Board of Supervisors Adjourned Meeting - Joint Meeting with Planning Commission   7/9/2019

Do you want to start at the table and then we'll go to the outline circle here?

I'm talking to you, first item on the agenda tonight.

Daphne Spain, Planning Commissioner for the Rivanna District.

Board of Supervisors member, Fort Whitehall, Luis Garzano, the Office of the Architect at the University, and I'm the University Rep. Julian Bevins, Jack Jouett, District Representative on the Planning Commission, Diantha McKeel, Jack Jouett, District, Board of Supervisors, Bruce Scottson, Rio, District Planning Commission, Ned Gallaway, Supervisor, Rio District, Jim Keller, At-Large Planning Commissioner, Rick Randolph, Supervisor, Scottsville District, Pam Riley, Scottsville District Planning Commissioner,

Carolyn Shaffer, clerk to the planning commission.

Thank you.

Rachel Faulkner, principal planner.

Oh, we introduced the officer, sorry.

It's a party.

I was gonna say, we have a lot of brain power in this room, I'm impressed.

Okay.

Will the planning commission thanks the board of supervisors

Thank you again.

I don't really feel like reading all non-proposals that loud tonight.

You don't read them to yourself at night at 1 o'clock in the morning.

I don't need to memorize.

Can you just run on a screen?

So stream buffer areas become part of a common area and are not part of individual parcels at this point for those types of things.

So just a suggestion to think of the educational piece, understanding how many schools we have

There is no such bank at the moment but there could be in the very near future and there is a project that is seeking final approval even as we speak.

So we do have a bank in place so we can with direction and approval from the board move forward on this if you so wish.

consider when granting special exceptions to zoning regulations.

Can you describe though what a term incentivized means in this event if it's not required?

So if an applicant did not do their stormwater management on site and they chose to buy neutral credits but chose to buy them at a bank outside of Albemarle County, the board could consider that when they decide whether to grant exceptions.

Does that mean you're proposing a kind of point system that if in fact the applicant has gone ahead and created that nutrient credit that you're expecting now the board to go ahead and add up and basically say because they've done these things we give them

It wouldn't be based on a point system, at least at this point, but it would be two additional factors to consider when granting or not granting exceptions.

Is that correct?

We're not really talking about points or quantifying in any way, but the board makes

You tell me.

I would like to come back to them but I do, if we need to clarify as we go.

Because we've been half the ability to do this since 2008 and it's finally ready to go so I'm not interested in going back.

What you go through one by one.

Take it from the top again.

Again, not requesting your action tonight, but any comments in addition to Mr. Randolph's that he made earlier?

You can see any mention of any fees

I didn't see anything about any kind of fever recovery in here.

and yet there certainly looked to be increased staff involvement in this area and have you all given any thought to that?

What we're talking about here is doing the zoning text amendment and as part of a zoning text amendment we always look at the budgetary impacts on the county so that would be a routine part of doing the zoning text amendment analysis to see if there should also be any changes to the fee structure to offset any increase review time This may also have an effect on the building department because it may require walls

And whatever the square footage is that we're considering changing the 10,000 to would be involved in number one or it would be erased by number one because you're talking about well please clarify is number one going to be the whatever the magic do 6,000 or 2,500 which is what I want

And we have to figure that out.

Let's try to balance that information.

Help us understand why the change here.

I don't know if it represents legal issues or not.

I think there was a concern legally that we would be doing that and if the state would allow us to do that.

The whole state process of accreditation.

So you can't mix them, so I don't know if they have that type of set, but if they can create their own bank, yes, and they can sell them.

to solve that issue.

So we thought that might be a legal issue or legal hurdle to get over.

But if it's a public entity, I mean, obviously, Ivy Creek is

And I've been arguing with Mark Graham about this for years.

Yeah, and I guess my question would be, does it need to be private to get over this legal issue of would the state get localities own it without being a problem?

The factors approach is probably more legally defensible than an outright requirement in that regard.

Do localities have one, two,

None?

So knowing that number helps a little bit.

Okay.

Is this the one or is there a second one in the works?

This is the only one.

It's probably the same one.

It's wetland or something else.

So each of these are different, different banks and different systems.

So to your all's knowledge, this is the one we have, and you don't know of another one that's in the world.

We're probably first out of the starting gates here in terms of Central Virginia on this concept and having something that could be regional could be of value to the other counties as well as to the city that they're also part of the BPDC.

One of the rationale for this proposal to begin with was to take care of

Well, it's really going to be stormwater banking as well.

Yeah, people purchasing credits, it's less review time.

Yeah.

So, you could look at it, well, there should be a credit, right?

We review those plans only for erosion sediment control measures.

So it's really an EMS point.

Staff suggested the word change if you had known that there was going to be this, that one was already in place.

So we wanted to use the right words instead of just saying it's required all the time, you can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope we can catch up.

Any other comments on these proposals?

There are two caps.

So you can't combine bonus densities to get over a 50% increase and you can never go above the comprehensive plan density recommendation.

So in a 6 to 36 range, that would be 36.

They would not be able to do any of this.

That will help us.

So questions or comments?

It's 6,000.

No, it is.

So more applications will have to be reviewed and meet state regulations.

Are our peer communities doing 6,000 square feet?

I don't think there is a state standard.

I brought a match.

These are the 6,000 for new plans, new projects, not for redevelopment projects.

It's helpful to know your reasoning, to hear your reasoning and how you came up with the figure and where it came from.

But if you have a site that is constantly adding and then they cumulatively results in an impact, you can't get it through our current regs is the way.

that does not require in Albemarle County any storm water.

It comes in for us to look at.

stipulates like a performance agreement certain expectations that I will follow in terms of code specifications for buffers and distance away from the water environment that might be nearby or wetlands, etc.

It would not be in agreement, unless it's part of a common plan of development.

And then you change 10,000 to 6,000.

So this is part of that proposed revisions.

So I was just trying to understand if I were to put up that building.

We don't look at setbacks, that's a zoning, planning zoning issue, but for buffers, yes.

Why not just accept the Chesapeake Bay?

In 1984 they were the standard here because when we moved our driveway 50 feet we had to put up a bond and everything else and it was because we were at 2,500 square feet.

You said the 6,000 standardized with the city and that from your experience under 6,000 hasn't been a huge problem.

So I don't know how to answer that why we wouldn't go to 2,500 other than... That's for us to consider.

That's the reason why staff is recommending the 6,000 square feet.

with ENS because I think that ENS is more of the problem that we see here.

And just to be clear, the 2,500 is required in the Tidewater region of Virginia, but everything outside the Tidewater localities can decide their own thresholds.

We hope so.

We don't see as much of the issues.

So that's why I think that simple any change is check the box.

Trying to be cognizant of time, too.

Let's just go backwards here.

We don't want to just say hey just raise the fees because

Because what I hear staff has told me for years is, we need some fines, because they pay no attention.

Well, it's a citizen's demand.

I mean, I'm just trying to get up.

It seems like if we don't have that as the ultimate sanction, then nobody's going to pay any attention.

I'm told that's about $1,000.

But I can see where it would take a lot of time.

But I really would like

Do you think that you would probably have better compliance and less fines if you did have more people going out to these sites more often?

There's not a lot of time.

and the rest of the world.

So, taking no action on that tonight.

And then the new word that Frank described would be under the 6,000 because it's a new project and you'd be getting that full shot anyway.

Yeah.

Not in advance.

There was a lot of discussion, I don't know that we came to consensus on that, but we'd like to get some sense of

I'm comfortable with that.

With the 6,000, would that take care of your parking lot issue?

We find out on Thursdays that starts, so I don't think that.

It's less impactful than a lot of the other composers that we're talking about.

be some kind of warm season grasses and some little bitty trees about this big around.

This is basically where existing buffers

So temporary measure would be something put in during construction.

Silt fence would be an example.

Sediment basins, silt traps, sediment traps.

Oh, I thought we'd already taken care of not allowing sediment basins in the buffers anymore.

No, it's actually, you know, it's in order to allow within the first 50 feet.

Which is where the water's going to go when it rises.

It should be in 604, which requires mitigation if it is allowed within the first 50 feet.

So we discussed this at length during the Westland proposal a year or so ago, because they had put all these bases

So now the last two proposals and these deal with the zoning ordinance revisions number one I think I heard that there's direction to proceed with that okay and number two there was discussion back and forth I still feel like this is the direction to go but there were other thoughts expressed tonight whether to require the factors or

So it sounds like we need to do a little more legal homework on this.

I think there's a gap in knowledge.

So at least now we have an answer for that reason, because the applicant really needed us.

We can pass something that isn't enacted for six months in our ordinance, send it to them to review, and then they'll provide their feedback, whether it's allowed or not.

Tell us what's good enough and then we'll shape it so if it's our jurisdiction.

So I understand where you're coming from, and I think I'm comfortable with that rather than you having a requirement, which seems that it will bind you, bind your hands.

So the zoning ordinance revisions will require public hearings both Planning Commission and the board

We will do that, but without a clear need for that we would like to move into the provisions themselves.

And I guess I've had so many meetings and so I'm just asking why that's necessary.

It may not be necessary in every single instance, but some of these, we will revisit that.

Are we able to get this done by December?

Possibly.

Let's set a goal and say we're not going to get this done by, I don't know, Halloween.

So some of that will depend, be dependent upon public reaction.

They're going to yell at us if they want to react.

We've had two years.

And when we bring that resolution before the Board of Supervisors, they'll be the process to get the ZTA done and the timeframe.

I'm just trying to say we've spent so much time on this and so much public input.

I'm not being critical either, but the reality is it takes, there's a long lead time in scheduling meetings.

And I understand that.

So we will do our darnedest to get this completed.

Tell us that we need a board meeting to get it done and maybe we can get some of us together to do it.

I believe the second item tonight is simple and not complex.

Before people get too eager, are we going to later go over the incentives for residential development on another day?

That would be more complex than the things we discussed tonight.

And at the same time we're going to work on those density bonuses that we've been trying to remove from years like street trees and interior streets because every

Thank you, Frank.

All good.

Form-based code.

Rio 29, form-based code project.

and somebody from conventional resources.

Hope this made you wonder.

Okay, so an overview.

I'm having house troubles.

And I just want to ask for sort of affirmation or any thoughts if anything is missing or if you have any feedback on those goals before we move forward.

You might explain how form-based code and the neighborhood development

I'd just like to underscore what I feel is the importance of the second bullet there.

Those are extreme polar statements, but at some point I think it might be useful to discuss that second bullet that's really trying to do two different things.

It's very important with a time frame on this.

I think we're all trying to do that.

I don't think there's any, I was just responding, what I was responding to was

doing setbacks and massing and heights and those general things and leaving the private sector to step in and decide how they want to use the framework that we're establishing and not saying this is what we want to do.

We're starting to talk about some of the elements in the code that you'd like to see.

These are only the goals.

These are just the goals.

This is not the implementation.

This can take a lot of different forms but it can be regulated in a form-based code from very basic things to very sophisticated things and often it's used as a

It can be used as a tool for preserving historic character.

But you can regulate that through streets as well.

There's no given.

And that'll be something we'll ask you for when we get to the discussion is kind of what's important.

and then one blank one in case there's something that's not captured in the categories that you'd like to write in so if you can spend a few minutes doing that ranking the cards and when you're done we have some push pins on these boards priority one is on my right and two and three on my left so if you can

Maybe on a first generation ordinance we might only address some of these topics, putting others off to a second generation ordinance.

I think, correct, this is, you could consider this a menu of options for elements that are included in a form-based code and what would be the highest priority for the area.

like a couple of lines of regulation, but maybe the top priority or the top two priorities we get into a lot more detail because it's more important.

Yes.

Yeah, we're going to collect, so please rank.

Can we cheat?

Yeah, if you would rank all of them, we're going to collect them and take that in and see where you fall, but please just put up the

So I've decided to take it one way.

Do we not already have established standards for some of these that we can rely on to continue going forward?

So when I was looking at architecture, that would be where you have smaller, even though it's a big building, you have smaller sections and some are back and some are out and that makes it look like it's not just a monster.

Yeah, we don't have that right now in our code, our ARB and entrance corridor, but otherwise not.

I just don't know which one is the umbrella, then the other one's falling under, that's my problem.

You're so welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not talking about

I won it all.

And we can go around the table or just

I'll start with priority number one.

And so I think we want to make sure that we get that appropriate for the character of the area.

We weren't gonna do all three because we probably just don't have time But we were gonna do the top one and then ask if there's any other thoughts people like to share my top one was use and

Therefore, I think we can be maybe more flexible from the beginning on use options because it's not going to need buffering and the kinds of setbacks that might be true in some other

Now, mixture abuse I understand, you know, high variety, but it certainly didn't want, there wouldn't be a lot of flexibility.

And having the flexibility.

I put bulk massing in bulk as second, I put green spaces first and the reason is I'm

to redevelop, it's just such a tremendous incentive and that's why I put it as one.

But think about the great cities in the world and how they built off of existing conditions.

So being able to move people in and out is my number one priority as I sit at that intersection.

I think the research now actually reduced the amount of carbon emissions that we're doing

The map?

Yeah, like the map of just the area.

So the use mixture's gotta be right for the whole thing to work in my opinion.

Well it's not a place for us to decide, absolutely.

But you're finding that the streets and the building location fell into

And if you have your max height, then you go right to a residential, but you've only got 50 yards, 100 yards.

You don't have much space.

Do we really want to, I mean, I think we need to regulate and be careful how we regulate it, but it can't be concentric circles.

and I guess I've been hearing the complaint from my planning commissioner who's not here tonight unfortunately kept talking about this

I'm guessing on that.

Michela Montice, Bea LaPisto-Kirtley

I think that that is, maybe you guys want to address.

So it's how do I give them the ability to add to what we're saying the underlying vision is to make this successful.

Because otherwise, depending on what the financial portfolio of any of these entities are, it may be beneficial for them to leave it in, depending on what the mix of their assets are.

residential building next office building next to whatever that is just

My campus architects and landscape architect colleagues wouldn't have forgiven me if I didn't put open spaces.

They work together.

How do you get there?

I don't know if you guys want to share anything more about that or if you don't want to, that's funny too.

And we don't have anything right now in the works, but it doesn't have to be all public.

And so I just want to make sure, you know, we go so that that's not being obvious that I don't like the buffet place.

Well, no.

And so as we think about these green spaces, and I think this is what people were saying about the quadrant piece of that, we're going to need to think about attractive green spaces on the other side.

I've made this point in meetings, but when you think of catalyst projects,

While this foreign-based code is being put together, economic development should be having critical input into it to help us figure out what from that point on.

You're factoring them in from the standpoint of how this is all going to work with the trails and the greenways and also just parks basically.

The economic development piece is really, that's critical.

So what did you learn that you didn't know before you got us all together?

I'd like to make one point and see what others might say about this.

That's an excellent point.

So thank you all for doing that so quickly.

So you said at the very beginning, and I wrote down because I didn't understand, affordable housing incentivized or required, I think was the term.

If we decide to go in and just flat out rezone the area to this due form-based code, we cannot require for it.

There's a good reason to do the overlay.

It can't be mandatory.

Some of you may have been to Crozet and seen Piedmont Place, which is the first pioneer building in our downtown Crozet district, and I think that even though there were some struggles a little through the planning process, it was far shorter, David can help me, than many others because there were so much

Are you saying that if they, it's optional, in what situation is the overlay?

If you choose to opt into it, you have to meet all of the requirements of the optional overlay.

Really good at herding cattle.

I think this exercise was really meant to just start to wade into some of the questions that you all have.

I think the road testing is incredibly important.

The public could see it there too, so that's maybe the best way.

You can leave those where they are and I'll pick them up so I know who they belong to.

So we'll get that on the books and plenty of time to get back to the board so that then we can maybe have a list and then also

May I just throw out one other question for future research and Jeff or David or somebody could write it down.

We're going to the Board of Supervisors will adjourn to July 10, 2019, 1 p.m. and lay

The Planning Commission will adjourn to our July 23rd meeting.