Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-13December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000253 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 13, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4.. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. · Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.2d on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Item No. 5.1. Resolution granting JABA tax exempt status (deferred from December 6, 1995). By the vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY OF JEFFERSON AREA BOARD FOR AGING TO BE TAX EXEMPT WHEREAS, Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. (hereafter "JABA, Inc.") has petitioned the Board of Supervisors (hereafter "Board") to support an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia to designate certain of its property to be exempt from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a) (6) of the Consti- tution of Virginia: and WHEREAS, JABA, Inc. is a non-profit corporation operated for the purpose of providing health, retirement, social advocacy and other support services to those persons over sixty-five years of age; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing, duly advertised as required by Section 30-19.04 of the Code of Virginia, on December 6, 1995, to receive public comment on whether property of JABA, Inc. should be exempt from taxation; and WHEREAS, the Board has examined and considered the provi- sions of Section 30-19.04(B) of the Code of Virginia in determin- ing the appropriateness of the tax exempt designation request of JABA, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby supports the adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia to designate certain property of Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. located in Albemarle County to be exempt from taxation, state and local. This tax exempt designation shall be limited to a 3.489 acre parcel of property, and future improvements thereto, desig- nated as Lot 2, Branchlands, and more particularly described as Tax Map Parcel Number 61z-03-07, located on Hillsdale Drive in Albemarle County. The Board recommends that Jefferson Area Board for the Aging, Inc. be classified as a charitable organization for the purpose of obtaining this tax exempt status. The designated property has a 1995 assessed valued of $548,000.00 and the 1995 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000254 tax on the property is $3,945.60. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to convey certi- fied copies of this resolution to the members of the General Assembly representing Albemarle County. Item No. 5.2a. Appropriation: School Division - $730,984, (Form #95045). The School Board approved an appropriation requests to transfer $69,356 from its Reserve account. This transfer was approved in order to pay the SASI coordination activities in the amount $19,000 and $50,356 has been designated for the continuation toward alignment of Standards of Learning. The School Board also reappropriated $375,492 in carryover funds from FY 1994/95. These funds are allocated for one-time expenses according to the Board of Supervi- sors' financial guidelines and include $355,492.00 for the VRS Early Retire- ment Program. The appropriation form also authorizes the transfer of the VRS funds to the Debt Service Fund. By the vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95045 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: SCHOOL BOARD REQUEST TO USE CARRYOVER FUNDS AND RESERVE. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1241090610999981 1211161311210000 1211161311135000 1211161311160300 1211161311312700 1211161311601300 1211161311312700 1242093010930003 1243062150580610 1990068000910110 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE FICA P/T WAGES-OFFICE CLERICAL STIPENDS-STAFF/CUR. DEVELOPMENT PROF SERVICES-CONSULTANTS ED/REC. SUPPLIES PROF SERVICES-CONSULTANTS DEBT SERVICE FUND-VRS MISC EXP-REDISTRICTING SCH/VRS EARLY RETIREMENT TOTAL ($69,356.46) 1,990 46 7,000 00 19,000 00 11,464 00 29,902 00 10,000 00 355,492 00 10,000 00 355,492 00 $730,984 00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200051000510100 SCHOOL FUND BALANCE $375,492.00 2990051000512011 DEBT SERVICE-TRANSFER FROM SCH. FUND 355,492.00 TOTAL $730, 984.00 Item No. 5.2b. Appropriation: Technical Assistance Grant - $2,000, (Form #95046). The State has given the County a Technical Assistance Grant to conduct a needs assessment and develop a plan for use of funds from the Federal Family Preservation/Family Support Act. These funds will be funneled through the Community Policy and Management Team. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission conducted the needs assessment study and assisted in the develop- ment of the plan. This is a one-time only grant. The State gave the County of Albemarle $2,000. There is no local match. By the vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96 NUMBER: 95046 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES TECHNICAL ASSISTA/qCE GRA/~T. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION /LMOUNT 1155153120300205 CONSULTANTS $2,000.00 TOTAL $2,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155124000240109 CSA GRANT $2,000.00 TOTAL $2,000.00 000 55 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Item No. 5.2c. ApprOpriatiOnS' ':' ...... ............ Comprehensive Se/vices Act -~, voo, , ............ (D .) ............ ,. eleted from agenda Item No. 52d. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional jail and Clerk, Circuit Court for the month of November, 1995, were approved by the above recorded vote. Item No. 5.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for November 14 and Novmeber 28, 1995, were received for information. Item No. 5.4. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, at the November 7, 1995, General Election, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 5.5. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority's Capital Improvement Program for the period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 2000, was received for information. Item No. 5.6. 1994 Annual Report for the Albemarle County Planning Commission, was received for information. Item No. 5.7. Letter dated November 29, 1995 from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, providing notice that Jay Graves was reappointed to the Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board, was received for information. Item No. 5.8. Memorandum dated December 12, 1995, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, to the Board of Supervisors, re: Ivy Landfill Issues, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. 1994 Development Activity Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa- tion. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-95-32. Tiger Fuel Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish a drive-in window on 0.9 ac zoned HC & EC on property located in NW corner of inters of Rts 250/20. TM78,P4. Rivanna Dist. (Deferred from November 15, 1995.) 'Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 30 and November 5, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg said at its meeting on November 15, 1995, the Board deferred action on this request to allow additional review of a design alternative for access to this site as requested by the applicant. This design.alternative makes use of a "slip ramp" off Route 20 onto the site allowing for right in only movements. Originally the staff recommended keeping the Route 250 East entrances open, close the full entrance on Route 20 and have access through the McDonald's site for any of the Route 20 South and Route 20 North traffic that would want to come into the site from this direction. The County's Engineering Department and VDoT do not recommend the "slip ramp" as proposed and continue to support the original conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board also requested additional information on how vehicles exiting this site would access Route 250 East and Route 20 North without making use of the McDonalds site. All vehicles leaving this site and wanting to go east on Route 250 or north on Route 20 would need to exit the site, travel west on Route 250 to the River Road/Route 250 intersection and then make a U-turn. The Board requested information on any discussion which occurred during the review of the McDonalds site plan/special use permit which addressed the provision of access through McDonalds to this site. During the review of McDonalds, access to the property was required to aid future development. The layout of the drive thru at McDonalds is such that it allows for the access to the adjacent property to function. As part of site plan approval, there is an easement provided for this property to access through McDonalds to Route 20 North. A question regarding the adequacy of parking was raised by the Board. The site plan for this project has not been accepted for review by the site review committee. A determination of the required parking will occur with the review of the site plan. The parking calculations provided on the site plan are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Revision to the December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) parking layout will likely occur if the entrance to Route 20 is closed/ modified and if access to the McDonalds site is provided. Mr. Cilimberg said staff continues to recommend the original concept of an access through McDonalds parking lot, the two access points on Route 250 East and closing the Route 20 North access. Mr. Marshall asked why staff recommended denial of a new slip lane from Route 20 into the site. Mr. Cilimberg referred to a letter, dated December 6, 1995, from Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, which addressed this issue. The letter states that: "1) No exit is provided for northern or eastern destinations. Drivers would have to exit west, cross the Rivanna River bridge, and make a U-turn at the signal and return to the Route 250/20 intersection or make an illegal exit from the 'slip lane'. The design as provided will not prohibit illegal exits. A longer lane would be necessary in order to give the driver the sense of entering the wrong way into a one-way lane or ~ramp'; 2) It is not absolutely necessary for vehicles southbound on Route 20 to enter the site from Route 20 since the entrances on Route 250 could adequately serve this traffic." Mr. Marshall said he read those comments, but do not necessarily agree with them. He cannot make a right turn on red from Route 20 because it conflicts with traffic turning left onto Route 250 from the Pantops Shopping Center. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. David Sutton, President of Tiger Fuel, said this proposal is to buid a combination Wendy's/Texaco gas station. He supports the staff's recommend- ation with the exception of the condition requiring the closure of the entrance from Route 20 South and requiring an entrance through McDonalds. It presents a severe hardship to them in operating this site. He does not believe the staff's depiction of the slip lane is accurate. He presented a picture of his perception of the slip lane. This lane is narrow and will only be twelve feet in width which will only permit one car to travel through the lane. If necessary, it can be reduced to ten feet. It is at a steep angle. He believes the angle is such that if signage was provided that said "no exit", people would not try to use it as an exit. He does not believe drivers would try to make a left turn and he disagrees entirely with the concerns staff expressed. Mr. Martin asked why it would be an inconvenience to turn into the site from Route 250 West. Mr. Sutton said he believes that if somebody wants to go east, they are not going to use this site; that is just the practicality of the site. There are several factors that are inconvenient. The first is the County would be forcing this person to come through a difficult intersection and make this turn as opposed to an easy and gradual access. If this access lane is opened up to McDonalds, Texaco would lose five parking spaces because the access comes through their parking lot. Without the five parking spaces, they cannot meet parking requirements for site development. In addition, there is no cooperation from McDonalds. McDonalds does not want this access. Texaco does not have the ability to require McDonalds to cooperate or install signage notifying people about access to the site. Texaco cannot mark this is a potential access to the property. Furthermore, it creates a great deal of concern to him that McDonalds customers might view the access as a thorough- fare and make it difficult for them to utilize the site. The staff report indicates that at the original hearings, there was no agreement nor consensus that this was the practical way to do things. The only agreement was the staff wanted to make sure the access was in place so it could be considered in the future. He thinks there was a great deal of dissent about whether that was the best way to handle access to these two lots. Mr. Martin asked if the applicant would prefer to have only the two entrances from Route 250, if he could not have the slip lane. Mr. Sutton replied, "yes", which, as he stated previously, would make it difficult for them to be in compliance. The only other way they could comply would be to have a variance on the ten foot setbacks which then would allow the possibil- ity of creating parking in the area shown for the slip lane. The variance would allow them to replace the lost parking. This access creates an immense amount of problems for them. He feels the traffic created from this access is counter productive to what they are trying on the site. He thinks if they can keep traffic internal on this lot, it would flow smoothly. He does not see the benefits of forcing two adjoining property owners to do something neither wants to do. McDonalds is concerned about the safety of its pedestrian patrons. He thinks the slip lane is an opportunity to reduce accidents from occurring at the intersection. Furthermore, during negotiations with the Highway Department on this site when it took the additional right-of-way, it was represented by the Highway Department that these entrances would stay. That was a major part of negotiating with them as to what the compensation would be for taking part of the right-of-way. The Highway Department repre- sented that the entrances would stay and they would reconstruct them. He has a problem with the Highway Department coming back at this time and saying this entrance is now unsafe. If it was unsafe, why did they rebuild it and put it back. Prior to this proposal there was a very intensive use with lots of traffic on the site. He has no problem with removing the entrance because it will cause problems if people are allowed to exit through it, but he thinks December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000257 the slip lane, as designed with as a long narrow lane and proper signage, could easily provide the safety and ease of traffic the applicants desire. urged the Board to approve the request without the condition that the entrance/exit to Route 20 be closed. He Mrs. Thomas asked how traffic from both directions would be able to use the gasoline pumps. Mr. Sutton said even with a car parked at the gasoline pumps, the pumps are far enough apart to allow a lane of traffic between the two cars. Mrs. Thomas said she does not think she quite pictures the danger of turning right from Route 20 to Route 250 and going into the lot since it does have two entrances. Mr. Sutton said when it is a corner site, there is the potential that traffic will cross through the lot to avoid the light, but that is not something that happens often. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Martin said he understands some of the concerns that were presented, but he thinks the slip lane would create problems with people trying to make a left turn. The slip lane creates just as much of a through-way as access through McDonalds. He understands what Mr. Sutton said about the parking and that it might prohibit him from doing more on the site. Mr. Martin asked about the rationale of maintaining the access between this property and the McDonalds site. Mr. Cilimberg said users could head back north on Route 20 or those that are headed east on Route 20 could come out to this intersection and simply have a right or left to take as opposed to coming down to the light on Route 250 and taking a U-turn. It does obviously give McDonalds customers an access to Route 250 without getting out onto Route 20. Mrs. Thomas asked if the County is requiring the access. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the conditions recommended by staff was to allow for access here in lieu of some traffic on Route 20 and U-turn movements. Mr. Marshall asked about the parking requirements. Mr. Cilimberg said parking requirements are a site plan issue. Obviously parking, as everything in site development, has to be based on the ability of the site to handle the use. If this is provided as an access way between McDonalds and this site, the applicant will have to deal with the parking issue. A variance is available to him, if necessary. Mrs. Humphris asked if it was not a policy to have these properties connect. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff attempted to work more towards having cross easements. That was pointed out at the McDonalds site plan by the representative from McDonalds. The McDonalds property was purchased from Texaco and the contractual agreement indicates that an easement was arranged from both directions to both properties. Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks the arrangement may be undesired by the owners now, but it is legal. Mrs. Humphris said in the discussion in the minutes of the July, 1992, the McDonalds representatives said they were not concerned about that connec- tion and they had no objection. There was nothing in that discussion to show they had any objections or problems. Mr. Bowerman said it has been a policy issue when there is a corner lot and an undivided highway like Route 20 North. It is problematic to have a full entrance/exit because, at certain times of the day, the traffic that backs up on Route 20 from the light cuts off that entrance/exit. The Highway Department has not been willing to agree with that. If you look at the Hardees at Rio Road and Route 29 North, there are four uses there served by two entrances. There are cross easements across all of those lots to allow access through those properties. Rio Road, in that vicinity, is a divided highway, but when that was done about sixteen years, it was a policy of the Board and Commission to try to limit the access points to all these types of major highways. That is the reason this was required of McDonalds. He thinks this is exactly what the Board contemplated. Mr. Martin said he agrees. He does not think it would be a great hardship and he thinks the Board would be following an established policy to maintain the connection between this site and McDonalds. He is concerned if it rises to the level that the person cannot do what he wants to do on the property because of parking regulations, since the Board has no control over variances. Mr. Bowerman asked if Texaco owned this corner lot when the other lot was cut off to McDonalds. Mr. Sutton replied, "yes", but the reason there was such cooperation was that it would be a gasoline location, not a fast food restaurant. At that time McDonalds did not think it would be a competing fast food restaurant. December 13~ 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mrs. Humphris said the Board is looking at a bigger problem than just the slip lane. The taxpayers just invested a lot of money in all the improve- ments to the bridge, Route 250 East and Route 20 North. She thinks the use contemplated for this property is too intense. The proposed uses are big traffic attractors. She thinks the Board needs to think about whether it should allow the drive-thru windows which are going to create that additional traffic and cause the extra parking problems. Mr. Perkins said he is disappointed with VDOT if they negotiated to purchase property from this site, and said the property owner could have these entrances on Route 20 and Route 250, and now are saying they cannot have the entrances. Mr. Bowerman said he understands Mr. Sutton's desire to have the highest use of the property and his arguments. To a certain extent there is validity to those arguments, but he is not convinced they override the logic of having full access to this property by the connection through to McDonalds. He does not have a problem with this because he thinks Mr. Sutton will be able to utilize the site efficiently. He personally thinks it would be more to McDonalds benefit because their customers can come right through after buying gasoline. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-95-32 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. No direct access to Route 20 shall be permitted; 2 o Access to Route 20 through Tax Map 78, Parcel 4A (McDonald's site) shall be required; Provision of a raised curb to separate the drive-thru lane from the travel lanes; Development shall be in general accord with the site plan titled "Pantops Texaco" dated August 14, 1995 (copy on file), except as the plan shall be amended to address the above conditions and the recommendations of the Site Review Committee. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-34. Virginia Electric & Power Company. Public Hearing on a request to establish an electrical substation on approx 7 ac zoned RA & EC. Property on S sd of Rt 53 approx 900 ft E of Rt 729. TM93, P47L. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff opinion is that approval of this petition would satisfy a legitimate public purpose. The proposal adequately satisfies the criteria for issuance of a special use permit and staff recommends approval subject to three conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of SP-95-34 subject to the three conditions recommended by the staff. Mrs. Thomas asked if the substation makes any noise. Mr. Cilimberg said it hums a little bit. Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff asks questions about magnetic fields when dealing with power substations. Mr. Cilimberg said magnetic fields are area still a learning process for staff, but staff does ask questions they are knowledgeable about. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Jeff Hutchinson, Regional Manager for the Piedmont Region of Virginia Power, said this proposal is to install a substation and two addi- tional circuits to serve Virginia Power's customers east of the City of Charlottesville. It is needed to relieve overloading of the circuits in that area. He then introduced Elizabeth Harper, Project Coordinator, and Don Koontz, Director of Transmission Standards and Technology, who were present. Mrs. Humphris asked what was the magnetic field reading at the substa- tion. Mr. Koontz said Virginia Power modeled the existing transmission corridor with the peak loads that have been on that line. At the edge of the December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000259 right-of-way, which is typically 60 feet from the center of the transmission line, the magnetic field levels were approximately 12.5 milligauss, which is the unit of measure of magnetic field intensity. With a typical substation of this design, by the time someone gets to the fence which surrounds the facility, the magnetic field levels are approximately two to three milligauss, so it is actually less than at the edge of the right-of-way of the transmis- sion line. Mr. Koontz added that the magnetic field is directly proportional to the amount of demand on the system. When facilities of double circuitry or two transformers are designed side by side, the laws of physics dictate that if they are opposite in their phasing, they cancel at all times. Mrs. Thomas said there is a note that some residential buildings encroach onto the Virginia Power property and screening would be placed around these buildings. She asked if that is in an agreement. Mr. Davis said screening is a condition of the Architectural Review Board and shown on the site plan. There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-95-34 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Approval is for a 230 to 34.5KV conversion substation to be developed in general accord with Attachment E (copy at- tached); 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; Proposed and existing landscape which serves to screen adjoining dwellings shall be maintained by Virginia Power and replaced in accord with §32.7.9.2c of the Zoning Ordi- nance. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-95-35. Woodmen of the World Lodge 279 VA. Public Hearing on a request to establish a Lodge Hall on approx 2.6 ac zoned RA. Property located on W sd of Rt 606 opposite Quail Run. TM32,P9J1. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recoramends approval of the request based on the findings of the review of this project for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995, by a vote of 6:1 recommended approval of SP-95-35 subject to the conditions suggested by the staff, with #5 amended as follows: "The building shall not exceed 4,000 square feet" and the following additional condition: "7: No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on-site". In condition #5, the staff had recommended 3,750 square feet. The dissenting vote was concerned about impact of the proposal on the rural areas. Mrs. Thomas asked about screening the property to the south. Although the property is being used as a music school, it could be a residence. Mr. Cilimoerg said that is true, but staff is not recommending any landscaping. Mrs. Humphris asked if the 4000 square feet refers to the footprint of the building. Mr. Cilimberg said the 4000 square feet is the overall space withi'n the walls of the structure. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Ricotta, Secretary of the Lodge and Chairman of the Building Committee, said the staff report was complete. The person who owns the property to the north sold them this property and has full knowledge of their plans. Also, the next door neighbor had no problem with their plans. The property owner on the other side are also members of Woodmen of the World and were happy to see them. Woodmen of the World is a nonprofit organization. They do a lot of community service work; a lot of work with kids, character building activities. They have a registered trademark of being the family fraternity. He thinks this will be a good and positive addition to the County. This property is directly across from the industrial park. He will be happy to answer any questions. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000260 Mrs. Thomas said this is a good transitional use of the property, but she is worried about the property to the south that is not going to have any screening from this site. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-95-35 subject to the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) Use of outside amplification devices for sound shall be prohibited; 2o Use shall not commence without site plan approval. The site plan shall not receive final plan approval until such time as information is provided to verify that sound generated within the building does not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest property line; Use of the site for subordinate uses and fundraising activi- ties such as, but not limited to, bingo, raffles, auctions, receptions and dances shall not occur between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; Provision of a single row of screening trees planted 15 (fifteen) feet on center or a double staggered row of screening shrubs planted 10 (ten) feet on center adjacent to Tax Map 32, Parcel 9H (the adjacent property to the north); 5o The building shall not exceed 4,000 (four thousand) square feet; Maximum occupancy load shall be determined by the Building Official and shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; 7. No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on-site. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-95-07. Rio Associates. Public Hearing on a request to amend ZMA-88-06 in order to modify proffers limiting vehicle trip generation. Property (Lowe's) on W sd of Rt 29 between Rt 29 & Berkmar Dr. Site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 1. TM45,P109. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Due to changes in circum- stances staff opinion is that the use of total trip limits is inappropriate. The use of a level of service to determine permitted development is superior to total trip limits as it allows for a detailed analysis of the impact of a development on the transportation network. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the intent of the original proffer which was designed to limit impacts. In addition, this rezoning with the proffers of the applicant is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to minimize congestion in the public streets, provide for a convenient community and provide for adequate transportation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said there were two proffers offered. The first proffer: "Traffic generated by this site accessing Woodbrook Drive shall not result in a level of service of less than C.' The proffer applies to any entrance taken by this property onto Woodbrook, whether or not that entrance is on the frontage. In other words, if the applicant goes across another parcel to get to Woodbrook that limitation also exists. The second proffer: "Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 shall not result in a reduction in the level of service". That also applies to any entrance taken by this property onto Route 29 whether or not it is on the frontage. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a somewhat new approach in proffering traffic that the County has not used before, but seems to be a desired approach by VDOT in dealing with how traffic affects roads, which is first at the access points and crossovers for a level of service desired to be maintained. Mrs. Thomas asked how this is measured. How does the County hold them to any sort of proffer that says they will not cause the intersection to fall in its level of service. Mr. Cilimberg said based on the applicant's submit- tal of development plans for the property, a traffic analysis acceptable by VDOT showing overall traffic function at the access points will have to be submitted. The level of service at intersections is typically measured based on delay which can be determined in traffic analysis. After VDOT accepts the P O00 G December 13, 1995 (Regular' Night Meeting) (Page 9) study information, calculations are done on the generation and the delay that creates at intersections. They not only have to show their effect and how that is affecting the level of service, but also take into account all the other traffic generated in the area. The traffic study will look at this intersection with no development and with this development. The traffic study usually measures the level of service for all turning movements. In addition the applicants would be required to do whatever is necessary for turn lanes, signalization, etc., if their project lowers the level of service. Mrs. Thomas said that is not clear to her in reading the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said it is their understanding. Mr. Bowerman said the rationale is the same of making sure that the intersection and the highway can handle the traffic that is going to be generated by that development at its ultimate development. He is comfortable with the way this is presented; the applicants will have to make the intersec- tions work for their project. Mr. Davis said he is also comfortable with the proffers. It clearly states that the result cannot lower the level of service. The applicants would make improvements to mitigate that result or not develop' Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 14, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-95-07, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Hill was present to represent the applicant. The applicants have been working with the staff for five years on this piece of property. He also does not quite understand everything, but according to the attorneys, it is fair to everybody involved in the development of the land and the road system. He will answer any questions from the Board. He added that staff has been great in working on this project. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve ZMA-95-07 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. PROFFER FO~L~4 Date: 10/31/96 ZMA# 95-07 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 45 parcel 109 & 109C ll Acres to be rezoned from - to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby volun- tarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation tot he rezoning re- quested. (1) Request to change previous proffer: a) Traffic generated by this site accessing Woodbrook Drive shall not result in a level of service of less than C. b) Traffic generated by this site accessing Route 29 shall not result in a reduction in the level of ser- vice. (Signed) Charles W. Hurt Signature of Ail Owners Rio Associates 10-31-95 Printed Names of Ail Owners Date Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-95-06. Pavilion at Riverbend LLC. Public Hearing on a request to amend Section 22.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to add "Outdoor Amphitheater" as a use by special use permit in the C-l, Commercial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 27 and December 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) and Comprehensive Plan. Staff review of the relationship of the proposed amendment to the Plan results in a finding that Outdoor Amphitheaters are only potentially appropriate in designated Regional Service and Office/Regional Service Areas and by special use permit in the PD-MC zoning district. Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to amend the C-1 district to include Outdoor Amphitheater. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 28, 1995, recommended denial of ZTA-95-06. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Bud Treakle, an attorney, representing the applicant, said unfortunately due to certain circumstances there has been concern about a specific site in the County for this proposed pavilion. He does not think they are here tonight to debate site specific issues so he will limit his comments to the zoning text amendment. His client considered the need for a multi-purpose amphitheater in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. In doing so, the applicant considered a number of differences that the County provides as a guide for development. The applicant considered the land use plan, the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan and a number of other documents. The applicant believes these documents are a statutory framework for development. The applicant then looked at a number of other factors to determine whether or not such a project was feasible and desirable in the County. He looked at road access, water and sewer, proximity of any proposed location to medical, fire, health services, etc. After looking at all of these factors, and specifically at the Zoning Ordinance, they felt their use was within the C-1 zone. For example, indoor theaters are permitted by-right in the C-1 zone. The applicant's proposed use of an amphitheater closely resembles an indoor theater. The only differences are: 1) an amphitheater is not open 365 days per year; 2) traffic generated by this proposed use will consistently be less than traffic generated by an indoor theater; and 3) potential for noise problems. Taking into consideration noise, the applicant looked at a number of design features to minimize the impact of any amphitheater on nearby properties. The applicants also looked at uses permitted in a C-1 zone by special use permit and one of those is "commercial/recreational establish- ments''. The request for the special use permit has been deferred until the Board takes action on this request. Obviously the first question is whether an amphitheater should be permitted in Albemarle County and if so, in what zone. The applicants.see a potential outdoor amphitheater as having a number of different uses. It can be used for a multi-purpose facility available for theater, dramatic and musical performances, high school graduations, farmers markets, conferences, convention centers, craft shows and other community needs. After looking at the staff's report, he thinks perhaps what staff envisions and what the applicants envision are significantly different. Staff compares the proposed amphitheater to a "Kings Dominion" or a state fair ground. They envision an outdoor amphitheater as a smaller, more intimate facility. Specifically, the applicant envisions a facility with back walls and sidewalks, approximately 3500 seats that are covered under a roof. The building would be open on the fourth side and there would be a hillside on that fourth side for hillside seating. The specifics of this design are in large part to abate or solve the potential noise problems which can be addressed at the special use permit process. This facility is similar to the amphitheater on the Downtown Mall. They envision a facility of 7000 people; the Downtown Mall facility will hold 5000 people within the designated area. The Downtown facility was built without specific concerns for noise abatement. The difference is the Downtown facility is an open bowl with a stage in the center. Their facility would provide an intimate atmosphere for any type of performance, show or speaker. He believes the staff report is dealing with size issues. It is concerned about traffic generation. He thinks they compare favorably to the Charlottesville Performing Arts Center which is located in a residential neighborhood. The issue they think that distinguishes this proposal from the Planning staff's report is size. He thinks the staff's report is issued in a generic sense. He believes the question the Board needs to address is when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted whether an outdoor amphitheater was excluded purposely. Assuming it was not excluded, the next question is where it should be located. The applicant believes the facility could fit in a community service area and with special use permit guidelines and controls, a facility could be provided that would meet the needs of the community. Mr. Treakle said the applicant is here asking the Board to adopt in the general sense a zoning text amendment that allows this use in a C-1 zone. There are two separately worded zoning text amendments included with the staff's report. One is the staff's proposal and the other proposal came from the applicant. Both of the proposals seem to address issues dealing with noise and sound levels, and if the Board is concerned about size, it could limit the number as part of the supplemental regulations. December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Bowerman asked if that recommendation had been discussed with staff. Mr. Treakle responded, "no", but he thinks the amendment would create what the applicant wants to do. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant was asking the Board to consider this request without considering noise. Mr. Treakle said he believes the noise issue can be addressed during the special use permit process for a given site. He thinks that noise has to be considered generally, but he does not believe, at this point, the Board has to determine what the noise level should be at the property line or at the next adjacent property line. He does not believe the Board needs to be that specific at this point. Mr. Marshall said he would agree if the theater was enclosed, but it is open. Mr. Treakle said if the applicant cannot satisfactorily address the noise concerns during the special use permit process, then the request should be denied. They are controlling the noise by putting a back on the stage, walls on two sides, speakers set to the left and right of the stage so the sound is going out into the open area and proposing a hillside slope for seating. Based on their studies, the applicants believe they can control the noise and the sound levels at adjacent property lines. He still thinks noise is something that should be reserved for a later date. Mr. Marshall again said he has trouble with trying to not deal with noise at this time. Mrs. Humphris asked how far out along the sides does the sidewalls come relative to the audience. Mr. Treakle said there are 3500 seats under roof and he believes the sidewalls extend out to the edge of the under roof area. Mrs. Humphris asked about the parking calculations. Mr. Treakle said the calculation of 1220 cars was made by staff based upon the proposed fixed and hillside seating. Mrs. Humphris asked if was corrected that 7,000 people only generate 1220 vehicles. Mr. Cilimberg said he could not answer that; the staff did not focus directly on the parking standard. Mrs. Humphris said that does not seem reasonable to her based on a lot of other standards the County uses. The quotation on the structure calculates out to less than 900 vehicles for the nonimpervious parking surface. Mr. Treakle said the initial quote was provided so the Board could understand the nature of the surface they intended to use. Obviously, the parking will have to be recalculated for the special use permit. He added that the applicant is proposing a 50 foot buffer in that area with trees and a number of other things that are site specific. Mrs. Humphris said she is not sure the statement that "there will be no need for on-site storm water infrastructure", computes with Albemarle County's storm water runoff regulations, nor the statement that "runoff quantities will be very close to historic runoff due to sand soils". This County has clay soils. Mr. Treakle said in the parking area there is sand. On his client's specific site, there is currently a sand and gravel operation where they are removing sand from the river and the area. Mrs. Humphris asked if it was correct that no on-site storm water infrastructure will be required. That would be unusual. Mr. Cilimberg said the infrastructure will be based on the site of development. There are areas in the County where the preferred way to handle storm water is direct discharge which is mostly on sites near a river. In response to Mrs. Humphris, that may be correct, but he cannot say. Staff has not done any technical review of the site; it focused entirely on the zoning text amendment. At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing up for comments from the public. Mr. Fran Lawrence, a resident of 729 Chesapeake Street, said Woolen Mills is a community of both City and County residents that is located along the edge of the Rivanna River across from the Pantops Shopping Center. He is here representing himself, his wife and a large majority of the Woolen Mills neighborhood. This proposed use is not an indoor movie theater, nor is it similar to the 1200 seat Charlottesville Performing Arts Center. This use is outside and will accommodate 7000 people. About two weeks ago, the neighbor- hood met and voted in opposition to the specific site plan. In their opinion, the Zoning Ordinance is in place to improve communities, protect property values, enhance economic viability and to improve the overall quality of life. The main component of the Zoning Ordinance is a grading system where the staff tries to identify offensive and intensive uses that can be restricted. The staff tries to locate businesses near businesses, residences near residences, and provide buffer areas as a transition from one zone to another. Lastly, heavy industry is not located near anything. The neighborhood views this proposed amphitheater as more like heavy industry. The residents think the Board needs to look at the impact of these 7000 people seated predominantly outside in an open shell. This use is outside, engendering heavy traffic, at night time and late night, noisy, lighted, has music and it has audience response. It involves alcohol use, potentially every day of the week and almost every week of the year. The residents do not think there is a prece- dent in the Zoning Ordinance for this kind of use in the C-1 zone. Mr. Lawrence said the C-1 zone basically surrounds the Pantops Shopping Center and was intended to be a buffer between the shopping center, adjacent river and neighborhoods across the River. The residents concur with the staff 0002G4 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) report which basically identifies a more intense zone as being the only potential place for this kind of use. The C-1 zone is for selected retail sales, service and public use establishments. The uses are by-right and are normally indoor uses. An indoor movie theater is entirely different from this outdoor use. The residents believe this kind of use is such that the poten- tial impacts could approach levels that are more industrial in character. As he stated previously, the use is outside, flashy, noisy, involves alcohol, at night, will be late at night, any day of the week and all the time. The residents do not believe this is the zone where an outdoor amphitheater should be located. Ms. Kim Mattingly, a resident of the Woolen Mills, called the Board's attention to a brochure, "The Rivanna River Corridor Plan" which is list of ideas the residents put together for ways the City and County might come together to develop the Rivanna corridor that takes advantage of this natural resource. She urged the Board to keep this in mind as they make a decision tonight. Ms. Susan McKinnon, a resident of Short/18th Street, was present to speak on behalf of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association and those members in opposition to the proposed change in the Zoning Ordinance. At a meeting of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association on October 28, the members of the association voted unanimously to oppose the proposed change in the C-1 zone. They also voted unanimously in opposition to any special use permit that would allow an outdoor amphitheater to be built on the Riverbend site. The Associa- tion is in the process of canvassing the entire neighborhood on this issue. She then asked the persons present in opposition to stand (8 people stood). The Association strongly support the recommendation of the Planning staff and Commission. This change in the C-1 district would do a significant disservice to the adjacent community although it may be of great service the region. From their perspective, a venue that generates on a regular basis unacceptable noise levels, light pollution, traffic congestion, pollutes the river with trash and automotive contaminants, presents potential public safety and security hazards and requires increased police patrolling, disturbs the peaceful natural refuge enjoyed by both people and wildfire along the Rivanna Greenbelt, and turns an extensive flood plain into an extensive parking lot is not a service to the community. Mr. Will Kerner, a resident of 1618 East Market Street, said he also attended the October 28 Homeowners' Association meeting. All the people present who voted did vote in support of the motion to oppose the development of the area, however, there were several persons who abstained from voting. He also spoke to several members of the community who live in Woolen Mills and they feel this project deserves consideration. They feel the Board should consider the zoning text amendment and then separately the special use permit. The Project Manager and the Architect have made good presentations out at the site. He feels they satisfactorily answered most of the concerns of the residents. He also feels it is a project that will enhance the cultural li~fe of this area. If the project is done responsibly with oversight by the Board, it is something that should be considered and could be a benefit to the area. Ms. M. Ray, said for the past five years, her family has resided 500 yards diagonally across the street from the amphitheater on McCormick Road on the grounds of the University of Virginia. The amphitheater at the Univer- sity, by Mr. Treakle's standards, would be small and intimate. It is semi- circular and it is at the bottom of a bowl. It is a multi-use facility; concerts take place there as well as films, dance performances and Easter sunrise services. It holds 2000, but it can expand infinitely so that groups of 6000 to 8000 are not uncommon. Apart from the annoyance of illegal parkers in their driveway and blocking their garage, the one factor that has destroyed their family life is amplification. The issue is not how many sides of the amphitheater is covered, as long as sound can escape from the structure, the residents anywhere near ear shot will suffer. She also lives approximately the same distance from Newcomb Hall which houses a theater and a ballroom, and these are almost in continuous use during the semesters. They hear nothing from Newcomb Hall; it is totally enclosed. If there is a performance in the amphitheater, however, it is impossible to hold a one-on-one conversation, read, study, do homework, listen to other music, watch television, think or sleep in their home. (Their house was built in 1800 and is solid.) The windows rattle and the floors and walls reverberate. It is much worse out- doors. On several occasions her family had to cancel planned activities because of the noise from an event in the amphitheater. The impact of an amphitheater is devastating. She applaud the recommendation of the staff to not change the Zoning Ordinance and permit the building of any amphitheater near an inhabited part of the County. Mr. Aer Stephen, a resident of 1702 Bruce Avenue, said he is a music lover. He understands amplification. The previous speaker lives downhill from the amplification of an amphitheater. He thinks the sound would be much less behind the building. He supports the Board being less restrictive. He does not think the Board has anything to lose before hearing the whole story. Restrictions can be put on the special use permit. The Board can restrict a December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) specific site and a specific use. He thinks the use would be seasonal and a lot less use than people think. The traffic may be inconvenient for a few minutes. Music can bring a lot to the community. He asked the Board to consider the zoning text amendment for what it is, and then consider the special use permit at the appropriate time. Mr. Thane Kerner, a resident of 609 East Market Street, asked the Board to let this request go to the next step and hear the specifics at a later time. He knows about facilities of this nature and events that take place. Comparisons to the University's amphitheater are inappropriate, as is compari- son to Kings Dominion. There are a lot of specifics with this project that needs to be considered during the special use permit. The main question is whether this use would impact one's quality of life. The Board needs to strongly consider the kind of cultural addition this use would bring to the community. The applicant is not asking the County for any of the money to finance this facility although it would benefit everyone culturally. The question is whether the residents want this kind of facility in the community. He asked the Board to approve the zoning text amendment. Mr. Michael Brown, a resident of Boyd Tavern, urged the Board to approve the zoning text amendment. The site plan for Riverbend is inappropriate at this stage. The discussion about Woolen Mills and its impact would be better addressed when a specific site is brought before the Board. He asked the Board to approve the zoning text amendment. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 9:21 p.m.) Mr. Jim Morris, the Project Manager, said there are several things that have been said that need further comments. One is the comment that amphithe- aters make a lot of noise and the site that is under consideration is too close to residents. Their architect is present and can report that the City's amphitheater was built in a business district, much like this, closer to 40 residents, more than the nearest house to this project. There is a large buffer area between the C-1 and residential area. He has been a County resident for 20 years. This is an opportunity where an individual wants to spend approximately $5.0 million to improve access to cultural events in Albemarle County. The list of events that can be held in this facility is growing each day. The facility does have all of the facets of an enclosed facility by the use of berms, walls and roofing. It will operate sound-wise similar to an enclosed facility. This can be used as evening entertainment for the many loads of tourists who come to this area every year to visit. This facility has tremendous potential. The only reason noise considerations were not included in the zoning text amendment was because the Board may want to have more severe noise restrictions for certain sites. The applicant has no problems with including some language if that is the desire of the Board. The Board may want the latitude to have greater restrictions on certain sites. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:24 p.m.) Mr. Morris said, regarding the parking disparity in figures, there are several parking schemes that being worked on and the Board was given one of the analysis which did not represent all of the parking. Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance require one parking space for each fixed seating and for lawn seating it is one parking space for each 30 square feet. He thinks C-1 is the appropriate district for this use. The only difference between this and an indoor theater is that an indoor theater can operate seven days a week, 365 days a year and can generate traffic equivalent to that; an outdoor theater cannot and it would have less traffic. He will be happy to answer any questions from Board members. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he likes the church aspect of the proposal. He is not opposed to what the applicant is trying to do. He thinks it would be great if the facility could be done in an enclosed building and utilize the site under the present zoning. He is concerned about the noise. All the noise experts have him confused, but no matter what is done, a person can still hear the noise. He operates a drug store a couple of blocks from the Downtown amphi- theater and he can hear the noise from outside his building. His main concern is that the County's noise ordinance is not what it should be. If the County had an appropriate noise ordinance, then the Board would not be having these kinds of problems. He does not know how noise can be controlled in an outside building. He does not think an amphitheater can be compared to an indoor theater because the theater is enclosed and the sound is controlled. He would like for this project to move forward to bring the money into the community, but he does not support amending the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Martin said he also would like to see this project move forward. He thinks it would be an asset to the community, but staff and the Commission denied the request. The question for him is what knowledge does he have that they did not have. He does not think the Commission looked at this in terms of a Kings Dominion. The only argument he can see is that the COmmission was 000266 December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) site specific. He cannot separate the site from the zoning text amendment because he knows the applicant has already purchased the site and intends to use that site. Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with the people who said this would be a wonderful addition to the community as far as cultural and the performing arts, but she believes the issue is can C-1 districts absorb this type of use. She does not agree that this proposal is analogous to the things that are allowed by-right in this district. She does not agree that the question is whether the Board wants this use. The Board can want it here in the community and still feel it does not belong in a C-1 district. She has to look at all of the specifics such as traffic, noise and lights. She thinks it is simply too much for this site to handle. She has commented before about the distance she lives from Albemarle High School and how often, in her relatively sound proof house, she can hear the marching band practice from a mile or so away. She does not mind the sound, but would not like to be much closer because of the bass sounds that go on for long periods of time. She also believes that when the Board approves a zoning text amendment, it is on its way to granting the special use permit. She believes the Board knows that the special use permit goes with the property and it has a responsible applicant. The current owner might not always own this property. For those reasons she cannot support the zoning text amendment. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks partially outdoor amphitheaters are wonder- ful and can be a tremendous addition to a community. She believes it misleads the applicant to go ahead and deal with the zoning text amendment and not consider the special use permit. If the Board thinks this use does not fit in this district, then it should be up-front and say so. For all the previous reasons stated, she does not think this use fits in the C-1 district. Mr. Perkins said there are some benefits that could be derived from this use for the community, but it is hard for him to get to a handle on such things as sound, traffic generation, crowd control, etc. Mr. Bowerman said he is not convinced by what he has heard that he wants to amend Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Martin then offered motion to deny ZTA-95-06. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 10a. Appointments. Mr. Marshall recommended the reappointment of Mr. William J. Nitchmann to the Planning Commission, representing the Scottsville District, with term to expire on December 31, 1999. Mr. Marshall recommended the reappointment of Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., to the Industrial Development Authority, representing the Scottsville Dis- trict, with term to expire on January 19, 2000. Mrs. Humphris recommended the reappointment of Mr. George R. Larie to the Equalization Board, representing the Jack Jouett District, with term to expire on December 31, 1996. Mr. Martin moved approval of the appointments which were made. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said she would like the Board to look at the proposal for the Rivanna Greenbelt planning, although not while the staff is in the middle of the Comprehensive Plan. It is something the City and County could work on jointly if they are looking at planning items of interest. Mrs. Humphris commented that a lot of planning has already been done. Mr. Perkins mentioned a letter received from Kevin Cox encouraging the Board to adopt a policy governing disclosure of possible conflicts between members of Albemarle boards and commissions and organizations appearing before Approved by Board Date Initials~ December 13, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 0002G7 those bodies. He also referred to a statement from Kat Imhoff concerning her employment by the Piedmont Environmental Council while on the Planning Commission. After talking with the Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Perkins said he did not feel it was necessary for this Board to adopt a policy. Board members concurred. Mrs. Humphris said Board members received a copy of a letter the City of Charlottesville sent to Peter Schmidt, Director of the Department of Environ- mental Quality concerning problems in conforming with the Clean Water Act when the locality does not know that it is in violation. Mr. Tucker said he also has also forwarded a letter on behalf of the County. Mrs. Humphris said she still has not heard from the Secretary of Natural Resources when she asked questions about this same issue. Mr. Perkins thanked the Board members and staff for their cooperation during this past year as he served as Chairman. He does not intend to serve as Chairman for another year. Board members expressed appreciation for his service. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. -- ~h~ rm'a n ~, ~