BACKGROUND:

On April 5, 2006, the Board approved a work program that Community Development has been following (Attachment A).  This work session is to review the progress on Community Development’s work program since last April, consider new initiatives the Board has discussed with respect to this work program, and determine if any reprioritization is appropriate.

STRATEGIC PLAN:

Goal 2: Protect the County's Natural, Scenic and Historic Resources

Goal 4:  Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.

DISCUSSION:

Progress on work program issues is discussed in Attachment B.    Staff notes the following as significant with respect to the last nine months’ efforts and work in the next year:

• Pantops Master Plan has been drafted and is currently being reviewed by the Planning Commission. It is anticipated to be forwarded to the Board in either March or April.
• Places 29 Master Plan is still under development and anticipated to be presented to the Planning Commission in the first quarter of FY ’07-’08.  The work program anticipates the Board will complete its review in FY ’07-’08. Work on the Southern Urban Area is planned to start with completion of Places 29. 
• Rivanna Master Plan is anticipated to start in the last quarter of FY ’06-’07 and staff has drafted a contract for this work with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) to prepare a draft plan. It should be noted this work is planned to start with completion of the Pantops Master Plan (see Attachment B). 
• Economic Development Policy discussion with the Board is scheduled for February 2007, noting the work program has not anticipated any major new effort following that discussion.
• Community Facilities Plan update is being deferred to provide Parks and Recreation and RSWA additional time to prepare new plans.   
• Work on the Phasing/Clustering provisions is complete. 
• Work on the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) has expanded beyond what was anticipated last April and is now anticipated to take an additional six to nine months for completion. 
• Work on critical slopes and overlot grading has been deferred to allow any changes anticipated for the Rural Areas and MOD to be incorporated into a single ordinance amendment. 

In addition to the existing work program initiatives, staff notes the Board has expressed interest in the following new initiatives:

• Implementation of the Development Review Task Force recommendations.  This Board appointed task force has been meeting since April and is anticipated to complete its recommendations within the next couple of months. Staff anticipates this will include ordinance amendments that will need to be prioritized against other work program initiatives, but the extent of that effort had not been defined at the time this report was prepared.
• Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) /Rural Areas downzoning / Receiving Area creation.  As outlined by Mr. Slutzky at the December 6^th Board meeting, this initiative would require significant staff resources for several years.  Staff anticipates this initiative would require a major reprioritization of the work program.  This proposal is currently being evaluated for workload impacts and staff plans to discuss those impacts in February.  
• Other Rural Areas protection strategies. As part of the MOD discussion, the idea of expanding MOD measures to the entire Rural Areas as well as investigating other new protection measures has been discussed.  Expanding this to the entire Rural Areas is anticipated to require approximately the same amount of time to prepare as an MOD-only amendment, but staff believes it could require significantly more time and resources for the public process. 
• Sustainable population projections and correlation to master plans.  In discussing the concept of priority areas within master plans, the concept of developing sustainable population projections that would be used for master plans and future Rural Areas planning has been discussed. In reviewing this concept, the essential first step would be to reach agreement on assumptions/standards that would be used for developing such as projection. Staff also notes that no other communities have been found that use this approach.  Thus, the County would be inventing an entirely new process. Staff believes that drafting those assumptions could be done by a Board appointed committee with minimal staff involvement but the process of incorporating this work into the Comprehensive Plan would be a major undertaking.  Applying those assumptions to the master plans could be done as a routine part of master plan review or development once it was in the Comprehensive Plan.    
• Green Building / Sustainability Initiatives.   This concept was discussed with the County Board at a September 13^th worksession.  Staff is currently working on three areas: 1) documenting existing County efforts, 2) exploring how to facilitate stronger interest in green building with the development community, and 3) exploring how to improve communication and understanding with respect to green building efforts.  If there is interest in expanding beyond that effort, staff believes it may be necessary to prioritize this work against other initiatives.      
• Enhanced Erosion & Sediment Control Program.  Several Board members have expressed an interest in how the County’s Erosion and Sediment Control program could be improved.  Staff has been investigating possible strategies.  A higher level of protection will require additional resources, by the County and/or developers, as well as raise construction costs.  As such, staff anticipates this initiative would require significant resources to adopt and implement.     
• Proffer Policy.  Staff noted from the April discussion that a proffer policy was among the initiatives postponed for consideration.  Since then, the Board decided the Fiscal Impact Committee could initiate work in this area by developing a better understanding of impacts related to development. To date, staff’s involvement in this effort has been minimal.  The next step of developing a proffer policy and adopting it into the Comprehensive Plan would require significant staff resources.  

BUDGET IMPACT:

Staff notes this work plan is largely incorporated into Community Development’s budget.  However, completion of the items listed below will require additional resources or adjustments to the work plan.  These items will appear as proposed new initiatives in the upcoming budget process.  These proposed budget initiatives are also listed in Attachment B and include:

• Neighborhood Planner to assist with implementation of the Places 29 Master Plan. 
• Consultant services requested for Adequate Public Facilities as part of Community Facilities Plan update.
• RA Agriculture/Forestry Planner, per the Rural Areas Plan.
• Consultant services requested for Entrance Corridor Guidelines update.
• Consultant services requested for Historic Resources database.
• TEA 21 Grant match for Phase 3 of Crozet Avenue improvements.
• Increased ACE funding requests (additional funding has been included in the proposed CIP).

Beyond the budget impacts above that will be discussed further during the budget process, any additional Board initiatives will either have an additional budget impact or will need to be achieved by reprioritizing the work plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1.                   Staff recommends the Board accept the following proposed changes to the work program:  deferring work on the Community Facilities Plan, the Comprehensive Plan format, and overlot grading and critical slopes regulations.  It is also recognized that any direction on Economic Development Policy initiatives and Development Review Task Force recommendations may require additional revisions to the work program.

2.                   Staff requests Board direction on prioritizing current work plan items and on new Board initiatives that are not currently a component of the work plan.  While specific budget direction should be fully considered during the budget process, general direction from the Board on the priority of work plan items is needed.  An assessment of how best to accomplish those priorities, whether through additional funding or delay in completion of other items in the work plan, can be more fully considered during the budget process.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Community Development Five Year Work Program

Attachment B – Update of Community Development Work Program

Return to regular agenda