mind, I would just say that I don't believe that that's the driver in looking at option one and two as levels of staffing.
01:11:03
And I would look at Mark.
01:11:06
If he has, hopefully I'm on the right track.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:11:08
And that was sort of my takeaway.
01:11:09
Maybe I just, I don't know how I got that idea, but.
SPEAKER_11
01:11:14
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development again.
01:11:17
That's absolutely correct.
01:11:18
Staff's prepared to move forward with option one or option two.
01:11:22
We're not held up doing this.
01:11:24
This is really about how comfortable you are moving forward and how much time we need to spend working with the stakeholders in an iterative process to get closer to the final answers.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:11:40
So maybe just looking at the timeline.
01:11:43
That's correct.
01:11:43
Made me go up, made my alarm bells go off and maybe I shouldn't have even looked at the timeline.
SPEAKER_11
01:11:50
Frankly the whole thing both as far as the timeline and the resources is a lot of crystal balling.
01:11:56
Yeah.
01:11:56
Until you get it, until you understand what the problem is you don't know what, how much time it's going to take to fix the problem.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:12:02
Yeah.
01:12:03
So you were given this worst case scenario.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:12:06
Well, they're trying to let us know it's not going to be a piece of cake and we know that.
01:12:09
It's okay.
01:12:10
I feel better.
SPEAKER_11
01:12:11
Staff's prepared to move forward any way the board wants to.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:12:15
but I think we will know more in March or April than we know today.
01:12:20
And all this is going to revolve over the lease times and the finance times and the interest rate increases or not and all that jazz.
SPEAKER_03
01:12:31
Two years from now we'll have another two-year plan and it's just going to keep going.
01:12:36
Nothing's going to end in two years or three years or four years.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:12:39
That's why comp plans have to be re-looked at every five years so that's okay.
01:12:43
All right, so you need, do you have the direction you need or do you have more specific questions that you would like to ask?
SPEAKER_07
01:12:50
Well, if I could just summarize to make sure I understand what I've heard.
01:12:53
The board would like us to, the Stantec to move forward and finish their work and then maybe a check-in on timeline after that.
01:13:03
I think we'll know more once we hear the results from their analysis.
01:13:07
That'll allow staff time to maybe do a little bit, start outlining our comp plan amendment and finish up our transportation modeling and then we can check back.
01:13:17
But we think two years is probably too long.
01:13:20
We'll strive for something somewhere in the middle.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:13:23
I think the engagement as needed is where it's really appropriate and not just because we've blocked off August we're going to do that.
01:13:32
I really agree with others who have said the same thing.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:13:35
I would just add to that that if there is an opportunity this is a public body trying to be nimble like private enterprise can be and if there is an opportunity that presents during this that staff needs to prepare to help us move us through that to take advantage of the opportunity if it's helping us achieve what we're ultimately going for.
01:13:56
I agree with that completely.
01:13:58
That means you don't want to wait until the opportunity is upon you.
01:14:02
Whatever needs to happen, get ready for that.
01:14:04
I would suggest maybe you're there, I don't know, but if you're not, then we need to get there.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:14:11
When that pioneer comes along, we want to be able to help them succeed because that will make others want to do the same thing.
01:14:18
Very good.
01:14:18
Any other questions from staff about where we are?
01:14:22
You squared away.
SPEAKER_07
01:14:23
I think we're all set.
01:14:24
All right.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:14:25
Thank you all very much.
SPEAKER_04
01:14:26
Thank you guys.
11. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:14:30
Next on the agenda is any other matters from the board to be discussed.
01:14:36
So dig into your notes, folks, and let's see where we are.
01:14:46
I guess one that I circulated around by email, which you may or may not have had a chance to think about, is do we want any correspondence from the board on Steve Landis's 1148?
01:15:01
which is recommending, would set up schedules for discussions amongst jurisdictions who have revenue sharing agreements and annual reports on how the money is used, that kind of, the new text, which hopefully everyone has seen.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:15:18
Could you clarify that, Ann, the new text?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:15:21
Well, the original text had that one body could pull out of the agreement if the majority agreed, and that was struck weeks and weeks and weeks and weeks ago.
01:15:31
But the new text is, I don't know, five or six things, and I can probably pull it up and read it here if people really want to know.
Ned Gallaway
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:15:37
I just wanted to clear that that piece had been removed, that that was the portion that
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:15:43
So for everyone is supposed to have annual meetings?
01:15:46
No.
01:15:47
People with agreements of longer than five years are supposed to have annual meetings and a declaration of how the money exchanged is being used.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:15:54
And was it supposed to have or can request?
01:15:57
I can't remember, it's just a question.
01:16:00
It's to happen.
01:16:02
To happen, requires it to happen.
SPEAKER_05
01:16:05
The language is that the parties to the agreement shall convene an annual meeting to discuss anticipated future plans for economic growth in the localities.
01:16:15
So there's no required outcome of those meetings, but there's the requirement for the meeting.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:16:21
The outcome was sort of struck.
01:16:23
The outcome was taken off essentially.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:16:26
And there's no requirement for them for either side to say how that money will be spent or obviously the one that's getting the money.
01:16:35
So it doesn't require them actually to tell us anything.
01:16:39
It just requires them to meet.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:16:42
No, it requires them to tell us how they're going to spend our $17 million.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:16:45
No, I don't think so.
SPEAKER_05
01:16:47
It's to discuss anticipated future plans for economic growth in the localities.
01:16:53
So whether or not an agreement is reached or what is not a required element of the
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:00
The last text I saw was in how to report that was how the money of the recipient was to be expended.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:07
So that's what I was working on, but I'll have to clarify that with the patron and find out.
01:17:12
Yeah, because I might be interested, I think this is a really good discussion, but if Greg can clarify.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:18
if he can pull it up while we're here.
01:17:20
I thought the wording was what Greg was saying.
01:17:24
This is part of the problem with the process of the General Assembly.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:27
And LIS does not stay up to date, unfortunately.
01:17:29
It's hard to get the latest.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:31
It's just hard to keep track.
01:17:34
I don't have it written down.
01:17:35
I just had a verbal discussion.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:36
I'm always afraid to pull it up because I know I'll be pulling up what was yesterday and not what was today.
SPEAKER_05
01:17:41
Yeah, the language I read is the language in the substitute bill.
01:17:45
It has not changed since
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:17:47
So can you read it again then?
01:17:49
Yes.
SPEAKER_05
01:17:51
The parties to an agreement that has been in effect for at least 10 years, and pursuant to which an annual payment exceeds 5 million, so that would include us, shall convene an annual meeting to discuss anticipated future plans for economic growth in the localities.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:18:11
For economic growth in the localities.
SPEAKER_05
01:18:13
For economic growth.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:18:15
I mean, I think anything that gets us together is a good thing, personally.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:18:18
I guess it's the earlier sentence that says, shall meet at least annually a report from each locality that is recipient.
01:18:26
the amount of money transferred and the uses for such funds.
01:18:31
Number I and II is where that came from.
01:18:33
Then the last sentence is what Greg read.
01:18:36
So they are required to tell us how they're gonna use it.
SPEAKER_05
01:18:38
The sentence that you're reading are for agreements that aren't already in place.
01:18:43
It's a requirement that is going to be incorporated into the agreements.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:18:50
Gotcha.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:18:54
Well, that's odd because I'm quite sure he did not mean to exclude us from being able to use the first sentence.
01:19:00
So I'll find out about that.
01:19:03
Holy mackerel.
01:19:04
Life is challenging.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:19:05
Interesting.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:19:07
All right.
01:19:07
So we will not probably be able to decide if you want to write a letter about that since we now can't figure out what the right text is.
01:19:14
The other one was a report today from David Blount on 1017 which is the school board and bill that allowed after school programs to not have to have the extra staffing that DSS requires because it's the school teachers working with the same children from after school which would allow apparently a school like Brownsville to have many many more children in aftercare and it's one of the biggest problems and the creation of this
01:19:39
Big waiting list for children whose parents work and really need after school supervision.
01:19:44
So that's another one I would encourage anybody who wants to to reach out.
SPEAKER_03
01:19:48
What was the number?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:19:49
1017.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:19:50
Yeah, and I imagine the school system, I imagine the school board's taking a stance on that.
01:19:55
Do you know Ned by chance?
SPEAKER_09
01:19:56
I don't know if they have or not.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:19:57
We ought to piggyback with them if they have because that is really something that is
01:20:02
Really holding back a lot of families from being able to, you know, for the school system to get other children in.
01:20:09
It's ridiculous.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:10
I just could, I don't see it.
01:20:14
Did we get the wording for this bill?
01:20:17
Because I don't see it.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:18
I've only seen what David Blount sent this afternoon.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:20
And I've only seen it through the school division.
01:20:22
Because I know the school division, Pam Moran has talked about that.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:26
It was discussed with our board last year with DSS and with the schools.
01:20:31
David Blount, I don't see anything from David Blount today.
Liz Palmer
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:33
I imagine that they have it probably in their legislative packet.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:36
We could maybe tag on to them.
01:20:38
Or take their text and send it on.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:39
I do think multiple, multiple letters is really powerful.
01:20:44
This is David's bill and Cree's bill are slightly different and the school board reported they would be happy to sign on with Cree's bill which is what the city
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:20:53
Could we just tomorrow find out what the school board has done and maybe that's the way to do it.
01:21:01
I'll circulate this around as background for you too.
01:21:03
And then we could send a letter in conjunction with whatever our school board has done.
01:21:08
Would that work?
01:21:08
Because I imagine they're supporting this bill.
01:21:10
I can't imagine they're not.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:21:12
I misread when I thought this had gone to everybody to begin with, so sorry about the delay.
01:21:18
Very good.
01:21:19
Let me get back to the notes.
01:21:20
That sounds reasonable.
SPEAKER_05
01:21:21
And do you know the bill, the number for that bill?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:21:23
1017 is what was in David's email.
SPEAKER_05
01:21:27
SB or HB?
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:21:28
HB.
01:21:30
Let me go back to the email again because, oh no, they didn't have any numbers.
01:21:36
I had noticed it in David Toscano's report of his bills which had passed, so that would make it an HB 1017.
01:21:43
and then Cree has a bill I guess it's for the same purpose but I don't have a number for that one and it's moving they're crossing over so we have to hit both sides to try to get some success here
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:21:59
but that would really help the schools a lot with getting kids into the programs.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:22:05
It is such a stressor for parents in August and there's a lottery and you have to sign up in the first 30 seconds that it's open and then it's just terrifying.
Diantha McKeel
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:22:13
So if we could tag on with them and I mean write our own letter but tag on to what they're doing that'd be great.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:22:20
One question I had and the Creekside item on the agenda tonight is a perfect example because over the last several years we've talked about bonus density, density bonuses for things that really developers have to do anyway and that internal streets that we give them two extra lots because they put it in an internal street when they couldn't have any lots if they didn't have an internal street.
01:22:43
Can you update us on the sort of timetable when that kind of change might happen?
SPEAKER_05
01:22:47
Yes, that is part of a gigantic zoning tax amendment that deals with that, all of the zoning, all of the base zoning districts are part of that and I'm about halfway through it, but it will eliminate that particular bonus density for internal streets because our subdivision ordinance requires that anyway.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:23:14
and the street trees is in the same category.
01:23:16
There are things that they just have to do to build anything that's going to sell around here.
SPEAKER_05
01:23:19
That's in the site plan regulations already.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:23:23
That's great.
SPEAKER_05
01:23:24
The bonus densities are being updated.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:23:26
The lots they're creating in this circumstance are consistent with the rest of the lots there, so I didn't have heartburn about this example particularly, but in places where you have a super dense neighborhood dropped into the middle of an old neighborhood, that's where we get conflicts that come up really severely, and having an extra 30 lots in addition to the 30 that were supposed to be there or that kind of math really upsets people.
01:23:48
So thank you for that update.
01:23:49
We'll just look forward to that whenever it happens to come.
01:23:52
There is
01:23:57
In June, and I don't have a date yet, but people from the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay are hoping to have a meeting with as many elected officials as they can gather together in our area.
01:24:08
The Rivanna River Basin Commission will be glad to host it, and this is to provide the latest information they have about the Chesapeake Bay program and process and hopes to help answer anybody's questions and stir up support, and I hope that people will be able to come when we get a date nailed down.
01:24:27
So that's all I have.
01:24:29
Thank you all for your patience.
01:24:30
Does anyone else have anything else?
SPEAKER_03
01:24:33
I don't.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:24:34
I do not.
01:24:37
Do we need a closed meeting tonight, sir?
SPEAKER_05
01:24:40
No, I was told not to.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:24:44
It says if needed on my notes.
01:24:46
I just want to make sure not to forget.
01:24:47
No, not tonight.
01:24:47
All right.
14. Adjourn to February 16, 2018, 12:00 p.m., Room 241.
Ann Mallek
Supervisor, Board of Supervisors
01:24:48
Then if there's no other business before the board, we may adjourn to February 16th at 12 p.m. in this room for very exciting news from our county executive.