HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200700004 Correspondence Zoning Map Amendment 2007-12-06pF AL
�'IRG1�tA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
TO:
Board of Supervisors
FROM:
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
DATE:
December 6, 2007
RE:
ZMA 2007-004 Oakleigh Farm
Attached to this memo are revised, signed proffers and revisions for the code of development. This
information was received on Wednesday, December 5, 2007, two days after the Monday December 3,
2007 deadline per the Board policy. This new information has not been reviewed by staff. It is provided as
information to the Board.
If you have any questions, please call me at 296-5832, ext. 3250 or email me at cgrantgalbemarle.org .
CC: Oakleigh Albemarle LLC 690 Berkmar Cir Charlottesville, VA 22901
File
pF AL
�'IRG1�tA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
November 8, 2007
Terra Concepts
c/o Steve Edwards
224 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZMA2007-00004 Oakleigh Farm (Sign # 62)
Tax Map 45, Parcel 26A
Dear Mr. Edwards:
On October 30, 2007, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend
denial by a vote of 7:0, of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation of
denial was based on the following staff recommendations:
1. Impacts on public facilities are not appropriately offset through proffers meeting the County's cash
proffer policy or the provision of public improvements.
2. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall had not been provided
3. The lack of affordable units to be physically located in the project.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on December 12, 2007. It is the Board of Supervisor's preference that a
public hearing not be advertised until all of the final materials for a zoning application have been received
by the County and are available for public review. Therefore any new or additional information regarding
your application, including final proffers if applicable, must be submitted to our office at least twenty-three
(23) days prior to your scheduled hearing date, which is November 19, 2007. Please review the attached
proffer policy established by the Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2005.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Planner
Planning Division
cc: Oakleigh Albemarle LLC
690 Berkmar Circle
Charlottesville Va 22901
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 30, 2007
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill
Edgerton; Jon Cannon; Bill Edgerton and Pete Craddock. Bill Edgerton arrived at 4:10 p.m. Absent were
Eric Strucko and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia.
Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Current Development & Zoning; Bill Fritz,
Chief of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and established a quorum.
Work Session:
Crozet Downtown Zoning
A review and discussion of the Crozet Downtown Zoning project, with a focused discussion on a
recommendation for a single Downtown Crozet Zoning District and the zoning regulations to be
established for that district, including building setbacks, building height, land uses, the requirement for
mixed use, parking requirements, sidewalks, landscaping, buffer/screening requirements. (Rebecca
Ragsdale)
In summary, the Planning Commission held the third work session on Crozet Downtown Zoning. The
primary purpose of the work session was to focus on the actual zoning regulations. The slide show
presented by staff reviewed the following zoning requirements: building and parking setbacks, building
height, parking, land uses, the requirement for mixed use, sidewalks, landscaping and buffer/screening
requirements. The Commission discussed the zoning requirements, made comments and provided
feedback and answered the questions posed by staff. Public comment was taken. No formal action was
taken. An additional work session will be scheduled in the future to discuss implementation and a
possible comprehensive zoning map amendment initiated by the County
The Planning Commission made the following comments:
The proposal for shared parking through use of trading agreements should be modified. The goal
is to make shared parking easier to achieve; however, if an owner loses parking spaces as a
result of a change in an agreement, both the owner and the County need to be protected. It was
agreed, however, that the viability of the businesses and mixed use over time will rely heavily on
the adequacy of parking. Since the proposed regulations require fewer spaces than under
current ordinances, the Commission asked staff to address any potential problems due to the lack
of parking for the downtown area.
The Planning Commission suggested that the minimum number of parking spaces for 2 -bedroom
residential uses should be 2.0 instead of 2.5 and that staff should look at the minimum number of
spaces for other uses to see if they can be further reduced.
Regarding the land uses, the main goal is to allow flexibility to achieve the mixed use. The
proposed regulations from the consultant would require that each building have a mixture of uses.
Members of the public were concerned that requiring all buildings to have mixed use would be too
onerous. Planning Commissioners were concerned that commercial and residential uses might
not be achieved in the downtown without some requirements.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission asked staff to pursue other exemptions or incentives for mixed use,
such as the tiered approach as suggested by staff. The Planning Commission was receptive to
looking at the tier approach and other possibilities to encourage mixed use and allow additional
flexibility for businesses in Downtown. The recommended 1,000 sq ft maximum average for
residential units needs some work and substantiation that this is the appropriate size. Staff was
requested to work on this issue and provide additional information to the Commission.
The buffer regulations for parking areas need to be reviewed to ensure the safety of the public, so
that cars are screened but parking areas still visible.
It was questioned whether the proposed 1' setback, which was measured from the back of the
curb, would present problems particularly if there were road improvements.
It was questioned if ARB feedback has been solicited. - Staff has met with the design planner, but
not the ARB. This would be something that would allow closer setback and would require
adaption to ARB guidelines. As suggested by staff, the Commission will set the vision for the
area before taking it to the ARB.
Several Commissioners had problems with allowing buildings of more than 2 to 3 stories,
primarily due to concerns about loss of views. It was acknowledged that some economic
considerations in establishing business districts were related to the number of stories allowed.
Staff noted that while some community members voiced concerns about loss of views, that the
majority of the community had accepted the recommendation of a 2 story minimum and 4 story
maximum, with the opportunity for special use permits for up to 6 stories or 1 story. It was the
consensus of the Commission that 2 to 4 stories would be acceptable since it has been part of
the community's feeling and within the guidelines of the Crozet Master Plan.
The following public comment was taken:
Cliff Fox voiced concerns about the mixed use requirement. They should try to relax the
restrictions in a constructive way so that this is a viable thing that can occur over time. There is a
need to allow flexibility and not more restrictions.
Sandy Wilcox, President of the Downtown Crozet Association (DCA), addressed the following
concerns of his group:
o The Downtown Association is not in support of the proposed mixed use requirements and
the average residential unit size.
o Incentives need to be provided to encourage mixed use.
o There were concerns with the parking regulations as proposed. If have grandfathered
uses that don't have allocated parking and impose a new restriction for new businesses
to submit a written parking easement it will present problems. Other alternatives need to
be found such as the adjoining church could pave their parking lot and rent out spaces to
adjacent businesses. There are potential problems with trading and sharing parking that
need to be addressed.
Mr. Marshall asked that the restrictions and message not be too complicated for the downtown
area, with the result being that developers and builders would not understand the rules. He
encouraged the Commission to move forward and not spend too much time imagining every
potential future situation. The Commission has the ability to make additional changes in the
future if it is found to be necessary.
Staff will follow up on how to approach the next steps. There will be a separate work session on the
implementation and further discussion on the rezoning. Topics for the next work session include: Follow-
up on the parking trading agreements, requirement for mixed use and average residential unit size and a
discussion on implementation of zoning changes, including a possible comprehensive zoning map
amendment initiated by the County.
The Planning Commission took a break at 5:27 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:02 p.m.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill
Edgerton; Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko and Pete Craddock. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner
for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were David E. Pennock, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; John Shepherd, Chief of
Current Development; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner and Elaine Echols, Principal Planner.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
John Marston, a resident of Free Union, asked to speak briefly about water. He suggested that a new
relationship should be encouraged for the County and Planning Commission with the Service Authority.
With the change in times the County needs to become more involved with water issues. In August, the
DEQ issued a draft permit to Rivanna. On September 27 of this year Rivanna submitted 6 pages of
objections to the draft permit. It is unlikely that the permit will be issued in 2007. The Water Supply Plan
approved in 2006 has changed from the plan presented to the public. Rivanna has taken the position that
they can't build the Ragged Mountain Reservoir at the same time they construct the pipeline from the
South Fork to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir. He urged the County to push forward to have this work for
the pipeline from the South Fork to the Ragged Mountain Reservoir to be done as soon as possible and
not be put off until 2021. With the new development being approved he felt that this pipeline needs to be
done sooner than the anticipated 14 years to improve the water situation in the County.
Consent Agenda:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 19, 2007and September 11, 2007
Ms. Joseph asked if any Commissioner wanted to pull an item off of the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Regular Items:
SUB -2007-00293 Ross and Kimberly Cottrill — Preliminary
Request for preliminary plat approval to create three (3) lots on approximately 75 acres zoned Rural
Areas using the Rural Preservation Development option. As part of the Rural Preservation Development,
the applicant also requests a waiver of Section 14-404 of the Subdivision Ordinance in order to access
the preservation tract via an access separate from the access to the two development lots. The property,
described as Tax Map 95, Parcel 5, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Moriah Way [Rte
#1053] approximately 0.3 miles from its intersection with Black Cat Road [Route #616]. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. (David Pennock)
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for approval of SUB -2007-00293, Ross and Kimberly
Cottrill — Preliminary Subdivision Plat and the waiver from Section 14-404 of the Albemarle County Code
with the conditions recommended in the staff report.
1. VDOT approval required for all public roads and entrances.
2. Health Department approval required for drainfields on the development lots.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 3
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
3. Public Recreational Facilities Authority acceptance of easement for preservation lot is required.
The motion for approval passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Joseph stated that SUB -2007-00293, Ross and Kimberly Cottrill — Preliminary was approved.
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2006-00016 Glenmore Leake (Sign # 31, 32, 44, 69) - Back on the schedule due to advertising
error
PROPOSAL: Rezone 110.94 acres from RA - Rural Area zoning district which allows agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) to PRD - Planned Residential District -
residential (3 - 34 units/acre) with limited commercial uses to allow for 110 dwelling units. This proposal is
an expansion of the Glenmore PRD and does not include commercial uses. Proposed density is approx.
1 unit/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density Residential -
residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-
scale non-residential uses.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 1.25 miles south of the intersection of Route 250 East and Hacktown Road, North of the
Rivanna River, west of Carroll Creek, and east of the Development Area boundary.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 93 Parcels A11-1 and A5-1, Tax Map 94 Parcel 74 and portions of Tax Map
94 Parcels 15, 16, 16A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
(Elaine Echols)
MOTION: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded for approval of ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake,
for 110 dwelling units subject to the following conditions being met before Board action:
The applicant shall meet the Board's cash proffer and affordable housing expectations for
110 residential units.
The plan shall be amended to show a complete pedestrian connection along Farringdon,
Carroll Creek Road and Piper Way.
The applicant shall coordinate asphalt pathway locations so that they are placed on the same
side of the street as a majority of the residences;
The motion failed by a vote of 5:2. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Zobrist voted aye.) (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Strucko,
Mr. Cannon, Ms. Joseph and Mr. Edgerton voted nay.)
Ms. Joseph said that ZMA-2006-00016, Glenmore Leake would go to the Board of Supervisors on
November 14, 2007 with a recommendation for denial based on the applicant's failure to address the
conditions recommended at the August 21, 2007 meeting.
ZMA-2007-00014 Liberty Hall Amendment (Sign # 36, 39)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.01 acres from NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre)
mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses) to NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 -
34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to amend the proffers to allow for for -
lease affordable housing for approved units. No additional dwelling units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet Master Plan designates the property
CT3 Urban Edge: single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious
institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, and CT4 Urban General: residential
(net 4.5 units/acre single family, net 12 units/acre townhouses/apartments, net 18 units/acre mixed use)
with supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and mixed uses including retail/office
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 4
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
LOCATION: Tax Map 56, Parcels 97A, 97A1, and 97 (only a .833 acre southwest portion of the property
as shown on the General Development Plan) along Radford Lane near its intersection with Rockfish Gap
Turnpike (Rt. 250 W)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Long, representative for the applicant Weatherhill Development, said that staff summed up all of the
issues very well. It was essentially a technical amendment to the proffers to provide additional flexibility
for the affordable housing to be for rent units in addition to for sale units and also to expand the types of
units that could be provided as affordable units.
Ms. Joseph asked that they expand the affordable housing proffer so that it includes the option to offer
cash in the event that the County prefers cash to a housing unit at the time of site plan approval because
a potential buyer has not been found.
Ms. Long replied in the affirmative.
Action on ZMA-2007-00014:
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Morris seconded, for approval of ZMA-2007-00014, Liberty Hall
Amendment, as amended, to include the additional proffer language offered by Ms. Long.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2007-00014, Liberty Hall Amendment will go before the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on December 12, 2007.
ZMA-2007-00004 Oakleigh Farm (Sign # 62)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.82 acres from R-6 zoning district which allows residential uses and 6 units/acre
to NMD - Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses and 3 - 34 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 109 for a density of 12.3 units/acre.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential
6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses. Neighborhood 1
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) directly across the street from Woodburn Road (Route 659)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM: 45/P: 26A
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for denial of ZMA-2007-00004, Oakleigh Farm, as
recommended by staff for the reasons stated in the staff report as unfavorable conditions.
Discussion:
Staff noted to the Commission that the applicant had agreed to address the following items that had been
identified in the staff report:
1. Timing of payment for affordable units.
2. Provision of an easement to the adjoining property.
3. Making the proffers and Code of Development consistent with regards to limitations on the
amount of retail square footage that would be available in the development (14,400 square
feet)
4. Correcting wording problems in the proffers.
5. Correcting the Code of Development as requested by staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 5
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
The Commission agreed that the applicant had appropriately addressed the issues related to pedestrian
access to Berkeley by contacting the adjoining owners.
Regarding the recommendation for denial, Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was based on the unfavorable factors
identified by staff that had not been committed to by the applicant. There were some things that the
applicant said at tonight's meeting that they would address. In addition, he asked if the Commission's
recommendation was also based on the lack of a provision of affordable units physically located in the
project.
Mr. Zobrist asked that Mr. Strucko's concern be added about the fact that there is no policy in place for
protecting the rural areas as opposed to the development areas. He does not want to overload the
development areas until there is a current policy to protect the rural areas.
Mr. Strucko agreed, but questioned if that was part of the motion or the sediment of the other
Commissioners.
Mr. Cannon noted that he felt the same way, but it was not part of his vote on this.
The Commission agreed with Mr. Cilimberg's summary.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2007-0004, Oakleigh Farm will go before the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for denial on December 12, 2007. The recommendation for denial was based on the
following reasons:
1. Impacts on public facilities are not appropriately offset through proffers meeting the County's cash
proffer policy or the provision of public improvements.
2. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall had not been
provided
3. The lack of affordable units to be physically located in the project.
The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break at 7:26 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m.
Work Sessions:
ZMA-2007-00016 Watkins 250 Rezoning
PROPOSAL: Rezone 3.0 acres from R1 - Residential (1 unit/acre)
to HC Highway Commercial which allows commercial and service uses; and residential use by special
use permit (15 units/ acre) for a Landscape Contracting business
PROFFERS: No
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community of Crozet; CT -3 Urban Edge:
single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools
and other small-scale non-residential uses
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 5168 Rockfish Gap Turnpike/Route 250 West, east of Radford Lane & adjacent to Clover
Lawn
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56, Parcels 107C & 98D
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Rebecca Ragsdale)
In summary, a work session on ZMA-2007-00016, Watkins 250 Rezoning was held by the Planning
Commission. In a power point presentation, staff summarized and provided an overview of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 6
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
applicant's proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal, answered the questions
posed by staff and made comments and suggestions. The applicant made a power point presentation
and addressed the following issues: Taper vs. turn lane; Fence vs cedars; Connection to old 250 and
Water and sewer hookup. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken.
Public comment was received from the following persons:
Anita Jacobson, an adjoining property owner, noted concerns about the large amount of
commercial businesses on adjacent properties. She looks out of her guest room onto the house
next door that is being requested to be rezoned for this use. She objected to more commercial
property in the immediate area. Unfortunately she was only one of the other 18 home owners
present to make that objection. She talked with some of the others and they also object. She
asked that this property not be rezoned and be left the way it is.
Scott Peyton, life long resident of western Albemarle and member of Scenic 250, said that he was
deeply sympathetic to Mr. Watkins personal and professional needs. The county needs to step
up to the plate and assist him. But, he was opposed to the proposed rezoning because of the
visual and traffic impacts on Route 250.
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the questions posed by staff and provided the
following comments.
1. Is the proposed use appropriate at this location? What additional uses, if any, should be
permitted? (Specific Use - Landscape Service — Home Business)
The Planning Commission was split on the issue of whether the use is appropriate for a landscape
service — home business on this site. Four Commissioners (Mr. Craddock, Mr. Edgerton, Mr. Morris and
Mr. Cannon) recommended that that the applicant proceed with the review process and further refine their
concept, particularly as it relates to buffering along Rt. 250 and adjacent to the Rural Area and residential
uses in Clover Lawn. They also indicated they would want to see the allowable uses under the proposed
zoning be restricted to only the use they seek. Traffic impacts were also noted as a concern by the
Commission. Three Commissioners (Ms. Joseph, Mr. Zobrist and Mr. Strucko) disagreed with the
concept.
2. Should the applicant be required to connect to public water and sewer?
The Planning Commission was very concerned about the public water and sewer issue, but could not
provide an answer about connecting to public sewer until staff provides additional information. It was
noted that a special use permit would be required if they use more than 400 gallons per site acre per day.
This is something that needs to be taken into consideration.
The policy is if property is in the development area it should be on public water and sewer. The applicant
may choose to use well water for watering landscape material. The cost of hook up fees to public utilities
could be a consideration. The applicant did not know the current amount of water his business used
daily. The Commission noted that additional information was needed before a decision could be made on
this issue.
The Planning Commission expressed the following additional comments and concerns:
A suggestion was made that this use should be allowed in the Rural Area.
Concerns were expressed about the traffic impact; interconnection; number of truck deliveries on
site, particularly when talking about 18 wheelers and concerns about preservation along Route
250.
Some Commissioners felt that the buffer as shown on the master plan would be greatly improved
with what has been proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 7
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION
As far as the nursery use it may be a good transition from rural areas to commercial area.
Old Business
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.
There will be no Planning Commission meeting next week, November 6, as it is Election Day.
The appeal before BZA for Rio Trucking is on November 13 with Ms. Joseph arguing the case.
She asked for assistance from other Commissioners.
Staff pointed out that the Rural Area Comp Plan implementation priorities do include a look at
uses in the rural area. This item will likely be delayed due to the frozen positions in Planning, but
ultimately will be pursued.
There being no further old business, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting proceeded.
Adjournment
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. to the Tuesday, November 13, 2007 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 8
DRAFT ACTION MEMO SUBMITTED TO PLANNING COMMISSION