HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 26 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 26,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 26,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr.
Dennis Rooker, and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior
Planner. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman.
A quorum was established with six members present.
The minutes of January 5, 1999 and January 12, 1999 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report of the Board of Supervisors Meetings of January 13, 1999 and January
20, 1999. He reported that in the January 13 meeting there were six items presented that the
Commission had seen, including the Limited Service Hotel on Route 29 North near Airport Road, which
the Board approved with conditions as recommended; the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, approved
with conditions somewhat modified to limit events to one per week (regardless of what type), and
granting additional time to operate on weekends for events. The permit will need to be reapproved in
one year. The John Buscarino home occupation permit was approved. The Board held a public hearing
on the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2 (Natural Resources and Cultural Assets), and deferred any action
on the item; they will hold a worksession on February 3rd on the chapter. The Board approved the
extensions to the Buck Mountain and Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal Districts.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that in their January 20`h meeting, the Board approved the Triton Tower located
near Sunset Avenue at I-64, and deferred action on the tower off of Route 250 near the Pantops car wash
in order to obtain additional information on the potential of lowering the height of the tower. They
approved the new Pegasus Motor Company site on Route 250 East. Regarding items not previously
considered by the Commission, the Board considered three requests for "Enhancement Grants" (under
the new federal transportation legislation — T-21 Act), including one to try to secure funding for a
sidewalk construction program in the county which would provide an opportunity to leverage 80% of
the cost from an outside source, with $800,000 in federal funds to be matched with $200,000 in county
funds for urban area sidewalks. An application was also submitted to further fund facilities along the
improved Airport Road, and an application was submitted by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Foundation for the "Thomas Jefferson Parkway," an underpass connecting the parking area at the
bottom of Route 53 to the Visitors Center. The Board endorsed all three applications.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that a worksession on the Telecommunications Policy was held by Krinus &
Krinus before the January 20`h Board Meeting, and the Board adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to include basic direction recommended by Krinus & Krinus for the policy.
There will be public hearings held by the Commission and the Board for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to include a Telecommunications Policy. Mr. Fritz had attended the worksession,
and reported to the Commission that Ted Krinus presented options including new antennae enclosed in
"boxes" mounted to utility poles, alternative designs which are incorporated into existing structures, and
,a, building modifications to allow for multiple antennae in a "chimney -style" structure. He reported that
Mr. Krinus presented a map of the county to the Board which showed resources already identified as
?n
critical, which staff will take into consideration during development of policies and standards for the
design of particular facilities. Mr. Fritz said the emphasis of the presentation to the Board was to
introduce the idea of design standards and the concept of defining facilities in terms of "intrusive" and
4*0' "obtrusive," and how to design facilities to avoid unwanted impacts.
Unscheduled Items
Mr. Bob Watson pointed out an error on the new meeting agenda regarding speaking times for
unscheduled speakers. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has already noted the mistake and will correct it. Mr.
Loewenstein stated that word "not" should be deleted from the third paragraph on the back page, and
mentioned that his name was omitted from the cover. Mr. Cilimberg agreed to have corrections made as
noted.
Consent Agenda
Addition to Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District
Proposal to add 43.770 acres to the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described
as Tax Map 71, Parcels 64 and 64A, is located on the north side of Plank Road (State Route 692), near
Batesville, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Area in the
Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned rural Areas.
Addition to Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District
Proposal to add 110.442 acres to the Moorman"s River Agricultural/Forestal District. Property,
described as Tax Map 41, Parcel 9E, is located on the west side of Browns Gap Turnpike (State Route
680), near White Hall, in the White Hall Magisterial District; and property described as Tax Map 43,
Parcel 44, is located on the west side of Free Union Road (State Route 601), near Owensville, in the
Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and
is zoned Rural Areas.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
Public Hearing
SP 98-67 Charlottesville Catholic School
Request to allow shifting of improvements from the original special use permit plan in accordance with
Section 15.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools in R-4 zones. The property,
described as Tax Map 61A, Parcel 29, contains 17 acres and is located at 655 Rio Road East in the
Rivanna Magisterial District, on Rio Road [Route #631] approximately .10 miles form the intersection
of Rio Road and Penn Park Lane [Route 768]. The property is zoned R-4 for residential uses. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential in Neighborhood 2.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting two site plans that were approved in 1998. Ms. Echols
reported that in the process of doing the site plan layout, the applicant determined that less grading
would need be done if the fields for the school were left on the flatter areas, thus prompting the need to
amend the Special Use Permit. She said that the differences in the two permits pertain primarily to the
location of the fields, but also differ in the placement of the driveways and parking areas; she said the
primary entrance to the site remains the same from Penn Park Road. Ms. Echols stated that the applicant
has elongated a driveway, but has added screening from the adjacent residences. She said staff has not
determined any reason for a difference in approval, but when they analyzed the original plan, they were
looking at the relationships to the adjoining properties, which now have changed. Ms. Echols said the
,., applicant has demonstrated how the changes could be made without impacting the adjoining property
I5
owners. She said the building was originally planned for the central part of the site, but is now planned
to be closer to the rear of the property, near Penn Park.
Ms. Echols said the property would have to meet the screening requirements of the zoning ordinance,
and the planning of the screening would have to be done prior to the certificate of occupancy being
granted. She read from the zoning ordinance, stating that the screening "shall consist of a planting strip,
existing vegetation, a slightly opaque wall or fence or combination thereof... where only vegetative
screening is provided, such screening strips should not be less than 20 feet in depth. Vegetative
screening shall consist of a double, staggered row of evergreen trees planted 15 feet on center, or a
double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted 10 feet on center. Alternate methods of vegetative
screening may be approved by the agent. Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be a minimum of
six feet in height and plantings may be required in intervals along such wall or fence."
The applicant, Mr. Tom Keogh, the architect representing the Catholic School, addressed the
Commission. He told Commissioners that the architects and school officials determined that a building
site closer to Penn Park would be more appropriate, and would allow them to take advantage of existing
grades to the site and develop two playing fields with a more ideal solar orientation. Mr. Keogh said
that a meeting was held recently with neighbors, and he presented minutes from the meeting
(Attachment "A"). He reported that all residents that participated in the meeting or that have been
contacted by phone regard the project as favorable.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Keogh to explain the changes to the physical building and the reasons for
them. Mr. Keogh responded that last summer, Joe Chambers, one of the school parents who is an
architect, developed an initial scheme for school officials to "test" the site; but until the actual architects
were chosen last fall, there was no official rendering of the facility. When the architects were selected
and began working on the plans, they altered Mr. Chambers' footprint to accommodate the topography
of the site. Mr. Keogh explained that close to Penn Park Road the structure would be a one-story
building to house the elementary/middle school, and the second half of the building, which would
accommodate the high school, would be two stories as the grades fall off. He said the building would sit
lower in the site than the original plan presented last summer.
Mr. Finley asked if neighbors raised any concerns in their discussions and meetings with school
officials. Mr. Bob Niehaus, the Chairman of the Building Committee, said that Mr. Pruitt, who owns the
property near the school entrance explained that his septic field is on the Ballard property, and thought
he had an easement on that property. Mr. Niehaus told him that the school would settle that with the
owners of the Ballard property, and would be willing to work out something for him in terms of his
septic field. Mr. Niehaus added that another property owner has a barn/shed that extends into the
Ballard property, and the school will probably grant an easement for that structure. He said that two
neighbors could not be reached, but no other property owners have raised concerns about the changes,
and all attending the meeting were complimentary of the proposed alterations.
Mr. Thomas asked about the vehicle count on Rio Road. Mr. Keogh said that there was a series of
traffic studies conducted at the time of the initial special use permit, and as part of that there is an
agreement with VDOT on the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Penn Park and Rio Road.
The school has assumed a small responsibility for that project. He reported that the scope of that work
may include lengthening the left turn lane onto Penn Park Road from Rio by approximately 30 feet, and
the next step is determining whether there is enough width in the current paved area to accomplish that.
Ms. Echols said that the proposal would include a right-hand turn lane from Rio Road into Penn Park
Road, and full frontage improvements along Rio Road from the entrance up to Penn Park Road. She
said the school has committed to contribute $12,600 for a stoplight at the intersection of Rio Road and
Penn Park Road.
Ms. Echols could not confirm the exact vehicle trips per day on Rio Road, and said that the model which
is used to provide that information had been problematic in its estimates for that area. Mr. Rooker
commented that the traffic on Rio Road before arriving at the entrance to the Meadowcreek Parkway
would increase when the parkway was built, but the traffic after the Meadowcreek Parkway entrance
would decrease.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff had initially looked at the comparison of this site being developed by -
right under the residential zoning versus its school designation, and recalled that as a school it would
generate a lower amount of traffic. Mr. Thomas asked if the parkway does not go through, how it will
effect the turn -lane plans on Rio Road. Ms. Echols responded that there are additional 824 vehicle trips
per day when the school is fully built out, and said that the residential use would generate between
1,000 and 8,750 vehicle trips per day. She said staff had not looked at the plan in terms of
Meadowcreek Parkway not being built.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that if Meadowcreek were not built, "you'd still be dealing with the same
question of by -right traffic being generated versus this development, and you'd still need these
improvements... this are improvements to deal with the current day situation, and those aren't going to
get any better."
Mr. Rieley said he was struck by the congestion of the primary entrance coming into the parking lot, and
suggested to the applicant that that be reconsidered. He commented that the basketball court seemed
very close to the building and hoped the windows would be unbreakable. The applicant replied that
there has been significant comment about the drop-off and turn around at the entry, and that has not been
worked out completely yet.
Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley said that while the plan has changed substantially and there are remaining site plan issues to
resolve, he doesn't think "the fundamental questions that were before us have changed."
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 98-67 with conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA 98-17 Ashcroft Phase 6
Petition to rezone approximately 37 acres from RA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential
Development. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 51A is located on the north side of the I-64
frontage road, F-179 (Hansen's Mountain Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site includes
area recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 3 and area recommended for Rural Area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, explaining that the particulars of the proposal are to rezone the land
to PRD to allow for the creation of approximately one -acre lots north of the power line (as illustrated on
the map presented) and a single 17-acre lot south of the power line. He referenced the land -use plan
map, which shows the designation of various land -use recommendations, noting that the Comprehensive
Plan defines the boundary of Neighborhood 3 of the area that lies south of the power line, with land
north of the power line adjacent to Ashcroft zoned as Rural Area.
17
Mr. Fritz noted that there is an existing site known as Locust Shade, which has been surveyed as a
potential historic site, located at the intersection of Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive. Mr. Fritz
said that "on its face" the request is for rezoning to allow urban development in an area designated for
rural in the Comprehensive Plan, adding that "the Comprehensive Plan is intended as a guide to
development which allows for some interpretation in individual instances." He stated that staff has
identified factors which offset the "apparent inconsistency of this application with the Comprehensive
Plan," explaining that the acreages involved are roughly equal, and the plan proposes essentially
"flipping" the area north of the power line from rural to urban designation, and switching the area south
of the power line from urban to rural designation.
Mr. Fritz said that the area probably should go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, but because
it is so small, staff does not believe it's warranted to go through the process prior to this rezoning action.
Further, staff would recommend that the Plan only be modified to reflect this zoning action (should it be
approved) at the time the Plan itself is updated He reported that staff would support a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment in this case for the six factors identified in the staff report. Mr. Fritz added that the
density pertinent to the proposed development is approximately 0.6 dwelling units per acre. He
concluded by noting the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that relate directly to planned
developments, and referenced them in the staff report, stating that staff recommends approval and
believes no proffers are necessary because this is a planned development, whereby the application plan
becomes a proffer.
Mr. Rooker asked what the total number of allowable lots would be if the property were developed
under its present zoning. Mr. Fritz responded that six lots could be configured - 5 development rights
and a single 21 acre parcel. Mr. Rooker commented, "In effect we're not really just swapping
development rights from one property to another, we're tripling the development rights on the property."
Mr. Fritz clarified, "We're swapping the land -use designations. The Comprehensive Plan shows the
southern portion of this property as neighborhood density residential. That area is shown as a single 17-
acre parcel in this proposal." Mr. Rooker said, "[The applicant] could have the 21 lots that he now seeks
on the two combined parcels; now the development would take place on the south parcel."
Mr. Fritz said, "The way the Comprehensive Plan is now, you take the plan you have on the right, turn it
upside down you'd have the small lots on the bottom and a single large lot adjacent to Ashcroft." Mr.
Rooker asked if it was Mr. Fritz view that the applicant "would be permitted to basically develop the
same number of lots on these combined parcels of property if he left the designation as it is." Mr. Fritz
replied, "If the designation were unchanged, we'd simply be looking at it the other way around with the
rural lot adjacent to Ashcroft and the development on the southern portion. We're recommending that
that not take place for the reasons we've cited in the staff report - the advantages of leaving the area
south of the power line a rural designation as a single large lot." In response to Mr. Finley's question,
Mr. Fritz stated that the single 17-acre parcel would be permitted to have one dwelling on it, and any
further division of the property would have to come back before the Planning Commission or the Board
of Supervisors for an amendment of the PRD — another rezoning.
Mr. Rooker asked, "Under the current zoning for this property, the total number of lots he could have on
these combined parcels — this 37-acre piece of property — is six?" Mr. Fritz said yes, in by -right RA
development, which is not what's recommended in the Comprehensive Plan right now.
Mr. Rieley asked what the elevation of the Mountain Resource Area nearby is. Mr. Fritz said it is
approximately 700 — 800 feet, and confirmed that the property is below that elevation. In response to
1R
M
Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Southern property is lower than the northern
property. Mr. Fritz pointed out the location of Locust Shade. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the area
north of the power line proposed to be developed into the lots, while located at a somewhat higher
elevation than the southern property, would actually put the lots adjacent to existing lots in Ashcroft.
Reading from the staff report, Mr. Fritz read the other factors staff found which made them favor the
amendment.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would be allowed to come back and attempt to develop the 17-acre
parcel into smaller lots. Mr. Fritz replied that that would have to be done as part of a rezoning, and said
"the logic we used to approve this particular rezoning would be part of the history, and the rationale of
why it was done in the first place, which would tend to discourage it from being rezoned unless there
was some change in the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Rieley noted, "One of the factors in the Comprehensive Plan is the protection of the Monticello
viewshed, and this appears based on the topography to be pretty squarely in the Monticello viewshed."
Mr. Fritz replied, "No doubt in my mind, based on the most recent visit I did to Monticello looking at
this site and some other things, it should be visible from Monticello." In response to Mr. Rooker's
question, Mr. Fritz said that Monticello has not submitted any comment on this.
Mr. Rieley commented that there is a knoll on the west side of the interchange which would probably
conceal a good bit of the lower valley on the other side of the interstate.
The applicant and owner of the property, Rick Beyer, addressed the Commission. He told
Commissioners that when the property was purchased, a committee of Ashcroft residents was
established to possibly purchase the tract themselves to avoid someone else developing it to maximum
density allowed by the Comprehensive Plan, and the residents were unable to come to terms because of
the cost of the property and number of people involved in the transaction. Mr. Beyer said he bought the
property with intention of using it in a less -dense fashion, including leaving the 17 acres open for horses,
etc. "It seems to me to be a good balance... to enable me to recoup the money I've put into it, of course
plus some more, and protect the entrance to Ashcroft."
In response to Mr. Rieley's question about wells and septic systems, Mr. Beyer explained that the lots
will have the central water that Ashcroft has now and their own septic system. Mr. Thomas asked if the
property is in the Monticello viewshed, and Mr. Beyer replied, "I don't believe there's any doubt about
it; I'm sure it is .... I don't think there's anything high enough [in between] to block it." Mr. Beyer
added, "My lots that are on the lower section up against the power line, I've contemplated whether I
should have tried to put them in a lower area to get them away from the power line, but at this point, it
was the best way I could see to do it to reclaim the costs that I have into it, plus the profit that I need to
go on and run through the processes I'm going through. Even some of those lower lots I may, in the
future, abandon." Mr. Beyer explained that Monticello would be an asset to him as people look up and
see it.
Mr. Rieley asked what the voltage on the power line is. Mr. Fritz said it is I I5kv. Mr. Beyer
commented that there are houses on the lower side of Ashcroft near the same power line. He said that
back in the 80's when he was selling them, there was concern over the negative [health] impacts power
lines had, but said that studies he's read have not produced anything to conclude there is a danger from
power lines.
I9
Public comment was invited. Ms. Didi Habershick, acting President of the Ashcroft Neighborhood
Association, told Commissioners that Mr. Beyer had been "excellent" in keeping Ashcroft residents
advised at all stages of the planning, and has worked to address the concerns of the association. She said
there have been no concerns raised in their meetings that Mr. Beyer has not been able to address, and
added that in talking with her neighbors, they are very pleased with these particular plans, as they
protect the entrance to Ashcroft with the rural area. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Ms.
Habershick confirmed that residents of the new development would become part of the Ashcroft
Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Fritz if the purchaser of the 17-acre parcel (providing it is sold) would be able to
apply for its rezoning. "There is nothing to prohibit a person from making that application, nor is there
anything to prohibit this body from recommending it or the Board of Supervisors from enacting it, is that
correct?" Mr. Fritz confirmed that that was indeed correct.
Mr. Rieley stated that the applicant could restrict the property by deed to not make that possible. "It
seems to me if this is truly to be a trade-off, and it's truly to protect the people in Aschroft as well as the
community in general by keeping this open and protecting the historic site that's associated with it, it
would seem to me that some kind of deed restriction would make a lot of sense." Mr. Loewenstein
concurred, "I think that's a good way of dealing with it."
Mr. Fritz cautioned that if the applicant were to proffer a deed restriction on the property, another
property owner could request that the proffer be amended.
Mr. Rieley said, "The people in Ashcroft and the applicant, and the County all seem to be arguing that
this is a trade-off of development rights from an area that is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as 3
to 6 dwelling units per acre, and yet once this plan is adopted, the 17 acres is still in the Comprehensive
Plan for 3 to 6 dwelling units per acre. There's nothing to prohibit a new owner from coming back to
us... I just wondered if a mechanism to address that might be a deed restriction that goes beyond
regulatory... and actually runs with the property."
Mr. Kamptner said, "It would have to be something that's proffered by the applicant. The zoning that's
in place right now, or will be in place if it's approved by the Board, limits the development of the 17
acres, and of course the ability to change it is always there, but it has to be done by the Board." Mr.
Rooker asked if the Commission approves the request, if the 17 acres as part of the application plan is
not to be further subdivided as part of the application plan, that is part of the zoning. "That property is
now in effect zoned according to the application plan."
Mr. Kamptner replied, "In effect, under the Planned Developments, the terms and conditions of the
application plan are similar to proffers in that they become a part of the zoning that applies to the
property."
Mr. Rieley asked, "If the 17 acres is sold, and the applicant comes back to us with a rezoning for 5
dwelling units per acre... and we recommend denial and the Board denies it, would that person have a
good case in court because we have denied a rezoning to something that is within what is in the
Comprehensive Plan?"
Mr. Kamptner replied, "Probably not, because that decision would be based upon the history that
happened in this case, and would come back to the [flipping of the two parcels]. Hopefully, the
Comprehensive Plan will be amended to reflect what may happen here."
BE
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that in the case of the commercial center on Avon Street that preceded the
land -use plan being changed, the Board approved the rezoning and stipulated that the plan should be
changed to reflect that. "I think we would want to go ahead in the Board's action and have them
stipulate the change to the Plan as well to reflect the intent of the rezoning, which is essentially
recognizing a change to the Plan." Mr. Fritz emphasized that the intent of the language in the staff
report is for eventual change of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rooker said, "One mechanism for achieving what you [Mr. Rieley] were talking about would be if
you deeded the property to the Association, but we don't have any indication tonight whether or not the
Association wants to accept it and wants to maintain that property."
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Fritz said the zoning on the 17 acres will be PRD, and will
simply be a single parcel within the PRD development.
Mr. Rieley said, "I have very mixed feelings about this. I think the arguments in the staff report are very
well formulated; I have a general concern with removing density from lower elevations that have less
steep slopes and are not... in a highly visible part of the Monticello viewshed and transferring those
development rights to land that's higher, steeper, and clearly in the viewshed of Monticello, just in a
general way .... I think I would feel better about it if the plan that we had seen had topography with it so
we could see how each of these lots is fitting the site, and what kind of impact it is likely to have. I'm
somewhat more sympathetic to it because it's in a horseshoe -shaped valley, which faces almost due
south, and I think that helps relative to the views from adjacent areas.... But I'm concerned about it."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I share some of those concerns and I also have some questions in my mind about
'*to- the eventual use of that 17 acres. I think that is an important issue that's going to affect that area, and
I'm not sure the approach to putting that in the PRD in that single large lot necessarily makes the most
sense. I don't know that that's the best way to address it."
Mr. Fritz commented, "If you leave it RA, it will have its development rights."
Mr. Rooker stated, "There's a strong legal reason for having it in the PRD. [The applicant] would have
to rezone that property to create any development rights on it."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I have no problem with it, the way staffs addressed it....I'm worried about what's
going to be needed 30 years from now for houses out that way. I'd really hate to see us do anything
that's going to restrict us 30 years from now from putting some houses if we're needing it to save some
of the more rural areas. I think we have to look that far ahead, because that whole 250 corridor is going
to be a growth area... I accept what the staff has put forth on this."
Mr. Rooker said, "I think staff made a good point. If you leave the properties as they are, and they
sought to rezone the south property in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, you might have
difficulty denying that. Once that's rezoned, then you've got a parcel in between two developments that
would be a logical parcel to have rezoned, so you could easily end up with the whole 37 acres
developed. On the balance, I think I agree with staffs recommendation. I share some of Mr. Rieley's
concerns regarding the Monticello viewshed. This, fortunately, is not in the Mountain Protection Area
designated in the Comprehensive Plan. With the neighborhood heavily seemingly supporting this
request, and feeling that it actually enhances their neighborhood, I think that the balance of the factors
tip in favor of approving this."
1;1
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of ZMA 98-17 with conditions as set
forth by staff. In a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Rieley and Mr. Loewenstein dissenting, the Commission
recommended approval of the rezoning.
Old Business
Mr. Rooker and Mr. Loewenstein commented that they had not received the new Commission Rules &
Procedures. Mr. Cilimberg agreed to provide them, and others as needed, with copies.
New Business
After some discussion of the Board of Supervisors procedure for handling meeting minutes, the
Commission agreed to continue its current procedure for modification and approval of the minutes by
providing changes to the Recording Secretary during the meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg presented a report on recent presentations on the impact of the "Y2K" issue on county
business. He told Commissioners that the county is continuing on a management level to work on the
issue, and said no one could guarantee there would not be any problems. He said that the county
Information Services staff has been checking on any potential problems with the software used by the
county.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a report from the DISC Committee in the Commissioners' packets.
In response to Commissioner questions, Mr. Cilimberg said that county staff is continuing to work on
the Willoughby property. Mr. Thomas said the Mayor of Charlottesville asked him to meet with her
regarding Brass, Inc. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the planning departments of the county and city work
together, and each department works with its respective Commission. Mr. Loewenstein said he believes
the City Planning Commission is working on some type of "position statement," but no time frame has
been given. Mr. Rooker asked if (for comparative purposes) information was available on similar
projects in other cities and their positive/negative impacts. Mr. Rieley commented that other examples
exist that should be reviewed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
/ n 1
IJ�.J
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
M
06