# XII Committee of the Whole on Strategic Planning

Transcription

1 Date of Meeting: October 7, 2008 # XII Committee of the Whole on Strategic Planning COUNTY OF LOUDOUN OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Memorandum Date: October 1, 2008 To: Board of Supervisors From: Kirby Bowers, County Administrator Re: Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Attached for your consideration is an update on the Board s Strategic Planning process. Staff has identified the key choice points that must be made by the Board to achieve a comprehensive and coordinated work product for your term in office. Similarly, staff has identified where additional resources may be necessary to carry out certain efforts identified by the Board as potential priorities. As identified within the report, certain discussions and choices may be contingent on other efforts currently underway. Specifically, the FY10 budget discussions may have implications on the resources available to carry certain work efforts, and the Potomac-Sterling Community Outreach may recommend additional initiatives for the Board to consider which could impact other priorities. Please bring with you the information provided at the September 16, 2008 Business Meeting on Strategic Planning. I look forward to the discussion at the Committee of the Whole on October 7 th and am available if you would like to discuss this information with me prior to that meeting.

2 Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan October 7, 2008

3 Table of Contents Overview... 3 Questions for Board Direction... 4 Strategic Plan Discussion... 5 Timeline for Policy Initiatives CPAM/ZOAM Resource Levels Policy Initiatives

4 Overview The overarching theme that arose out of the Board s Strategic Planning Worksession is one of supporting Loudoun s existing communities. Whether through direct community enhancements, transportation improvements, or reductions in the residential tax burden, the Board of Supervisors has clearly indicated that Loudoun s existing communities need to come first. Considering this, staff recommends the Board develop its Strategic Plan according to this general theme. In the information provided in the following pages, staff has evaluated the choices the Board needs to make in order to capitalize upon this effort to focus on Loudoun s communities. Staff has identified the key choices regarding ZOAM and CPAM policy development, program implementation, and funding of targeted enforcement activities, which are provided on the next page. These questions are intended to focus future discussions by Board members in light of the information provided in the remainder of the report. On page 12, staff has provided a sample timeline of prioritized ZOAM and CPAM policy initiatives. This list was determined by a number of factors: staff resource availability, preliminary research needed to begin an initiative, and coordination with other policy initiatives. These timelines can be rearranged; i.e., one initiative could be substituted for another initiative (of a similar magnitude of staff effort). Finally, the information presented is based on the Action Step Report provided to the Board on September 16 th. As stated before, a majority of these efforts are on-going and can be initiated without formal direction by the Board. However, it must be noted that the efforts identified are highly predicated on the outcome of the FY10 budget deliberations and adoption. Should staff resources be reduced in such a way to affect provision of services, certain efforts may be affected or may not be able to be implemented. Similarly, the number of ZOAMs and CPAMs that can be processed by staff could be affected. Should that occur, staff would need to revise the suggested program of policy initiatives for the Board s term. Staff requests the Board bring the materials provided for the September 16 th Strategic Planning item for reference during the Committee of the Whole discussion

5 Questions for Board of Supervisors Direction Strategic Planning Effort 1. Does the Board agree, in general, with the broad focus on existing communities, as laid out in pages 5-9? a. If yes, continue. b. If no, direction is needed on which specific area/efforts should be pursued, and which efforts should be delayed. 2. Does the Board agree with the timeline of policy initiatives as suggested by staff on page 12? a. If yes, continue. b. If no, refinement of the proposed timeline will be necessary. 3. With respect to the Route 28 Corridor initiative, does the Board wish to: a. Pursue an overall review of Route 28 Corridor Land Use Policies (Staff recommended); b. Review just the Route 28 gateways for consideration as Urban Centers; or c. Forgo the policy amendments and consider rezonings as they are submitted? 4. Does the Board wish to consider a resource option for a Bike/Ped Plan position in the Office of Transportation Services? 5. Does the Board wish to consider funding additional public safety and/or zoning staff for the provision of additional public safety personnel and zoning enforcement? a. If yes: i. For targeted hotspots? ii. Countywide? 6. Does the Board wish to fund the implementation of the Blight, Tall Grass, and (potential) Graffiti Ordinances? a. If yes: i. All? ii. Some? 7. Does the Board want to fund the publication of additional materials in Spanish for outreach in the Hispanic community? 8. Are there existing efforts or pending policy initiatives underway which the Board wants to suspend or does not wish to pursue? - 4 -

6 Strategic Plan Discussion October 7, 2008 Introduction In the three years remaining in its term, the Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to focus its efforts to enhance the quality of life for existing residents, encourage economic development activities, and implement policies to ensure energy conservation and environmental protections are in place. This effort has the ability to touch all five topic areas identified during the Board s Strategic Planning Worksession. Staff recommends that the primary emphases for this effort be in the pre-defined Strategic Planning topic areas of Existing Communities and Environment/Energy. With the rapid growth in Loudoun County over the last eight years, an overwhelming focus has been on the new and upcoming neighborhoods and developments within Loudoun. Lesser attention has been placed on existing communities, specifically those in the Sterling and Sugarland Run districts. Similarly, while the 2003 Zoning Ordinance Amendments attempted to implement the 2001 Revised General Plan ( RGP ) with respect to environmental issues, these overlays were subsequently struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court and have not been reestablished. Protecting our sensitive environmental features are quality of life and health safety issues. While these topic areas above may be the primary drivers of this effort, Economic Development, Fiscal Health/Budget, and Transportation are intrinsically linked to this effort and will recognize positive benefits from the Board s prioritized work effort. Economic Development gains will be seen from a more stable community, reasonable and workable land uses for the County s key commercial corridors, and a regulatory environment that encourages business growth and retention. The County s fiscal health will be bolstered through a greater investment in businesses and jobs. Transportation efforts will establish the linkages between and among the communities with roads, sidewalks, trails, and transit. Encouraging multi-modal options within the community saves energy and brings community together. Choosing to pursue this broad strategy does not preclude work on already established initiatives, where there are no resource conflicts. Additionally, this strategic approach does not necessarily reflect all of the opportunities and efforts pursued by staff in areas outside of the specifically defined topic areas (an example would be affordable housing initiatives). The purpose of choosing a planned approach based on the Board s top five topic areas is to ensure specific efforts are completed by the end of the Board s term. As stated in the Overview, it must be noted that the following discussion is contingent upon the FY10 budget deliberations. The work products described below assume staff resources will not be significantly altered. Should the FY10 budget discussions turn out - 5 -

7 differently, staff will need to reevaluate the resources available to conduct these efforts and provide the Board with additional guidance on initiatives that can be pursued. The need for prioritization and additional resources falls primarily in the areas of Planning and Zoning. Planning s efforts mainly relate to community outreach and Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAMs), and Zoning s efforts touch both Zoning Ordinance Amendments (ZOAMs) and Zoning Enforcement activities. Staff recommends the Board pursue this broad approach in strategic planning to provide a framework for the Board s future decisions during its term. Key Question Does the Board agree that a broad effort, aimed at Loudoun s existing communities, will provide the most effective strategy for the remainder of its term? Staff has prepared a sample of what could be accomplished by the Board under this scenario. Broad focus on existing communities Planning/Policy Outcomes o Update to Countywide Transportation Plan o Adoption of Environmental Overlays (some or all) o Revisions to Sign Ordinance o Community Improvement Zoning Amendments (Potomac/Sterling Outreach implementation) o Route 28 Corridor Planning Process o Ashburn-Dulles Outreach (and potential implementation) o Proffer Policy Revisions * o Village Overlay Boundaries * * Not identified by Board at Strategic Planning Worksession, but identified by Staff as achieving the Board s Strategic Goals. Should the Board agree with this broad approach, it will then be necessary to prioritize specific efforts. Staff has provided a potential timeline of project review and completion on page 12. As discussed previously, existing staff resources or contract dollars dictate how many initiatives can be developed at one time. Additionally, certain policy initiatives will be ready to proceed to a work product prior to others (based on preliminary information or research needed). Nonetheless, should the Board desire to take up one policy discussion prior to another, adjustments could be made. Below is a more detailed description of the efforts proposed under this strategic focus, based on the proposed timelines outlined by staff: - 6 -

8 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Historic District Amendments (Existing Communities) o These amendments are primarily focused on updating provisions in the Ordinance related to appeals and required maintenance within Historic Districts. This effort is expected to be completed by late 2008 or early Limestone Overlay District (Environment/Energy) o This ZOAM is currently in process and is expected to be completed by March Staff intends to continue working on this initiative. Revisions to the Sign Ordinance (Economic Development) o The Economic Development Commission (EDC), through one of its subcommittees, has tasked an ad hoc group to develop suggested amendments to the County s Sign Ordinance, specifically for commercial properties. It is anticipated that the EDC will make a formal recommendation to the Board by the end of 2008, and the Board could then adopt an Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance in January This work effort is expected to take no more than 12 months, assuming only the commercial portions of the Sign Ordinance are revised. Community Improvement Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Existing Communities) o These minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance include: restricting parking on front yards, adopting additional provisions of the Property Maintenance Code for enforcement (either reactive or proactive), and allowing warrants for zoning inspections to be issued by the magistrate. River and Stream Corridor/Mountainside Overlays (Environment/Energy) o This is a two-step initiative. First, with respect to the River and Stream Corridors, an evaluation and recommendation regarding the approach is necessary, whether to reconsider RSCOD or implement a Chesapeake Bay Act approach. Staff expects such an effort to take approximately 4-6 months and include research and recommendations by staff, to be followed by policy discussions by the Planning Commission and Board. The second portion of this effort would be development of Zoning Ordinance or Plan Amendments. This second effort is expected to begin in the 1 st Quarter of 2010 and last approximately months, for final adoption in early to mid o Regarding the Mountainside Development Overlay District (MDOD), it is anticipated that appropriate Zoning Ordinance and Plan Amendments would coincide with the River and Stream Corridor Amendments stated above. This suggested plan of action for Zoning Ordinance Amendments would consume staff resources, with the exception of the last 9 months of the Board s term. During this time, staff resources would be available to work on several additional minor ZOAMs, to be identified by the Board at this time or in the future

9 Planning Policy Discussions/Amendments Countywide Transportation Plan (Transportation) o As indicated in the item presented at the Board s October 7 th Business Meeting, staff anticipates continuation of this effort and expects completion by the end of As the primary staff leads on this effort are within the Office of Transportation Services (OTS) and not the Planning Department, this effort does not take significant resources away from focus on other Planning/Policy discussions. Other transportation related strategic efforts already identified by the Board, such as increasing levels of advocacy/lobbying for funding and the implementation of needed transportation projects, are proceeding. Route 28 Corridor Planning (Economic Development) o Staff recommends a full review of the Route 28 corridor that would incorporate all the issues and considerations that have been raised, including gateway projects, Keynote policies, revitalization, etc. This effort is expected to take approximately 12 months, for completion by the end of Ashburn-Dulles Outreach (Existing Communities) o Similar to the Potomac-Sterling Outreach effort, this initiative will specifically target the Ashburn and Dulles communities. The outreach is expected to take 9 months, to be completed by Fall Implementation of Community Outreach Efforts (Existing Communities) o The recommendations of both the Potomac-Sterling and Ashburn- Dulles Outreach efforts may result in Comprehensive Plan Amendments or additional Planning efforts. Many of these recommendations are expected to fall outside of Planning, but should the Board desire to initiate a CPAM to implement any of these recommendations, staff would estimate approximately 12 months, during As of this writing, feedback from the community continues. It is anticipated that the Board will receive the full report to include strategies to consider at its October 21 st Business Meeting. Proffer Policy Revisions (Fiscal Health/Budget) o During the last four years, the Board has negotiated proffer agreements based on a policies expressed by resolution of the Board but not incorporated into the Revised General Plan. These relate to credits for capital facilities and regional transportation improvements. More specifically, this effort also includes consideration of policies to allow credit for private HOA-constructed facilities; capital contributions from commercial projects; and the annual update of Capital Intensity Factor formulas. This CPAM has been previously initiated by the Board and is in queue, and staff - 8 -

10 anticipates completion would take approximately 12 months and could be accomplished during Reconciliation of Village Overlay Boundaries (Existing Communities) o There are inconsistencies in the RGP boundaries, Zoning Ordinance boundaries, and sewer service areas defined for the County s Villages. Staff envisions that a CPAM would be necessary to reconcile these differences and allow greater opportunities for Loudoun s Villages to develop as envisioned in the RGP. This effort is expected to take approximately 12 months, during the entire year of Additional Resource Questions Certain targeted efforts, as identified by staff, will require additional staff resources for implementation. The Board should consider the following when determining priorities and projects for its term. In its effort to focus on Existing Communities, does the Board wish to fund additional public safety personnel and proactive enforcement of the zoning ordinance? If so, does the Board consider this effort needed countywide or just in targeted hotspots? Does the Board wish to consider adoption of additional provisions of the Property Maintenance Code and fund the enforcement of it? Implementing the priorities and strategies in the Bike/Ped Plan requires an FTE, which may be possible through a review of resources options to include a potential vacancy and re-prioritization of work efforts within the Office of Transportation Services (OTS). Does the Board wish to program a position in OTS for this effort? Additional funds needed for the development of a Safe Routes to Schools initiative will be identified after further research. The Board may choose to direct specific schools, communities, or election districts in which to research the possible implementation of this program. Does the Board wish to program additional funds for Community Outreach in the Sterling-Potomac communities, including publication of certain materials in Spanish? [Additional Spanish publications estimated to cost $50,000 annually; additional outreach efforts likely absorbed within existing efforts] Does the Board want to enact a Graffiti Abatement program? Does the Board want to fund the Graffiti Abatement, Blight Abatement, and Tall Grass programs in order to reduce the degree of blighted properties in the County? [Respective costs to enforce estimated at $60,000, $100,000, and $25,000 annually; staff resources needed to implement programs still under review] o One of the first properties being handled under the Blight Abatement Program will be before the Board within the next month, at which time additional information regarding potential costs will be provided

11 Confirming Board Direction on Existing Efforts As shown in the information presented in the September 16 th packet, there are numerous staff efforts either underway or in queue awaiting prioritization. The Board is asked to confirm the continuation of these efforts or, alternatively, to direct that staff not work on these efforts and remove them from any list of work efforts. In order to make these decisions, staff has provided a brief summary of each item. More information can be provided at the October 7 th Committee of the Whole if needed. Current Efforts Needing Board Direction: Loudoun Valley Estates III: On December 5, 2006, the Board initiated a rezoning of the 200-acre residential subdivision of Loudoun Valley Estates III. The property was remapped to PD-GI (General Industrial) in 2003 consistent with the County s Land Use policies. Simultaneously, the property developer, Toll Brothers, completed a subdivision under the original CR-1 zoning. The residents have expressed concerns about the value of their properties and their ability to build decks, pools, and sheds on their properties under the current PD-GI zoning. Green Property: On November 15, 2005, the Board initiated a Zoning Map Amendment in cooperation with the landowner to change approximately 0.5 acres of land from PD-IP (Planned Development Industrial Park) to RC (Rural Commercial) in the Village of Ashburn. A residence on the property does not conform to the PD-IP zoning district. The purpose of the rezoning is to remove the nonconforming status of the existing home. In 2008, the owner met with staff to discuss filing a separate rezoning to permit potential commercial uses on the property. Lower Middle Goose CPAM A landowner requested a CPAM that proposed to change the densities allowed in the lower portion of the Middle Goose sub-area of the Transition Policy Area to 1 dwelling unit/acre. A complementary rezoning application is also pending. Conservation Design references in Revised General Plan The Conservation Design approach recommended in the RGP remains, but the method/approach for implementation in the Zoning Ordinance, FSM, and other development ordinances need to be determined. The original CPAM recommendation sought to remove references to Conservation Design in the RGP. Changing the term would not be difficult, but revisiting the overall approach would involve a major reworking of Chapter

12 PUGAMP After much public input and discussion by and between the County and the Town of Purcellville, most outstanding issues related to PUGAMP were resolved. The remaining outstanding issue relates to policies on utility service in the Joint Land Management Area (JLMA). Related to this CPAM was the School Board's decision on May 9, 2006, to locate a new western Loudoun High School at Fields Farm which is located within the JLMA. Currently, this item is tied to the litigation between the County and the Town

13 Staff Suggested Timeline for Policy Initiatives Zoning Historic District Amendments (4 months total) Limestone Overlay District (8 months total) Sign Ordinance (12 months) Commuinity Improvements (9 months) Review RSCOD vs. Ches Bay Act (6 months) Implement MDOD/Water Quality (12-15 months) Minor ZOAM(s) as Needed (up to 3; 4-9 months each) Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Planning Countywide Transportation Plan (12 months) Route 28 Corridor (12 months) Ashburn-Dulles Outreach (9 months) Implement Community Outreach (12 months) Proffer Policy Revisions * (12 months) Village Overlay Boundaries * (12 months) Legend ~6-9 month project ~12 month project 12+ month project * Not identified by Board at Strategic Planning Worksession, but identified by Staff as achieving the Board s Strategic Goals

14 CPAM / ZOAM Resource Levels The chart below shows a general description of the work efforts possible at certain resource levels. The top of the pyramid is the current staff resource level. Moving down results in a greater work effort but requires a dedication of additional FTEs or reprogramming of existing FTEs from other work efforts. Staff has defined its work product as requiring a certain level of service: Minor, 4-6 months; Medium, 6-9 months; or Major, 9+ months. Planning has indicated that additional resources would not likely generate the ability for a greater work product, due to dependence on existing staff for the bulk of policy work. However, depending on the number of active rezoning applications, certain Planners could dedicate additional time to policy efforts. Additionally, should the Board choose, staff can limit its interjurisdictional and community information outreach efforts to dedicate more time to CPAMs. Current Resources (approx. work efforts per year) 2 CPAMs; - and 1 Major and 1 Minor/Med. ZOAM - or 3 Minor/Med. ZOAMs 2-3 CPAMs (depends on active rezoning workload); - and 2 Major and 1 Minor/Med. ZOAM - or - 1 Major and 3 Minor/Med. ZOAMs Requires 2 Add l Zoning FTEs at approx. cost of $140,

15 Potential Amendments/ Policy Initiatives Revised October 2008 PLANNING PROJECTS (Date initiated and level of effort required* in parentheses) Active Policy Initiatives/CPAMs 1. Leesburg JLMA/Joint Planning Area Review (10/17/2006, Major) 2. Amendment of PUGAMP policies and phasing for Patrick Henry College (7/17/07, back to Planning Commission on 3/4/08, Minor) 3. Heritage Resources Plan (2/5/08, Minor) 4. Community Outreach in Potomac and Sterling (2/5/08, Almost completed) 5. Belfort Task Force (1/15/08, Medium) Active Policy Initiatives/CPAMs in queue 1. Countywide Transportation Plan Update - Transit Plan to be incorporated (10/4/05 - Direction from Board expected on 10/7/08, Major) 2. Suburban Community Planning Initiatives- Outreach in Ashburn and Dulles (2/5/08, Medium) 3. Proffer Policies Revisions - Capital facilities and transportation (01/05, Medium) 4. Lower Middle Goose- proposes to change densities allowed in the lower portion of the Middle Goose sub-area (the 495 acre Criswell property) to 1 du/ac (9/20/05, Medium) 5. Villages and Village Commercial District Overlay Planning (reconciliation of sewer service areas, plan boundaries and zoning boundaries) (Outcome of rural remapping in 2003/2006, Major) 6. Conservation Design references in the Revised General Plan (4/19/05, Minor if just wording changes; Major if revision of all policies related to Conservation Design) 7. CPAM and ZOAM for a Rural Village Option in the Rural Policy Area (7/18/06, Major) 8. PUGAMP II (Reinitiation, 2/20/07, Minor or Major depending on breadth) Potential CPAMs Identified in Strategic Planning Process 1. Route 28 CPAM (could take a number of forms) (Medium or Major effort) 2. Implementation of Potomac-Sterling Outreach (TBD) 3. Facilities Planning (e.g., Western Schools) (Minor) Policy Discussions/Potential CPAMs 1. Central Utilities in Transition Area (Not CPAM, just policy discussion) 2. CPAM and Remapping regarding JLMA 20 and TR 10 for consistency with AR-1 (Not Board directed, outcome of rural remapping in 2006) * Level of effort defined as: Minor, 4-6 months; Medium, 6-9 months; Major, 9+ months

16 ZONING PROJECTS (Date initiated and level of effort required* in parentheses) In Progress: 1. Adoption of the Limestone Overlay District and companion zoning map amendment to implement text changes (7/15/08, Medium) 2. Update Historic District provisions (9/8/08, Minor) ZOAMs with Intents to Amend (RIA) by BOS: 1. Creation of a sign overlay district along the Route 606 Corridor (7/6/04, Major) 2. Comprehensive review of Sign Ordinance (2004, Major) 3. Parking on Front Yards (6/2008, Minor) 4. Farm Markets (Initiated by PC in 7/2007, again in 5/2008, Minor) 5. Create an alternative PD-RV district (7/2006, Major) Potential ZOAMs identified by others: 1. An amendment to regularize the so-called townhouses in Cascades Section 13 pursuant to a settlement agreement made in (Staff identified, Minor) 2. Comprehensive review of Article 7, Affordable Dwelling Units. A companion amendment to the Codified Ordinance may also be necessary. (ADUAB identified, Major) 3. Environmental regulations (Major) A. Revisit, re-tool, and implement Green Infrastructure policies of the Plan through zoning ordinance amendments. B. Update and adopt Mountainside Overlay District (MDOD) revisions based on 2003 amendments C. Revise steep slopes standards for consistency with Green Infrastructure policies and MDOD. D. Update and adopt River and Stream Corridor Overlay District (RSCOD) based on 2003 amendments. 3. Allow for a mix of uses in the CLI district (Initiated by PC in 2007, Major) 4. Annual Review of the Zoning Ordinance (Discussed by Board in 2007, Major) 5. Revise Article 6 on rezoning and special exception process to solely reflect the Code of Virginia and address checklist requirements (Staff identified, Minor) 6. Amend hamlet regulations to resolve pending litigation issue (Staff identified, Minor) 7. Remap JLMA-20 and TR-10 for consistency with AR-1 (Staff identified, Medium) 8. Amend enforcement provisions to allow issuance of inspection warrants by magistrate (Staff identified, Minor) 9. Allow nonconforming uses that have been paying property taxes for 15 years or more to be considered a conforming use (Staff identified, Minor) 10. Structures allowed by a variance may expand without another public hearing process (Staff identified, Minor) 11. Disclosure requirement changes (Staff identified, Minor) * Level of effort defined as: Minor, 4-6 months; Medium, 6-9 months; Major, 9+ months

17 12. Adjustment of acreage requirements for agricultural/horticultural uses (Staff identified, Minor) Potential ZOAMs Identified in Strategic Planning Process 1. Update and adopt environmental overlay regulations (Major) 2. Alternatives to address Sign Ordinance issue (Minor to Major, depending on scope of work) 3. Incentives for increasing/maintaining tree canopies (Minor to Medium, depending on scope of work) 4. Adopt all portions of Property Maintenance Code for enforcement by Zoning (Minor) 5. Adopt recent Code of Virginia changes for Administrative Warrants (Minor) Major Rezoning Applications 1. Broadlands Regional Medical Center 2. Remaining Upper Broad Run/Upper Foley Transition Area cases (Greenfields, Westport) 3. Middle Goose 4. Dulles Town Center Board-initiated re-zonings 1. Leesburg West JLMA (Crosstrail Property) 2. Loudoun Valley Estates III: 3. Green Property: 4. East Gate ZCPA for Transportation Improvements * Level of effort defined as: Minor, 4-6 months; Medium, 6-9 months; Major, 9+ months