HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 13 1996 PC Minutes8-13-96
AUGUST 13, 1996
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
August 13, 1996, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice
Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr.
William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Tice.
The meeting was called to order and a quorum was established. The minutes of July
23, 1996 were unanimously approved as amended.
SP 96 29 Lowe's Companies, Inc. - Proposal to establish outdoor storage and display
in conjunction with the proposed building [30.6.3.2(b)] on 22.13 acres zoned HC,
Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described
as Tax Map 45, parcels 93A, 109 and 109D, is located in the northwest corner of the
intersection of Route 29 and Woodbrook Drive in the Rio Magisterial District. (This is
the location of the existing Lowe's building.) This site is recommended for Regional
Service in Neighborhood 1. Deferred from August 6th Commission meeting.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report and answered Commission questions about the
plan. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Recalling discussions which had taken place on a recently reviewed similar proposal
for Wal-Mart, Ms. Huckle asked questions about height limitations on items which
might be stored outside. [NOTE: Ms. Huckle's comments are practically inaudible on
the taped recording of this meeting.] Mr. Fritz explained this site is different from the
Wal-Mart site in that it is considerably more elevated above Rt. 29 than is the Wal-
Mart site, and that could have been the reason the ARB's recommendation on height
is different from the Wal-Mart request.
The applicant was represented by Tom Wilkinson. He offered to answer Commission
questions.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's request, Mr. Fritz and Mr. Wilkinson described the
grading plans for the site.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP-96-29 for Lowe's
Companies be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
8-13-96
4
1. Area of outdoor storage shall be limited to that shown on a plan titled Lowe's of
Charlottesville and initialed WDF 7/25/96.
2. The area of outdoor storage adjacent to the proposed building facing Route 29
shall be limited to non -mechanical landscaping devices, plants, shrubs, flowers and
landscaping products. The landscaping products displayed shall be placed in an area
using the displayed trees and shrubs as a screen from view of Route 29.
3. The area of outdoor storage adjacent to the proposed building facing Woodbrook
Drive shall be limited to play sets, lawn maintenance equipment, lawn furniture, plants,
shrubs, trees, flowers and landscaping products. The area shown as paint stripes on
the pavement (see plan attached to the ARE$ action letter) in front of the proposed
building shall become curbed islands planted with trees and shrubs reflecting the
proposed vegetation on the rest of the site as approved by the design planner.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-96-30 Crozet Church of God - Petition to establish a day care center on
approximately 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District [10.2.2(7)]. Property, described as Tax Map 55, parcel 96A is located in the
southeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64 near Crozet in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is the new location of the Crozet Church of God.
This site is not located in a designated growth area. (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report stated:
"On October 24, 1995, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of SP-95-30 Crozet Church of God, an amendment of an earlier special
use permit to allow a child day care facility within the approved 250-seat church.
In addition to other conditions, the Planning Commission recommended 'Day
care enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to exceed
20 children.'
At public hearing on November 8, 1995, the church requested that the Board of
Supervisors approve the day care for a greater number of children than
recommended by the Planning Commission. The Board referred the petition
back to the Planning Commission to respond to the request for a greater number
of children. The Board was particularly concerned about the suitability of a
larger center in the rural areas, its traffic impact, noise, and septic system
potential.
While the Board stated that it did not need to know the number of children the
septic system could be made to fit, the Board did want to know from the
Commission an acceptable maximum enrollment. Staff recommended to the
applicant that the septic capacity be explored. On July 9, 1996, the Health
Department issued an expansion design which would accommodate a seating
%a-
8-13-96 3
capacity of 180 persons for the church and a maximum enrollment of 35 children
for the day care. The figures represent the applicant's current request."
Staffs report addressed specifically those issues which the Board had directed the
Commission to address, i.e. scale of day care in rural areas, noise, and traffic
generation. Based on the Health Department's recommendation, staffs report included
amended conditions of approval which reflected an increase in the maximum
enrollment for day-care to 35 children and a reduction in the maximum seating
capacity of the church to 180.
Mr. Keeler confirmed 35 children would be roughly the equivalent septic system usage
as a 5-bedroom house.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant if a reduction in church seating capacity to 180
would allow the church to continue to function as it currently does.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Les Rowsey. He did not think the seating
reduction to 180 would be a problem. He said the present church attendance is
approximately 50 Wand under.") He said the church feels a 35-child day care facility
will allow the church to "operate and keep its head above water."
Mr. Rowsey answered Commission questions about the day care operation and other
church activities.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Frank Biscardi, adjacent property owner, expressed concerns about the proposal.
He objected to the increased size of the day care operation, citing specifically a
concern about increased traffic. He questioned what he described as the county
government "subsidizing a tax exempt organization." He also expressed concern
about potential erosion problems on the site.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle said she had spoken with a Health Department representative who had
explained that an increase to a day care enrollment of 35, along with the current
approval for a seating capacity of 250, would be more than the drainfield could
accommodate. Therefore, the numbers had been adjusted. She said she could
support 20 day-care children, but not 35. She said: I don't think it is fair to the
parishioners (and) I don't think it is fair to the neighbors to overload the drainfields as
they could easily do."
Mr. Nitchmann felt the Board was asking the Commission to make a recommendation
not only on this particular application, but also to address, generally, the question of
the size of day care centers in the rural areas.
8-13-96 4
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. Given the fact that a study of the Rural
Areas will be taking place soon, he wondered if it might be premature for the
Commission to act on this issue at this time.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the applicant could be granted a temporary permit, until
the discussion of the Rural Areas has been completed. Mr. Kamptner said the County
has no mechanism for temporary permits. He said the Commission's options are to
recommend denial or to recommend approval with appropriate conditions. The
applicant can request an amendment to the permit at a later time, depending on the
outcome of the Rural Areas day care discussions.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would be more comfortable approving the request at the same
level of usage as before with the recommendation to the Board that more time is
needed to study the overall issue of day care in the rural areas.
Given the small size of the church membership, Ms. Huckle said she thought a
maximum of 20 children should be sufficient to provide for the parishioners' children.
Mr. Finley indicated he had not interpreted the Board's request that the Commission
re -hear this item as a request for the development of county -wide criteria related to
day care facilities. He quoted from the staff report: "The Board referred the petition
back to the Planning Commission to respond to a request for a greater number of
children." (Mr. Nitchmann pointed out the staff report also said: "The Board was
particularly concerned about the suitability of a large day care center in the rural
areas.")
Mr. Dotson said one reason for not granting an expansion at this time is to allow time
for the neighborhood to experience how this is going to fit in. This would be a sort of
"test," which could then be used as a basis for consideration of whether or not it could
be expanded at some later time when there may be a more defined policy in place.
Mr. Finley pointed out that schools are located in neighborhoods and there do not
seem to be any restrictions on schools expanding their after -school programs based
on demand.
Ms. Huckle said that schools are usually located on better roads.
Mr. Keeler noted that Rural Area discussions will cover the three types of uses which
are found in the rural areas: those supportive of agricultural and forestal activities,
those which are tourist related, and support type uses (such as churches and day
care).
Mr. Dotson said he did not feel it was necessary that a church day care facility serve
only the children of its own congregation. He said such a facility can serve a larger
community so he viewed it as a "community service which can reach beyond its own
congregation."
/Y
8-13-96 5
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that SP-95-30 for Church of God be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions, including a
limitation on the day-care facility of 20 children:
1. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to exceed a
maximum seating of 180 persons. (NOTE: Mr. Dotson confirmed that his motion
made no change in the number which was stated in the staff report.)
2. Approval is for worship and related church use and day care only. Other uses will
require amendment to this permit.
3. Day-care enrollment to be determined by adequacy of septic system, not to exceed
20 children.
4. Compliance with Section 5.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Annual results of coliform testing to be submitted to, and approved by, the Virginia
Department of Health.
6. Clearing of vegetation to restore entrance site distance to the satisfaction of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Finley said he would support the motion because it is needed to provide for those
children which it presently serves. He said, however: "We are saying this in the air.
We really have no specific criteria to say why we are doing this and it seems to me
we will have to have a work session to (establish criteria and address those issues
identified by the Board)."
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
Mr. Rowsey asked why this applicant was being used as "an example." He said: "All
these other day cares were approved, but when you get to us you make an example
of us."
Ms. Huckle pointed out the Health Department has determined the applicant has a
"finite number of persons" which can be accommodated by the drainfield.
Mr. Nitchmann advised the applicant to make any additional comments before the
Board of Supervisors.
on
8-13-96 6
SDP-96-62 Anvince Commons Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 50,000
square feet of space for distribution warehouse (28,000 square feet) and office
(22,000 square feet) on 3.4 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping
Center described as Tax Map 61M Section 12 Parcel 1E. This site is located between
the existing Shoppers World development and Berkeley Subdivision in the Rio
Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Community Service in
Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary
site plan subject to conditions and approval of a waiver of Section 4.2 (to allow activity
on slopes of 25% or greater) and a waiver of Section 21.7.3 (to allow activity within 20
feet of adjacent residential property).
The applicant was represented by Raymond Richards. He described drainage and
flooding problems which currently occur on the site and how this plan will correct those
problems. He answered the Commission's specific questions about plans for
controlling runoff and about grading plans.
Related to the request to allow activity within 20 feet of adjacent residential property,
Ms. Huckle asked staff to explain the following statement in the staff report: "The
existing vegetation does not provide screening equal to that proposed on the site plan
and the existing topography is such that installation of additional plantings would be
difficult." Mr. Fritz explained the slopes are much in excess of 25%, which makes it
very difficult for any plantings to survive. He said that putting the screening at the top
of the slope, within the buffer adjacent to the residential neighborhood, will make it
much more effective than putting it at the bottom, next to the building.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Fred Hartman (Lot 7, Berkeley Subdivision), asked that the following changes be
made in the plan:
--The movement of the dumpster location from the northwest side (directly
behind residences) to the far eastern side of the property.
--The addition of a 6-foot metal fence adjacent to the residential properties.
--The deletion of the 12 angled parking spaces which are located in such a way
that headlights will shine directly onto residential lots.
He expressed concern as to what type of uses could possibly go into this building at
some future time. He expressed concerns about a use such as a nightclub. He was
concerned about the hours and days of operation of the proposed use and about how
many truck deliveries are anticipated.
Ms. Ruth Bryant (Lot 8, Berkeley) expressed the same concerns as Mr. Hartman. In
addition, she briefly described current flooding problems which occur on the site.
Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to comment on the question of required parking spaces.
Mr. Fritz said the plan proposed has 12 more parking spaces than are required.
j6,
8-13-96 7
Ms. Diane Hartman said the Berkeley Subdivision is a "loud" neighborhood and this
proposal is going to make the situation worse. She expressed concerns about current
flooding problems.
Ms. Marian Lloyd and Ms. Cynthia Harris expressed concern about the location of the
dumpsters. Ms. Harris was also concerned about negative impact on property
values.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant to comment on the dumpster and parking
concems.
Mr. Richards said the applicant would be willing to "look at" the dumpster location, but
parking requirements are dictated by the County. (Mr. Nitchmann pointed out staff
has said the proposal has 12 extra spaces.) Mr. Fritz explained that the requirement
for a PD-SC zoned property is a standard 5.5 spaces/1,000 square feet, which would
mean this proposal would need 275 spaces. However, the actual use proposed
(mixture of office and warehousing) has a much lower parking requirement which
would result in only 110 spaces for this use. The applicant has provided 122. (These
figures are exclusive of loading spaces, which are counted separately. The required
number of loading spaces have been provided.) Mr. Richards said it had been
suggested that "we have a few more to allow for some of the things that you run into."
He pointed out that the parking which is provided now will limit the type of use which
might locate on the property at some future time.
Ms. Huckle said the location of this property would limit its potential uses. It would
probably be restricted to "lower rent" type uses.
Ms. Huckle said she assumed the applicant would be willing to locate the dumpsters
as far away from the residences as possible. Mr. Richards responded: "I would be
willing to look at where we could put it that would be more satisfactory, but I don't
know where yet."
Mr. Finley asked if this development would result in an increase of runoff into the
creek. Mr. Richards responded: "I am not allowed to increase the flow of water into
the creek. I have to maintain the current flow off the property, whether it is into the
creek or wherever. No more water will go into the creek when we build than goes into
it now. As a matter of fact, we will probably be able to better control what is going
into the creek and the storm sewer system by being able to retain all this runoff on
site so that it flows off into these areas at a slower rate than it does now."
Mr. Richards described the drainage system that is planned.
Regarding the neighbors' request for a metal fence, Mr. Richards said he had no
problems with providing a chain link fence "along the left hand side." He said the
applicant has also proposed a privacy fence along the north side, in conjunction with
plantings to control view and for security.
/T
8-13-96 8
Regarding the time the dumpsters are emptied, Mr. Richards said he had no control
over BFI's schedule, but he indicated he would be willing to ask them if they could
pick up at a later time.
Mr. Dotson asked about lighting. Mr. Richards described it as a "low lighting, which
will be directed downward." He said the applicant will meet the requirements of the
ordinance in terms of spillover, etc. Mr. Fritz said a lighting plan will have to be
submitted as a component of the landscape plan.
Mr. Dotson asked if there had been any comments from the Police Department in
terms of whether or not this site is considered "an attractive nuisance." He wondered
if this was a concern. Mr. Fritz said the Police Department is not a part of the site
review process so he could not answer Mr. Dotson's question.
Mr. Nitchmann thought this plan would result in a better situation than currently exists
given it will have a fence, a retaining wall, lighting, etc. He also noted that a stockade
fence, as described by the applicant, placed adjacent to Berkeley lots 6, 7 and 8
would block any lights from cars parked in those 12 spaces which were of concern to
the Berkeley residents.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if a stockade fence would connect to the chain -link fence. Mr.
Fritz responded: "If you require a fence along that western property line, we'll make
sure it ties in and there is not a gap in it." Mr. Richards confirmed that the two would
be connected.
Mr. Finley raised a question about drainage calculations. He pointed out that the
construction of the retaining wall would cause the drainage from the high point of the
property at the east to flow to the west, to the creek. Prior to the construction of the
new building and parking area, that same runoff would have flowed over this lot.
Therefore, it appears the water from the high point is being diverted to the west and
the water from the building site is being diverted into an underground detention
system. He concluded: "It looks to me like you are now diverting it to the west and
then taking your building site runoff, so you can keep your net runoff equal, and
putting it into your retention system. Is that the way it is?" Mr. Richards replied: "I
don't believe that is the way it is.... I have to rely on the civil engineers." Mr. Finley
asked: "You are saying there will be no net increase in the creek?" Mr. Richards
replied: "There will be no net increase in the creek. We're not allowed to create an
increase in runoff into the creek."
Ms. Huckle asked Glenn Brooks, representing the County Engineering Department, to
comment on how development of this site will impact the Branchlands Channel, which
has had a lot of problems in the past. Mr. Brooks explained this site is upstream from
the Branchlands Channel and the Branchlands study had considered this as an
undeveloped site with on -site detention, i.e. "there is a certain amount of drainage
coming from the site now and that is not to increase" He clarified this means "the
peak flood event will not be increased." He explained: "The volume of water will
j S°'
8-13-96 9
increase, but the depth of water at any specific time will not increase." He confirmed
this development will not increase problems with the Branchlands Channel.
Mr. Loewenstein found it difficult to understand how the volume of water can increase
without causing the depth of water to increase. Mr. Brooks addressed his comments:
"You can release a gallon of water in one minute and it will be pretty deep; you can
release it in 2 hours and it will be a trickle." Mr. Loewenstein concluded: "So the
answer lies in the capacity of that underground detention system." Mr. Brooks
responded affirmatively.
Addressing the issue raised earlier by Mr. Finley about the diversion of some of the
water to the west, Mr. Brooks offered: "You were correct about diverted drainage from
off site --the Williamsburg Road drainage. We will have to look at that with the final
plan and make sure that we are not diverting any more drainage into that channel
than is going there now."
Ms. Huckle asked how high the retaining wall will be. Mr. Brooks says the plan says it
will be a maximum of 6 feet. The County will be reviewing the engineering plans for
the wall, including how the drainage behind the wall will be taken care of.
Mr. Finley wondered how drainage would impact a chain link fence on the north. Mr.
Brooks said: "Either it will have to go the other way, which might be true in any case,
if that's where its going now, or it will have to have some way to get through the
fence, either with a break in the fence or piped under the fence."
There was a brief discussion of the source of the drainage which is currently flowing
across this site, and where it ultimately ends up. Mr. Brooks explained: "From a
regulation standpoint, I have to make sure they control the drainage on this site and
downstream. The applicant's trying to control the drainage around his property on
adjacent property, is really his problem. I'll make sure that they control it on this site
and going off the site.... I'm not sure where the system to the east ends up." Mr. Fritz
thought the eastern drainage might end up in the Berkmar basin, or possibly in the
Fashion Square system. Mr. Brooks said the west side and Berkeley Channel flows
across (under) Rt. 29 to the Branchlands channel.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Staff proposed the following language related to the requirement for a stockade fence:
"Staff approval of a stockade type fence on the western side of the property adjacent
to lots 6, 7 and 8 in the Berkeley Subdivision." Mr. Fritz said staff would make sure
the fence would connect to the chain link fence.
Mr. Hartman asked if a wooden or metal fence was envisioned. Mr. Fritz said a
wooden fence was envisioned. Mr. Hartman expressed concern about the limited life
of a wooden fence. Mr. Fritz said the applicant will be required to maintain the fence.
%7
8-13-96
10
Mr. Hartman wanted a chain link fence in addition to a wooden barrier. Mr. Fritz
suggested re -wording of the new condition to "Staff approval of an opaque fence...."
Mr. Dotson asked about the Commission's authority in relation to the placement of the
dumpsters. Mr. Fritz said the location of the dumpsters is not related to either of the
requested waivers. He said the dumpsters, in their proposed location, comply with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. Mr. Kamptner added:
"That being the case, we have no authority to require that they be moved around. If
you have concerns, I would suggest that you ask the applicant to consider other
locations, recognizing that his current plan satisfies the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance."
Mr. Fritz said there is no language in the Ordinance which says that the Commission
must find that the site plan is not detrimental to adjacent properly. There are
provisions which allow the requirement that objectionable features be screened.
Dumpsters are defined as an "objectionable feature," but there are no provisions to
allow for relocation of the dumpster.
Mr. Finley asked about the status of the proposed Noise Ordinance. Mr. Fritz was
uncertain as to the status of the Ordinance and did not know if it would have any
impact on the noise created by the emptying of the dumpsters. Mr. Kamptner said the
Noise Ordinance is still in a "very early draft stage." Eventually, that Ordinance will
apply to this type of situation.
Ms. Huckle said: "I feel very strongly that if we don't have the proper authority right
now we should try to get it for some of these things because I don't think we are going
to be able to expect people to accept infill and protect the rural areas if we are not
sensitive to the concerns of people who, in good faith, have bought property and lived
in for 20 years and then all of sudden infill happens and they are put in a terrible
position."
Mr. Dotson said there are many locations for the dumpster which would comply with
the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if the Commission must accept any location that
complies with the Ordinance, or is there the latitude to try to find the best location that
complies with the Ordinance. Mr. Kamptner responded: "If it is a subject matter that
doesn't allow the exercise of discretion --provided that they comply with the Zoning
Ordinance --your role is ministerial. Of course the goal is to have the best plan
possible, but if they satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, they have
fulfilled their requirements and the Planning Commission can't impose conditions in
addition to what is otherwise required. In respect to the fencing on the western side,
in this case the applicant is consenting to that. Also screening fencing can be
imposed if it is opaque and it is determined to be necessary. So you do have some
discretion there. Fencing for security purposes only, though, would probably be a
different case. Here it is also being proposed for screening purposes."
'70
<x
8-13-96 11
Mr. Dotson asked if the Commission has to accept the 12 extra parking spaces which
are beyond the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Fritz said there is nothing in the
Ordinance to prevent extra parking, provided setbacks, etc. can be met.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded there was nothing the Commission could do about the
location of the dumpsters. Mr. Dotson said the applicant had volunteered to try to
relocate the dumpsters. Mr. Fritz said staff would work with the applicant to see if
another location could be found.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if anything could be done to encourage the waste
management companies to change their pick-up schedules in those areas where
dumpsters are located adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
Ms. Huckle asked if any of the trees in the buffer area will have to be removed. Mr.
Fritz said some may need to be removed to allow the installation of the fence and
required landscaping. He said the screening
which will be installed will be superior to what presently exists.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that the Anvince Commons Preliminary Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions, and that waivers of Section 4.2 (to allow
activity on slopes of 25% or greater) and Section 21.7.3 (to allow activity within 20 feet
of adjacent residential property) be also approved:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained.
The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Planning Department approval of landscape and lighting plan.
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
c. Fire Official approval.
d. Building Official approval of barrier free parking spaces and curb cuts.
e. Albemarle County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
computations.
f. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a
County standard Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement.
g. Albemarle County Engineering approval of retaining wall plans and
computations for walls over 5 feet measured from the top of footing to the top of wall.
h. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan.
i. Albemarle County Engineering approval of a certified engineer's report for
compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance.
j. Zoning Department approval.
k. Staff approval of an opaque fence on the west side of the property adjacent
to Lots 6, 7 and 8 in the Berkeley Subdivision.
Ms. Washington seconded the motion.
(Mr. Dotson noted that the applicant agreed to attempt to relocate the dumpsters away
from the residential properties.)
8-13-96
12
Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission should review the Final Site Plan. Mr. Nitchmann
could see no reason for Commission review. Mr. Keeler said he did not think
complying with any of the conditions imposed on the preliminary would cause any
significant change to the plan.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Commission identified the following issues which need to be addressed at future
work sessions:
--Criteria for the location of day-care centers in the rural areas.
--Is there a way to deal with dumpster locations?
--Parking requirements.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
M
Recorded by: Janice Farrar
Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw
OR
a�