The URL can be used to link to this page

1996-10-09October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) O00~i~--~---------- (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 9, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. 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, Mrs. Humphris 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 offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall. Item 5.1. Adopt Resolution for FY '97 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Funds, and Approve Appropriation for Community Attention, $76,757 & Juvenile Court, $10,544 (Form #96034). During FY '97 budget work sessions, the County allocated $136,848 in new Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act funds; $98,259 to Community Attention for community based services to juveniles and $38,589 to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home to offset a 46 percent increase in the County's required contribution. Since budget adoption in April, several VJCCCA funding changes have occurred as a result of actions of the 1997 Legislature. A positive change was an additional allocation of $48,712 in VJCCCA funds to Albemarle, which included funds for two new programs effective January 1, 1997, $6,030 for "Community Diversion" and $15,834 for a ~'First Time Truant Offender Program", bringing the total FY '97 VJCCCA funding to $185,560 for Albemarle County. A second legislative change was Code language forbidding localities from using any of the new vJCCCA funds for secure detention. To utilize the VJCCCA additional funds for residential and community based services, County, City of Charlottesville, Community Attention, Children and Youth Commission (CACY) and Court Services staff have worked over the past several months to develop a plan that would provide the greatest benefit to the community's juvenile population. County and City VJCCCA funds are to be allocated to the following programs in the new FY '97 funding plan: Community Attention First Time Truant Offender Program Intensive Probation Program Curfew Center Program Total VJCCCA Allocations County City Total $153,152 $537,081 $690,233 $ 21,864 $ 25,531 $ 47,395 $ 10,544 $ 10,544 $ 21,088 $ 16,287 $ 16,287 $185,560 $589,443 $775,003 For the County's $153,152 in VJCCCA funds, Community Attention will continue to provide a variety of needed services to court referred juveniles, i.e., Attention Home, Family Group Homes, community based counseling services, etc. This funding is in addition to the $62,050 in local funds allocated to Community Attention for these services. The First Time Truant Program addresses the need for interyening as early as possible in the lives of troubled children. Since truancy is a valid October 9, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ ~ng) (page 2) . 000 7 predictor of juvenile crime, this new program will attempt to work with children at the earliest truancy incident. Referred by Juvenile Court, Community Attention staff will do a full social assessment on the child and family and provide one of two different types of interventions. One option will be community service for three months through the Teens Give program. The second option will be 25 hours of services for three months. In the next year, these two options will be evaluated to determine which intervention works best, based on recidivism rates and family and school input. The Intensive Probation Program will provide a full time Probation Officer to perform intensive supervision for ten to twelve high risk juvenile offenders who are on probation or have completed their sentence in detention settings and returned to the community. The officer will be an Albemarle County employee supervised by the 16th District Juvenile Court Service Unit. The Officer will work closely with appropriate community resources and will participate in the local Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) process. With these additional funding changes from the General Assembly, the good news is that an additional $76,757 can be appropriated to Community Attention over the $98,259 in VJCCCA funds appropriated last June. The bad news is that since the County may not use VJCCCA funds for secure detention, those funds must be transferred from the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home to Community Attention and replaced with fund balance monies in the amount of $38,589 (the amount of VJCCCA funds used for the Detention Home in the FY97 approved budget). New VJCCCA monies in the amount of $10,544 will be used to fund the Intensive Probation program in the Juvenile Court. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96034 in the amount of $97,845; $76,757 to Community Attention and $21,088 to Juvenile Court. The appropriation will be funded by $48,712 in additional FY '97 County VJCCCA funds, $10,544 reimbursement from the City for their share of the probation officer, and $38,589 in County funds to replace the VJCCCA funds used for the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home. Also recommended for your approval is a resolution that certifies that the County will not use VJCCCA funds to decrease or supplant local funds for juvenile services, will establish and review standards, and submit reports and needed information to the state. The resolution also states that the County consulted with both the judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Director of Court Services. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution for VJCCCA and the resolution of appropriation: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Department of Juvenile Justice has. approved funding through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) in the amount of $185,560; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has submitted a plan to the Department to use these Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act funds to provide services to youth who come before the Juve- nile and Domestic Relations Court, and WHEREAS, Albemarle County's funding plan is approved by the Department of Juvenile Justice for FY 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that it: Will not contribute less funding for the implementation of this local plan than as expended for block grant funded programs or services either operated or utilized in FY 1995 in compliance with § 16.1-309.6 of the Code of Virginia; Will not utilize funds provided by this Act to sup- plant funds established as the state pool of funds under § 2.1-757 in compliance with § 16.1-309.3 C of the Code of Virginia; Will comply with all provisions of § 16.1-309.9 of the Code of Virginia which gives the Department of Jure- October 9, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ ~e~Eing) (Page 3) nile Justice the a~thority to establish and enforce standards and to review the expenditures and services established by the local plan; Consulted with the judge(s) of the Juvenile and Domes- tic Relations District Court and the Director(s) of Court Services of the participating jurisdiction(s); Will submit routine reports and any other information to the Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice for each program or service funded by the Act in compliance with § 16.1-309.3 E and § 16.1-309.10 of the Code of Virginia and all applicable Departmental procedures. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NI3MBER: 96034 FUND: GENERAL PI/RPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ALLOCATION OF VIRGINIA JIJVENILE COMMUNITY CRIME CONTROL FUNDS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100039000563505 1100021O511100O0 1100021051210000 1100021051221000 1100021051231000 1100021051232000 1100021051241000 1100021051270000 DESCRIPTION COMMLrNITY ATTENTION JUVENILE CT SERV - SALARIES JUVENILE CT SERV - FICA JUVENILE CT SERV - RETIREMENT JUVENILE CT SERV - HEALTH INSURA/~CE JUVENILE CT SERV - DENTAL INSURA/~CE JUVENILE CT SERV - LIFE INSURAlqCE JUVENILE CT SERV - WORKER'S COMP TOTAL AMOUNT $76,757 00 16,708 00 1,302 00 6 00 1,515 00 1,335 00 45 00 177 00 $97,845 00 REVENIJE 2100024000240445 2100019000190309 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION JUVENILE CRIME CONTROL CITY-JUVENILE COURT SERVICES GENERAL FI/ND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $48,712.00 10,544.00 38,589.00 $97,845.00 Item 5.2. Appropriation: Juvenile Detention Planning Study, $71,574 - (Form # 96035). At its September 6, 1995 meeting, the Board received and discussed the Secure Juvenile Detention Needs Assessment that documented the increasing need for secure juvenile detention in both Albemarle and Charlottesville and out- lined the process for securing state funding for a new or expanded juvenile detention facility. The first step in the process, approval of the needs assessment and permission to move forward with a planning study, was obtained from the State Department of Juvenile Justice last spring. Based on that approval, a joint City/County staff team moved forward over the summer to select a consultant for the planning/feasibility study. Out of five architectural/engineering firms with expertise in juvenile justice issues, the team selected Mosely/Harris. This Richmond firm has considerable experience in courthouse and jail expansions/renovations and juvenile detention projects, such as the new Richmond Juvenile Detention Center and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court complex and the new 225-bed maximum security juvenile detention center in Culpeper. The total estimated cost for the planning study is $71,574: $33,545 for the County, $33,545 for the City and $4,484 for the Shenandoah Valley Deten- tion Home. The planning study required by the state is quite extensive and consists of the following elements: Program Design that describes the specific services to be provided to City/County juveniles with implementation plans and time frames, as well as documentation of how the services fit into a comprehensive community approach to juvenile justice and fill current gaps in service; October 9, 1996 (Regular Night ~ng) (Page 4) Planning Study that includes a 40-bed facility design and project costs. Project costs include the costs of bringing a new facility into opera- tion, as well as ongoing operating costs. Three sites for the study are being considered at this time, two publicly owned and one private, all of which are in close proximity to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Regio- nal Jail. A final recommendation of one of these sites will be part of the final product presented to the Board and City Council. Cost/Benefit Analysis that looks at the impact on the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home if the County and City build their own facility in addi- tion to the cost of expanding the current Shenandoah Detention Home if the City and County remain in the commission. This section also requires a cost/benefit analysis of alternative programs to detention, i.e., non-residential programs, less restrictive programs, electronic monitoring, etc. The state also requires a comparative cost analysis of private versus public sector funding for juvenile facilities as part of this last section of the study. What the County and City will have at the end of the study is a descrip- tion of what the program at the facility would look like, including education and mental health services, a cost benefit analysis of whether it is prefera- ble to build a new facility on a local site or expand at the current site in Waynesboro, detailed construction and operating costs for a new facility and an analysis of possible alternative programs that may ultimately reduce future detention needs. The Shenandoah Valley Detention Home will benefit from the study by having an analysis of the fiscal, programmatic and utilization impacts on their current facility should Charlottesville and Albemarle decide to leave. For the other localities in the Commission, this should provide a solid base for their own needs assessment. For this part of the study, the Shenandoah Valley Detention Home will contribute $4,484. Although Fluvanna County has not been part of the planning study process, they have indicated an interest in either being a part of a new commission or purchasing detention services should a new facility be built. If the Board and City Council (City Council will hear the request for their share on October 7) approve the appropriation of funds for the Planning Study, the County is prepared to sign a contract with Mosely/Harris. The study will begin the following week, October 14. With a 90-day completion target, the finished study will be brought back in early January to the Board, City Council and the Department of Juvenile Justice for approval. Although we have missed the Department of Juvenile Justice's official August submittal deadline, we have been encouraged to proceed with the planning study and to submit it to the Department in the earliest possible time frame. With their approval, funding for the project will be sought in the 1997 Legislative Session through a budget amendment submitted by our legislators. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96035 in the amount of $71,574 for a planning study for a secure juvenile detention facility. The County's actual dollar share of the planning study will be $33,545, with a reimbursement of $33,545 from the City of Charlottesville and $4,484 from the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home. The allocation of costs for the planning study between the City and County is based on our policy of splitting capital costs 50/50. If the Board prefers to allocate costs based on level of service, similar to the recent recreational decision, the County's cost of the planning study would be $20,127 (30 percent), the City's share would be $46,903. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96035 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDS FOR SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100033020312386 JUVENILE DETENTION NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOTAL AMOUNT $71,574.00 $71,574.00 October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) REVENUE 2100019000190310 2100019000190311 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION CITY-JUVENILE DETENTION STUDY SHENANDOAH VALLEY DETENTION STUDY GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $33,545.00 4,484.00 33,545.00 $71,574.00 Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for September 10, September 24 and October 1 1996, received for information. Item 5.4. Memorandum dated September 24, 1996, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development, enclosing a copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the Planning Commission on September 19, 1996, in which they readopted their previous resolution of intent to amend both the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance to codify the administrative process, by now including all changes which have been made in the Code of Virginia, and including items related to plat content, was received as information. Item 5.5. 1996 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, received for information. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated September 19, 1996, from Ms. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, to Mr. James M. Bowling, IV, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 31, Parcel 9 (property of Hidden Acres, L.L.C.), received for information. Item 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Jail Authority for August 2 and August 8, 1996, received for information. Item 5.8. Memo from ms. Lee P. Catlin, Community Resources Coordinator, inviting the Board to attend the Rededication Ceremony for the County Office Building, which is planned for Wednesday morning, November 6, 1996, at 8:15 a.m. in the lobby of the building, was received for information. Item 5.9. Letter dated September 26, 1996, addressed to Ms. Shelby J. Marshall re: McIntire Road Extension (Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase 1; Project U000-104-V02, PE101; Federal Project M-5104 [108]; Project U000-104-102,RW- 201,C-501; Project 0631-002-128,C-502,B-612; from the Route 250 Bypass and existing McIntire Road to 0.15 kilometer [0.09 mile] north of Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, Route 631 [Rio Road]). It is noted that a Citizen Informa- tion Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Charlottesville High School to provide interested citizens an opportunity to informally review and discuss the preliminary plans. Item 5.10. Notice from the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development that four regional workshops have been scheduled where input on the 1997 Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program Design will be solicited, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-96-31. Lillian Shifflett. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B permit for a beauty shop on approx 20 ac zoned RA located on E sd of Rt 665 approx 0.25 mi S of Rt 609. TM29,P23. White Hall District. (This site is not located in a designated growth area [Rural Area 1]). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23 and September 30, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He described the favorable factors, as well as the negative factors to this request. The staff recom- mended approval of this request subject to five conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 10, 1996, also recommended approval of SP-96-31 subject to the staff conditions. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000191 Mr. Cilimberg said in a memo of October 1 from Claudia Paine, Senior Planner, there was a suggested clarifying change to condition #5 which dealt with the deliveries of hair care products for sale on-site. He said the fifth condition now simply indicates that ~sales of hair care products shall be permitted, however, no deliveries to this property of such products for resale shall occur." It is the same intent as the original condition. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board members, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. She asked if the applicant was present. Ms. Debbie Pond, the applicant, said her mother is Lillian Shifflett, owner of the property. Ms. Pond stated that she was available for questions. Mrs. Thomas referred to condition #4 and asked if four customers will be enough. Ms. Pond answered that a lot of her business will be outside of her home, such as weddings, etc. She also goes into other people's homes and gives facials. However, the mobile home will give her a home base. Mrs. Thomas asked if Ms. Pond is comfortable with the fourth condition. Ms. Pond replied, "yes." Mrs. Humphris inquired if anyone else wanted to speak to SP-96-31, and no one came forward. She then closed the public hearing. Mrs. Thomas suggested that condition #5 be written differently with a period at the end of the word, "permitted," and a capital "H" to start the word, "however." Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-96-31 with the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing Condition #5 to read: "Sales of hair care products shall be permitted. However, no deliveries to this property of such products for re- sale shall occur." Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (NOTE: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) No subsequent subdivision (including family division) nor estab- lishment of any additional dwellings shall be permitted unless this special use permit is terminated; Not more than one employee, who is not a family member living on site, shall be permitted; Health Department approval of separate septic drain field prior to commencement of beauty shop activity; 4. Not more than four (4) customers per day; 50 Sales of hair care products shall be permitted. However, no deliveries to this property of such products for re-sale shall occur. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-96-34. Michael Thacker. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B permit for a vehicle repair shop (public garage) on 2 ac zoned P~A. Property on S sd of Rt 250 approx 1.2 mi W of Rt 250/240 inters at Mechum River. TM57,P39A. White Hall Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23 and September 30, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg discussed the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He called attention to the favorable and unfavorable factors involving this request. The staff recom- mended approval of the request with eight conditions. The Planning Commis- sion, at its meeting on September 24, 1996, also recommended approval of October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) SP-96-34 subject to the same eight conditions. He noted that the reference on condition #3 should be ~Attachment D" instead of "Attachment E". Mrs. Thomas asked if the first condition means there will be no sale of gasoline. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mrs. Thomas suggested that the first condition be changed to clarify this point. Mr. Cilimberg suggested the condition read: " .... No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted." There were no further questions for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mrs. Margaret Thacker, the applicant, said she has a concern about condition #5, relating to VDOT's approval of entrance improvements to allow for simultaneous ingress and egress at the landing as it approaches Route 250. She said the proposal shows this is a one person, part-time service with no signs or advertising. Service will be by appointment only, and she and her husband feel as though they can control the amount of vehicles coming in and leaving the property. When representatives of VDOT told them they needed an 80 foot wide entrance to the property, it seemed excessive, because it would make it look as though it is a commercial entrance. Mrs. Humphris read from VDOT's Assistant Resident Engineer's letter, and she asked if an exact distance has been outlined to the Thackers. Mr. Cilimberg said he imagines VDOT representatives have worked directly with the Thackers on this requirement indicating the ingress and egress improvement. There is a standard by which VDOT officials require any commercial entrance, but there will certainly be an opportunity for the Thackers to modify this requirement. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Thackers were told a specific number of feet by VDOT representatives. Mr. Thacker indicated that he had been given this information by VDOT representatives. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it depends on whether the Thackers feel they need a full entrance for this property. He explained that VDOT representatives will make a recommendation based on a standard including such distances. Mrs. Thacker said she is talking about four vehicles in a two week period. She noted that if people are coming by appointments only, they will be coming at set times, and they would not be going in and out. She does not want it to look as though it is a commercial entrance. Mrs. Humphris asked if VDOT is saying there has to be enough room for simultaneous ingress and egress. Mrs. Thacker answered affirmatively; that is her only concern. Mr. Perkins asked if there is enough room for a car sitting in the entrance to go out and another one to come into the property. Mrs. Thacker replied that there is probably not enough room for a car to be leaving the property and another one to be coming into the property, although the entrance could probably accommodate two small cars. Mr. Thacker agreed that two small cars could use the entrance at the same time, but it would be tight if the cars were larger. Mrs. Thomas inquired if the entrance could be widened for two cars to sit side by side without going to the 80 foot VDOT regulation. Mr. Thacker answered that this could be done. Mr. Cilimberg commented that when a state right-of-way is involved, a permit is needed~ and the person will be required to make a full improvement. He thinks it would be best to either improve the entrance to VDOT regulations, or not do it at all. Mrs. Thomas asked if the condition is not necessary, since this is a VDOT requirement. Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is an entrance already there, and the business can exist with it. If the Supervi- sors choose not to require an improvement, the entrance will remain as it is, and VDOT officials cannot do anything about it. It is only at a time when the applicant chooses to improve the entrance that VDOT officials can require full improvements. Mrs. Humphris wondered if the applicant improves the entrance, then will the full improvements have to be done. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mrs. Thomas said County officials cannot require enough room at the entrance for ingress and egress because this would bring in VDOT representa- October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000 93 tives. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. This would cause the applicants to have to get a permit, and then they will have to go by VDOT standards. Mr. Perkins remarked that this Board can make such a requirement, but it does not make sense. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that VDOT officials would not make any requirements if condition %5 is left the way it is now. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if condition #5 remains, the Zoning Department staff will require the improvements to be made before they would allow the use to occur. Mrs. Thomas next inquired if the sign for this public hearing was placed in the location of the proposed home occupation by a Zoning Department staff member. Mrs. Thacker replied that the sign was placed there by someone from the Zoning Department, and a letter was sent indicating the sign could not be moved. Ail she could do was maintain the sign, and put it back up if it fell over. She had actually called the Zoning Department asking about the sign because none had originally been placed there. The Zoning Department staff informed her that the sign would be forthcoming. She was informed it was not her problem, and her application would not be slowed down, because the sign had not been erected. She went on to say the next day someone from the Zoning Department put up the sign in the location to which Mrs. Thomas referred. Mrs. Thomas noted that the sign was placed in a spot where no one from Route 250 could see it. She said there must be a problem with the Zoning Department, because it was not adequate placing of the sign. She visited the site, although no one knew it. She drove up the driveway and was very sur- prised to see the sign at the corner of the gravel drive and the joint driveway. Mrs. Thacker said she and her husband questioned whether anyone from Route 250 could see the sign. Unless someone stopped and looked down the driveway, the sign could not be seen. Mr. Tucker said perhaps the problem with the placement of the sign is because the road is located off of Route 250. If the sign was put on Route 250, it might give an erroneous indication that the property immediately off of Route 250 was being considered tonight. Mrs. Thomas replied that the Thackers' property goes to Route 250. Mr. Tucker said he would find out why the sign was put in that particular location. Mrs. Gertrude Peyton stated that she lives in Greenwood. She then read a statement from Scott Peyton asking Board members to consider the strong negative message the Board's approval of this special use permit would send to the agricultural community. The statement indicated that over a year ago he sought to expand his existing commercial farm business which he had been operating for over 20 years. According to his statement this initiative on his part apparently caused County officials a great deal of anxiety because they said he was seeking to establish an inappropriate commercial use in an RA zoned district. His statement indicated he was getting a message that he cannot farm his property commercially, but he surely can open a garage. He feels this is a bad message to be sending to the littler farmer. Mrs. Thomas noted that the application is shown as a special use permit request, but it is actually a proposed home occupation. Mr. Cilimberg said the reason for the special permit request is because no employees are involved, and the applicants are going to operate in an existing structure, which meets the square footage requirements for a home occupation. This request does not fit on the public garage scale as has been seen in the past. Mrs. Thomas wondered if this is true because the applicant will be doing some work elsewhere. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands the applicant has been doing some work away from home, but he wants to bring some of it to the home base. Mrs. Thomas stated that this request seems to be similar to a home occupation, but it actually fits into the special permit category. Mr. Bowerman commented that he has no objection to removing condition #5. The current entrance seems to be adequate, and if it has to be one way or the other, common sense would indicate that it should stay the say it is currently. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Perkins asked if the home occupation permit goes with the person and not with the property. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the permit goes with the property. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the petitions and letters, etc., in support of the Thackers. She said it was really nice to find out that the Thackers had so much support in the community. She also noted that she has known Margaret Thacker for years, but she did not know they were the applicants. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded Mr. Martin, to approve SP-96-34, with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, but deleting No. 5, which read: "Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance improvements to allow for simultaneous ingress and egress at the landing as it approaches Route 250." Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:.) The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of vehicles. No body work or spray painting of vehicles shall be permitted. No gasoline or sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted; 2. Ail work shall be conducted within the existing building; 3 o No outside storage of parts including junk parts or inoperable vehicles except for a maximum of two vehicles awaiting repair. Vehicles awaiting repair shall be located in the area noted on Attachment E or within the building; 4. Fire and Building Official approval; 5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Engineering Department approval of waste collection and disposal methods; 7. No employees. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-14. Albemarle County Service Authority (Sign #11) . Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 4 acres from RA to LI. Property is location of the construction yard/ storage/shop for the Service Authority located on the S sd of Rt 240 approx 0.7 miles W of 240/250 inters at Mechum River. Area recommended for Neighborhood Density (3-6 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet & for Rural Areas by the Comprehensive Plan. TM57,P29B. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23 and September 30, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He also described the proffers and called attention to the uses not permitted. Staff opinion is that this is a reasonable zoning request which would not set any unwise precedents, if approved. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 1996, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-96-14. Mr. Martin asked if these uses will not be permitted at all, or will they not be permitted without seeking another rezoning. Mr. Cilimberg said the only way the proffer can be changed is to ask for an amendment of the zoning. Mr. Martin inquired if this would be allowed, in this case. Mr. Cilimberg said an amendment of the zoning is always allowable, and it cannot be restricted. He went on to say that light industrial is not a use in this location as called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Part of the site lies in the rural area, and part of it lies within the Community of Crozet for residential use. The Plan has other statements about allowing for some reuse of facilities being used for public purposes, and this is a proposal for this type of activity. He referred to a comment by VDOT officials that the three October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 000i95 entrances existing now are not good entrances and should be replaced by one entrance serving the entire property. This has not been proffered to be done as part of establishing this use because the use would be rather restricted, and the applicant does not propose to close entrances and create a new entrance. For any expansion activity for the filtration plant or for any additional parking which might be necessary because of the number of employees in the contractor's office or warehouse facility, a site plan process would begin which then could require entrances to be closed and a new entrance to be established. He noted that there would also be an ARB review of the entrance corridor as part of the site plan process. He said the Planning Commission had some concern about setting a precedent because it might establish a LI use which was not within the Comprehensive Plan area shown for industrial use. He said the Commissioners recommended denial, and in hearing some of the public comment, they had a concern that use of these facilities for public use type of activities had not been exhausted. Mrs. Thomas asked if anything in this process requires ARB participa- tion. Mr. Cilimberg replied that neither the ARB nor the site plan process are involved in the rezoning activity to use these two building. However, the Zoning Department staff will make a determination as to parking based on the number of employees who will utilize these buildings. If it is determined additional parking is necessary, and it is pursued on site, this parking increase will begin a site plan process. This would begin the process for improvements to the entrance and an ARB review. Mrs. Thomas recalled that the Board of Zoning Appeals had indicated that no enlargement could take place. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that the buildings cannot be enlarged, but the BZA did not limit employees, and this could affect parking. He said Mr. Brent will mention in his information that there is an expansion plan for the filtration plant to meet water needs in the Crozet area. He indicated that this will also begin the site plan process, if this occurs. Mrs. Humphris reported that her husband is a member of the Service Authority Board, but it does not present any economic conflict of interest. She believes she can listen to and vote on this matter fairly. She then opened the public hearing. Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, stated that the staff report accurately reflects the circumstances prompting the Service Authority officials to seek this rezoning. Although, there appears to be a misunderstanding by some members of the community relating to the intentions and facts of the matter. This property is not for sale nor has it ever been for sale. It has been mentioned that a prospective tenant of these two buildings is Mr. Hunter Craig, who is the developer of the nearby subdivisions. Mr. Craig has not approached him about renting these buildings nor has he ever approached Mr. Craig. A number of inquiries have been received from individuals interested in leasing space in these buildings, but there have been no negotiations with any of them and no one has submitted a lease to date for occupying this property. He was contacted by a gentleman many months ago who is building houses in one of Mr. Craig's developments, but because of the rezoning issue, the discussion could not continue. He empha- sized that he has had no contact with Mr. Craig, and he is not a prospective tenant, nor is anyone at this point a prospective tenant of these buildings. The two buildings are temporarily vacant, although they and the grounds around them are periodically used by the Service Authority. He anticipates future use of these facilities by the Service Authority once again, but they will then be used as satellite facilities to serve the growing Crozet commu- nity. It is also possible portions or all of one of these buildings can be incorporated into the water treatment plant for storage purposes and handling different pieces of equipment in future expansions of the water treatment plant. It would not make sense to build additional storage capacity for the water plant when it is readily available in a building 50 feet away. There are no other identifiable water sources in Crozet. The community of Crozet has been designed so as to protect the Beaver Creek watershed. The growth of Crozet anticipates the continuation of the water drainage basin being the only source of drinking water in Crozet, and this will be the only treatment plant for this water. He emphasized that there will never be a reason not to use this water treatment plant. Within the next 12 to 24 months this treatment plant will undergo improvements. He noted that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will be selling bonds to fund these improvements, and some of the bonds will have a 30 year maturity date. He emphasized that the Service October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Authority is not going anywhere. The Service Authority will be located on this property, and will be issuing debt to build facilities on this property. He suspects the bond holders will make sure the Authority stays there and honors its obligation. He went on to say that even if for some strange reason the Beaver Creek Reservoir and the Crozet Water Treatment Plant would have to be abandoned, the Board of Supervisors would have to approve the new water sources and the location of any new facility to which the Authority would move. He said, however, this is beyond comprehension. He commented that if it was lawful, Service Authority officials would gladly proffer that light industrial zoning would expire should the property ever sell. He understands this is not lawful, but he said if a lawful way can be found to do it, he will sign the document. When the site plan for the treatment plant improvements is submitted, which should be within the next 12 to 24 months, the issues dealing with the three entrances and the screening from Route 240 will be addressed. It is already known that one entrance must be moved, although he is not sure about its new location. He said for the Service Authority's own operating purposes, he would very much like to relocate the entrance because it is uncomfortable backing tractor trailers into the water treatment plant off of Route 240. The septic system will also have to be relocated for the water treatment plant, if the entrances are moved. He would be reluctant to agree to any screening requirements now, because it might conflict with the new entrances and the relocation of the septic'system. Preliminary work has been done on the modification of the expansion project, and final engineering work should start within the near future. Mr. Brent said the easy thing for Authority officials to do would be to sit back and let the buildings accumulate dust and deteriorate until they are needed again. Authority officials feel an obligation to their customers, and they want to see the customers get a return on their investment and benefit from the revenues generated by renting the buildings. Revenues are antici- pated to be approximately $2.00 per customer over a year and would reduce the water rate by 1.3 cents per 1,000 gallons. Consumer suggestions would be gladly received as far as other public uses for the property. The property has been offered to the County of Albemarle and other agencies, but so far nobody has found a need for the facilities. Authority representatives would gladly talk to anybody who is interested in the facilities. He noted that the request is only for the continuation of the use existing there for the last 30 years. The use will be the same, but the user will be different. He then referred to the staff report which indicated that this is a unique request. It is unique in another fashion in that the Board of Supervi- sors, if this rezoning is approved, will have an ongoing control over this property. The directors of the Service Authority will be appointed by this Board, and the Supervisors will have a continual link to this property. He gave an example of his comment by saying the reins might not be in the Supervisors' hands for the use of this property, but they will still hold the whip. He would be happy to entertain questions, and he will provide any additional information which might be needed. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said he could sum up the proposal by saying the Service Authority officials are trying to solve a short term problem with potentially long term negative consequences. As good as the word is of Service Authority officials indicating the property would not be sold, he can recall that the Landfill was supposed to be a short term solution. He does not know what is going to happen in the future, but the community is being asked to risk the LI zoning on this property. He not against private- public partnerships, but he thinks if such partnerships are entered into, the goal should be to come out with a better deal for both the Service Authority and the community. This site is on an entrance corridor, and this area has changed radically during the last couple of years. He noted that with the addition of Highlands, it is a residential area. If there were other ways around it, he would be more than happy to entertain the proposal. This is deja vu all over again for this community, because the old elementary school was rented, and the community had no positive outcome. He mentioned Fluvanna County where public utilities and public buildings have been converted into community centers. A great job was done there. Again, he is all for private- public partnerships, but the goal and the outcome should leave the community something better than what it had in the beginning. As a resident of the community, as far as the two dollars savings are concerned, he would rather not risk it. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Martin inquired if Mr. Loach's primary concern relates to the rezoning going with the land. Mr. Loach answered affirmatively. The problem is that the site is in the entrance corridor. He went on to say that because it has been used for the same purpose for 30 years, he is not sure the building should be used as a parking garage for construction equipment, if something else could be done with it. He recalled that the County officials have examined other uses for the buildings, but most of those were turned down because of the cost. He thinks the potential is there for the property to be used for other uses, and it is just the cost involved that is causing the problem. Ms. Ellen Waff stated that she lives on Route 250 West, approximately 500 yards from the Thackers, but she never saw their zoning sign. She saw the sign for tonight's meeting, which is why she is here, as well as was at the Planning Commission meeting last week. She said this is a premature request, and she thinks there are many public interests to be served by exploring various alternative uses. She would like to see a recycling usage, because it is a long way for her to go to the McIntire recycling center. She also indicated that she thought it was too short of an advertising period for this issue. She reiterated that she saw the sign as well as the small black signs around shortly thereafter, and then the public hearing notice. The entrance corridor into Crozet has had improvements to the road with the wider bridge even though the road still retains its intolerable status. She recalled the variance granted by the BZA last Tuesday afternoon in the rural areas, and it seemed on the surface to be a simple solution. There are planning and zoning arguments about the many variances given out by the BZA with respect to requests along the scenic Route 250 West and now one is being requested for themselves to rent for a short time to a private agent is slightly inconsis- tent. This rezoning was denied by a six to zero vote by the Planning Commis- sion. It even received one vote for denial by a BZA member. She asked the Supervisors to join these seven appointed Board members as the public's elected representatives and deny this request until future general interest and public alternatives can be researched so a condition for rezoning from RA to LI will not be required. Mr. John Marsden, a lifelong resident of Western Albemarle County, recalled that there have been other conversations at meetings about rezoning property to light industry or removing the light industry use in the same area on land owned by the same people who are making this request. He mentioned that a large portion of the Lady Walton tract is zoned for light industry. If the applicants want to use property for light industry, then they should be able to use the Lady Walton property, because it is next door to their development. Once the property is rezoned and sold, there will be no control. This is sort of a big brother situation, because officials involved with Albemarle County are making this rezoning request. If it had been a private individual, everybody would have been upset about it. He also mentioned that once this type of rezoning gets started, a precedent is set. He requested that the proposal be denied. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis to verify her statement that if a private individual owned this property, the person could handle this proposal by right. He or she would not even have to apply for rezoning. Mr. Davis explained that if the use of the property is categorized by being a storage warehouse type facility, and if it had been established by a private property owner in the 1970's prior to the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, and if it had been continued on a continuous basis, it would be a nonconforming use. This use could continue no matter who the user. But in this particular circumstance, because the user was the Service Authority, and it was a permitted use of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not a nonconforming use. In this unusual circum- stance, the user makes a difference. When it stops being a public user using the property for warehouse purposes, it would no longer be permitted by right and, therefore, requires a zoning district which will allow private warehous- ing storage types of usage. In this particular instance, the LI zone was the most appropriate zone for this use to be continued as a non-public use. Mrs. Thomas mentioned suggestions made by other people, to which Mr. Davis had already responded, about there being no way this use can go with the Albemarle County Service Authority as opposed to going with the land or be removed if the land is sold. Mr. Davis responded that property cannot be unzoned, except by a legislative act. Service Authority officials cannot proffer that the zoning will change back if they sold the property. He pointed out, however, that the same purpose has come very close to being achieved with Proffer #2 which indicates that after October 9, 2006, the only October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 00O±98 uses of the property in the LI zone by right would be public uses. While the LI zoning would exist on paper, the property would not in fact be LI zoned. It would only be a public use zone by the proffer limitations. The Service Authority officials have accomplished what the speakers have requested so that after a ten year period it is in effect only a public use zone again. He noted that this is more restrictive than RA zoning. Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing, since no one else came forward to speak. Mrs. Thomas asked if there could be further discussion about the sale of the property. She does not see how the Service Authority could ever consider selling the water treatment plant, but she wondered if there is a portion of the property which could be sold. She realizes the water treatment towers are on either end of the property. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that she has read in the information given to the Board members that the property cannot be sold, because of the size of the property. It is less than five acres, and it cannot be divided while the LI zoning is in place. Mr. Davis explained that there has to be at least five contiguous acres of property for LI zoning, but he does not think this would restrict the property from being divided. He recalled a statement in the staff report indicating that because of the various utility uses and lines on the property, it would be very difficult for it to be subdivided. He suggested that perhaps Mr. Brent could speak to this issue. Mr. Brent noted that the water facilities were depicted in blue on the drawing, and the two buildings under discussion are shown in orange. He said it would be almost impossible to carve the orange buildings out of the parcel and not potentially conflict with future uses of the property for water treatment purposes. Mr. Martin said some of the material implied that there were septic lines as well as other things on the property. Mr. Brent stated that there are two drain fields on the property, and one is to the right of one of the orange buildings. The drain field for the water treatment plant is between one of the buildings and Route 240, and it will have to be relocated. Mr. Tucker mentioned the setback problems associated with the existing structures and the property line. He said the answer is that maybe the property could be divided, but someone would have to draft some type of design, and it would be a very odd shaped parcel. Mr. Cilimberg said because of the proffer that was rendered, even if the property was subject to sale, a private buyer is essentially going to be buying property which is going to become only public use in ten years. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Cilimberg is referring to the land itself or the two buildings. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he is speaking of the land itself. He said the proffer relates to the entire parcel of land. Mr. Brent wondered if it would be desirable for the Service Authority to proffer not to subdivide the property. Mr. Davis said he did not think this was necessary because there may be some reason in the future when the Service Authority may want to subdivide the property for public use, although this is probably very unlikely. Mr. Brent said he cannot fathom anything taking place there that is not related to the water works. Mrs. Thomas mentioned the idea of a recycling center. The property might possibly be sold to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. She said this would also be a public use. She recalled Mr. Brent's remark about not subdividing the property, and she said it might defeat a desired public purpose. Mr. Perkins asked if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority leases the water treatment plant. Mr. Brent answered, "yes." Mr. Perkins then inquired as to how much property is on the other side of Route 240. Mr. Brent re- sponded that there is a portion of property on the other side of Route 240 for the sedimentation basin. He would be surprised, if it is over two acres. Mrs. Thomas stated that she takes all of the comments seriously. She mentioned, however, the remark about there being no improvement involved in any of this for Crozet. She thinks this will come visually when the size of the treatment plant is enlarged and the septic field is moved, which will get the ARB involved. It is not an attractively maintained piece of property now, October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000i99 and she thinks the ARB members will require some major changes. This is not related to the issue tonight, but she believes there is hope for improvement in the next couple of years. She said having a public use such as the recycling center is not interfered with in any way by approving the rental of the two buildings. She thinks this is a very good suggestion and there may be others. Mr. Perkins read Proffer #2 and asked if this is the new proffer. Mr. Davis answered, "yes." Mrs. Thomas said this means that after October 9, 2006, only public use can be made of this property. Mr. Davis agreed that this is correct. Mr. Martin commented that the building is not in use now and to leave it unused could lead to situations such as those at the Greenwood and Crozet Schools. It seems to him that not only will there be revenue received by the County, but there is also the fact that having someone use the building helps toward its upkeep. This is also an important issue. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA-96-14, subject to the Proffer dated 10/9/96. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: The proffer reads as follows: PROFFER FORM Date: 10/9/96 ZMA# 96-14 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 57-29B 4.01 Acres to be rezoned from RA to LI 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 to the rezoning re- quested. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sec- tions of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on October 9, 1996; a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 27.2.1.2 Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9) . 27.2.1.9 Contractor's office and equipment storage yard. 27.2.1.11 Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Author- ity. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5/12/93) 27.2.1.12 Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 27.2.1.17 000200 operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). Amended 11/1/89) (2) Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives; pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazard- ous to life in the event of accident. (Added 12/2/87) Not withstanding Proffer #1, on and after October 9, 2006 the following uses shall not be permitted: 27.2.1.9 Contractor's office and equipment storage yard. 27.2.1.17 Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives; pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazard- ous to life in the event of accident. (Added 12/2/87) Signed: J. W. Brent, Executive Director for Albemarle Co. Service Auth. Date: 10/9/96 Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-32. N. T. Brinkman, Inc. Public Hearing on a request to permit fill in the flood plain in order to reestablish a pond. Property on N sd of Fontaine Ave Extended approx 800 ft W of Rt 29/250 Bypass. TM76,P12A. Samuel Miller Dist. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood Service in Neighborhood 6. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23 and September 30, 1996. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He indicated the staff's recommendation for approval of this request with the five conditions as shown in the staff report. He then called attention to an error in condition ~5 which referred to the receipt of a copy of a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. He noted that the section was incorrectly shown in this condition as Section 404. He added that Mr. David Hirschman, the Water Resources Manager, was also present. Mr. Cilimberg went on to say he had just received a letter from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality yesterday, and it is included in the Board members' packet. He explained that the letter was for the Supervisors' information so they could understand some of the information occurring between this particular agency and the applicant. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from the Board, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Matthews, with N. T. Brinkman, Inc., stated that he is an Albemarle County resident, and he lives at Mill Creek. The developer for two years has been working with everyone involved in this project, because it is believed that the best projects are a win/win situation for everybody. He noted that everyone on his staff lives in Albemarle County, so this is his employees' community, as well. Even if this was not their community, it is how his staff does business. His company representatives generally do not get involved in disputes, because it is bad business and bad citizenship. This is why company representatives have had two informal meetings with the neighbors. He then described the plan by saying he really wants to re-establish a pond which was in existence for approximately 25 years. The dam blew out approximately five to eight years ago, but the beavers have done a good job keeping water in the pond. Every week old washers, refrigerators or couches get dumped in the area, and the plan will eliminate some of this dumping. He October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 000201 is not an ecologist, but he is repeating what he has heard from the experts. He understands this is a wetlands area, and it has been severely impacted by man in the past. It is not a natural area, but it has taken on a wetlands characteristic. There are grasses present, and it is not very diverse. He added, though, that there is a stream which seems to be undercutting itself severely, and this stream channel will dry faster under natural processes. His company representatives first got involved with this property because they bought the Chinese Dragon Restaurant with the intention of building on to it and taking a couple of other professionals into the building also. It was quickly realized the whole 12 acre parcel is zoned highway commercial. This type of zoning allows just about everything, and his company representatives wanted to protect this investment, and they did not want their property to be next to just anything. They acquired the whole property hoping to preserve what they think will be an environment which will be good for them and the whole neighborhood. The property is in the growth area, as well as the urban ring, and it is a parcel which has fallen into disrepair and disuse. One day he found a cellular phone tower which had been up on a hill laying in the front yard. He then emphasized that this application is not a referendum on development on the hill site. He said half of the 12 acres is the wetland area, and he intends to develop the other half into offices. He explained that he would like to attract professional clientele with corporate headquar- ters type offices. Highway commercial zoning is allowed by right, and the pond is part of the aesthetic element in this whole plan. He is not judging how wetlands look, because everybody has a different opinion of what they think looks good. From a corporate high clientele perspective, he thinks there should be something a little different from the current wetlands area. He thinks the pond is the way to go with this project, because it had been there previously. He said when this project was first proposed to Mr. Hirschman, it was mentioned that the Boar's Head pond looks great with grass up to the edges. He stated that when he told Mr. Hirschman this was what they would like to do with this pond, he disagreed. Mr. Hirschman was very good in helping steer them in the direction of something which recognizes the natural character of the area, because the area is beautiful, and it needs to stay that way. His company officials feel they can increase the habitat diversity by introducing a deep water habitat which was there and introducing steps and benches around it to give another zone of diversity not existing at the present time. They also want to stabilize the wetlands, because this project will stop the wetlands from undercutting itself. It may also even stabilize the watershed area. Officials in the Department of Environmental Quality unfortunately treat a pond as though it is asphalt, so when a pond is put in, they assume wetlands will be lost. He is working this out with DEQ officials, and the County staff has already addressed this matter by making a condition of final approval relative to this matter. He reiterated that this is not a referendum on the development on the hill site, although there will be a lot said about this tonight. He said Mr. Brinkman shares these concerns, which is why he met with the neighbors a couple of times. The applicant is required by the ordinance to come to this Board in order to build a pond because it is in the floodplain. He simply wants to re-establish the pond, and he is not here to ask permission to build an office building or anything else on the hill site. Mr. Matthews mentioned Board members' concerns about the growth area, and he pointed out that this is one of the few parcels which has the opportunity for the density the Supervisors are looking for in the growth area which is currently not being realized. People actually came to his company with broader planning views than he has and they understand these issues far better than he does. It was brought to his attention that this would be a good site for residential use, and approximately 150 units could be put there. The neighbors did not like this idea when it was presented to them, and they generally thought the commercial office was a better use for the neighborhood. This is really the way the project is heading because he is taking the path of least resistance, unless the Supervisors prefer the residential plan. He is unsure after all the comments have been said tonight, if he wants to go through this whole process without some feedback that this is in the best interest of the community. He told the Board members that his company is the tool to effect their policy, and he does not know what their ruling would be on this matter. He reiterated that he only brings the residential project up because people will be talking about it tonight. It is important only because he will be coming to the staff later with a site plan. If it is a highway commercial development by right, he will go through the site plan process, and 000202 October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) it may never get to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. If it is a residential development, it would have to come back to this Board as a special use permit. He pointed out that the Supervisors have a mechanism in place to handle the concerns of the neighbors on the wetlands development. He then talked about the environmental aspects of the pond, the undercutting and diversity. He noted that part of the reason this is intended to stay as a natural wetlands habitat around the pond is because it has a filtering mechanism for both silt and the pollutants upstream. He also mentioned the golf courses upstream and he said this plan may be a way to cleanse the stream. The pond has been designed to accommodate storm water detention of the development, although he is not sure this needs to be done. He understands it is common for applicants to ask for a waiver of storm water detention when it is on a stream such as this, but he is happy to do this and be responsible for it, and he will not just leave all of this to the Environmental Education Center. From a storm water perspective, the County has an agreement that his company representatives would have to sign to maintain it. He then mentioned that the neighbors will be talking about the EEC. When this project was being developed, he wondered what would motivate people. He wanted to sell a high caliber office or residential area on the hill site, and an amenity was needed. He thinks the pond is an amenity which will help his company and the neighbors because it is something nice to look at, it will preserve the integrity of the environment there and will possibly enhance it. The staff has indicated that the environment may be enhanced, and certainly the Army Corps of Engineers staff thinks Mr. Matthews next directed the Supervisors attention to the information in their packets where his company was given a rare and glowing report about the benefits of this project. The neighbors like to go to places such as this, and he does also. He recalled when he was a child he had access to an environmental center, and he could see frogs hatching, etc. He said children need to see such things, and it is the business of the EEC to educate children about the wetlands environment. The EEC officials are stewards of the environment, but his company officials are not. His company is a consulting firm which develops medical offices and hospitals, but it is not a firm which creates or manages wetlands. This seems to be a win/win situation because it is a way to give the neighbors access to private property. This is a chance to meet the County's needs and the needs of the neighbors to make this an area they can enjoy and the public can enjoy. He emphasized, though, that his company does not have a deal with the EEC, and he is very concerned about making sure the EEC is financially viable to take the role it may take here. They are a fledgling organization, and until it can be established in a place such as this, it will be hard to get funding. If there is a problem with the EEC, the project will probably revert back to his company, and his company will be responsible for it. He hopes this does not happen because he hopes the EEC people can keep it forever and realize their vision. He has also clearly told everybody, who has regulatory approval of this project, that it is something the EEC wants to do, but it should not be counted on, because he cannot guarantee it. He s working with the DEQ now to address this issue. He emphasized that he has told the DEQ officials he will put a conservation easement on the whole thing, if the deal falls through with the EEC. He wants this to be viewed as a way to meet even more goals than are planned with the improvement of the wetlands area and the potential development on the hill site. He then mentioned a point which was troubling to him. He recalled several meetings with the neighbors, and he gave the supervisors two surveys. He said during the DEQ permitting process the applicant was required to contact every adjacent property owner and ask what they thought of the project. He remarked that 11 responses out of 15 came back and six did not object; two had no comment; one objected with a comment saying they prefer the wetlands as it is and enjoy the wildflowers and birds which are there now; and two residents were contacted by phone, and they had no objections. This is a strong indication that at least the people who live immediately next to the area really do not have a problem with the project. He also asked neighbors in some of the meetings to tell him what they thought. The neighbors did their own survey, and 23 people responded to the wetlands only" portion of the survey. He stated that 19 said they were in favor of the project, and four said they were not. He said given the difficulty of consensus in any project, he felt this was a good response. He hopes it was earned out of the trust his company representatives forged with the people with whom they met. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) He next mentioned a letter he received this morning which concerned him. He read excerpts from the letter which implied that the environmental groups were running interference for the developer, and stated that no one in the County had any experience with such a project. This is not in keeping with how the plan is going, and he is discouraged by the letter. He takes it personally, and he wants the Board members to be aware of these accusations. He hopes this does not poison his company's best effort to do everything to make this a win/win situation. He cannot think of anything else that can be done to meet everybody's goals. This is the way his company does business, he thinks it makes good sense, and he asked the Board to approve this project. He has enjoyed meeting the neighbors, they are good people with good intentions, and they have been very helpful and have given good feedback. He also emphasized that David Hirschman has been wonderful. Mr. Hirschman has taken personal time to help guide this project in the right direction in a way that is environmentally sensitive. This is the best way for a public servant to serve the public, and he wanted the Board members to know this. He would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that the Board members have received all the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, the staff report and a lot of information on this project. She needs to get an idea from the other Supervisors as to how much time should be allotted to each speaker. She then asked how many people were present to speak to this issue, and she observed that 11 or 12 people responded. Mr. Bowerman suggested that each speaker should be allowed two minutes to make his or her remarks. Mrs. Humphris again informed the group that the Supervisors have read everything they have received, such as the staff report and minutes, etc. She next asked, in the interest of time but not limiting themselves to content, if the speakers would please give the Supervisors their points of view. She added that if someone wants to echo another speaker's remarks, all they will need to do is come forward and indicate their agreement with a certain speaker. Ms. Jayne Heyward indicated that she has lived in this area for 46 years. Originally, just upstream from this property, she used to ride horseback across a very wide dam. She noted that upstream, there are at least five streams converging on this area, and the dam was demolished. She thinks Mr. Matthews' project is a wonderful idea, but she believes it is going to be very difficult to stabilize the area. When the pond and dam were first gone from the area, she was very upset. In August beautiful flowers were there. She does not see any sense in pouring so much money into the project. She appreciates the involvement of John Hermsmeier, but it is a vulnerable area. She recalled a comment by Mr. Matthews about hopefully not getting Mr. Hermsmeier involved if the area had to be dredged again, if the property got messed up with roaring torrents. Mr. Matthews should have seen the property just yesterday. She also mentioned the road behind some of the Buckingham Circle residents, and she said the water could rise up into their front yards. She remarked that the trees break and wash down and get caught under the Route 29 area, and she reminded the Supervisors about the force of water during the flood in Madison County. She finished her remarks by saying the project needs a lot of study before it is done. Ms. Regina Carlson, a resident of 109 Buckingham Circle, said she has lived at this address for ten years. She is also speaking on behalf of her husband, Bernie Carlson, who could not make it to the meeting. She and her husband are in support of this proposed development. This is an environmentally sensitive and attractive plan, and she likes the idea that the pond will be restored. She noted that there was a pond when they first moved to Buckingham Circle, and they enjoyed having it there. She explained, however, that the owners of the property bulldozed the beaver dam because it was hoped it could be filled in to make it more salable for development. She then noted that she has a degree in environmental design planning. Based on her training and experience in this field, this is actually a good plan. She also added that her husband is an engineering professor at the University of Virginia, and he felt from an engineering standpoint, that this is a sound plan. She recalled some concern around the neighborhood about siltation, etc., but she and her husband feel comfortable that the issue can be adequately addressed. She mentioned that the Army Corps of Engineers has approved this plan, and they have high standards for this type of development. Her husband has experience in this area, and he is satisfied that this concern has been October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) addressed. She also feels this is an important improvement for the safety of children. There is concern now about the site being used as a dumping ground, and she is worried that there has also been some drug dealing there. She has noticed some suspicious cars, etc. She mentioned that the children have ready access to the property through several paths, so she would actually clean up some of the current hazards of the site and make it a more attractive and safe resource for the area's children. She really supports the plan to donate this site to the Environmental Education Center. She mentioned her involvement at the University of Virginia where she does environmental research in education. For people in her field, there is a very important way that resources are found to do this type of work. People are sought who will donate land to be used for conservation educational research purposes. She was pleased to see this site turned over to the EEC to be used for school children in grades K-12 and for college students who are a part of the program in which she is involved. She and her husband are active in the planning process and community process for this project. They have met with and talked with the developer several times about their concerns and they have attended the community meetings. It was their understanding from the vote occurring at the time that the neighborhood basically supported the wetlands improvement, and they would not oppose the commercial development provided the developer is sensitive to their concerns as a community. The neighborhood people came out in opposition, however, to the residential development primarily because there is a serious fear that the units would potentially be bought by investors and then rented to students. While she likes the students she works with at the University, she does not want them for her neighbors. She emphasized that there is a real fear that the residential development could eventually turn to student housing because of the proximity to the University. This is a nice, quiet residential neighborhood, and the residents would like to keep it that way. She had felt this was the position of the community, and it was what she and her husband thought when they signed the petition and survey which were distributed. She is concerned, however, that since these meetings there has been an anti- development coalition emerging. One of the concerns expressed by the people is that this current proposal should be opposed, because it would potentially stop all development on the site. There is some preference in the community that the site never be developed, and it should stay in its natural state. She can understand and sympathize with this feeling, and she sympathizes with the fears and concerns of her neighbors. She does not think it is realistic, however, to assume this development will disappear and no other developer will appear. The property went undeveloped for a long time, but with the new development on Fontaine Avenue there will be a lot of pressure to develop this site. Ms. Carlson also mentioned her concern about what could be put there, because the zoning will allow for some bad commercial purposes. From her experience as a planner, she has seen the impact of negative commercial development on a residential neighborhood. From her perspective, this developer's proposal is not a bad thing, and there are possibilities of working with this particular developer. She would rather see this project than some sort of development where someone would bulldoze the site and put in something such as a motel or a warehouse distribution center, etc. She urged the Board to help the community to ensure that whatever goes on the property is environmentally sensitive as well as sensitive to the needs of the community. She is not sure it serves the community well to totally oppose this project. Ms. Betty Schwab, a resident of Buckingham Circle, remarked that when the developer was talking to the residents about this land and his future development, he said he was planning to give the pond to an environmentalist organization. This sounded wonderful, but she started feeling uneasy when a neighbor talked to someone in another environmental organization. It sounded like a fairy tale because the developer was planning ten buildings, and he was going to develop a beautiful pond. She said, though, there will be run-off from the ten buildings, and it will go into the pond. The pond will be taken care of by people in the environmental organization, and they may have to drain it later. She asked if it would be possible to have one or two buildings with some run-off and give the pond to the environmentalist organization. However, her concern relates to the ten buildings and all of the run-off this would involve. Maybe it is not a wonderful gift to be given to an environmentalist organization or a wonderful gift of a beautiful area October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) for the residents. She said maybe it is just a way of going around a responsibility. Her uneasy feeling about this project is that maybe no one has all of the information. Maybe a pond given to an environmentalist group can take care of run-off from one or two buildings, but she wondered if there were ten buildings, who would take this responsibility. She suggested that perhaps the County officials would have to be the responsible party. She also mentioned the animals in the wetlands. She knows it is not legally a wetlands, but the animals use it as such. The Bird Club has seen animals and rare plants, but they have never been documented. The whole area needs to be studied. She reiterated that if the Supervisors permit one or two buildings, then perhaps this will be okay, or maybe in the future ten buildings will work. She noted her concern, though, that the developer at first seemed to be straightforward. He first told the residents that the land is worth $1.0 million, and he had to build ten buildings to make a lot of money. Even though he has not made such a proposal, it is a concern to the residents. Mrs. Humphris said she needed to get two things straight before the public hearing continued. She asked if the zoning on the property is highway commercial. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Mrs. Humphris then inquired as to how the number of buildings which can be constructed on the remaining six acres is determined. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this is determined by site plan. Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Matthews has a by right use. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. Mrs. Humphris next asked Mr. Hirschman to explain about the pOtential for the pond to be used as a detention basin for the run-off of storm water from the development on this particular site. Mr. Hirschman replied that the plan for the dam which has been submitted would provide detention for a ten year storm for build out of this particular site. He said this is a requirement for water quantity because the site is in a storm water detention area. Mrs. Humphris asked if this pond would be used as a detention basin. Mr. Hirschman reiterated that now the dam is designed for the pond to be used as a detention basin. Mrs. Thomas asked if the storm water detention structure would have to be constructed before the buildings are built. Mr. Hirschman answered affirmatively. He said the structure would have to be in place and functional when the development was constructed. Mr. Paul Rood stated that he is the closest neighbor of Buckingham Circle to the property. He has seen water flooding this area to the extent of two feet over the Fontaine Avenue road where it dips down and then continues to Camp Holiday Trails. He explained that this water has sometimes spread over to his property and has extended the flood plain a great deal. He is concerned about the plan in respect to what he sees currently, because it looks as though the existing water level of the pond will be raised approximately four feet. The water is going to have to go somewhere if the water level is raised. There are trees down in the stream, and they have not been taken care of. These trees are huge and they have eroded away from the soil because of the floods. This debris will go into the stream and more water will send it further over the flood plain doing further damage to his property, as well as to others. He pointed out that there are two sites on the other side of the bridge which are being planned for development. If this area gets flooded again, 'these people will also be in jeopardy because they are in the flood plain. He next mentioned the proposed storm water detention pond. This is apparently a mitigated circumstance with the DEQ. He noted that this detention pond will have to be maintained. He called attention to the lower portion of the map showing the storm topo lines in the area of the pond. This is approximately a 60 percent slope, and it would be 50 feet from the pond level to the upper level of the grading and soil of the existing soil where the apartments are now. He then voiced a concern as to how people can be found to even maintain a road for dump trucks to haul out the silt. He said this would be a major engineering project which has not been addressed. He pointed out that it is not on the plan, and he is concerned about it. He mentioned that there are several other items not shown on the plan, and he thinks closer scrutiny is needed before this plan is approved. He remarked that at the last meeting someone from the environmentalist group said wooden walkways would be constructed around the pond area, as well as signage. He recalled that the City officials spent a great deal of money along the Rivanna River putting in a walkway and path, and a mild storm wiped all of it out. He wondered what will happen when water floods over a road that is 40 feet below October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) OO0206 the stream bed. The pond will fill with silt, and the protection will be gone. He noted that Mother Nature will absorb the hole being dug and the silt and upper level areas which are existing now are going to fill in the pond area. Eventually this whole area will come back to its natural state. He added that nature has a way of filling its vacuums. Mr. Rood next mentioned that it is not stated on the plan how this environmental group plans to access the property. There is a clear deed to his property stating that no one can access the property from the Buckingham Circle proper road. The property has to be entered from the Fontaine Avenue corridor. He noted that there can be no entrance onto this property just past the Buckingham Circle entrance because there is a slow down lane, and there is no way traffic can be brought into the property at this point. He said access will have to be from the Chinese Dragon side of the stream. He then mentioned an apparent misunderstanding. He went on to say the Buckingham Circle residents invited Mr. Brinkman to come and present his proposals. Mr. Brinkman came to the meeting, but the residents were shown at that time something different than the Supervisors are seeing today. The residents were led to believe that the area on the Buckingham Circle side of the stream would basically stay untouched. This is a wetlands presently, and it is beautiful. Now this wetlands area is being proposed to be taken away, and the dirt and soil will be removed to make a larger pond area. The residents did not agree to this, because they wanted the natural state of the grass and trees to remain. They do not want an enticement for fishermen to come there or for their children to walk across a bridge and enter the area of the dam. He remarked that there will be an eight to ten foot drop-off, and he does not want his children having access to this property to an attractive dam area. The beavers made their own dam, and the pond was flooded. The area was also flooded with approximately a foot of water. Occasionally another storm would knock it out, but the wetlands would come back. He reiterated that there are several issues not being addressed, and neither the residents nor the Supervisors have a clear vision of them. This bothers him greatly. The developer is asking for a project to be approved without knowledge of the future. This is all about planning, but there are no planning details. He recalled Mr. Matthews saying they came to this property because they wanted to have an office, and then other land was bought to develop other offices. This was an exciting thing to hear, but the residents are highly opposed to any additional high density residential group near this property. The impact on Buckingham Circle would be immense. This is a quiet community. He mentioned that there are people with different opinions at this meeting, and strong opinions will be given. He reiterated that he is the closest resident to this property. He asked the staff members at the last meeting to give him the mathematics of this flood plain change and what would happen when the level of the pond is raised. He does not see why the bottom could not be dug out instead of raising the water level. He asked for a hydraulic study as far as how many inches of rainfall it would take to create a flood to create spillover. He has not received it, and he would really like to have such a study. He also wishes the Supervisors could see this study before a decision is made, but he does not think the study has been done. He thinks assumptions have been made that the street is basically a controlling factor, and when the culvert which crosses the road fills up with water, then there will be a flood. There are also a lot of other things such as tree limbs which can create a flood. This cannot be avoided with or without this dam. He emphasized that this information has not been introduced to him, and he is concerned, because he will suffer from a flood. He hopes there can be more of an insight into this project than what is apparent now. He stated that Buckingham Circle residents were in favor of the project, but they were presented something different than what is being presented today. He wanted the Supervisors to understand this, because the residents understand it. Mr. Donal Day, a resident of Buckingham Circle, said he has lived there for 15 years, and if he is ineffective, it can be blamed on his emotions. He handed out recent photographs of the wetlands area. It is a vital place, and it has been for a long time. He noted that the photographs were taken by one of his neighbors two days before Hurricane Fran, and the mark on the back depicts the location from which they were taken. The neighbors came before the Planning Commission to argue that the special use permit should be set aside until more details about the entire project are available, and not just the dredging of the pond. The argument was also made by the residents that this is a vital ecological system and disturbance should be taken seriously. He does not believe adequate preparations have been done. He also noted that October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 00020? the residents' arguments with the Planning Commission failed. He pointed out that he is only speaking for himself and his family, because there is no Buckingham Circle residential association nor are there any official proclamations of Buckingham Circle residents. He feels the plan by the Brinkman associates is flawed, and the preparation by the County staff is inadequate. The developer does not like what he sees when he is looking out for his corporate customers, because the area is too wild. He added that while it might be unique it won't produce the finances necessary for his project. The developer has gone to great lengths to tell the Supervisors what an environmentalist he is and what environmentalist sensitivity he has, but at the same time he has indicated he really does not want to control the site except for the run-off from the development. The developer is so sensitive about the environment that he wants to give this area to the Environmental Education Center, but no one knows what the EEC is, which is exactly what the representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality indicated. Representatives of the DEQ have played a significant role in this project, because their job is to preserve wetlands and water quality. It is their requirement that when wetlands are disturbed, they are to be mitigated. When a proposal is put before the DEQ, the applicant has to have a plan to mitigate the destruction of' the wetlands as part of the project. The Brinkman associates' proposal to the DEQ mentions various mitigations, but they are planning to give the area to the EEC as appropriate mitigation for the destruction of the wetlands. This is a weird situation because this environmental group is aiding in the disturbance of a valuable resource, and he wondered why this group would do such a thing. School children will be taken to the area and shown photographs, and they will be told that this is what it used to look like before 70,000 square feet of office space was built on the hill and three acres of asphalt's collective waters ran off into the pond. The DEQ officials have not accepted Brinkman's proposals. He recalled a recent letter where the DEQ officials were concerned about the fact that the pond will get silted, and it will have to be maintained according to DEQ regulations. The EEC representatives admit that they do not have the resources to begin to take care of this site after the Brinkman group is finished with it. The EEC just became a nonprofit organization in April, 1996. He also said the DEQ officials have requested that Brinkman amend the application so he will remain to insulate the EEC to the cost. As of September 17, 1996, the DEQ considered Brinkman's application incomplete. He referred to Mr. Jay Robert's letter of the same date where he indicated that if N. T. Brinkman, Inc., is unwilling to provide information required in this letter, then an alternate mitigation proposal will have to be submitted such that the wetland impacts are avoided, minimized or fully mitigated. Mr. Day said, as of this date this has not occurred, as far as he knows. He then turned his attention to the County review process, and indicated he did not think the staff had done enough work. He said consideration of the wetlands and its role in water quality have been treated trivially in the staff report, and there is no back-up documentation. He referred to a memo from Jack Kelsey and David Hirschman to the Senior Planner on this project indicating that diversity would be enhanced in their opinion. He said more is needed than just an opinion before a valuable resource is disturbed in this County. Opening the site to public access has been mentioned, but no options to do so have been investigated. The staff has known for a long time about the intense use of the upper part of the property by the developer, and they are aware of the consequences of this intense use on the wetlands, but no attempt was made to address this issue in the staff report. The staff knows about the impossibility of the EEC to maintain this site, but this was never mentioned in the staff report. The DEQ has serious reservations about the EEC, and the staff knows that the DEQ demands mitigation. He wondered why this was not mentioned in the report. The staff members know about the 30 to 40 percent slopes leading up from this parcel to where the developer wants to build, but they have not mentioned any of this or how it might impact this project. As a long time resident of Buckingham Circle, he thinks the residents need better treatment from County officials as watch dogs for their interests. Residents should not be seduced by the sweet talk of a developer and a romantic notion of an environmental area. He asked the County officials to send this proposal back to the Planning Commission for more comprehensive review so all the details are shown up front, including all computations of the County Engineering Department staff's approval of plans, details and supporting computations for the proposed dam. This should be done first, as well as approval of computations and documentation to verify its effects on October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) 000208 the delineated flood plain. Approval of a waterfall impact statement and an erosion sediment control plan should be done first. He also mentioned that there should be DEQ approval before the County officials approve this project to dredge and possibly destroy a very valuable resource which is currently open to the public. He recalled this area was a training ground for dozens of children of Buckingham Circle. Many have lost their training wheels on the flat parcel which can be seen when entering Buckingham Circle. He noted that it is a valuable resource and has been one for those wise enough to know it existed and willing enough to make the effort to walk through this wild and vibrant area. Mr. John Hermsmeier, Program Director of The Environmental Education Center, stated that he lives at 1279 Quail Crossing. He distributed his statement to the Supervisors and read it aloud. The statement strongly supported the N. T. Brinkman, Inc., plan to establish a wetlands habitat to be used for the purpose of environmental education. (See statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from John E. Hermsmeier, dated October 9, 1996.) Mr. Hermsmeier added that his organization members are far more interested in the provision of habitat for environmental education than the particular question of whether or not they have ownership of this parcel. If the plan is in the best interest of the organization and the wetlands will be preserved and made available for appropriate use, then the organization members are all for it. However, if it is something which will be a burden to the organization, its Board of Directors would be foolhardy to take on this project. This will be considered at a later time, once a specific proposal has been made to their Board of Directors. He wanted to keep the focus on the community habitat network. Whether they are large rural preservation areas for agriculture or forestry, large natural areas, or smaller areas in urban locations, the organization members are advocates of these areas being saved for environmental education. He made a comparison by noting that there could not be a successful technology program, if computers were removed from classrooms, because the tool has to be put in place. His organization members have pursued a project with some similarities to this one through the Kelly Town project in the City of Charlottesville on Preston Avenue where a ten acre parcel was slated for development. He said the members of his organization played a collaborative role to try to get a piece of this property made available and permanently protected for environmental education. He remarked that even in this project, the details through the homeowners' code are going to guide this project and any easements will still have to be developed. He summed up the organization's role by saying its number one purpose is to take an opportunity and try to do something positive with it. He reported that the main thrust through grant support from the Department of Forestry and the U.S. EPA is through teacher workshops on school sites where natural areas are studied. He said Kelly Town and this Brinkman project have presented his organization an opportunity to do its next level of work which is on private property where the organization members do not have any technical authority with the property, but the landowner or developer has an interest in seeing the property used for community benefit. He said his organization strongly supports these opportunities. Ms. Isabel Smith, a 30 year resident of Buckingham Circle, agreed with Mr. Rood and Mr. Day that all of the facts are not known at this time. She went to Mr. Brinkman's first meeting, and at the time he was talking about turning the lake area into a public park and turning it over to someone else to operate. She stated that throughout this whole process, she is hearing Mr. Brinkman say he wants to dump the lake area on someone else and let that person be responsible for it. At the same time he wants to maintain the area for development, and he wants to make his money from that. If the Supervisors are going to allow Mr. Brinkman to make a lot of money from this development, she wants them to hold him responsible for the lake area. On two or three different occasions she has heard him suggest various things, and all of them consist of the lake and the responsibility of it being turned over to someone else. If he is going to make a profit from the development, then he has to take the responsibility for maintaining the wetlands. She does not like the attitude that he will not be keeping control of the wetlands, because anybody could end up with it. At one time he was suggesting a public park on the wetlands property, but most residents living on Buckingham Circle are not interested in a public park being located there. She would like for the Supervisors to consider this plan further and not make a decision tonight. It is interesting that Mr. Brinkman, himself, did October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 000209 not even come to this meeting. The people living on Buckingham Circle do not agree with this plan. She personally wrote a letter to Mr. Brinkman expressing her opinion, and it was not a nice letter. She does not want the Supervisors to think that the residents agree with everything Mr. Matthews said tonight. Mr. Brinkman had two meetings with the residents of Buckingham Circle, but at both of them he dictated what he would do. He even made what she interpreted as an indirect threat when he said if the residents did not deal with him, they could end up with a used car lot on the property. She would rather have a used car lot there than what she is hearing about the current plan. She hopes the Supervisors will consider the project further before making a decision. Mr. Barry McClerrin stated that he is also a resident of Buckingham Circle, and he lives on the property which is the second closest to the property in question. He said the Supervisors have heard the perspectives on both sides of this issue, and Mr. Matthews' comments to the Supervisors about the meetings with the residents of Buckingham Circle did occur. Mr. McClerrin stated there were two separate meetings, but he had a different perspective on those meetings, because he did not feel the insidious motivation on the part of N. T. Brinkman which seems to have been expressed by a few people here tonight. Neither does he feel as though there is any kind of collusion or insidious motivation on the part of the EEC relating to this project. He respects the fact that Mr. Brinkman had representatives come and share this proposal knowing full well there would be many residents who were going to be concerned about what was going to take place in the wetlands area. Mr. Brinkman expressed his desires at the meetings, and he told the residents what he felt was the easiest thing for him to do. He did not see Mr. Brinkman's statements as veiled threats, but he believes Mr. Brinkman was trying to express the fact that somebody else could have control of this property. He said Mr. Brinkman was trying to convey to the residents that he wanted to cooperate with them and someone else may not do so. He believes Mr. Brinkman made this remark in response to some real concerns on the part of some Buckingham Circle residents in regard to his motivation. He noted that a survey was circulated to the residents on the Circle, and there was a considerable response. This was early in the process after the two meetings with Mr. Brinkman. The residents then had a meeting after collecting these surveys and the results were discussed, as well as the proposals. There seemed to be a fairly general consensus, at that time, in favor of the state of development of the pond site in terms of dredging so there would be a pond renewed in the area, as well as setting up a dam. It was expressed to Mr. Brinkman that the residents wanted everything kept as natural as possible, and they did not want it to look like a park or a walking zoo. It was expressed clearly to Mr. Brinkman that the pond was a good idea and the dam was a good idea in order to make the pond possible, but beyond that it should be kept in its natural state. Mr. Brinkman seemed to be in agreement. So far he sees nothing in the plans to give him concern, as far as Mr. Brinkman having anything else planned, other than what the residents already know about. He recalled Mr. Rood's concerns as well as others that the Brinkman representatives have shown them one thing and now they are seeing something different. He does not see it this way, and he feels very good about the fact that here is someone who wants to communicate with Buckingham Circle residents. Mr. Brinkman wants to find out what the residents' concerns are and he wants to try to address those concerns and at the same time try to go over his own hurdles. Mr. McClerrin said he shares the neighbors' concerns in that the property stays as a natural and beautiful habitat. He thinks provisions need to be made to ensure this occurs. He hopes the process is such that this would happen. He is generally in support of Mr. Brinkman's proposal in terms of a commercial development and not the residential development, and he is definitely in support of his proposal for the pond. Mr. Timothy McClerrin stated he lives at 157 Buckingham Circle. He is in favor of the pond because he does not want the water to flood the property. He wants the water to stay at the same level in the pond, but he would like for it to be deeper so a greater variety of plants and animals can live there. Ms. Emily McClerrin, who also lives at 157 Buckingham Circle, said she likes the lake as it is, but she will like it better when it is bigger. She like for the property to not be a wetlands, although she would like for it to be similar. She would like for the animals to come back that used to live there, as well as swans and geese. She also stated that she would like for a October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 0002 0 small dock to be built on the pond so people can go there to feed the swans, geese, ducks and other water fowl. At 9:13 p.m., Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing, since no one else wanted to speak. Mrs. Thomas mentioned one of the concerns relating to a flood control structure, and she recalled Mr. Hirschman saying this project was not a flood control structure. She said he indicated that it was not being designed for a 100 year flood, and things were going to be going over the dam. She asked Mr. Hirschman to address this matter, since it was a major issue brought up today. Mr. Hirschman responded that the structure would not function as a regional flood control structure for the whole upstream drainage area, but it would function for the flood control required for this particular property. As further property in this stormwater detention area develops, detention of a ten year storm would be required. This is to protect downstream properties, neighbors and land from flooding when land develops. He reiterated that this structure would not actually be a regional flood control structure, but it would provide detention, which is flood control for the one parcel to meet its requirement. Mrs. Humphris referred to Ms. Heyward's remarks about the five streams converging in this area. She believes Ms. Heyward was indicating the likelihood of the dam being washed out in the future, as it has been in the past. Mr. Hirschman replied that there is a County condition relating to such structures which requires plans and calculations to be submitted. The plan also has to be stamped by the designer, and one of the main intents of that is to make the structures stable so they won't wash out. He reiterated that one of the conditions of approval would be for the design of the dam to be submitted with calculations, and it would have to be approved by County officials. Mr. Bowerman asked if a dam would change the 100 year flood elevation limits. Mr. Hirschman responded that this relates to another condition, and he cannot positively answer this question until the calculations are done for the project. He said, though, in a regulatory sense it can, if the water goes onto another property. In this particular situation the structure causing the high water level is the Route 29 crossing. With a 100 year flood it is most likely the structure for the proposed project will be covered. He explained that the flood waters will be surging against a small aperture and backing up, causing the 100 year flood in this situation to be the result of water backing up from the Route 29 crossing. He reiterated that this is the sort of thing to be verified with the calculations when they are submitted. Mrs. Thomas asked if the plan will be unacceptable if these calculations are verified, and they show that Buckingham Circle will be flooded. Mr. Hirschman answered affirmatively. He explained that the main feature of the County's role in this special use permit is to protect public health and safety from the flood plain perspective so the structure won't be pushing flood water onto another property or on a public road crossing, etc. Mrs. Thomas commented that she has learned a lot within the last couple of weeks, and she appreciates the many people who helped her education on this matter. She went door to door on a different item a few weeks ago and discovered this issue, as well as a great deal of concern. She said the flood control issue will be part of the conditions to be attached to this permit, but the issue of maintenance and long term maintenance concerns her the most. There needs to be some assurance that this project will be well maintained in the future, but this will mostly depend on the development of the remainder of the property. This will strike some people as being really ironic, because they may want this project, but not be eager for the rest of the development. The best way to keep this project well maintained will depend on plans to develop the rest of the property. When development plans are submitted to the County, this structure will be used as a stormwater detention facility. She remarked that the County officials at this point are going to require a maintenance agreement which establishes responsibility and regards it as a regional stormwater detention facility. This responsibility goes with the landowners, and it is not going to depend on this particular person owning the land. Any development located in a far corner of the property and very small won't trigger the other aspect. However, if the development comes within 100 feet of a resource protection zone, then the County officials will be able to require a water resources plan. There will be a requirement that water quality discharge be treated before it gets to the wetlands. This has given October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) her the confidence to feel that this is going to be maintained for a long period, and it is not going to become something that everyone will wish had never happened. She remarked that the site plan for this proposal will be heard in public, as well as the site plan for any development taking place on the hill. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve SP-96-32 subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. (Note: 'The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Albemarle County Engineering approval of plans, details, and supporting computations for the proposed dam;. Albemarle County Engineering approval of computations and documen- tation to verify effects on the existing FEMA delineated flood plain; Albemarle County Engineering approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.; Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a copy of a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the Virginia Department of Environ- mental Quality requested by the Army Corps of Engineers. (The Board recessed at 9:24 p.m., and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-96-03. Pavilion at Riverbend. Public Hearing on a request to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to add "Amphitheater" as a use by special use permit in the PD-MC District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 23 and September 30, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. He stated that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add "Outdoor Amphitheater" as a use by special use permit in the Planned Development Mixed Commercial district. He described factors favorable and unfavorable to the request, and he pointed out that the staff has developed proposed Zoning text language. He noted that in a later memorandum to the Planning Commission, some of the original language recommended by staff has been changed. He added that the language addresses how noise would be measured and how this use would be listed in the PD-MC district by actual location and wording. Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Planning Commission's recommendation, by a four to three vote, was not to include this use in the PD-MC district. Mrs. Thomas referred to the proposed ordinance and asked the significance of the words, "property line at the receiving area." Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Zoning Department staff members are using this language currently in their development of a Noise Ordinance. The language indicates that the measurement should take place at a property line wherever the noise level is being received. He explained that it would not necessarily be the immediate adjacent property, but it could be several properties over, because the property may still be receiving a level of noise. It is simply a measurement to take place at a particular property line. Mr. Davis clarified Mr. Cilimberg's comments by adding that the measurement will take place at whatever property is affected. There were no further questions from Board members for Mr. Cilimberg, so Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Phillips, resident of the County and an architect with Osteen Phillips Architects, stated that he was Present on behalf of the applicant for October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) ZTA-96-03. He would make two primary points concerning this application. The first is the issue of need and desirability of an outdoor amphitheater in Albemarle County. The applicant has conducted market research indicating that this type of project fills a need not currently adequately met in the County. While sports recreational needs are met and continue to be expanded, performing arts facilities are currently limited in terms of scope and size. There are currently 26 parks, 18 softball and baseball fields, and two public and three private golf courses, but residents must travel to Northern Virginia, Richmond or even further in order to attend a concert by a major performer for a theatrical production such as a touring Broadway show. He said research indicates an amphitheater in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area not only fills this need but can compete with virtually no competition. His mention of this fact is not to share the market viability of this type of project, but to indicate the need it addresses and the void it fills. If there are any specific questions on this research, Mr. Jim Morrison is present and available to answer those questions. A number of people voiced opposition to' this specific project proposed by the applicant at the recent Planning Commission meeting. He commented that the opponents were asked by Commission members if they supported the idea of an outdoor amphitheater in Albemarle County. Even among this big group of vocal opponents, an 80 percent majority supported the concept of an outdoor amphitheater as a good idea and as a cultural asset to this area. It can safely be said the relatively silent majority of residents view the concept even more favorably. He then asked for all of the people in the audience who support having an amphitheater in this County to briefly stand, and approximately 22 people stood in support. He pointed out that the Planning staff has identified and made its recommendations on the ZTA to allow for a PD-MC District with supplemental regulations addressing sound and light control and other areas of impact particular to this use. He said the applicant agrees with and supports the staff's recommendations on the proposed ZTA. He remarked that the PD-MC District is identified as offering a greater degree of County control over the development of this specific site, and it seems well suited for projects such as this. He emphasized that the issue before this Board tonight is whether or not to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow an outdoor amphitheater in the County. He said it is clear that such a use would be an asset to County and the City and there is wide support for such a venue. He asked the Supervisors to support the Planning staff's recommended ZTA to allow the possibility of this use in the County. Ms. Pat Jensen, a resident of Stony Point Road, said she has been to three hearings on this topic. She has been a resident of this area since 1947, and she is currently a realtor. She sees a strong need for an amphitheater of this type in Albemarle County. She talked about the positive things associated with this project such as the fact that the proposed amphitheater is extremely attractive. She also pointed out that it is limited in size so it won't become too much of a burden on the County's infrastructure since it can only handle so many people. The proposed amphitheater needs to be in an area which is already zoned for commercial use, and she thinks the river area is an ideal location for it. A close place is needed for cultural activities, and she noted that the loud evening proposed uses are limited to approximately 30 nights a year. She then referred to the vocal group living nearby who are opposed to the project. However, percentages need to be considered because there are 100,000 people in Albemarle County, and there are people in surrounding counties. She is sure a facility of this nature would be very desirable, because it can be used fQr so many other things not involving loud noise, etc. She strongly recommended the project for approval, and she emphasized that she has examined the development of commercial uses. She is sure the property owner will put something there, and an amphitheater would be much more desirable than many of the other uses already under the commercial category. She remarked that an all night grocery store, restaurant, night club or other uses involving much more inconvenience could be put on this property. She, again, indicated her strong support of an amphitheater in Albemarle County. Mr. Sean Turner, a resident of the City of Charlottesville, indicated that he knows a great deal about this project, as well as the arts and culture in the community. He is President of the Board of Live Arts, which is a non- profit performing arts organization, and he is Chairman of the Charlottesville Industrial Development Authority, so he is also interested in business and job development issues in the community. Even though he is a City resident, he feels this is an issue affecting the entire area of the City and County and October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) not just the County's jurisdiction. He strongly believes, based on a specific experience in culture and promotion of the arts and bringing the arts to the public, that this facility is needed and will be supported in the community by the area's citizens. This is a City of the size and cultural background to be able to enjoy a great number of diverse performances at this type of facility wherever it might be located. He then asked the Supervisors to consider the number of jobs to be created by such a facility. He mentioned the jobs which would be available for entry level people, and other jobs that could be filled by teens in the summer months when the facility is active. He has heard that there are 150 to 200 jobs created by this type of facility from simple things such as ticket taking, maintenance and cleanup to more complex skills where people can be trained such as rigging, loading, lighting and stage work. This facility can have a positive and constructive impact on this community. He mentioned that a lot of money is spent trying to get teenagers into jobs, and this would be the type of employment they would enjoy and want to do. He said the Supervisors should consider that somewhere in this community there is a place for such a facility. He referred to the anti-rhetoric the Supervisors would probably hear tonight, but he emphasized that the issue tonight relates to the County as a whole. There are a lot of people who are going to be at this meeting with specific opposition to one site. When they say they do not want the amphitheater anywhere in the County, it is the ultimate in denying the entire community the opportunity to have a facility such as this. Mr. Steve Stokes, of Wolf Trap Road, said he lives adjacent to the area of concern. He is involved with the theater, and he supports the arts. He agrees an amphitheater is needed in Albemarle County, but he noted that 12 months ago he stayed up until 1:00 a.m., in an effort to see an amphitheater approved in Albemarle County. The proposed amphitheater location to which he referred is just seven miles from this site, and he wondered why this site is not being discussed for this activity. He also wondered why the site being proposed was chosen. He strongly feels that the roads in this area would not support the traffic produced, and if the roads have to be changed, it would put an increased tax burden on the citizens. He noted that a lot of businesses in that area would also have to be disturbed. He said police activities would certainly have to be increased due to the possible wrong elements which may be attracted to this type of facility in this particular area. He mentioned the closeness to the river, and he said he hopes environmental impact studies are underway, because he feels it will detract from this particular area. He indicated his support of an amphitheater, although he thinks this is the wrong location. He referred to an amphitheater being built in the middle of 600 acres of woods, and he said he does not think noise will be a problem in this type of situation nor does he think traffic will be a problem. He reiterated that the site to which he referred is seven miles from this location, and he does not think it will be a problem for the supporters of this application to go a few miles farther. He asked the Supervisors to take his comments under advisement. Between speakers, Mrs. Humphris repeated that the discussion is on the ZTA to allow amphitheaters in the PD-MC district in Albemarle County. Mr. Ray Rushton, a resident of the Rivanna District, said he lives approximately five miles from the proposed site with his wife and two children ages three years old and one year old. He was here for the Planning Commission meeting, and he noted that Mr. Nitchmann asked each person whether they were in favor of an amphitheater somewhere in this County. There were a few exceptions, but most people who opposed this project said they were in favor of an amphitheater somewhere in the County. This speaks for itself. He went on to say he did his own survey, and he talked to a lot of people about this matter. The people in this County, as well as people in the City of Charlottesville, want such a facility. It is clear to him that this is the case. If a polling agency was used, or if a political figure should ask individual people in the County about this facility, he is certain the same results would be found. His wife is involved in the arts, and she has a Masters and Ph.D. in Art History. He has had vast experience with the arts through his eight year marriage to her, and his children have been exposed to the arts through her mothering. He cannot emphasize enough his own sense of importance that culture and the arts bring to families and people in general. All people seek happiness, and he thinks this sort of art culture brings to children something positive in a large way as compared to what else they could be doing in this society. He concluded by saying that with government funding waiting for the arts, it seems to him that the Supervisors' support of this project moving forward makes a lot of sense. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 000.2 4 Mr. Fran Lawrence spoke for himself and his wife. He lives in the Woolen Miles area which is a community adjacent to Pantops Shopping Center. He was talking to his neighbor about reversion at the bus stop this morning. He reached down and touched the sidewalk and said to himself that he may be touching this same sidewalk in a year or two in Albemarle County. He feels as though he is not very far from Albemarle County. After the Planning Commission meeting several weeks ago, he saw a Mary Chafin Carpenter concert from Wolf Trap on public TV. It was a wonderful show, and Wolf Trap is a wonderful facility. It occurred to him that to be opposed to such a thing would be as bad as being opposed to motherhood and apple pie. He added that to have something of this nature readily available to the area's citizens would be fabulous, and he thinks no one will disagree with this. He referred, though, to the fact that Wolf Trap is located in one of the more remote areas of Northern Virginia on a huge farm and with a limited access highway. He and his wife oppose the Zoning Text Amendment proposing this type of use to be permitted in the PD-MC district. His opposition started with consideration of the proposal a couple of weeks ago, which cannot be discussed tonight. He went on to say someone had proposed a rezoning to PD-MC for the Pantops Shopping Center or a mixed commercial area such as that. He showed the Supervisors a picture, and indicated that this kind of intense developed retail and restaurant use in the urban area is proposed now for PD-MC. He next suggested that the Supervisors look at the other areas zoned for PD-MC. Two of them are on or around Berkmar Drive in the urban area and the other two are on Pantops Mountain close to the urban area. The ideal amphitheater would be located on 300 acres with a dedicated access to the interstate highway, there would be a 300 foot buffer, it would be similar to Wolf Trap, and it would not be in a PD-MC district. He appreciates the staff's work to try to find the right place, but it is clear after looking at other PD-MC areas that this is not the right place. When the right place comes along, and the Supervisors are asked to approve a ZTA to permit such a facility in that particular area, they will know it when they see it. He reiterated it is clear to him that this is not the right place. Mr. John Fink, speaking on behalf of the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association of which he is President, handed out information discussing general amphitheater demographics. He interviewed the three managers of amphitheaters at the Nissan Pavilion in Gainesville, the Wolf Trap in Vienna and the Classic Amphitheater in Richmond. One thing all three of these locations had in common was that they all operated on large tracts of land, and two of them were in rural settings. He noted that the last page of the handout indicates there is a very successful amphitheater in Dallas, Texas, which is part of the Cotton Bowl at the Texas State Fairgrounds, and it is located on 277 acres. This allows for noisy activities to be under the same roof. He pointed out that the Classic Amphitheater in Richmond also has a race track involved with its facilities. Most of the people with whom he spoke about amphitheaters told him there were approximately 2.2 to 2.3 passengers per car, although the applicant has estimated 5.4 passengers. He said realistically the occupants per car for the proposed amphitheater would be 2.2 to 2.3. For a 6,800 seat amphitheater, VDOT representatives used a three passengers per car estimate with 2,333 parking spaces. He said for 2.2 to 2.3 people, he estimates 2,956 parking spaces. He stated that VIPOT staff members referred him to a chart which can be found on Page Two of his handout. He indicated that this chart refers to a level of service which will affect wherever an amphitheater might be located in the County. He also stated that Mr. Mills, an engineer involved with this project, estimated a level of service based on a 2,300 car traffic flow. Mr. Mills indicated that traffic is gridlocked for 40 minutes to an hour in this situation. He got this information from Mr. Mills during a conversation on October 2. This is close to the information he got from the Manager of Wolf Trap who told him that there is typically a traffic tie-up of 45 to 55 minutes. Wherever the amphitheater might go in the County if the ZTA is approved, this is what can be expected. It is a great idea to have an amphitheater with access to a large feeder road by the interstate where there can be quick egress and access of traffic. He next called attention to Page Three of his handout which is a letter from the Manager of State Farm. The letter is site specific, so he would not discuss it. He then referred to Page Four which relates to noise. The Manager of Nissan Pavilion told him that even though the closest house is two to two and one-half miles away, there are still noise complaints when there October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) are large concerts. He passed around a magazine to show the realm of noise a concert can have. He noted that a jet takeoff is at the limit of human hearing, and a person could only stand a quarter of an hour of hearing this type of noise before there was hearing loss. He said a rock and roll concert is between 90 and 120 decibels, and noise is one reason amphitheaters are located in the country. To locate an amphitheater in a PD-MC where there are bordering residential areas, should take a lot of consideration. There is the obvious traffic, and there is a great noise concern. He referred to the Woolen Mills Neighborhood Association where most of the people are in favor of an amphitheater. He made his living as a guitar maker for a number of years before he went on to other things, so he loves music and going to concerts. He added, however, that the Association members are conCerned about this particular type of zoning, and they feel an amphitheater should be located on a much larger tract of land with access to a major feeder road such as an interstate highway. Ms. Florence Buchholtz remarked that she lives at 1409 Short 18th Street, and she is not against cultural events in Albemarle County. She and her husband last week attended the ~Fridays After Five" event, and this week they are going to see the Charlottesville Symphony at Cabell Hall. As a resident of the Woolen Mills community, she is opposed to the ZTA, and the reason is simple. She has been to a multitude of public hearings, and this ZTA has become indelibly linked to the Riverbend Pavilion project. This item is shown on the agenda as the Pavilion at Riverbend, and she asked that the Supervisors not delude themselves by thinking this is just a ZTA on a theoretical project. This project is real, it is on the table now, and it involves the future of a community. It is part of the applicant's strategy to ask for a ZTA separately from a request to rezone at the Pantops Mountain site. Later he will ask for a special use permit, so he can build an amphitheater on the river land. The ZTA does not stand by itself. She said there have already been a lot of resources put into this specific site, and a lot of expert witnesses have been telling the citizens they can limit the effects of noise, light, traffic and pollution. She next referred to the Planning Commission's rejection of the ZTA, and she asked the Supervisors to heed the Commissioners' recommendation. She said the project is ill conceived, and it does not belong in a residential area. She stated that if and when a more suitable site is found, the process of amending the Zoning Map could be revisited. Mr. Bob Bressan commented that he has been a resident of Charlottesville and Albemarle County for 30 years. He lives on Davis Avenue in the City and has owned 170 South Pantops Drive for 18 years. This property overlooks the Rivanna River, and it is 200 yards from the proposed pavilion. He will not be specific about site location, but anywhere in the County the inconveniences caused by an amphitheater would be greatly outweighed by the benefits to the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville. The people with whom he has talked in the Rivanna District, and even a couple of families on Pantops Mountain, are all in favor of an amphitheater. People are in favor of such a facility because of the cultural values. An amphitheater does not just mean rock and roll music, because it is multi-cultural. He also mentioned the economic impact, the tax base in the County and the jobs provided by an amphitheater. He is not speaking only of menial jobs, but there will be jobs provided to college age and high school youth, as well as older people. An amphitheater built right and put in the right area will add to the aesthetics and environment of the County. He said private enterprise can do things that government might try to do, but private enterprise can take on a task and do it right in the right area. He then asked that the Supervisors vote in favor of the ZTA. Mr. Mark Schuyler, who is a resident of the Rivanna District and lives on Route 612, spoke next. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Live Arts, and he is speaking in favor of the ZTA. He is a lighting engineer, and the way he came to this profession is by working in an amphitheater. He started by sweeping floors and then moved to a stage hand position and then became a production stage manager. This business is very flexible, and if someone wants to actually have this type of career, it is possible to do so. He has heard some objection that all the children will do is sweep floors but, in fact, it is the one industry where there is actual upward mobility and on- the-job training to become sound engineers and lighting designers. He thinks this would be a good pro-jobs situation and not just a cultural benefit to the community. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) Ms. Diane Berlin, the owner of Berlin and Company Restaurant at the Pantops Shopping Center, said she is present to stand up for the small business person at Pantops. She is also allowing herself to speak on behalf of the people involved with the Berkmar location. She loves the idea of such a facility, and she would love to have it in Albemarle County. She lives in the City, but she is a taxpayer in the County, because it is where her business is located. She next mentioned a concert at the Virginia Beach Pavilion which she attended. The Pavilion is located in town, but there are exits on all four sides of the park. It is an isolated facility, and there are no residential areas to be seen anywhere adjacent to the park. It was a wonderful experience, but she was going to ask the Supervisors to reconsider the zoning. She recalled someone saying there would only be 30 concerts throughout the season, and she mentioned the traffic involved if the amphitheater is successful. The Supervisors need to consider the fact that 30 nights of concerts will shut down a small business owner, and it will hurt the County's own pocketbook. Everybody pays taxes, and taxes are based on production. If the County is hurt in its own pocketbook, there will really be damage done. She would love to see such a facility further out into the County, although there might be a couple of landowners affected by it. She said, though, the people in the County will still get what they want since everybody will drive to the facility because they want it so badly. She emphasized that she is really in favor of the amphitheater, but she hopes the Supervisors will consider a location farther from town. Dr. Bill Malloney, a physician in Albemarle County, said he wanted to address the issue of sound. He recalled going to the Planning Commission meeting where he was distressed, because during the whole discussion of sound, there was no scientific fact or evidence presented. There was the understandable emotional concern of the residents about the noise level, and there were the actual theoretical calculations of the developer. He said, though, these were calculations and not actual sound measurements. With this important issue, he felt he could contribute a bit of science to today's discussion. He then asked permission to demonstrate the allowable sound limit at the property line. Mrs. Humphris informed Dr. Malloney that she did not think this demonstration was appropriate at tonight's meeting. However, she thanked him for the offer and asked him to continue with his remarks. Mrs. Thomas said she would find this demonstration very helpful. Mrs. Humphris explained that the reason she did not think it was appropriate for the Board to hear this demonstration tonight is because it will not be the same in this room as it is on any site. This meeting was not supposed to be concerned with site specific information. The demonstration will be permitted, if it is the Board members' pleasure, but she asked them to recognize all the specifics to be dealt with in the proposed regulations. She went on to say that the Supervisors do not know what Dr. Malloney's sound nor measurement will be, and it is not calibrated as everything in the County has to be. She is not sure it is a fair demonstration. Mr. Martin said that scientifically speaking according to what he has heard about noise and sound in the past in recent projects, the issue of the ambient noise is quite an important factor. He agreed with Mrs. Humphris that it would not be scientific just to hear a blast of sound in the room. Dr. Malloney responded that he can demonstrate accurately the sounds that will be heard at the receiving property line with a decibel meter. Mrs. Humphris asked if other Board members were interested in hearing the demonstration. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Perkins indicated their interest. Dr. Malloney next showed the Board members a decibel meter and described how it works. He set the meter at 60 decibels which, according to Ms. McCulley, the Zoning Administrator, will be the allowable sound limit at the receiving property line from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The sound limit will be 55 decibels from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Using a tape he had chosen for the demonstration, he indicated the amount of noise people will hear if they live near the property line, and their windows are open. Mrs. Humphris thanked Dr. Malloney for the demonstration. Ms. Ray, a resident of Ashcroft, said first she would speak about her own personal experience. She recalled speaking to this Board a year ago because she and her family lived across from an amphitheater at the University of Virginia for five years. Since May of this year, they have been living at October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 0002 [? Ashcroft. She is also representing 27 families at Ashcroft who responded to a poll regarding the zoning amendment, and are against this proposal. She said living across from the McIntire Amphitheater on the grounds of Central University of Virginia for five years, she witnessed a great variety of amplified events. There were concerts, dance performances, films, social gatherings with background music, church services and graduations. The amplified sound penetrated every room in her house, and it was impossible for any member of her family to study, read, listen to other music, watch TV, sleep or think. They had to schedule their own social life according to what was happening in the amphitheater. She learned that amplified sound is intrusive no matter what it is, if a person has not chosen it. The people living close to an amphitheater cannot turn the sound off, and even though the previous demonstration seemed mild enough, the fact is people will have to be listening to the sound until midnight whether they want to or not. An amphitheater is similar to a megaphone. The mouthpiece of the megaphone may indeed be in the PD-MC zone, but the sound is broadcast many miles beyond this zone into residential areas. She next spoke on behalf of Ashcroft residents by referring to a letter the President of the Ashcroft Neighborhood Association had given her. She is speaking on behalf of the homeowners who have expressed opposition to the Pavilion at Riverbend and to the proposed ZTA to permit amphitheaters. An informal written opinion survey was delivered to 100 residents, and the response received indicated 27 people were opposed and only one person was in favor of it. These responses have been delivered to the Chairperson of this Board. The Ashcroft Neighborhood Association Board of Directors has not adopted an official position. First, they oppose it on grounds of traffic. She referred to PD-MC districts and Riverbend in particular when she pointed out that the study has not taken into account the expansion taking place on Route 250. This includes Luxor, which is a development slated to have more than 500 homes, as well as the 100 additional homes at Ashcroft. The study does not include Peter Jefferson Place or the offices, restaurants and other proposals under review for additional building on State Farm Road. In light of these things, the Ashcroft community feels the roadways will not bear the traffic that any kind of amphitheater in this area would generate. Ashcroft residents also object to the issue of noise. She mentioned Stanford University in California, where the radius of noise emitted from an amphitheater is seven miles, and it is ac serious noise experience. She noted that Ashcroft residents currently hear the noise from Route 250, as well as the band when it plays at McIntire Park on the Fourth of July. The Ashcroft residents, for whom she is speaking, do not want the Zoning Ordinance changed unless a site can be located which is seven miles in radius from any residential areas. Ms. Susan McKinnon stated that she lives on Short 18th Street in the City of Charlottesville, directly across from the Pantops Riverbend area. The proponents of the proposed amphitheater at the Pantops Riverbend location have repeatedly asserted that the residents of the Woolen Mills either favor the proposed amphitheater or they favor an amphitheater somewhere in the County. The majority of the residents in the Woolen Mills area do not favor the proposed amphitheater at Pantops, and although some people have indicated they are not against the idea of an amphitheater somewhere in the region, they have developed a keen sense of the conditions which would have to be met to find an appropriate site for an amphitheater somewhere in the County. She plan to address three issues -- zoning, traffic and noise. In considering the possibility of a ZTA allowing an open air amphitheater in the County, the Planning staff has recommended the appropriate zoning for such an amphitheater in the PD-MC district. Since the four pieces of land presently zoned PD-MC are either already built up or planned for uses other than an amphitheater, there are no areas currently zoned PD-MC to accommodate an amphitheater. In terms of rezoning potential sites, staff has recommended that the appropriate land use designation for an amphitheater in the County be regional or office regional service. This designation, in itself, would effectively eliminate extensive sections of the County as appropriate sites for such an amphitheater. Next, she said it is imperative that a large amphitheater be directly adjacent to a major arterial connector, and by official calculations this would likely include 1-64 as Well as Routes 29, 250, and even road~ lik~ Routes 22, 20 and 240. However, by anyone's common sense calculations the idea of creating major traffic tie-ups every weekend for six months of the year on roads which are City and neighborhood connectors such as Routes 250, October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000215 29, 20 and 22 is simply not acceptable to local residents. This leaves 1-64 as the only sensible feeder road for such a facility. She then mentioned that common sense will tell anyone that it is unacceptable to ask nearby residents to endure sound levels comparable to the volume of an average television set in a restaurant every Friday and Saturday night from April through September. She said common sense will also tell people that it is a serious mistake to put an amphitheater anywhere near a residential area. She added that her point is there would be exceedingly few sites to fulfill all of these criteria, and she emphasized the Pantops site is not one of them. Mr. Nick Smith, a resident of Short 18th Street in Charlottesville, said he would give the Board a hodgepodge of ideas which came to him as he listened to people speak. He believes the Supervisors probably go to a number of the local venues in terms of symphonies, etc. If they have been to such things, they will realize that these things are generally not used to the maximum with the exception of a couple of activities such as the Tuesday evening concert serieS. He referred to Culbreth Theater and the Performing Arts Center, and he said they are typically not full. He then questioned whether there is a need, as opposed to a desire, to have a place to be outside and see some of these venues. His wife spoke to the person who is involved with the local symphony, and she was informed that there is no possibility the local would perform in the amphitheater. He said the closet symphony to perform in the proposed amphitheater would likely be from Fairfax. However, given the amount of money it would cost for the symphony to come here, it would probably be prohibitive. He mentioned the fact that the developers have discussed providing work for youth, etc., but they are only referring to 30 to 32 concerts involving 30 to 32 days. These are not many days, although it would provide some funds for children. Someone brought up in the Planning Commission meeting that when a site such as this is established, it changes everything for the people in the area. He said one person talked about living near the Nissan Pavilion and with this venue there, most people in the area had a calendar of events on their refrigerator telling them when they ought to go out and when they ought to stay home. He thinks this really imposes a great burden on people, and it dictates having an amphitheater in a place where it is not going to impede upon people. Mr. Aer Stephen stated that he lives just off of Rugby Road on Bruce Avenue, so he is a long way from anything which is probably going to be proposed. He has a sheer love for music, and because of his curiosity, he attended the first Planning Commission meeting on the first ZTA relating to an amphitheater. He has watched it go through this process, and he has attended all of the meetings since that time. He then recalled staff's first recommendation, and because amphitheaters did not fit into the particular zoning being requested, it was denied. Staff then recommended that the amphitheater be put into a different zone, and the applicant played by all the rules. The applicant tried again to bring the amphitheater to this County in the recommended zoning, and Mr. Stephen watched it narrowly defeated. He believes an amphitheater will be successful, but he does not know where someone can bring something such as this to the County. He mentioned that zoning and the Master Plan change periodically, so it is possible there will be more PD-MC zoning. Hopefully the citizens will be allowed in Albemarle County to watch their children grow up and not have to drive miles and miles to such activities. An amphitheater for 7,000 people is not big, and it does not take that much power of sound. He would probably eat at Berlin Restaurant, if it was located close to an amphitheater. He asked the Supervisors to let the citizens have a chance to have an amphitheater in the County. Mr. Rogers asked if this public hearing relates to whether or not to permit such a facility in Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris answered that this hearing involves whether to permit such a facility by special use permit in a Planned Development Mixed Commercial zone. Mr. Rogers then inquired if it would be inappropriate to talk about any specific site or facility. Mrs. Humphris responded that it has been the Board's goal not to be site specific at tonight's meeting. Mr. Rogers said he has lived in Albemarle County for 40 years, and he has worked in Charlottesville for 40 years. He loves the City and the County. He mentioned that in the fall the citizens are invaded by approximately 20,000 very enthusiastic young people. Scott Stadium is in the middle of Charlottesville, and when he first moved here, he was in sight of Scott Stadium. It is unfortunate this area is not capable of having a facility comparable to Wolf Trap. He is enthusiastic about the possibility that there October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) 000219 is an individual who is willing to risk substantial money to provide such a facility somewhere. He does not know the appropriate place, but he doubts if Scott Stadium was being proposed tonight, the people who live near there would think it was the right place. On the other hand, Mr. Rogers said it certainly has contributed to what he believes is a very unique community. He believes a facility such as Wolf Trap, as a part of this community, would make it even more desirable than it is today. Mr. Tom Hill indicated that he lives in Charlottesville. He concurred with Mr. Rogers' comments. He wants to bring into perspective the noise and sound abatement question, which is significantly larger than the abatement going on at City Hall. He also mentioned the Stanford Stadium, which is an open field, and he said a number of other projects are that way. He next asked the Supervisors to keep in mind that the residents of Garrett Square or Belmont were not spoken to actively when the City of Charlottesville decided to put up an amphitheater. This is an instance where it appears the project manager is concerned, and has done significant abatement measures for the project. He is in favor of an amphitheater in Albemarle County. Mr. Frank Birkhead, a resident of the County, seconded Mr. Rogers' comments about the concept of having an amphitheater in Albemarle County. It is also important that it will bring in tax revenue. Since he has small children in the school system, he thinks this is important. He lived near Scott Stadium for a number of years, too, and he really enjoyed living there. He misses the vibrancy of Saturday afternoons, and it added to his experience. He admitted that he would have been concerned, if the people were harming his building, but it was an enjoyable thing to have 40,000 people descend on the neighborhood for a few weekends a year. Mr. Bud Treakle, a resident of the City and the owner of property in Albemarle County, said he has legally represented this developer in the past. He is not here in an official capacity, but he felt he needed to respond. He went to the Olympics this summer, and while he was there he had the opportunity to go to a very small amphitheater in a fairly exclusive and high priced residential area in Atlanta. This amphitheater held approximately 5,000 to 7,000 people and oddly enough he saw Mary Chafin Carpenter there that particular night. It was a wonderful experience. He had dinner, visited with his friends and sister-in-law and had a delightful evening. He said Albemarle County needs an opportunity for these types of cultural events. He remarked that this developer, to his knowledge, is not proposing to build a 35,000 seat amphitheater, but a smaller facility. A facility to attract events such as this is needed for things that cannot be served by the Performing Arts Center. Mr. Treakle then stated that he would like to see a different facility from anything currently in Albemarle County, and he does not believe the Culbreth Theater, the Performing Arts Center nor the amphitheater at the University provide the venue for the multi-cultural type event which he thinks is needed for the citizens. He said the children, as well as the people of his generation, should be given an opportunity to have a place to go, and he thinks a facility such as this as allowed under the Ordinance would do that. Ms. Carolyn Holmes informed Board members that she is speaking as a County resident and also as Executive Director at Ash Lawn/Highland. The idea of performing arts is near and dear to her both personally and professionally because of Ash Lawn's own series of performances during the summer months. She cannot evaluate the sound, but it is always an issue. She hopes when looking at any placement of a performing arts/amphitheater type facility, that the sound would be guarded in such a way that nearby residents and workers would be protected. She does not know how far sound carries, therefore does not know if being in a rural area is preferable to being in a commercial area. She is concerned about the sound, and she is surprised that someone from the "dark skies" point of view has not expressed concern about the lighting, as well as the lateness of events at night. This might be something to consider, as well. She has followed this issue through the media for the last few years as these proposals have come forward. She believes the Board already has a good mechanism for dealing with the issue of amphitheaters. She is surprised that this Board is not being more strongly persuaded by some of the speakers to consider that there is a system in place which works. Mrs. Humphris asked if everyone had spoken who wished to do so. When no one came forward, Mrs. Humphris told Mr. Phillips that he could make his rebuttal comments. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) 000220 Mr. Phillips said regarding the broad issue of sound, he has also spoken to the people at the Nissan Pavilion. Nissan employees get complaints from residents when they do not have the vents open. He also thinks the notion that no scientific work has been done is not true. Scientific work has been done, but this is ~ot the issue tonight. The work which has been done is a far cry from a boom box and a tape measure. In terms of traffic, Mr. Phillips said this issue is usually dealt with at a later time. He noted, however, that the downtown amphitheater with no specific parking, and University Hall, Scott Stadium, as well as State Farm ending its work day, are all similar situations, and they are accommodated without gridlock. He then mentioned the amphitheater in Dallas, Texas which was referred to as being in a rural area. He displayed a photograph of this amphitheater showing close residential areas on two sides. He mentioned that this amphitheater has sound attenuation walls and other measures which have effectively abated the noise. He pointed out that a member of his team went to this amphitheater with a decibel reader. He stood in the parking lot between the back of the stage and the residential area, and he could not get a reading above the ambient noise level. He wanted to point these things out to demonstrate that such issues can be addressed. He appreciated the Board members' time tonight, and he thanked them for their consideration. At this time, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. Mr. Davis called attention to Section ~C" on Page Two of the proposed ordinance where the word processor had dropped off three words. He said the language, "have been demonstrated;" should be added. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the ordinance drafted by Mr. Davis is referring to C-1 instead of the PD-MC district. He said the section numbers would have to change, also. Mr. Davis commented that only one section number would have to change. Mr. Martin stated that during this public hearing people were instructed to not focus on site specific issues, and many people indicated that somewhere in the County an amphitheater would be good. He is not sure if it is easier for him to consider this issue separate from the proposed site. Mrs. Humphris commented that is what the Board members have to do, because that is what the public hearing is on. It is a ZTA for this special use by a special use permit in this particular district. Mr. Martin commented that it is his understanding both issues were in front of the Planning Commission at the same time. Although, the minutes did not reflect this fact as much as comments from a couple of the Commissioners. Ms. Washington informed him that she would prefer considering the ZTA separate from the site, and that she would support the ZTA. Most of the comments he has received have been site specific, and they have come from people who live in the areas of Ashcroft and Key West. He indicated his surprise at the petition circulated by Ms. Ray from the Ashcroft residents, because he talked to a fair amount of people in Ashcroft who were not in opposition. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that only 27 of 100 people responded. Mr. Martin noted that on the back page of the petition, there were some misconceptions about the proposal. It sounds to him as though there is a need or at least an incredible desire for such a facility in Albemarle County. He is not sure at what point a strong desire becomes a need, and he is not sure a need can be defined without paying attention to the desire. He thinks the Supervisors should give an opportunity for someone to propose something at a specific site which may or may not be approved. He referred to one gentleman's comment about the Comprehensive Plan and re-examining growth areas. He stated that this may have an effect on a proposal. When he got away from being site specific, he did not have a reason to be in opposition. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the word "need" kept being emphasized so much in the ZTA, but to her a need is a school or a fire station. There are sincere and serious wants where people really want something. She sees a difference in the description, but she thinks it is very obvious there are a lot of people who want such a facility and would support it. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the word "appropriateness" in a particular district would be more realistic. Mrs. Humphris concurred. She suggested that the words, "amphitheater appropriate in that type of district," be used instead of the word~ "need." October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) 000221 Mrs. Thomas commented that she has traveled all over the country in order to go to outdoor theaters, so she really appreciates the nice events which take place in them. When she visited the Pantops site, trucks were moving sand. Someone had a sound meter, and the sound varied between 55 and 65 decibels. This is the sound level being required at the property lines. Even though her comments are site specific, they are very appropriate, because this is the decibel level being considered for the ZTA. She then got in her car and went to the Woolen Mills area. She stood at the cemetery, and she could hear the motors of the sand moving trucks. If this is 60 decibels of sound, no one would have gone to the Woolen Mills area in order to get a cheap seat at the concert, because it was not that loud. If it was the type of music someone did not like, it would have been loud enough to be annoying. She could not figure out how loud to describe the sound, but a mail truck came by, and only when she stood directly by the truck, was the noise of the sand moving trucks drowned out. The noise was at about the level of an idling small truck motor. She thinks it will be an annoying noise, but she does not think it will draw crowds of people trying to get a cheap seat to a concert. However, this did not lead her to any clear conclusion. Mr. Martin asked what Mrs. Thomas meant when she said the sound would not draw crowds of people trying to get a cheap seat at the concert. Mrs. Thomas responded that one of the concerns was that people would come to the Woolen Mills area to listen to the music from a distance. Mrs. Humphris stated that some people think such a facility would be wonderful in a rural area. She added, though, that the Supervisors have already considered this possibility, and she does not think they will consider it again. This Board has gone more to a designation that could be appropriate to this type of use. She commented that with the special use conditions which would have to be designed for it, it could be an asset to the community. Mrs. Thomas inquired how staff decided on the decibel levels. She wondered if they are common decibel levels used in other ordinances around the country. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the decibel levels apparently reflect the Noise Ordinance being developed by the Zoning Department staff. He said they are very different from the noise provisions the County currently has in place. Mr. Martin noted that there used to be a 40 decibel level regulation. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He cannot say specifically where the decibel levels came from, but these are the levels the Zoning Department staff has determined to be appropriate in the Noise Ordinance development. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she is more comfortable agreeing that this facility is something the community should be allowed to try to get, than she is with the particular decibel levels. She said the sound seemed too loud at the edge of the property line. She emphasized that this is not the level of sound for the people attending the concert, but it is the level of sound for the people who are not there. She said if the ZTA is adopted, it will be adopted with these decibel levels. Mrs. Humphris stated that the decibel levels would need to match the Noise Ordinance. The staff has worked hard on this ordinance. She recalled the tests with the ambient noise levels that were done when this Board was dealing with the Boars Head tent issue. She believes the staff has determined what is best as far as the noise levels are concerned, given what was learned before. Mr. Davis pointed out that these are the maximum sound levels. He said any specific site coming before this Board would be subject to a special use permit, and based on the circumstances of a particular site, more strict noise levels could be set. Mr. Tucker noted that the sound level from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. is 55 decibels. Mr. Cilimberg stated that any supplementary regulation is subject to modification by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin suggested that instead of using certain decibel levels, words stating, "as will be approved in the Albemarle County Noise Ordinance" could be used. Mr. Bowerman remarked that his dilemma is one of some practicality. He has a lot of friends and associates who have talked to him about this type of facility being a good thing for the community, and he thinks it can be a good thing. However, the broader issue of the location of the facility in a PD-MC district will only occur in the urban area. One of the things this Board is October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 37) 000222 considering is further protection of the rural area which could be at the expense of the urban area. He represents probably the most urban of the six magisterial districts because there certainly are none which are more urban than the Rio Precinct. He said the citizens are telling him that they are being asked to protect the rural area by agreeing to infill in the urban area. This can be done with residences primarily, but other things will also be involved such as commercial and industrial activities. He said everything will not be approved, but his dilemma is considering this as a project while looking at the isSues he will have to deal with on this Board in terms of the total development as a package. He has a real difficulty when his constituents tell him to approve anything the developers bring to him that makes sense on the basis of the microcosm of what they bring. However, collectively they are saying that the urban area is being made a place where they do not want to live. They are being asked to put up with more houses, more traffic, more noise and more crime, and they wonder when enough is enough. It is not this issue, per se, but he is concerned about the PD-MC district. He added that this is where his store is located and it is on approximately six acres, which certainly is not appropriate. After the many discussions pertaining to the outdoor drama issue, it seems as though the rural area is not necessarily a good place for such activities, either. Even though it could be more isolated, there is the whole concept of protecting the rural area. This is really difficult for him because he is concerned with both sides. He is leaning to the fact that there is a lot more work to be done in the urban area, and he does not want to jeopardize the future by approving projects which he does not think of as an overwhelming benefit to the community. Mr. Martin remarked that he understands Mr. Bowerman's concerns, because the first time someone proposed something of this nature in the rural area, he immediately thought of all the opposition that would occur. He would probably fight such a proposal in the rural area, even though he voted in favor of the outdoor theater. This type of use should go in the urban area. This is dealing with the County's infill policy, although the preference would be for high density residential. The rural areas have to be protected and infill has been made a large part of the overall policy. He said County officials are moving in a direction of making it more a part of the policy, and this accomplishes that. Mr. Bowerman asked about the purpose it serves. Mr. Martin answered that the purpose is primarily cultural. He does not want a situation where it is suggested that everything proposed for the rural areas be done in the urban area. When it is proposed in the urban area, the applicant is told that it would best be proposed for the rural area. He does not want this Board to end up being negative about everything. Mrs. Humphris said Board members have to make up their minds, and they cannot have it all. She mentioned the difficulty she has had with this issue. She has been back and forth on both sides of the issue, and she has finally decided that this type of facility really would be an asset to this community. She stated that based on the analysis, this district would be the only place where it seems to fit. She said if someone made a motion to approve the ZTA, she would be prepared to support it. Mr. Davis announced that there was another clerical mistake in the ZTA. He said it should be section ~25.A.2.2" instead of ~22.2.2". He said instead of "Section 22.0" it should be ~25.A, Planned Development Mixed Commercial, PD-MC". He asked that additional language be added to say, "and outdoor amphitheaters." He explained that the correlated change would come at the end of the "Be It Ordained" paragraph. Mrs. Thomas commented that there are few pieces of property already zoned in this manner which is further assurance the Supervisors will have a good deal of control over the issues which most concern them. She said people will have to come to this Board for rezoning and proffers and concerns will have a good chance to be worked out at that point. She thinks this is a small but additional reason to have such a facility in a PD-MC zone. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the proposed Ordinance to include language allowing outdoor amphitheaters in the PD-MC district by special use permit under Section 25.A.2.2. Mr. Davis suggested Mr. Martin's motion should include language to make the corresponding change to the definition section in the supplementary October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 38) regulations as shown in the ordinance. Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins agreed to this inclusion in the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Bowerman. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. ORDINANCE NO. 96-20 (3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordained by amend- ing section 3.0, Definitions, section 5.0, Supplementary Regula- tions, and section 25A, Planned Development Mixed Commercial - PD-MC, as follows: 3.0 DEFINITIONS Outdoor Amphitheater: A permanent structure, whether open or enclosed, including a stage and tiered and/or sloped seating. 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.1.37 OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER Overnight parking or camping shall not be per- mitted; bo No such use shall be approved until adequate provisions for traffic management have been demonstrated; No such use shall be approved until adequate provisions for on-site emergency medical facili- ties have been demonstrated; Maximum sound levels shall be measured at the nearest property line of the receiving area. Sound levels shall be averaged on a ten minute observation. Maximum sound levels measured at the resi- dential or rural area property line of a receiving area shall not exceed 60 dba (daytime) or 55 dba (nighttime). Daytime shall be from 6 am to 10 pm. Nighttime shall be from 10 pm to 6 am; 2 o Maximum sound levels measured at a commer- cial property line of a receiving area shall not exceed 65 dBa; 3 o Maximum sound levels measured at an indus- trial property line of a receiving area shall not exceed 70 dBa; eo No special use permit shall be approved without approval of a monitoring program to insure maxi- mum sound levels are not exceeded. 25A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MIXED COMMERCIAL - PD-MC 25A.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT 0002 4 October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 39) Uses permitted by special use permit shall include: Uses permitted by special use permit in the C-i, CO and HC districts. 2. Outdoor amphitheater (reference 5.1.37). Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on the proposed issuance of school bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated amount of $5,900,000. The purpose of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 25 and October 2, 1996.) Mr. Tucker noted that this is a public hearing on the proposed issuance of school bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated amount of $5.90 million. This item is already covered in the Capital Improvements Program and in the operating budget with Debt Service to fund $5.90 million. He mentioned that there are five major school improvement projects included in this issuance of bonds. He said a public hearing is required before adopting the resolution. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing, but no one came forward to speak. At 11:12 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of Not to Exceed $5,900,000 General Obligation School Bonds of Albemarle County, Virginia, Series 1996a, to Be Sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and Providing for the Form and Details Thereof. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $5,900,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, SERIES 1996A, TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $5,900,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on October 9, 1996, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.1-227.8.A, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and, consented to the issuance of the Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $5,900,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolu- tion. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at par upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board, the October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 40) County Executive, and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 16, 1996, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substan- tially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "Gener- al Obligation School Bonds, Series 1996A;" shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 1997 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the "Principal Install- ments''), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolu- tion. 4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the correspond- ing principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed eight percent (8%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. On twenty (20) days written notice from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, the Bonds in marketable form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary typewritten Bond. 6. Payment: Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. (b) Ail overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds. © Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2007, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2007, are not October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 41) O00Z ; subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturi- ties. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2007, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2007, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2007, upon payment of the prepay- ment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive ...... 103% July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive ...... 102 July 15, 2009 to July 14, 2010, inclusive ...... 101 July 15, 2010 and thereafter ................... 100; Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation suffi- cient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropri- ated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (I) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations con- tained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provi- sions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program: Proceeds Aqreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Director of Finance to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) 7 such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such cove- nants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. EXHIBIT A (FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND) NO. TR-1 $5,900,000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ALBEMARLE COUNTY General Obligation School Bond Series 1996A ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value re- ceived, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,900,000), in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 1997 and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 2016 (each a "Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July 15, 1997 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provid- ed. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond, Crestar Bank, as bond registrar (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the presenta- tion or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemp- tion. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in immedi- ately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 43) this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds pro- vides, and Section 15.1-227.25 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal, premium if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 5.1, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond may be exchanged without cost at the office of the Bond Registrar for an equal aggregate principal amount of bonds in definitive form having maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid, issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multi- ples thereof. On twenty (20) days written notice from the Virgin- ia Public School Authority, the County shall deliver, at its expense, this Bond in marketable form, in exchange for the tempo- rary typewritten Bond. This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assign- ment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2007, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2007, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturi- ties. The principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2007, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2007, are subject to prepay- ment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2007, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2007 to July 14, 2008, inclusive ....... 103% July 15, 2008 to July 14, 2009, inclusive ....... 102 July 15, 2009 to July 14, 2010, inclusive ....... 101 July 15, 2010 and thereafter .................... 100; 000229 October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 44) Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior written consent of the regis- tered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall~be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have hap- pened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebted- ness of the County, is within every debt and other limit pre- scribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of Albemarle County, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated , 1996. ATTEST: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (SEAL) Chairman, Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: January 3 and September 17, 1996. Mrs. Humphris had read September 17, 1996, and found them to be in order. Mrs. HumPhris had read the minutes of September 17, 1996, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Humphris mentioned a l~tter she had received from Manorhouse Retirement Center, Inc. concerning their request for a combination rezon- ing/special use permit with proffer amendment for an assisted living facility at University Village. They missed the deadline for filing for the December 11, 1996, meeting, and have asked the Board to grant them a waiver on hearing dates. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to direct staff to proceed with advertising these petitions for the December 11, 1996, meeting of the Board. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Thomas said she feels there is a need for a higher level of professionalism in helping developers deal with neighboring property owners when there is a request before the County for development. It is becoming more obvious that certain things cannot continue to be done by volunteers. October 9, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 45) 0002 0 Mr. Tucker said there is to be a report at the November 6 Board meeting in response to the Albemarle Neighborhood Homeowners Association report. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that several County people had attended the Chamber of Commerce's fall leadership meeting this morning. They discussed reversion and County legislative activities. They were also asked questions about the potential of joining in the Partnership for Economic Development, Mrs. Humphris said she had received a letter from VACO requesting the name of the County's voting delegate for the Annual Meeting in November. It was agreed that Mrs. Humphris would be first delegate, with Mr. Bowerman voting only if Mrs. Humphris is unable to attend. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to October 14, 1996, 4:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School Board. At 11:22 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn this meeting until October 14, 1996, at 4:30 p.m. in Room 235 for a meeting with the School Board. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall. Approved by Board Date ~.~,~ Initials.