HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200600023 Legacy Document 2006-11-03 (3)Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 5, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 5, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Jon
Cannon, Pete Craddock, Marcia Joseph, Chairman and Bill Edgerton. Absent was Jo Higgins. Julia
Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman,
FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amy
Arnold, Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Tamara Ambler,
Natural Resources Manager; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Dan Mahon, Greenway Planner with
Parks and Recreation; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Ms. Joseph asked for committee reports from the Commissioners.
Mr. Morris said that the CHART Committee meets tomorrow night. The committee will be starting
the review of the five or six year plans.
Mr. Edgerton noted that nothing new has happened in the last two months on the ACE
Committee. The Ace Committee is continuing the review of easements and assignments.
Mr. Craddock noted that the next meeting of the Capital Improvements Committee is on October
5.
Mr. Edgerton said that the Fiscal Impact Committee meets on September 13. The Board of
Supervisors gave direction to the Fiscal Impact Committee to start looking at the proffer policy.
The committee will start looking at that. The School's Long Range Planning Committee is
meeting sometime within the next two weeks. They are continuing to look at the capital needs of
the schools.
Ms. Joseph said that at the meeting before last the Development Review Task Force talked about
sending out questions to the development community and public to survey how they find out
about development that goes on and with the developers on how they feel about the process.
The task force is trying to get feedback on how they might change that process.
Mr. Strucko noted that at the last Development Review Task Force meeting they went over some
of the survey questions. They also talked about the engineering review and certification process.
There was debate as to who conducts the engineering review and whether it is County staff or
they rely on professional certification of engineers to let that stand. There was discussion as to
who conducts it, when it occurs and whether doing the actual site construction that could
potentially mess up a project and make it more costly versus having something before hand.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Jeff Werner, representative for Piedmont Environmental Council, made the following statement to the
Planning Commission:
"My name is Jeff Werner. I am speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council. Next
week, the Board of Supervisors will discuss a series of proposed regulations and incentives
intended to protect the Rural Areas. It is rumored that phasing will not survive those discussions.
Some have even suggested that the solution lies in clustering alone; without phasing. This view
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 1
FINAL ACTION MEMO
ignores the Rural Areas Plan which states that addressing the rate of development is as
important as addressing its form. Rearranging rural lots via clustering may achieve site-specific
objectives, but the results off-site are the same. More cars on unimproved roads; more wells;
more suburbanites demanding public services; more complaints about the sights, sounds and
smells of adjacent agricultural and forestal activities.
At the hearings in August, some speakers said the County had not recognized their stewardship
of the land. However, it needs to be understood that the Rural Areas Plan is not slight on their
stewardship, but a response to the fact that since 1980 over 95,000 -acres of the Rural Areas
have been subdivided.
It is argued that simply approving more growth in the Growth Area will reduce rural development.
However, the numbers don't support this. Between 2003 and the 2nd quarter of this year, 1,847
residential building permits were issued in the Growth Area, and over 6,000 Growth Area dwelling
units were approved by CPAs and ZMAs. Yet during this period, Rural Area subdivision and
building permits did not waiver from their long-term trends. In the Rural Area, 2,763 residential
building permits were issued and according to the Site Review Committee memos, well over
1,100 new rural lots were proposed and 23,000 -acres lost to subdivision.
It can be argued that many County residents are simply not aware that Albemarle's countryside is
being slowly fragmented into suburban -scale lots. I am here tonight to suggest that it should
never be said that County officials did not have this information.
How many of you know that in the past decade almost 3,000 residential building permits were
issued for the Rural Area? In the past decade, did you know that over 51,000 -acres of the Rural
Areas were subdivided? Do you know how many lots were created? Do you know how many
Growth Area and Rural Area building permits have been closed out and the homes occupied? In
the past decade, almost 6,000 Growth Area building permits were approved. Many permits were
approved during the drought in a rush to beat a feared moratorium on development. Do you
know how many of the homes for these rushed permits have been built and occupied?
In 2003, the County approved the CPA for Rivanna Village with the proposal for 1,268 new
dwelling units. The current ZMA has only 200 to 500 units. Even after the next set of approvals,
there is no guarantee of how many units will get built. The evolution to a lower -density project is
not unique to Rivanna Village. To understand this, the Planning Commission should request
regular updates.
In 2003, the County distributed its last comprehensive Development Activity Report. In it were
the annual totals on all subdivision and development. While the County has never issued
monthly reports, the PEC suggests that the provision of regular updates on subdivision and
construction activity is critical to the decision-making process. This information "renders visible"
the scale of new development in the County. Without up-to-date and complete information, both
the Planning Commission and local residents are unable to realize - - and thus take action on - -
what is happening to their community.
(See Attachment A — Statement to Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors dated 8-5-06 from Jeff Werner)
There being no further comments, the meeting moved on to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — March 21, 2006.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, that the consent agenda be approved.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Ms. Higgins was absent.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Ms. Joseph stated that the consent agenda has been approved.
Deferred Items:
AFD 2006-01 South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District Review
PROPOSED: Review, South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District; determine termination, modification, or
continuation of the District; renewal cycle revised: 7 -year to 10 -year review period; created October 6,
1999, review prior to October 6, 2006. Withdrawals proposed: TMP 109 - 70 (40.063 acres); TMP 110 - 8
(105.20 acres); TMP 110 - 18E (32.767 acres). Addition proposed: TMP 110 - 7A (13.440 acres).
Current acreage 2,033.33; with additions/subtractions 1,868.74 acres; net loss 164.59 acres
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: Chapter 3.3-204; Chapter 3.3-225.5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: North Garden between Route 29 south and Routes 712 / 719 with northern boundaries
adjacent to the South Fork of the Hardware River.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Current composition: TMP 109 - 70; TMP 110 - 8; TMP 110 - 18; TMP 110 - 18E
TMP 110 - 27 totaling 2,033.33 acres.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
STAFF: Amy Arnold
DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to approve AFD -2006-01, South Garden
Agricultural/Forestal District Review with staff's two recommended conditions.
1. The following shall be withdrawn from the South Garden Agricultural and Forestal District:
Tax Map 109, Parcel 70 (40.063 acres)
Tax Map 110, Parcel 8 (105.2 acres)
Tax Map 110, Parcel 18E (32.767 acres)
2. The renewal cycle shall be revised from a 7 -year to a 10 -year interval.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that AFD -2006-01, South Garden Agricultural/Forestal District Review would go to the
Board of Supervisors on October 4 with a recommendation for approval.
SP -2006-016 Mountain View Full Gospel Church — Expansion (Sign #76)
PROPOSED: Amend SP 1981-13; church expansion
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 31.2.4.1; 10.2.2 (35)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1005 Smith Road (Route 758), Afton; south of Route 637
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 69, Parcel 37
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
STAFF: Amy Arnold
DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 8, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
fishery uses;
agricultural,
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve SP -2006-016, Mountain View Full
Gospel Church as depicted on the August 24, 2006 drawing with the recommended conditions, and
also to approve the waiver from Section 18-31.2.4.4 to allow five years from the date of approval of
this Special Use Permit to commence construction instead of two years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 3
FINAL ACTION MEMO
1. The site plan amendment shall be developed in general accord with the concept
plan received August 24, 2006, prepared by Glenda Atkins, and titled "Mountain View Full
Gospel Church Concept Plan" (Attachment A.1 and 2)
2. The sanctuary area shall be limited to 192 fixed seats.
3. A tree conservation plan in accord with Section 32.7.9.4b is required to be submitted,
reviewed and approved prior to approval of a building permit for any structure shown on this
concept plan.
4. Tree removal shall be limited to 5' beyond all parking areas.
5. A 20' (minimum) width of existing woodland along the southern property boundary shall
remain undisturbed.
6. Five large oak trees located off of the northwest corner of the existing church building shall
be included on the tree conservation plan.
7. VDOT approval of the entrance including the sight distance requirements is required to be
granted prior to building permit issuance.
8. This use shall commence within 5 years of the date of approval rather than the 24 months
stated in section 31.2.4.4.
9. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without the approval of a
separate Special Use Permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that in sending this to the Board for action staff will make sure that there is a
specific reference in condition #1 to the attachment that the Commission noted.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP -2006-016, Mountain View Full Gospel Church, would go to the Board of
Supervisors on October 4 with a recommendation for approval.
Public Hearing Items:
SP -2006-023 Luck Stone Quarry Flood Control Berm (Sign #50)
PROPOSED: Request for fill in the floodway fringe to allow for a flood control berm on a 127.797 acre
parcel.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety and protection from
flooding; NR Natural Resource - overlay to allow natural resource extraction; EC Entrance Corridor -
overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access
SECTION: 30.3.05.2.2(1); 30.3.05.2.1(1)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre); Parks and
Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: One (1) mile East of the US Route 250 /1-64 Interchange (Shadwell Exit 124) on Route 250
(2611 and 2905 Richmond Road, Charlottesville)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 79-7
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Tamara Ambler
Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to approve SP -2006-023, Luck Stone Quarry Flood
Control Berm, with staff's recommended conditions:
1. County Engineer approval of a grading and an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance
of a grading permit for activity in the area of the flood control berm.
2. Natural Resources Manager and Design Planner approval of a mitigation plan for the
restoration/enhancement of the stream buffer prior to the issuance of a grading permit for activity in the
area of the flood control berm.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
FINAL ACTION MEMO
3. Applicant shall obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and copy the County Engineer on all correspondence.
4. County Engineer approval of as -built drawings for the completed flood control berm, including
geotechnical engineer certification of the adequate compaction of the fill.
5. Upon completion of the flood control berm the applicant will comply with the conditions identified in the
CLOMR issued by FEMA and will copy the County Engineer on all correspondence related to this
matter.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP -2006-029, Luck Stone Quarry Flood Control Berm, would go to the Board of
Supervisors on October 4 with a recommendation for approval.
SP -2005-026 Luck Stone Asphalt Plant Relocation (Sign #50)
PROPOSED: Relocate existing asphalt mixing plant site on the 127 ac. Luck Stone quarry property to a
4.1 ac. area on the southwest corner of the property, north of the railroad
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); NR Natural Resource - Overlay to allow natural resource extraction; EC
Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from
visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access; FH Flood Hazard - Overlay to provide safety
and protection from flooding
SECTIONS: 18-30.4.02(2) asphalt mixing plants; 18-30.4 natural resource; 18-30.6 entrance corridor
overlay; 18-30.3 flood hazard
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre); Parks and
Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle paths
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 2528 Richmond Road (Rt. 250), appx. 1 -mi. east of 164 intersection
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 79-7, 7B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Joan McDowell
Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to approve SP -2005-026, Luck Stone Asphalt Plant
Relocation with the recommended conditions, as amended changing the dates to the records just
received, as stated.
1. Special Use Permit 2005-26 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan,
titled "Luck Stone Corporation Special Use Permit Asphalt Plant Relocation Conceptual
Plan", dated August 1, 2006, and Cross Sections (Line of Sight) Plans for Auburn Hill
dated 10/27/05 and for Monticello dated 11/22/05 (Attachment A). However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The existing asphalt plant shall be demolished and removed from the property no later
than two months following the start of operation of the new plant.
3. Approval of this Special User Permit shall expire when the adjacent quarry is no longer in
operation. Hours and days of operation shall not exceed 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM Monday
through Saturday and 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM Monday through Saturday for no more than
60 days per year.
4. Sound/noise barriers and attenuation measures, as described in the ASTEC, Inc. Certified
Engineers Report (Attachment C), will be provided as necessary to comply with the
County "noise" requirements (Code 18-4.18). The applicant shall identify these measures
on the site development plan and the asphalt plant building permit plans.
5. Plant site lighting will comply with County `outdoor lighting" requirements (Code 18-4.17).
6. A copy of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality "construction permit' shall be
submitted to the county engineer prior to approval of a final site plan for the asphalt plant.
7. A special use permit for fill within the flood hazard overlay district shall be obtained, to
allow the raising of the ground elevation adjacent to Barn Branch and creation of a levee
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 5
FINAL ACTION MEMO
to protect the quarry and its operations from the 100 -year flood, prior to approval of a site
plan for the asphalt plant.
8. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is required to be obtained by the applicant
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a copy provided to the
county engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the asphalt plant.
9. Prior to County issuance of a zoning clearance and certificate of occupancy for the plant,
the applicant shall:
Submit and obtain county engineer approval of as -built drawings for the completed
and stabilized levee (including geotechnical engineer certification of the adequate
compaction of the fill).
Provide the county engineer with documentation demonstrating that the information
necessary to address the conditions of the CLOMR has been submitted to FEMA.
11. The buffer area along Route 250 shall be maintained to provide a visual barrier between
the operations on the site and Route 250.
12. The asphalt plant shall be designed in a manner to provide forward circulation for trucks
as they enter, load, and exit the area, as depicted on the plan titled "Luck Stone
Corporation, Charlottesville Plant Site Map Asphalt Plant Relocation" and dated August 8,
2006 (Attachment B).
13. No direct conveyance of storm water from the asphalt plant area to Barn Branch shall be
permitted.
14. The natural landscape area between the CSX Railroad south of the proposed site and the
Rivanna River on TMP 79-713 shall be maintained in its current natural state, as shown on
Attachment D, with the exception of allowing for a greenway trail, should a greenway trail
be installed in the future.
15. The maximum height of any portion of the asphalt plant shall not exceed 83 feet, as
measured from the finished site grade.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP -2005-026, Luck Stone Asphalt Plant Relocation, would go to the Board of
Supervisors on October 4 with a recommendation for approval.
ZMA-2006-007 Hollymead Town Center Area B Proffer Amendment (Sign #80)
PROPOSAL: To amend approved proffers on land that is zoned PDMC: Planned Development Mixed
Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre). No
dwelling units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density
area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces,
attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: West of Route 29 between Town Center Drive and Timberwood Boulevard.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 43; Tax Map 32, Parcel 43B, Tax Map 32, Parcel 43C; and Tax
Map 32, Parcel 43D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to deny ZMA-2006-007, Hollymead Town Center Area
B Proffer Amendment, for the reasons stipulated in the staff report.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Commissioner Higgins was absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2006-007, Hollymead Town Center Area B Proffer Amendment,
would go to the Board of Supervisors on October 11 with a recommendation for denial.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 8:11 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at
8:19 p.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 6
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Work Session:
CPA -2004-002 Pantops Master Plan - This work session was focused on transportation and
neighborhood connections, including roads, transit, and pedestrian and bike goals and recommendations
of the Pantops Master Plan, as well as an update on transportation studies that are underway outside of
this master plan. Also, this work session was intended to include a review of previous work
sessions on the Pantops Master Plan draft elements and include a discussion of the next steps in the
master plan process. (David Benish/Rebecca Ragsdale)
In summary, the Planning Commission held the third work session on CPA -2004-002, Pantops Master
Plan, with a focus on transportation issues and how connections between places in Pantops will be
improved. Staff reviewed the staff report and went through the public concerns regarding transportation
to provide a brief overview of what staff has heard. Transportation has emerged as the highest priority
issue to be addressed in Pantops and a great deal of public response during the master plan process has
been focused on transportation issues.
Staff focused on the following issues:
Public Concerns on Transportation — Roads, Transit, Pedestrian and Bikes
Studies — Summary of relevant studies that have been completed or are underway regarding
transportation in Pantops
Planned Road Improvements in Pantops
Pantops Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations for Transportation
Public Input on the Preliminary Recommendations for Transportation
Richard Spurzem provided input regarding new information on a recent land purchase that he
had made in reference to the relocation of Hansen Mountain Road through the Gazebo Plaza site
to Glenorchy Drive. He noted that they have been working with VDOT regarding this problem
along the Route 250 Corridor as part of the final site plan he has under review with the County for
the project. Mr. Spurzem provided the Commission a copy of the road relocation plans.
The Planning Commission discussed staff's recommendations regarding transportation and provided
comments and suggestions.
Infrastructure is needed for pedestrian access. An emphasis should be placed on the
consideration of pedestrian overpasses or cross walks in the Pantops area. Language should be
included to suggest the County make a commitment through the development process to figure
out how to get pedestrians safely to their destination
The Commission expressed concerns regarding possible additional widening of Route 250.
There was support of Route 250 having a boulevard character to provide sidewalks and street
trees to slow down traffic.
Bus stops need to be shown along Route 250, particularly in the park and ride areas.
The Commission directed staff to provide more specific recommendations with regard to
interconnections proposed to existing residential areas with rural roads and lack of pedestrian
facilities. (Such as Fontana and Glenorchy) The Commission would like to see stronger language
and priority placed on improving the rural sections and upgrading.
In follow up on the Commercial Mixed Use Corridor shown on the Framework Plan (red area on
map) from last week, the Commission voiced concerns about the wide range of uses allowed
from residential to commercial to industrial uses.
o Staff noted that the Commercial Mixed Use designation (red area on map) calls for mixed
use development and would encourage re -development that was not necessarily highway
oriented. This category allows for a broad range of commercial uses such as car
dealerships that currently exist in that area. It does not discourage those types of uses
and encourages redevelopment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 7
FINAL ACTION MEMO
o A suggestion was made to add design control, possibly corridor specific, to foster change
in the Commercial Mixed Use Corridor and ways to encourage people to look for more
creative ways in form to accommodate the social need for these types of services, such
as car dealerships. An example was to make better use of the topography. It was
suggested that staff borrow language from the Neighborhood Model.
o Monticello's view shed, or lack of visibility of this Commercial Corridor from Monticello,
was considered by staff in designating the Corridor Commercial Mixed Use. The
Commission had questions as to what maps or studies were available on Monticello's
view shed. Staff noted that there is a study and that is available should the Commission
want to review it, but was not recently prepared and is not in the County's GIS system.
o The Planning Commission directed staff to provide a report summarizing all three work
sessions prior to moving forward with the Master Plan process
The Planning Commission liked the idea of establishing a community council for Pantops, as has
been done for Crozet, and emphasized that a Planning Commissioner should be part of that
council.
Old Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved on to the next
item.
New Business:
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any new business.
o Mr. Edgerton noted that tomorrow at 11:40 p.m. Frazier Bell and he were going to give a brief
presentation to the Board of Supervisors about an idea concerning a community land trust. He
hoped that it could be something that could be worked into a realistic policy for affordable
housing.
o Mr. Edgerton pointed out that at the September 15 Board of Supervisors meeting Sean
Dougherty is going to be giving a follow up session regarding a green building initiative. He
encouraged the County to participate in this.
o Ms. Joseph requested input from the Commission on a request made by Mark Graham that the
Commission accepts the executive summary without a full staff report temporarily due to the staff
shortage in Current Development.
The Commission expressed concerns about not having enough information to make an
informed decision without the full staff report from staff, but asked staff to provide an
example to review so they could make the decision. The question was raised whether a
selective determination could be made to provide full staff reports for the more
complicated requests. The Commission asked staff to invite Mark Graham to come with
a mark up or model of the trimmed down staff report and discuss this issue with the
Commission.
There being no further new business, the meeting proceeded.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 8
FINAL ACTION MEMO
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. to the Tuesday, September 12, 2006 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 5, 2006 9
FINAL ACTION MEMO