AGENDA DATE: 3/8/2017
TITLE:
Title
Community Development Priorities and Process Discussion
BODY
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Assure alignment between the Board’s priority interests and the Community Development Department (CDD) work program
ITEM TYPE: Regular Information Item
STAFF CONTACT(S): Walker, Kamptner, Graham
PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham, Greg Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Not Required
REVIEWED BY: Douglas C. Walker
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work session is to consider the Board’s interests, as expressed by its adopted strategic priorities, as well as other initiatives not necessary reflected as a strategic priority but still important with the intent to assure that the Community Development Department (CDD) is being responsive to the interests of the Board. The Board’s Strategic Plan Priorities and previously established work program initiatives have provided good direction. However, staff recognizes an interest in a number of other initiatives that are not yet part of CDD’s work program. The ongoing challenge and opportunity is to assure staff remains focused on completing established expectations, while being responsive to the Board as new interests emerge.
STRATEGIC PLAN: Quality Government Operations: Ensure County government’s ability to provide high quality service that achieves community priorities
DISCUSSION: Staff is not recommending a specific solution at this meeting or asking the Board to approve the CDD Work Plan. Instead, it is staff’s intent to engage the Board in a dialogue about the current work elements associated with the Board’s strategic priorities so that Board and staff can better assure appropriate and reasonable responsiveness to emerging land use policy interests without sacrificing established department performance expectations.
To be sure, the visionary aspects of the Board’s interests excites staff. Nevertheless, it remains challenging to staff to prioritize new initiatives and interests against established expectations, while maintaining the high quality of work we understand is expected by the Board and the community. To illustrate this dilemma, CDD is currently engaged with twelve of the Board’s Strategic Plan Priorities and the following six additional priorities:
Residential Impacts / Proffer Policy
Zoning Ordinance Recodification
Economic Development Strategic Plan Implementation
Southwood Redevelopment (per Board adopted resolution)
Hydraulic / Route 29 Small Area Plan and Transportation Plan
Natural Resources Strategic Plan Implementation
In addition to those established priorities, staff has noted the following Board interests not yet prioritized in the work program:
Phase 2 - Wineries, Breweries, Distilleries
Phase 2 - Rural Area Inns / Historic Districts
Affordable Housing Policy
Crossroad Communities
Dark Skies (lighting restrictions)
Transient Lodging (e.g. AirBNB)
Development Density (Gross vs. Net Density)
Recreational Uses in the Rural Areas (e.g. golf courses)
RA Churches
Outdoor Display in Entrance Corridors
Private Schools, by-right in Development Areas
Farmer’s Markets, by-right in Rural Areas
“Dwellings” Definition changes
Solar Farms (e.g. commercial solar production in RA)
Most of these interests will require a robust public engagement process with associated extended process timeframes. Some may be possible to simplify without compromising quality process and outcomes. For most, if not all, a consistent challenge is the assurance that staff is providing the right amount of public engagement with these efforts - recognizing that it is the public engagement aspect of the policy development process that typically determines the time and resources required to be successful. Moreover, each policy issue requires its own assessment and determination of the nature and extent of engagement. For example, staff indicated in 2016 that the Farm Winery, Breweries, and Distilleries ordinance amendment would require an expansive public process and almost a year to complete. Similarly, in late 2015, staff advised that an ordinance amendment for by-right drive through windows could be completed in a couple of months with limited outreach. In both cases, the product was successfully delivered within the anticipated timeframe with minimal unmitigated controversy at the Board consideration stage.
For this Worksession discussion, staff is hopeful that through dialogue with the Board about the current priority projects and any additional policy initiatives within a context of process timelines and resource requirements, the Board and staff can be aligned with the CDD work program performance expectations and identify any areas for further discussion.
BUDGET IMPACT: No changes to the budget is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Following a short presentation, staff requests Board input regarding alignment between the Board’s priority initiatives and the CDD work program performance expectations including the identification of any policy areas that require further discussion and/or resolution.
ATTACHMENTS: None