Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee II

October 19, 2004-- ROOM 235

Albemarle County Office Building

12:15 – 1:45 p.m.



MEMBERS PRESENT:   Bill Edgerton, Marilynn Gale, Katie Hobbs, Tom Loach, Steve Runkle, Steve Von Storch, Will Rieley, and Jeff Werner.


VISITORS:  There were three visitors present.


STAFF:  Elaine Echols, Mark Graham and Greg Kamptner


1.                  Call to Order – Steve Runkle called to order at 12:20 p.m.


2.                  Approval of Minutes from September 14, 2004 Meeting – On a motion of Katie Hobbs, seconded by Steve Von Storch, the minutes were approved as written.


3.                  Approval of Minutes from September 21, 2004 Meeting – On a motion of Tom Loach, seconded by Katie Hobbs, the minutes were approved as written.


4.                  Review of Proposed Text Changes – Elaine Echols began the review of the memo dated October 15, 2004 entitled, STA Proposed Waivers.  She reviewed the proposed rewording of the ordinance.  The group talked about the wording of 14-409 C (v) Interconnections and several members expressed concern that the wording implied that one could “trade” one Neighborhood Model principle for another to get a waiver.  After discussion, the group concluded that 14-409 C (v) should be clarified to say that a waiver for creating street interconnections could not be granted just because another principle of the Neighborhood Model was met.  The criteria in (v) should reflect more holistic approach to the application of the Neighborhood Model.  Greg Kamptner said he believed he could modify the wording to reflect that change.  No other changes were recommended by DISC II.


Section 14-411, Standards for public streets only, was discussed next.  The proposed text would allow the agent to approve street construction at less than the ultimate pavement width.  Steve Runkle said that DISC II had been thinking about the need to extend streets to adjoining property lines on a “length” basis, but he wondered if 14-409 C should be considered on a “width” basis as well.  He illustrated an example in Crozet where he was being asked to extend the width of the r.o.w. to a property boundary so that four properties would have access to the public street which currently do not have access to a public street.  He asked about the fairness of extending the width of the street to give the other properties increased value and development potential.  He talked about different ways in which he could meet the requirements of 14-409 but not provide direct access to all of the properties. 


DISC II discussed this issue at length.  Jeff Werner said that in many cases, the Board of Supervisors is going to have to participate in the making the ultimate street network happen, such as Main Street in Crozet.  He said that the County needs to be ready to intervene on behalf of a developer in order to make sure that interconnections shown on the master plan will actually occur.  Mr. Runkle wondered if one way to make that happen would be for developers to get “credit” for doing what it takes to make the master plan occur, especially with street locations, connections, and extensions.


Mr. Runkle wondered if there could be any waiver to depth or construction material requirements.  Mark Graham said that it was not possible for this to happen on curb and gutter streets.  


Questions were raised concerning ways for developers to get reimbursed for oversizing streets.  Mr. Kamptner consulted the state code regarding repayment for oversize portions of streets and said that the only way this could happen would be for the County to adopt some type of tax-increment financing.  DISC II decided that Section 14-411, as written, was acceptable.


Section 313 – Overlot grading was discussed last.  Several questions were asked concerning the application of this section.  Item H. includes the phrase, “to avoid scraping the vehicle body” and several members asked if this statement could be more quantitative than qualitative.  Mr. Graham said he would provide the appropriate language.  Ms. Echols noted that section J. had to be rewritten to reflect that the agent could grant the waiver, not the county engineer, since it fell under Section 14-224.1, Agent waivers.  She said that, in practice, there would be no difference since the agent would defer to the county engineer.  No other changes were recommended by DISC II.


4.         Set Next Meeting Date – Staff noted that it might be difficult to complete the discussion of changes to the text by the November 3, 2004 Board meeting.  Ms. Echols asked if DISC II would be willing to meet a third time during the 2-week period.  DISC II members were unable to find a suitable time to hold a 3rd meeting so they agreed to meet on the next scheduled date – October 26 – at noon.


5.         Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.     

Return to consent agenda

Return to regular agenda