HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 22 82 PC MinutesJune 22, 1982
The Albemarle County Planning CcRanission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
June 22, 1982, 7:30 p.m., Second Floor, P4eeting Room #5/6, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, 1,1r. Tim
Plichel, Mr. Richard Cogan, and Mr. Corwin Davis, Jr.. me officials.
present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy Y Y►
�. Katherine
L. Imhoff, Planner, and Pls. Ellen V. Nash, Ex-Officio. Absent from the meeting
were Mr. James R. Skove and Mr. Allen Kindrick.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of November 17, 1981 and December 1, 1981 were approved as submitted.
Mrs. Diehl noted for the benefit of the public, that Northside Baptist Church
has requested withdrawal of their site plan.
W. W. W. Electronics Site Plan - located at the northern corner of the inter-
section of Route 631 West (Rio Road) and Greenfields Court; a proposal to build
a 1,464 square foot addition to an existing electronics manufacturing firm and
el
to redesign parking area and entrance. Charlottesville District. (TPI 45, parc
163). DEFERRED FR91 APRIL 20, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that the purpose of
this site plan is to provide better working conditions (i.e. space), noting
that the impact on the surrounding area will not change. He noted that the
applicant is willing to repair the potholes in Greenfield Court, one of which
is adjacent to this property. With regard to the location of the fire hydrant,
Per. Roudabush, noted that there is a hydrant approximately 60' from this property
and explained that this has been brought to the attention of the Fire Marshall.
He also pointed out that the applicant has no objection to changing the land-
scape plan to meet the recommendations of staff.
Mr. Roudabush noted that the Planning Commission approved a site plan for Rustic
Living, pointing out that the conuition regarding roads was "for paved ditch
across the front of the property." He noted that the recommended condition of
approval for this site plan is "installation of curb and gutter (18' from
centerline) along frontage of Greenfield Court." He pointed out that there is
a concrete paved ditch along the front of this property which is in good shape
� 5
and adequately handles drainage. He further pointed out that the applicant is
willing to replace the ditch with curb and gutter if the Highway Department
will take over the responsibility for maintenance of this road.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the entrance and parking design have been changed
and noted that these changes meet with the approval of the Highway Department.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Highway Department recommends curb and gutter
along Greenfields Court.
`'Is. Imhoff ascertained that the Rustic Living Site plan has expired, noting
that the applicant did not attempt to meet any conditions of approval.
Mgr. Cogan pointed out that curb and gutter along Greenfields Court would bring
only this section of the road up to state standards, therefore, the Highway
Department will not accept this road into the state system.
Mr. Roudabush reiterated that the installation of curb and gutter along this
section of Greenfields Court will not insure that the road will be taken into
the state system.
iIr. Michel asked what the status is of the remaining portion of Greenfields
Court.
Mr. Roudabush stated that directly across from this proposal is a dance studio
and apartments, on the left side of the street are several undeveloed lots
which will require some p
e drainage improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it has been the policy of the Commission to require
full frontage improvements where necessary. He noted that he felt this would
be a reasonable property improvement for the owner also.
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt it was impossible to delay the road improvements
for this site based on future improvements for other sites in the area.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt the road improvements should be required.
Mr. Bowerman moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Correct square footage of proposed addition and total square footage for
building;
b. Amend parking schedule, if necessary;
C. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
d. Construction of parking area and curbing as per plans approved by
the County Engineer;
e. Installation of curb and gutter (18' fram centerline) along frontage
of Greenfields Court;
f. PavEn ent improvements along the frontage of Greenfield court according
to State standards;
g. Staff approval of landscape plan.
2. The following condition shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy:
a. Bonding of all required improvements.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Northside Baptist Church T r Additions Site Plan - located on the east
-s-1-Te—of Rio Road east), west of Wakefield Road; a proposal to locate three
modular units (12' x 40') to be used as classrooms adjacent to an existing
church. Rivanna District. (TM 62A(1) , parcel F-18) . DEFERRED FROPI MAY
25, 1982.
Mr. Cogan moved to accept the applicants request for withdrawal of this site
plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Trinity Presbyterian Church Revised Site Plan - located on the south side of
Old Route 29 South, west of Route 29/250 Bypass; a proposal to revise an
approved site plan for the church in order to locate 80 additional parking
spaces as well as to revise the grading, storm drainage and landscape plan.
Samuel miller District. (TM 76, a portion of parcel 17). DEFERRED FROM JUNE
1, 1982.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Frank Cox, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked if any grading had occured in the area designated for
septic fields.
Ms. Imhoff noted that Health Department approval has been received for this site
164� and stated that no grading has occured in the area of the septic fields.
-14(,
With no further comment from the public, airs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Tan Trevillian, Civil Engineer, presented to the Commission a copy of the
drainage calculations for this site showing flow length, seed factor, area size,
etc.
Mr. Trevillian stated that the reason the riser pipe is required is because
when the water level builds the pressure is increased, therefore, the flow is
greater. He pointed out that the riser pipe will restrict the flow of runoff
into the culvert. He also noted that the riser pipe needs to be installed in
order to meet the requirements of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl asked how pre -development runoff is determined.
r1r. Trevillian stated that he inspected this site before development, noting that
it was mostly scrub brush and trees, using this information a weighted licit
factor could be determined for this site.
Mrs. Diehl asked if other site plans reviewed by the Engineering Department have
as many drainage patterns as this site.
Mr. Trevillian stated that there are as many as ten to twelve drainage patterns
per site, depending on the size of development.
Mr. Bowerman asked who prepares the stormwater runoff calculations.
Mr. Trevillian stated that these can be prepared by the applicant but noted
that they must be verified by the Engineering Department.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the Engineering Department did not agree with the
applicants proposal to delete the stand pipe and build a culvert through
the dam.
�lr. Michel asked what would happen if the parking lot was not paved.
Mr. Trevillian stated that the runoff would decrease, pointing out that this
would not provide for efficient drainage.
Mr. Cogan noted that the staff report states "public water is available to the
site. Public sewer is located. within + 500 feet but is difficult to access,"
he asked why this would be difficult Co access.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Service Authority stated that this would be difficult
to access, noting that in order to reach the Morey Interceptor, there is a large
hill which the sewer line would have to go down in order to reach this. She also
pointed out that pumping would be required.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the drainfield shown on this plan has not been altered.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the length of the bond (either twelve or eighteen
months) to be posted for improvements would be at the discretion of the County
Engineer.
.147
M
Mr. Michel asked if the applicant had any objection to the Highway Department's
recommendation that the connection between the new parking lot and the
emergency access be eliminated and any use of the emergency access be discouraged.
Mr. Cox stated that there is a difference of opinion as to the amount of
congestion that will be created. He noted that there are two major parking
lots or, the site, pointing out that the intent of the church was to have
the traffic entering the site from the southern entrance and leaving via the
northern entrance.
Ms. Imhoff stated that staff did not agree with the recommexidation of the
Highway Department. She noted that in order to obtain Fire Official approval
the connection with the emergency access area to the main parking area is
required.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the area for the new parking area was previously an
area with existing trees. She asked if the landscape plan provided for
additional trees to replace these.
is. Imhoff stated that sane trees were left in this area and that the landscape
plan does provide for sane additional trees.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following conditions have
been met:
a. Suhmit three (3) full copies of the revised site plan for Planning files;
b. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and fire flow;
c. Bond must be posted for all proposed improvements to include, but not
limited to, ultimate paving, drainage devices and landscaping;
d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plan;
e. County Engineer approval of walkway specifications.
rlr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Wayne and Deborah Hall Final Plat - REQUESTS DEFERRAL UNTIL JULY 27, 1982.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the applicants request for deferral of this final plat
until July 27, 1982.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
'V- 41?
Richard M. Davis Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 671, north
of the intersection with Route 668, about 2.5 miles south of Boonesville;
proposal to divide 189.53 acres into five parcels with an average size of 37.9
acres (range 23.08 acres to 64.95 acres). Ml 16, Parcel 33B). White Hall District.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Roger Ray, representing the applicant, stated that he i-.rnld re_ -,pond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the area that has been approved by the soil scientist
for a septic field, is a substantial distance from the 30,000 square foot
buildable area.
Mr. Ray noted that the soil scientist shows the percent of grade on the places
where the test were taken. He noted that there was one area where there was
some concern as to the 25% slope requirement, but according to the us(-
,s map
there is 25% slopes.
P1r. Michel asked how much of the road would have to be primed and double sealed.
Mr. Ray stated that the portion of the road that has to be primed and double
sealed is approximately 15001.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Trevillian if prime and double seal on this road would meet
the requirements of the Engineering Department.
Mr. Trevillian stated that due to the limited number of dwellings on this road
he felt that if the road were prime and double sealed the road would be safer
to travel in bad weather. He also noted that the applicant is going to widen
the road to twelve (12) feet and add shoulders and ditches.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this final plat subject to the following conditions:
1. This plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Owner's notarized signature;
b. Note all streams on plat;
C. Note the date by which all permanent reference monuments will be set;
d. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications and surface
treatment of roadway where deemend necessary by the County Engineer;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
f. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance.
Iwo
.-9
M
2. The applicant is put on notice that any further development will require
compliance with the private road requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ronald E. Lucas Final Plat - located off the east side of Route 608, south of
the intersection with Route 671, north of Free Union; a proposal to divide a
2.0 acre lot leaving 6.67 acres in residue. White Hall District. ('III 28,
parcel 26).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Lucas, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
Ms. Jane Long, representing Ms. Page Laughlin an adjacent owner, stated that
they object to this subdivision because it does not comply with section 18-36b(5)
of the Subdivision Ordinance. She pointed out that this section states that
"the average density in such subdivision shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan
the density of which is one dwelling unit per ten acres."
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Payne reiterated that the Commission should not waive the terms of the
ordinance unless they felt it was an extraordinary situation or one of the
three safety valves listed in the ordinance applies. He noted the three
safety valves listed in Section 18-36 (b) (1) of the Subdivision Ordinance as:
• the approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of
significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent
properties which would be occasioned by the construction of public roads;
• the approval of such roads would significantly contribute to the physical
security of the residents of such subdivision; or
• for a specific, identifiable reason, the general public interest, as opposed
to the proprietary interest of the subdivider, would be better served
by the construction of such roads than by the construction of public roads.
Mr. Davis ascertained that if adequate road frontage is available, Mr. Lucas
can divide the 8.67 acres by right.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the reason this request if before the Planning
Commission is because it is served by an easement.
IV50
Mr. Ray stated that it would not be to the benefit of the applicant to
divide this property along the front as it would not be compatible to
the existing house.
Mr. Michel ascertained that two hundred and fifty (250) feet of road frontage
is required off of Rt. 609.
Mr. Davis moved for denial of this plat because it does not meet the requirements
of Section 18-36(b) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Charlottesville High School Athletic Facilities Site Plan - located on the north
side of Melbourne Road across from Charlottesville High School; a proposal to
locate two athletic fields and accessory facilities on a 26.75 acre parcel.
Rivanna District. (TM 61, parcel 193). y
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bill Eley, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
.:7r. Bowerman ascertained that the 2 - 1 slope could be adequately stabilized.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the fire protection measures provided meets with
the approval of the Fire Official.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the City will respond to fires at this structure.
ilr. Cogan noted that this is a sensitive high erosion area and stated that he
felt "as per recommendation of the Soil Conservation Service" should be added
to condition l.b.. (CONDITION l.b.: Compliance with the Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Ordinance).
Ms. Imhoff suggested the following wording for this condition:
• Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance and
compliance with the Soil Conservation Service's recommendations.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance
and compliance with the Soil Conservation Service's recommendations;
c. Construction of pathways and parking area as per plans approved by
the County Engineer; 1416*4
,o5'/
V%W d. Installation of fencing as shown on approved site plan;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy all required
improvements must be bonded.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
University of Virginia, Engineering Research Building Preliminary Site Plan -
located off the south side of McCormick Road, west of Thornton Hall, the School
of Engineering; proposal to locate a 30,000 square foot engineering research
building. Jack Jouett District. (TM 76A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Masloff, representing the University, stated that this building will be used
primarily for engineering research. He noted the concern of the staff regarding
parking and stated that parking for this structure will be provided for in the
Scott Stadium parking lot.
Mr. Masloff explained the basic design of the building to the Coonission.
Stadium Road Student Housing Preliminary Site Plan - located at the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of Alderman Road and Stadium Road, across from
Scott Stadium; a proposal to locate additional student housing and support
facilities for approximately 650 students in several buildings totalling
146,617 square feet of gross building area. The site plan shows an access on
both Stadium Road and Alderman Road. Jack Jouett District. (TM 76A).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Masloff, representing the University, pointed out the following
changes and recommendations to the Planning staff and Commission:
• the interior road, which is a one-way road off of Stadium Road,
will not be used by any trash or service trucks. He noted that
this is mainly a pedistrian passageway. He noted that they are
proposing a roadway from Stadium Road (on the back side of "Masters
House) which will be used to provide handicapped parking for this
proposal.
• he pointed out the major parking area for students;
• the location of the mechanical plant has been changed because
this power plant will be used for this building as well as
future planning for the University.
_-1S '02-
Mr. Masloff stated that they are also concerned about the removal
of trees on this site and noted that they are planning to disturb
as little of the natural vegetation as possible.
Mr. Masloff explained the basic design of the building to the Commission.
Mr. Masloff stated that this will be a two year project, the cost
of which will be approximately $16,400,000.00.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the University tries to incorporate the
Highway Department's comments as much as possible into their planning
process.
Mr. Masloff stated that they will adhere to the state environmental
restrictions regarding detention ponds.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the University has to comply with the
Best Management Practices issued by the State.for soil erosion control
and stormwater management.
Newcomb Hall Addition, Phase II, Preliminary Site Plan - The proposed
a ditions are located on the west side of Newcomb Hall; a proposal to
locate a theater on the site and revise the pedestrian accesses and
courtyard to the buildings. Jack Jouett District.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Masloff, representing the University, stated that the dining
area will be expaned to the west of the present dining area. He
also pointed out that the theater will seat four hundred and fifty
(450) people and will be used primarily for drama presentations.
Mr. Masloff pointed out the design of the building to the Commission.
Ralph A. Miller - Request for Waivers - located off the south side
of Route 6141 northeast of Route 675; a request to waive the require-
ment for a site plan, and a commercial entrance. The applicant intends
to locate a duplex for a total of 3 dwelling units on his property.
White Hall District. (TM 41, Parcel 49).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Miller stated that the purpose for building the duplex units
is to protect his property. He stated that he would respond to
any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.*400
*)K:R
Mr. Miller noted the location of the driveway for the benefit of
° the Commission.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the applicant does not intend to
subdivide this property.
Mr. Davis stated that he could support the waivers as he felt
this proposal does not propose a threat to public health or safety.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that if the waivers are granted a condition
could be added to the effect that "any further development would
need Planning Commission approval and that the access is to be used
only for this division."
Mr. Davis moved to approve the request for a waiver of the site plan
requirement and waiver of the private street commercial entrance
requirement, subject to the following condition:
1. The .access road is to serve only the duplex and shall not be
extended into the site; otherwise these waivers shall be
considered void.
Mr. Miller asked what impact the condition would have as far as
further development.
Ms. Imhoff explained that if this property was divided the applicant
i%w would have to obtain either administrative approval or go before
the Planning Commission for their review and approval.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Virginia Land Company - Request for Waiver - Located off the south
side of 250 East, behind the Citgo Service Station; a request to
waive the requirement for a site plan. The applicant intends to
use three existing buildings for temporary offices for the Virginia
Land Company. Rivanna District. (TM 78, Parcel 17G).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated that they would
respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if the staff was requirig a site plan on this property.
Ms. Imhoff expained that when the requirement for a site plan is
waived you are in effect waiving the requirement for notification of
a�
adjacent property owners, the technical review committee and
public hearing.
Ms. Imhoff noted that staff would like a plan submitted showing
the location of the parking and the road specifications, said plan
to be approved by the County Engineer.
Mr. Davis noted that staff is proposing An April 15 deadline for the
waiver, he stated that he felt this should be extended for at least
one year or until July 1, 1983.
Dr. Hurt stated that it will be approximately three months before
they can start construction.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this road is to be primed and double sealed.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the "access road and parking area to be graveled
to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer."
Mrs. Diehl questioned the number of employees.
Dr. Hurt stated that there will be approximately twelve (12) full
time employees. He also pointed out that there will be no major
increase in traffic.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that health department review could be required
for administrative approval.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of the applicant's request for a waiver
of the site plan requirements subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan waiver for Virginia Land Company is effective until
July 1, 1983 as a temporary use.
2. Administrative approval of site development plan by the Planning
staff.
3. Note that any other use besides the Virginia Land Company will
require site plan review by the Planning Commission.
4. Written health department approval of the three existing
structures.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Cason Wayside Stand - Review - located on the southbound lane of
Route 29 North, adjacent to Berkely Subdivision. The applicant
has an existing wayside stand on the property and has submitted
a preliminary site development plan for review per Section 5.1.19
of the Zoning Ordinance. Charlottesville District. (TM 61, parcel
119) .
Ms. Imhoff read section 5.1.19 of the Zoning Ordinance, which relates
to the review of wayside stands. She also noted for the benefit
of the Commission that there is a building on the site and that
�5S
fruits and vegetables are being sold. She also pointed out that there
is a fire works stand on the property and that the Zoning Administrator
►' Mr. Bob Vaughn, has ordered that it be removed. She noted that
Mr. Cason has appealed Mr. Vaughn's decision to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Planning staff recommends the following
conditions be required for this site plan:
• The approval of the Wayside Stand Preliminary Site Plan will
expire December 1, 1982;
• All buildings must be setback 50' from adjacent property lines;
• Compliance with the recommendations for the Highway Department.
Ms. Imhoff asked for recommendations from the Commission regarding
this site plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Mrs. Joan Graves noted that she is not opposed to a fruit stand but
stated that she is opposed to a fire works stand as this presents
a danger to public health, safety and welfare.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this
matter is before the Commission.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the signs on the property advertise a
fire works and fruit stand.
Mr. Cogan stated that he would like some input on this issue from
Mr. Bob Vaughn, Zoning Administrator.
Ms. Imhoff explained that ordinarily a plan of this type could be
approved administratively but pointed out that Mr. Bowerman asked
that this plan be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the reason he felt this plan should be
reviewed by the Commission is because staff has not had ample time
to review it.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a permit for the fire works has been obtained.
Mr. Cogan stated that he would like to have a completed staff report
and a detailed history on the problems regarding this site.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he asked that this preliminary site plan be
presented to the Commission because he felt the Commission would
want to review a plan for this property. He also said that he
thought the plan should go through the technical review process.
Mr. Payne stated that the following concerns should be addressed:
1rrw • is this a permitted use
• is a site plan required for this proposal.
o99'(1
Mr. Davis asked if the entrance could be closed by the Highway
Department until these questions have been answered.
Mr. Payne stated that the Highway Department would not close this
entrance without some specific criteria.
Mrs. Graves pointed out that the entrance was approved by the Highway
Department for one use only.
Mr. Michel stated that he would like some input from Mr. Vaughn and
also noted that the Highway Department should be made aware of the
conflict regarding the entrance.
Mr. Cogan made a motion to the following effect:
"further review of this proposal by the Planning staff and
contained in this review comments from Mr. Vaughn regarding the
history of this site. He also felt this should go through
the normal site plan review process."
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Commission can not require a site plan
as far as the fruit stand is concerned. She noted that a letter
could be sent to Mr. Vaughn asking for a detailed history of this
property and a memorandum sent to the Highway Department pointing out
that there are two entrances in use.
Mr. Bowerman moved for deferral of this request until July 27, 1982.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Mrs. Diehl noted that there is a work session scheduled for Thursday,
June 24, 1982, at 3:30 regarding the CAT Study.
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
� `vV . Vrt.yA,.c.t ,
ert W. Tucker, Jr. k Sec
tary
FE
11-57