HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 27 84 PC MinutesMarch 27, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 27, 1984, Meeting Room 5-6, Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; and Mr. Harry Wilkerson.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Joan
Davenport, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Bowerman and Diehl.
The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of August 24, 1982 were approved as submitted.
_Isotemp Research Building Site Plan - Located on the northern side of Broadway
Road (Route 1115); proposal to locate a one-story building for production/
processing, containing 6,000 square feet and 25 parking spaces on .57 acre.
(Tax Map 77, Parcel 40D, part, zoned LI, Light Industry, Scottsville District.)
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 3, 1984.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that Isotemp Research Building Site
Plan be deferred to April 3, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
William Coughlin Final Plat - Located north of Route 853 in Whispering Pines
Subdivision, adjacent to Glenaire Subdivision, 2 miles west of Ivy. Proposal
to divide existing parcel on private road into a 5.0 acre tract and a 6.107
acre tract,. leaving no residue. Tax Map 57B, Parcel A, zoned Rural Areas,
Samuel Miller District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Lincoln. He offered no significant
additional comment.
Ms. Davenport confirmed that the existing road complies with the Ordinance
and the County Engineer was not recommending any upgrading.
Mr. Gould asked for an explanation of condition 1(g), i.e. "Note on plat
the disposition of development rights, to the satisfaction of the.Planning staff."
Ms. Davenport explained the applicant was using one right leaving four to
dispose of. She stated the intention is that parcel 1-A1 retain one of those
rights or that it be allowed, if the private road provisions were to change,
to divide once and the second parcel will keep three of those development rights.
Mr. Cogan interpreted: "So you could get three 2-acre lots out of parcel
A-2A and two lots out of A-1, but before you could do that there would have to
be a change in the Private Road Ordinance or the private road would have to be
converted to a state road."
a
March 27, 1984
Page 2
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated he was familiar with the road and he did not foresee any
problems.
tir. Michel moved that the William Coughlin Final Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The plat will not be signed until the following approvals are obtained:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation issuance of a private
street commercial entrance permit;
b. County Engineer approval of private road provisions, including
proposed relocated turn -around;
c. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
d. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement;
e. Note on plat street name;
f. Note on plat 'Only one dwelling unit per lot;"
g. Note on plat the disposition of development rights, to the
satisfaction of the Planning staff.
Mr.. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Heritage Acres V.Site Plan - Located on east side of Route 29N in Branchlands
PUD, adjacent to Squire Hills Apartments; proposal to locate 82 multi -family
dwelling units in 8 buildings and 154 parking spaces on 8.5695 acres. Tax
Map 61Z, Parcel 03-1, zoned R-10 Residential, Charlottesville District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr..Wilkerson moved that the Heritage Acres V Site Flan be indefinitely
deferred. M.r. Michel seconded the motion which. passed.unanimously.
Woolen Nils Apartment Site Plan - Located at the east end of East Market
Street, adjacent to the C & 0 Railroad. Proposal to locate four apartment
units in an existing building. Tax Map 78, Parcel 21C, zoned Light Industrial,
Scottsville District.
Site Review Committee was requesting deferral to April 24, 1984.
Mr. Skove moved, seconded by Air. Wilkerson, that the Woolen Mills Apartment
Site Plan be deferred to April 24. The motion passed unanimously.
Horticultural Concepts Office Building Site Plan - Located on the south side of
State Farm Boulevard, approximately 1/4 mile south of Route 250. Proposal to
locate a two-story office building (4,701 square feet) on 1.189 acres. Tax
Map 78, Parcel 71, zoned Commercial Office, Rivanna District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
March 27. 1984 Page 3
The applicant was represented by Mr. Jim Hill. He asked that the Certificate
of Occupancy be conditioned upon. Highway Department approval of design plans
for State Farm Blvd, "and if we don't build it by then we bond it."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The main item of discussion was the status of State Farm Blvd. Mr. Cogan
noted that other applications were coming up which would also involve State
Farm Blvd. He wondered if action should be delayed until all issues had been
settled.
Mr. Payne noted that the suggested conditions of approval, relating to the
Certificate of Occupancy, would require that the road issue be definitively
in the process of being solved before the building can be occupied. He
felt it would be appropriate to condition this site plan, and the subdivision
plat, the same way. Mr. Payne noted that the problem with this road has
not been with getting it built, but rather with reaching agreement on what
the standard should be.
Mr. Cogan expressed concern about the possibility of negotiations with the
Highway Department breaking down thus leaving a building which could not
be occupied.
Mr. Hill stated the only remaining contention is whether to build a category
6 or category 5 road. He felt an agreement should be reached within 120 days.
Mr. Cogan again asked if this application should be heard at the same time
as the subdivision. (There was no indication that other Commissioners
were in favor of this approach.)
Mr. Skove stated he felt the road should be built to state standards and
therefore condition 2(g) should be deleted.
Mr. Skove moved that the Horticultural Concepts Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention facilities and
drainage plans and profiles.
b. Issuance of erosion control permit..
c. County Engineer approval of site improvements, including parking
area design.
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans and
utility easements.
e. Fire Official approval of hydrant and dumpster locations and
handicap provisions.
f. Bond posted for any pertinent improvements (County Engineer
approval).
g. Documentation of access to private road.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the applicant has met
the following conditions:
1A
March 27, 1984
Page 4
a. Subdivision plat approved and recorded.
b. Fire Officer approval of fireflow.
c. Staff approval of landscape plan and installation or bonding of all
materials.
d. County Engineer approval of .road plans (State Farm Blvd. and new private
road).
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans and provisions made for acceptance into State system (if public
road is required).
f. County Attorney approval of .maintenance agreement for new .private
road.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Gardencourt Townhouses Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 743,
adjacent to Townwood Subdivision. .Proposal to create 51 townhouse lots and
common open areas, served by a private road on 4.084 acres. Tax Map 61,
Parcel 13, zoned R710 Residential, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The Commission expressed some confusion as to where landscaping would be
installed.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Air. Torn Lincoln. he asked that the recordation
of the subdivision plat not be tied to Service Authority approval. (Mr. Payne
expressed a lack of understanding of Mr. Lincoln's concern.)
*Sr. Payne stated he understood why the applicant would not want utility
easements recorded before the subdivision plat, but he was concerned about the
possibility of recording the subdivision plat without utilities. He stated
he was not concerned about a C.O., but rather about the subdivision plat.
He explained that when the plat is recorded.the lots can then be sold and
things begin happening quickly and irretrievably, and for that reason he
felt the utility easements should be on the plat.
Mr. Lincoln explained that all the utility lines would be bonded. He
was concerned about the possibility that if the easements needed to be
shifted slightly the plat would then have to be revised and re -recorded.
Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Lincoln's concerns could be addressed by dedicating
the water .and sewer easements with the road. Mr. Payne again stated.he
failed to understand Mr. Lincoln's concern.
Mr..Lincoln suggested that he prepare a separate utility easement for the
Service Authority. Mr. Payne indicated that would be acceptable so long
as the two plats were done contemporaneously. ;sir. Payne confirmed that
1(c) could remain as originally proposed, i.e. "Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of utility easement plat; easement plat to be recorded
concurrently with all phase plats."
93
March 27, 1984
Page 5
d s ribed
Mr. Lincoln briefly�s ormwater detention plans and noted that the applicant
would contribute to off -site improvements. Mr. Lincoln commented briefly
on landscape plans. Ms. Davenport added that a newly submitted plan had shown
the interior court had been revised to include the pool. Ms. Davenport
noted that she had not yet had time to review the newly submitted landscape
plan.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves raised a question about the acreage of the parcel. There
was a brief discussion as to whether dedicated portions of the parcel were
included in the total acreage. Mr. Payne explained that, customarily, they
were.
The following residents of Townwood, an adjacent development, addressed the
Commission and expressed their concern about the effects runoff from this
development was having on their property: Ms. Ann Honeycutt, Ms. Maureen Bray.
and Mr. Keith Gallaher.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
There was a brief discussion about current erosion problems on the property.
Mr. Keeler described his interpretation of the situation and stated he felt
this development was not the sole source of the problems. Mr. Cogan asked
staff to look into the matter further.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the areas of concern were the landscape plan, the
recreation plan and the bonuses.
Mr. Michel indicated he was in favor of a deferral until staff has reviewed
the recreation plan. He stated he was also confused about the dedication
issue and felt the application was being reviewed prematurely.
Mr. Gould agreed and felt that the bonus issue should be clarified.
Mr. Cogan concluded that it was the consensus of the Commission that
the plan had been basically changed and those changes will directly
effect the bonus issue. It was felt staff needed more time to review
these changes before the Commission took action on the application.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Gardencourt Townhouses Final Plat be deferred to
April 3.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
R.D. Wade Builders, Inc. Final Plat - Located on the north side of Route 631
(Rio Road), east of Rt. 29N. Proposal to divide two parcels of 1.16 acres
(proposed to be rezoned to C) Commercial Office) and 8.83 acres (approved
for Rio Woods multi -family units). Tax Map 61, Parcels 124B and 124C, zoned
R-10 Residential, Charlottesville District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
March 27, 1984
Page 6
Mr. R.D. Wade represented the applicant. He offered no additional comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel stated the application appeared to.be in order and moved that
the R.D. Wade Builders, Incorporated, Final Plat, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The plat may be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of road maintenance.agreement (including
provision to close existing entrance and driveway upon completion
of internal road).
b. Note correct zoning on plat.
c. Note on plat: "Upon completion of internal road, both Parcels A
and B will have access to Rt. 631 only by that private road."
d. Note on plat "Any further subdivision will require the upgrading,
dedication and acceptance of the internal road to the State system."
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Village Square, Phase 2, Final Plat - Located west of Route 631, approximately
1/4 mile south of Pen Park Road (Route 768). Proposal to create 66 lots
with an average lot size of 2,956 square feet, on 8.777 acres. Tax Map 61A-3,
Parcel B.. zoned R-4 Residential, Rivanna District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to April 24, 1984.
Mr. Gould moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Village Square, Phase 2,
Final Plat be deferred to April 24, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Riverview Nursery — Request for site plan waiver. To be located in Shopper's
World Shopping Center, Tax Map 61M, Parcel 12-1C, zoned C-1 Commercial,
Charlottesville District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Gentry. He explained the business he
was proposing, i.e. temporary retail nursery sails to be operated on a
vacant lot in Shopper's World for sixty days in the spring and sixty days
in the fall.
There was a brief discussion about how many days should be approved for the
operation. The staff report referred to sixty days,.twice a year, with
an additional five days being allowed at the beginning and end of each
sixty-day period for set-up and removal. ti1r. Payne felt it was very
important that a specific time period be attached to the request.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves raised the issue of the entrance to the site. She.noted that
the property was level with Rt. 29 and felt the site should not have an
access from Rt. 29. It was noted that the site would be accessed from
Shopper's World.
9�
March 27, 1984
Page 7
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan stated he was satisfied with the request as presented, i.e. 60 days
for sales, spring and fall, with 5 days on each end for set-up and removal.
Mr. Gentry asked if he could request additional days later if necessary.
Mr. Cogan responded that he could make a request for additional days, but.
there was no guarantee such a request would be granted.
Mr. Michel moved that the Riverview Nursery Request for Site Plan Waiver
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of a sketch plan showing wagon and display area and on -site
parking facilities. Parking areas specifications to be approved by
County Engineer. Number of parking spaces to be determined by Zoning
Administrator.
2. Approval limited to one year from establishment of use. Operation limited
to 60 successive days in the spring and 60 successive days in the fall,
the dates of which shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator. No
wagon, sign, goods or other feature associated with this use shall be
located on the property more than five (5) days -before or after these
two periods of operation. The Zoning Administrator may require bonding
to insure removal of such features.
3. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator written evidence
of restroom availability during periods of operation.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Astec Site Plan - Request for relief of proposed improvements to Route 1101 and
Route 742. Tax Map 77E1, Parcel 1, zoned Fight Industrial, Scottsville
District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. The staff report explained:
"The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation recommended a
30' commercial entrance, a 100' turn lane and 100' taper on Rt. 742
and the paving of Rt. 1101 from its intersection with Rt. 742 to the
commercial entrance. ... Both approved site plans included notations pro-
viding for these improvements. The applicant had agreed with staff and
the Highway Department to construct the road improvements with the
development of Phase II of this site plan, which was noted on the approved
site plan. However, a specific condition of approval outlining these
improvements was omitted from the staff's recommended condition of
approval for obtaining a building permit for Phase II. ... The
Highway Department has commented that both improvements.are occasioned
by this development."
94
March 27, 1984 Page 8
Ms. Davenport clarified that the staff was recommending that the Commission
amend the conditions of approval to include:
a 2. A building permit for Phase II will not be issued until
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
improvements to St. Rt. 742 and 1101, as required by the
Commission.
However, the applicant was now requesting relief from that requirement.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Floyd Artrip. Mr. Artrip compared
this approval 7-7ith Gleco dills' approval. He questioned why this applicant
should be required to make road improvements when that had not been
required of Gleco Mills. He explained that he had left the Commission
meeting (at the time of the second approval) with the understanding that
the road improvements would not be required and had then been informed
the next day that they would be required. He noted that the applicant had
planned to dedicate the land for the improvements. He recalled that at
the time the site plan had been reviewed by the Commission it had shown
highway improvements, but had not shown a paved parking lot. Thus when
the Commission required that the parking lot be .paved, it had been
more 'tpalatable" to accept this requirement because the road improvement
had not been required.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the condition for road improvements had been
erroneously omitted; however, the road improvements had been shown on
the site plan indicating that the applicant had already "consented" to
the improvements.
Mr. Artrip disagreed that the.applicant had .consented to the -improvements.
The Chairman invited public comment.
An unidentified representative of the applicant commented that the
applicant had been under the impression that it was a "tradeoff", i.e.
paving of the parking lot was required in place of road improvements.
Mr. Cogan asked what had given the applicant this impression. The applicant
responded that the issue discussed by the Commission had been only the
parking lot. Mr. Artrip also indicated that the item which had been reviewed
before their request (Gleco Mills) had also contributed to his interpretation
of the Commission's intent because road improvements had not been required
for that project.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne to comment on the question of whether the applicant
could be required to improve Rt. 1101 between Rt. 742 and this entrance.
97
March 27, 1984 Page 9
Mr. Payne responded that "the question is whether you can characterize the
required improvement as coincident with the entrance to the improvement
itself and if you can fairly so characterize it then the case you are
referring to is really not on point. The issue in that case was getting
from point A to point B, not getting into and out of the site. So if
you feel that the improvement in question is for purposes of, in essence,
getting people from being part of the general travelling public on 742
into the site, then I think you have.the authority to do it." Mr. Cogan
asked if this should be considered as an extension of the entrance. Mr.
Payne replied that he felt that was what staff and the Highway Department
was recommending, and "if you construe it that way I think you have the
authority to do it." He added: "I don't think Gleco Mills has anything
to do with this because the issue in that case was sight distance which
could not be obtained. That's not material here." He also pointed out
that when Gleco Mills road situation was changed the business was already
in operation.
Mr. Gould stated he felt the applicant was being "jerked around."
Mr. Cogan felt the real issue was whether this section of Rt. 1101 to
be improved would be merely an extension of the entrance into the site or
would it be considered, in fact, an improvement to Highway Department property
not just for the benefit of the applicant, but for the benefit of the
Highway Department and the general public.
Mr. Michel asked if comments were available from the Highway Department.
Ms. Davenport responded that she had discussed the issue with Mr. Echols
who had chosen not to make written comment because the Highway Department's
suggestions are only recommendations.
Mr. Michel pointed out that in this case the Commission was asking not
only for a recommendation, but also for a reason.
Mr. Keeler felt the issue was "getting industrial traffic safely from Avon
Street onto this site." He continued: "Put aside the issue that Rt. 1101
is a state road --would you serve an industrial site like this without a
decel and turn lane?"
There was some question as to whether the applicant was objecting to
both the decel and the turn lane, or just the decel lane. Mr. Keeler
was under the impression the applicant was objecting to both. The
applicant interjected that he was offering to dedicate land "for the
whole intersection improvements." Mr. Cogan noted that any.property
with an industrial site on a state highway would have to have a decel
lane.
Mr. Keeler felt there were two separate issues: (1) One of public safety;
and (2) Whether or not the applicant can be required to improve the
public road. Mr. Payne stated that this was really just two aspects of the
same issue. Mr. Payne added: "I think you have the authority to require
the applicant to do what .is necessary to make his entrance safe."
March 27, 1984
Page 10
Mr. Cogan stated he also wanted to dispel the idea of tradeoffs referred to
by the applicant. He stressed that the paving of the parking lot and the
road improvements were two entirely separate issues.
In response to Mr. Wilkerson's request, fir. Artrip commented on the history
of the application. He again stressed that the improvements to the road
had not been a condition of approval.
Mr. Cogan indicated he understood Mr. Artrip's reasoning. However, he
explained that "when we attach conditions to an approval it's because
those conditions that are stated are not found elsewhere. If they are
already on the site plan we don't need to make it a condition because
it's stated right there in front of us so it doesn't need to be added
separately as a condition --it's already a known fact.."
Mr. Artrip stated that was not what he had been told. He stated: "I was
told it was forgotten."
Mr. Cogan stated he did not think it .necessary to consult the Highway
Department further. He did not want the applicant to be led further astray.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Gould, i.e. that the applicant
was being "jerked around."
Mr. Artrip noted that the Highway Department recommendation had been made
before the improvements were shown on the site.plan.
Mr. Cogan noted that the Highway Department could require a decel and turn
lane, whether it was from 1101 or 742. He felt the issue was not so much
the decel and turn lane as it was the improvements to 1101. He pointed
out to the applicant that what was contemplated was improvements to
1101 only in relation to his entrance. Mr. Payne noted that this was a
significant point.
M.r. Keeler again explained the Commission should determine if access to 1101
is adequate without improvements, and if.not, there is another public
road--742.
Mr. Michel stated he was not in favor of granting the. applicant's request
for relief from road improvements.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the recommendation from the Highway bepartment
is that Rt. 1101 be upgraded to a category 3. However, he stated thqt if
the Commission views 1101 as part of the access torthis sits -then this._
applicant should only be responsible for upgrading'it'fo a standard
occasioned by his development. Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Michel expressed concern about getting into this type of situation with
the Highway Department.
Mr. Michel moved for denial of the applicant's request.
Mr. Michel asked if he could restate the motion.
Mr. Michel moved for approval of staff's recommendation, i.e. to amend the
conditions of approval on the site plan to add the condition requiring
road improvements.
March 27, 1984
Page 11
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Gould moved that the Commission support staff's recommendation, i.e.
that the following condition be added to the Astec Site Plan:
2. A building permit for Phase II will not be issued until--
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of improvements
to St. Rt. 742 and 1101, as required by the Commission.
(Mr. Cogan noted this was the .same motion Mr. Michel had made.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Skove returned to the meeting.
John C. Shifflett Final Plat - Request for relief of private road restriction.
Tax Map 21, Parcel 12C, zoned Rural Areas, Rivanna District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report. The staff report explained that
the applicant had submitted a written request that the Commission allow
a 21.0 acre parcel direct access to Rt. 606, in accordance with Section 18-36(f)
and 18-36(h) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Shifflett addressed the Commission. He confirmed that having a direct
access to Rt. 606 at a location other than where the easement is located would
give better sight distance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan felt that if the applicant's proposal would provide better sight
distance then it should be allowed because it met the justification
specified an the ordinance, i.e. "...alternative access would alleviate a
clearly demonstratable danger of significant degradation to the environment
of the site or adjacent properties."
There was a brief discussion about sight distance and also about General
Electric's plan to purchase the 21 acres in the front. Mr. Keeler noted
that it would be difficult to develop the residue acreage residentially
using a road that is likely to be an industrial access road. Mr. Keeler
pointed out that staff is reluctant to allow a private road that would
serve mixed uses because it would be very difficult to have a meaningful
maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne noted that generally Mr. Keeler was correct, but he was not
certain that would be true in this case.
Mr. Michel moved that the John C. Shifflett Final Plat be approved, including
approval of direct access to Rt. 606 for the 21.0 acre parcel, and subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of sight
distance at proposed entrance;
/d49
March 27, 1984
Page 12
b. Note on plat: "The residue parcel shall have access onto private road;"
c. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement (if deemed necessary
for residue parcel).
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Michel confirmed he was..aware that the conditions of approval contemplated
the granting of the separate entrance.
Ms. Davenport asked Mr. Payne: "Would a maintenance agreement be required
for the residue of this parcel?" Mr. Payne replied: "Presumably, yes."
Mr. Shifflett pointed out that. AT&T has an easement and is supposed to maintain
the road. ?Ir. Payne stated that might be accurate, but he has not had
time to review this issue. Mr. Shifflett indicated that a maintenance
agreement was not a problem, but he did not understand why it would be necessary
at this time. Mr. Payne explained: "Because that's what the Subdivision
Ordinance says," i.e. that these issues are addressed at the time of the
subdivision and not at some later time. fir. Payne indicated he would need
to review the existing agreement to determine if it was adequate.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated motion for approval.
The motion passed (4:1) with Mr. Cogan casting the dissenting vote.
Pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344a.6, Mr. Gould moved, seconded by
Mr. Michel, that the Commission go into Executive Session to discuss pending
litigation with the Riverbend Shopping Center.
The motion passed unanimously and the meeting went into Executive Session at
9:40 p.m.
The Executive Session ended and the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 4-89
/0/