Loading...
2016-11-29 MinutesA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2016 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Stephen A. Elswick, Chairman Ms. Dorothy A. Jaeckle, Vice Chrm. Mr. Christopher M. Winslow Mr. James M. Holland Supervisor Absent: Ms. Leslie A. T. Haley Dr. Joseph P. Casey County Administrator Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Dr. Edgar Wallin, Chairman Mr. Gib Sloan, Vice Chairman Ms. Gloria L. Freye Mr. Michael Jackson Mr. Peppy Jones CALL TO ORDER Staff in Attendance: Ms. Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board Mr. Clay Bowles, Director, General Services Mr. Kevin Bruny, Chief Learning Officer Mr. Allan Carmody, Finance Director Mr. William Dupler, Deputy County Administrator Mr. Garrett Hart, Director, Economic Development Mr. George Hayes, Director, Utilities Lt. Col. Dan Kelly, Police Department Mr. Louis Lassiter, Deputy County Administrator Mr. Mike Mabe, Director, Libraries Mr. Jeffrey Mincks, County Attorney Ms. Susan Pollard, Director, Communications and Media Chief Edward L. Senter, Fire and EMS Ms. Sarah Snead, Deputy County Administrator Mr. Scott Smedley, Director, Environmental Engineering Mr. Kirk Turner, Director, Planning Dr. James Worsley, Director, Parks and Recreation Mr. Scott Zaremba, Deputy County Administrator Mr. Elswick called the meeting to order at 1 p.m., on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Wallin called the meeting to order on behalf of the Planning Commission. Mr. Elswick expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission, on behalf of the Board, for the outstanding job they do in working through zoning cases before the Board of Supervisors considers them. 16-684 11/29/16 CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATUS Mr. Dupler stated the implementation process for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update has been very successful. He stated 78 percent of the implementation items have been started or completed, and staff is well on the way to completing the implementation process. He stated many of the implementation strategies received extensive citizen support and input. He then introduced Mr. Steve Haasch to begin the presentation and noted that Mr. Kevin Bruny would facilitate the discussion throughout the work session. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS Mr. Haasch provided details of State Code requirements relative to comprehensive plans and discussed what the Plan does and what it does not do. He stated the current Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2012, and has been amended several times, including the Ettrick-VSU Special Area Plan, Bon Air Special Area Plan and the Bikeways and Trails Chapter. He stated the Plan is reviewed on a five-year cycle so that it remains current and relevant. He provided details of the implementation process for the 2012 Plan. He then discussed the county's population trends. He stated although the county's growth rate has slowed since the 1970's peak change, we are still holding a 1.5 percent annual growth rate. He noted that projections forecast a continued slowing of this rate due to aging of the nation. He stated the county's population is not only growing, but also changing. He further stated more households do not have children than do, and single -headed households have increased dramatically. He stated the county will continue to diversify and although Chesterfield remains one of the most affluent counties in the region, we are also seeing increases in poverty. He further stated Baby Boomers and Millennials are the dominant housing market influences, and both groups desire to be in more active, urban areas. He stated as our population changes, our services, programs, built environment and infrastructure should also change. Ms. Jaeckle stated it appears the county's infrastructure troubles began during the years of rapid growth in the 1970's and 19801s. She inquired what percentage of growth would be considered a level at which a community could keep up with its infrastructure. Mr. Haasch stated staff could look at that, acknowledging that one of the problems the county has is its geography. He further stated where the growth is occurring is as important as the growth rate. He then provided details of Blueprint Chesterfield results from a planning perspective. He stated the community is interested in growth management, quality design and lifestyle options. He noted that suburb fatigue is becoming apparent and inquired whether more options could be provided to the community than typical subdivisions and strip shopping centers. In response to Mr. Sloan's question related to the description of suburb fatigue, Mr. Haasch stated one of the questions on the Blueprint Chesterfield survey was, what should the county focus less on over the next five years, and the number one response was residential growth and 16-685 11/29/16 1k 9 It A A development, and another response was strip commercial or typical suburban shopping centers. He noted that another question posed was, what should the county focus on, and the responses included better planning and better design, new and innovative development. He stated the responses indicate that the residents are looking for new options for development. He then reviewed the guiding principles for updating the Plan, including keeping the current format; making it clear, concise, and understandable; using the most current data available; incorporating flexibility; and tracking citizen comments. Mr. Elswick stated citizen engagement should be added to the list of guiding principles. Mr. Haasch stated staff will definitely reach out to the community for comments and there will be opportunities for engaging citizens. He then provided details of the Plan update process and stated the Plan should be substantially complete and considered by the Planning Commission by the end of 2017, and by the Board of Supervisors in early 2018. GOALS/VISION DISCUSSION Mr. Kevin Bruny then facilitated a discussion related to the goals/vision for the plan. His first question was, "what do we want to look like in 20 years?" Mr. Holland stated when he was first elected in 2007, infrastructure was well behind the growth. He further stated the county now has more residents without students in the school system and expressed concerns relative to funding public facilities appropriately for that aging demographic. He stated he is focusing on more immediate needs in terms of funding, noting that the budget drives the public facilities needed for that demographic. He stressed that we not repeat what was done before with regards to massive growth. Mr. Winslow stated the Board has been focused on the topic of revitalization since its retreat, which is a broad topic and includes many things. He stated the county should encourage infill development in places where infrastructure is already in place. He stated this focus can be seen through the cash proffer reform policy that the Board adopted and the quality standard which is currently in place. He further stated the Board will be holding a public hearing on the tax abatement program for rehabilitation, and he supports a tax credit program. He noted that these things are critical in making the county appealing, increasing property values and decreasing crime. Mr. Elswick stated in 20 years, we want to be a leader in producing high -paying jobs in the region. Mr. Sloan stated if we are successful in enhancing the Comprehensive Plan, it will be a good tool to assist the Board with capital improvement project planning, revitalization, etc. Ms. Freye stated the county needs more mixed-use development, which will address a number of issues, including density. 11/29/16 Ms. Jaeckle stated many residents being employed at good jobs would impact the quality of life in the county. She expressed concerns that the numbers in Title 1 schools keep increasing, and inquired how we can go back to community - supported schools where people are attracted because they value education and are community -minded. She stated pedestrian and bicycle access would attract young families. She further stated she would like to see the county remain family -friendly and community -oriented because that is what attracts residents. Mr. Bruny stated the second question is, "what do we want to be known for in 20 years?" Dr. Wallin stressed the need for fiscal responsibility before determining where we want to go or what we want to do. He stated we must attune ourselves to the diversification and changing demographics of society and look carefully at the needs of those constituents, with schools being a prime example. He further stated, for schools to maintain its current status and enjoy the wave of the future, the public at large must embrace the value of education, including constituents without students in the household. He referenced creative land use and inquired whether we should look at areas to invest in for future industrial development. He stressed the importance of having an appropriate ratio between residential and commercial development. Ms. Jaeckle stated we really need to look at the type of commercial development we want in the county and also areas that might already have too much commercial development and why more commercial development is being required there, along with new residential development. Mr. Bruny stated the next question is, "what do we want to be known for in 20 years?" Mr. Jackson stated 20 years from now, he would not want to see the county being known as the largest locality in the state investing the least in education. He stated he would like to see the county being less dependent on real estate revenue for budgetary needs, and would also like it to be known as one of the most citizen -friendly localities in the state. M Mr. Holland stated if the county provides a good quality of life and schools, the population will come. He further stated affordable and adequate housing stock is critical, as is quality. He stated the quality of facilities being constructed, including housing stock, should not be compromised. He further stated the need for transportation and transportation models is critical and inquired how the county will accommodate senior residents who are no longer able to drive. Mr. Jones stated the county wants to be known in 20 years as a phenomenal place to work in industrial and unique commercial jobs that have been created. He further stated we want to be known for having one of the finest, if not the finest, school systems in the state. He stated the county has five unique villages that cannot be found anywhere else in the region, and he would like to see those villages become weekend destinations for residents in the region, rather than 16-687 11/29/16 IN county residents attending weekend events in neighboring localities. Mr. Elswick stated Chesterfield wants to be known for being the most business -friendly county in the state and a place that people do not want to move from, but to move to. Mr. Sloan stated there are opportunities within the county to continue fostering relationships with higher learning institutions, which could result in a great impact on the local economy. He further stated there are unique opportunities with Virginia State University and high-density urban agriculture development, which is going to be a wave of the future. Mr. Jackson stated the county should be known for sports tourism, noting that we have invested a lot of time and resources into this initiative. Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to re-creating existing mixed -used developments and stated she would like to see a balanced community rather than areas of poverty and isolated areas of higher -income residents. She further stated if you have the type of population that you want, they will be supportive of schools. Mr. Elswick stated we also want to be known as the safest and most secure community in the state. Mr. Bruny then posed the question, "Is there something that we don't have that we want?" Mr. Elswick stated if the county wants to keep certain areas rural with open spaces, then residents should be able to sell development rights so that developers can purchase property and provide the density level that we are looking for. Mr. Holland stated if quality development is not required, that will become known in 20 years, and we will regret not emphasizing quality standards with development. GROWTH DISCUSSION Mr. Haasch provided details of the acreage of vacant zoned land. He stated once the 288 corridor develops out, that is our last opportunity at good -quality, high-density employment -type of uses. He then provided details of the number of units and square footage of retail, office and commercial development at Plan buildout. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's suggestion for an overlay on the growth map, Mr. Haasch stated staff could provide that information. Mr. Elswick suggested that the proposed Powhite Extension be added to the map, across Route 360 and all the way down to I- 95. He stated that extension would also create another opportunity for development in future years. Mr. Haasch provided details of potential constraints, including environmental regulations; public water and sewer 16-688 11/29/16 facilities and capacity; road network; and public infrastructure. Mr. Bruny stated the next question to consider is, "Where should we grow/not grow?" Ms. Jaeckle stated the availability of transportation is important in determining where growth should occur. Dr. Wallin stated the county needs to try to promote and incentivize growth in the areas where infrastructure is currently available, and economic growth and revitalization will begin to take care of itself. He noted that quality is not strictly related to the price of a home. He stated staff should look at our existing areas of growth and determine the potential for that growth. Mr. Sloan stated as the county continues to grow, it should be more balanced growth. He further stated the county has capitalized on the true suburban model and we are also seeing some very attractive infill projects, including Stonebridge, Colony Pointe and Moore's Lake. He mentioned the relationship between Economic Development and Planning as the county attracts commercial development, and how it can be partnered with the larger development community. Mr. Holland stated he concurs with Dr. Wallin regarding revitalization and preservation, citing the success of the redevelopment of Cloverleaf Mall into the Stonebridge development. He further stated we can no longer afford to neglect transportation and the quality of roads. He stated the Route 1 Corridor and other major corridors should be enhanced so that people will want to live in those areas. He stressed encouraging medium and small businesses in the county, thereby providing jobs for residents, and he suggested less regulations and costs associated with these businesses as a mechanism to promote this type of growth. Ms. Freye suggested that the county invest in growth at its gateways where the tone is set for further investment internally. She noted that Stonebridge is a wonderful statement of what Chesterfield is and can be. Mr. Jackson stated the county is looking at significant incentives to develop in revitalization and preservation areas and stressed the necessity of requiring quality standards in those areas. He mentioned the various gateways to the county, noting that some of them are located within Special Area Plans, but those that are not are at risk with the revitalization incentives that are currently in place. He stated he would like the discussion to also include how we grow, as well as areas where special area plans may be needed that are not currently in place. Ms. Jaeckle stated she thinks it is more important to consider what we want to see in areas as they are redeveloped, rather than where we should grow and not grow. Mr. Jackson noted that the Meadowbrook area is a gateway for the county, but it does not currently have a special area plan, which would state what we want the area to look like. 16-689 11/29/16 K PI A Ms. Jaeckle stated revitalization is really a second shot at land use, so it is very important that it be done properly. She provided the example of a lost opportunity at developing the 7-11 on the Jefferson Davis Corridor, which is basically a gateway, because no one knew what we wanted in that spot. She stated she thinks we should focus on the entire city line, as well as the entire Jefferson Davis Corridor, and determine what we want to see there. Mr. Elswick suggested discussing how and where we should grow and when, noting that he does not think we have the vision or the wisdom to determine places where we should not grow. Dr. Wallin stated we should capitalize on the assets we already have. He mentioned the historical significance of certain locations in the county and expressed concerns that they have never been woven together with a good design. He suggested focusing on our unique villages, identifying other areas to include in special area plans, and beginning to put together a network. Mr. Bruny stated the next question is, "Where should housing, employment be located and at what density/intensity?" Ms. Jaeckle stated she concurs with Ms. Freye regarding mixed-use development, noting that it needs to be inter -woven and connected. Mr. Elswick stated the market is going to help determine where development will occur, and there should be a balance between the market and planning efforts. Ms. Jaeckle stated when she moved to Chesterfield in the 19701s, Meadowdale was an upscale area and inquired about land use decisions, such as allowing too many apartments in the area, that changed the Meadowdale area. She further stated we should research that area and what occurred there to prevent this type of deterioration from happening in other areas of the county. Mr. Jackson stated the outer suburbs is the first area where people leaving urban areas moved to. He noted those areas are now aging, so the county is challenged with suburban revitalization. He stated schools was a big driver in the migration of western development in the county. He further stated revitalization is not just incentivizing infill development, but there is also a large social component that must take place with the revitalization in those outer suburb areas. Mr. Holland stated in terms of employment/housing, it is important that the county work in conjunction with schools regarding skill -sets. He stressed the importance of showing that county residents are job -ready. LEVELS OF SERVICE DISCUSSION Mr. Haasch provided data related to the current Comprehensive Plan's levels of service for public facilities. 16-690 11/29/16 In response to Mr. Winslow's River City Sportsplex is not for parks levels of service. question, Mr. Haasch stated included in the data provided In response to Mr. Elswick's question, Mr. Haasch stated he would consult with Parks and Recreation and provide a response to Board members related to how the 9 -acre figure for parks levels of service was determined. He further stated staff would also look at adding Pocahontas Park to the levels of service parks data and provide that information to Board members, noting that Pocahontas Park is available to all county residents. Mr. Bruny stated the next question to consider is, "what service levels should we strive for?" Mr. Elswick stated the service levels should be realistic. Ms. Jaeckle inquired whether square footage is the key to what we are looking for. She noted that libraries have changed in terms of the materials that are offered and inquired whether 0.82 square foot per person is appropriate. Mr. Elswick suggested that staff go back and validate the levels of service data provided and determine whether it is correct today. Mr. Holland inquired whether trailers are included in the schools' functional capacity and whether the school population is declining, growing or is steady. He noted there are many factors in determining levels of service, and he does not know if the data provided is based on national or local statistics. Mr. Elswick requested that staff determine the difference in cost between the level of service and reality. He stated the levels of service may need to be re-evaluated. Mr. Sloan cautioned staff regarding the positioning of data. He inquired whether the level of service for libraries was just associated with stand -along community libraries, or if school libraries were also included in the data. Regarding the schools' level of service, Mr. Jones inquired what would be the reality if school district lines were to change slightly. In reference to Mr. Elswick's remarks regarding service -level costs, Mr. Jackson inquired whether the levels of service should be aspirational or financially feasible and whether the forward thinking of the plan should be limited from a planning standpoint to just what is financially feasible. Dr. Casey stated he would like to think the levels of service relate to the community's level of service and what provides the basis for a good quality of life for the community. He further stated the next question is, what is our role in achieving that? He stated parks is a great example of that since we have a great state park, historical attractions, and many faith -based communities that offer their land for recreational activities, indicating that all of that supply should be accounted for and then we have to define what is the demand towards the whole supply. He further stated staff 16-691 11/29/16 F1 P] must define the community's definition of levels of service and the government's role in that. Mr. Jackson stated parks is a good example, and inquired whether the YMCA, ACA and other free-market opportunities for recreation should be included in the data. He further inquired whether we get to a point where we determine there are enough facilities for recreation and we do not need to invest in it any longer. Dr. Wallin stated he recognizes upfront that levels of service will provide challenges for people to think about. He further stated we should consider how to share, incorporate and capitalize more on facility uses than we have, and he thinks the public is going to demand it. He suggested that public-private arrangements be considered for multiple uses of new facilities, as they are constructed. Mr. Sloan stated the 2012 Comprehensive Plan revision is unique in that the needs of all five districts were incorporated into a unified county plan. He further stated as we move forward and plans are revised, the document should help us improve at forward planning and forward thinking, and the conversations around the roles of the different levels of service will become more clear. Mr. Bruny then inquired, "how should we handle infrastructure impacts from growth?" Ms. Jaeckle stated one of her original questions was, at what level of growth can you afford the infrastructure impacts. She further stated she does not know that the level would be, but an economist should be able to figure it out based on the county's tax rate. She noted that the school population is leveling off. Mr. Jackson stated he and Mr. Erbach (Dale District School Board representative) shared concerns about better aligning schools with development and also agreed that schools should have a formal role in the process when the time is right. He further stated there are incentives for development to be spurred in the county and expressed concerns relative to some schools being over capacity and others being under capacity. He inquired how we better align schools to match with the growth we are experiencing and whether the Comprehensive Plan has adequately addressed this issue. Dr. Wallin stated we may need to begin to think differently about selling facilities and building facilities where students are located, approaching it from a business standpoint. Ms. Jaeckle stated the reality is if you want to be a county that attracts residents because of schools, they are not going to like the county if we shift students every two or three years due to pockets of growth. She noted that moving students is one of the most emotional government functions. Mr. Jackson inquired if economists identified at what levels of service the current revenue structure could support, what we do with the information and whether we would stop growth beyond that point or increase revenue to address that growth. 16-692 11/29/16 Mr. Holland stated we should use all possible tools and have a real discussion on the expected levels of service and whether we are willing to pay for it. Mr. Winslow stated governments will always plan to spend every dollar that comes in if guidelines are not set, so there must be a discussion about fiscal responsibility and what that means as tax decisions are made. Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Elswick mentioned early on having citizen input and not just tracking citizen comments. He stressed the importance of providing the community an opportunity to engage in the update process. He stated we must be honest with the community in terms of what they are asking for in a level of service and what it is going to take to provide that. He further stated he agrees with being fiscally conservative, but does not know how we reconcile all of the actions we take with making government smaller. Mr. Winslow stated we do that by prioritizing spending as it relates to levels of service. He further stated you take the community's input into consideration and then prioritize spending. He stated there are many examples of how this was done during the past year. Mr. Bruny stated today's exercise was a beginning of the conversation regarding the Comprehensive Plan update, and the Planning Commission and Board members will be provided additional opportunities throughout the process. WRAP UP/NEXT STEPS Mr. Haasch stated staff looks forward to working with Planning Commission and Board members and the community over the next year to set our course. He provided details of next steps, including Board of Supervisors constituent meetings and beginning chapter revision with the Planning Commission members in January. He inquired what would be the next appropriate check-in time. Discussion ensued relative to citizen involvement throughout the process. Mr. Holland inquired about the number of opportunities for citizen participation. Mr. Haasch stated this is an update, not a complete overhaul like the 2012 process, and staff would like to bring the entire plan to the community rather than piece by piece, as was done in 2012 because it caused disruption in the community as people lost sight of how things were connected. Dr. Wallin stated he thought the Planning Commission's view was that there would be opportunities for community input as the development of the Plan update occurred, rather than waiting until it was all together. He further stated there needs to be more discussion regarding this. Mr. Haasch noted it is on the Planning Commission's December 20th agenda. 16-693 11/29/16 Mr. Sloan stated he was under the impression that the orange blocks in the timeline provided by staff were times when the Commissioners would be soliciting community input. Mr. Elswick suggested that when constituent meetings are held, a draft of the plan be placed on the website for feedback and comments. He stated he does not want to slow the process down, but does not want to make the citizens wait for the information. Mr. Holland suggested also using the county libraries to disseminate the information for citizen input. Dr. Wallin suggested considering placing a statement in utilities bills that the process is beginning and staff is seeking citizen input. Mr. Hayes stated staff could look at a utilities bill insert, but it would only reach the residents with public utilities. Ms. Pollard noted that social media has been very successful in reaching many people. Mr. Elswick suggested that the next check-in should be halfway through the process, unless Dr. Wallin advises him otherwise, noting that he is going to rely on the Planning Commission to take the lead on the process. Mr. Holland suggested also inviting the School Board to provide input. In response to Mr. Jackson's question regarding the availability of a land use map, Mr. Haasch stated the updated land use map would be provided somewhat early in the process. CLOSING COMMENTS Dr. Casey thanked Planning staff for preparing and presenting the information. He stated the Blueprint process was good practice for citizen engagement. He further stated each chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is important. He stated we need to focus in on demographics and the reality of how they are changing. He further stated Millennials and empty nesters are two populations that we need to determine how to keep them in Chesterfield. He stated we also need to determine the type of housing that would attract Millennials to come to Chesterfield. He expressed concerns relative to the 30,000 residents who leave Chesterfield every day to go to jobs in other localities and stated we need to create the jobs that reflect the talent of current residents, as well as the people who will move here. He stated we have to find the companies that create other ways in which they generate business. He further stated where the schools are crowded, we need to determine how Millennials and empty nesters can live close to them, and where they have capacities, plan for housing for families. He stated Chesterfield is an excellent place to raise a family, and we need to determine how to plan for walkability that the empty nesters and Millennials desire. He stressed the importance of reducing commute times for county residents by providing jobs for them in the county. 16-694 11/29/16 Mr. Elswick thanked the citizens who attended the meeting, as well as staff for providing the opportunity for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to express their thoughts regarding the Plan update. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Elswick then adjourned the Board of Supervisors meeting at 2:57 p.m. until December 14, 2016, at 3 p.m. for the next regularly scheduled meeting. Dr. Wallin adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 2:57 p.m. until December 12, 2016, at 6 p.m. for a special Planning Commission meeting. Steph A. Elswick Chairman 16-695 11/29/16 PC 191