Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-21 - A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on AUgust 21, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 MCIn'tire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and C. Timothy Lindstrom. Absent: Mr. Pete~ T. Way. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive and Interim Director of Planning, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; COunty Attorney,. George R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Way will not be present tonight as he is out of town. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda .item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve item 4.1 on the consent agenda as presented, and to accept as information all other items, with the exception of Item 4.2, County Executive's Financial Report for June, 1985. Mr. Bowie wanted to discuss this at the end of the meeting. The motion carmged.~y the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ~BSENT: Mr. Way. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Regional Jail and Commonwealth's Attorney for July, 1985 were approved as Dresented. Item No. 4.3. Monthly Building Activity Report for July, 1985. A memorandum dated August 7, 1985 from Prudence Murray,. Planning Aide, referencing the ~onthly Building ACtivity Report for July, 1985 was received by the Board (A copy of the report is on file in the Clerk's office). Item No. 4.4. 3ilrcuit Court. Notice of Appeal from decision of State Compensation Board - Clerk of the Appeal relates to the budget for said Clerk's office specifically regarding request for a tull-time general ~office clerk, and the upgrading of salaries of certain other personnel. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-85-7. Tri-Ton, Inc. 32, part of parcels 36 and 42. Rivanna DiStrict. Rt. 649. (Deferred from May 1, 1985.) Rezone 5.0 acres from R-1 to HC. Tax Map Located east side of Rt. 29N just south of The applicant has again requested deferral of this petition to October 2, 1985. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer ZMA-85-7 until October 2, 1985. ~he motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: ~BSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-20. Hollymead Land Trust & Tri-Ton, Inc. To rezone 37 acres rom R-1 to HC. Property located in the southeast quadrant of the Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffit ~oad~) intersection. Tax Map 32, parcels 42 .{part) and 36 {part). Rivanna District. ~1~ gAdvertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1985.) The Planning Commission has not acted on this request, and therefore Mr. Tucker ~¢cc ~ecommended deferral to October 2, 1985. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. EenleY, to defer ZMA-85-20. until October 2, 1985. The motion carried by the following recorded 'ore: .YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. F~sher, Henley and Lindstrom. ~ATS: None. ~BSENT: Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-52. Virginia Land Trust (C. W. Hurt). Request to allow ~ ~onstruction of a bicycle racing track for children ages give years and older on two acre.site ~oned C-i, located behind Riverbend Shopping Center. Tax Map 79, parcel 17E. Rivanna District. Adver'tised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and A~gust 13, 1985.) Staff requested that this item be deferred until September 4, 1985. Motion was offered by r. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer SP-85-52 .until September 4, 1985. The motion ~arrled hy the following recorded vote: ~YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. ~ATS: None. [BSENT: Mr. Way. 522 August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) ~J.~:~Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-84-29. Grayrock PRD (Robert & Ann Savage). Request to locate 295 townhouse units on 73.96 acres for a gross density of four dwelling units per acre to be served by State roads. Located on the north side of Rt. 691 (Jarman Gap Road), south of Orchard Acres Subdivision and east of Rt. 684, zoned PRD/R-1. Tax Map 55, parcels 65 and 65A. White Hall District. (Readvertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1985.) (This ~c petition had been deferred from April 17, 1985, in order to allow the staff and applicant time to answer numerous questions concerning same.) Mr. Tucker presented the following amended staff report dated August 21, 1985: "Requested Zoning: Planned Residential Development (70 dwellings) Acreage: 20.94 acres Existing Zoning: Planned Residential Development (10 dwellings) Location: Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 [part) and 65A (part), is located on the south side of Route 684 west and adjacent to Orchard Acres subdivision. Staff Comment: On April 17, 1985, the Board of Supervisors deferred action on the original Grayrock proposal (i.e. - 294 dwellings) until the applicant and staff prepared the following: The area now defined as Phase I of the Grayrock PRD (Planned Residential Development) is to be dev'elope'd''a's a separate PRD, taking' i'n 't'~e'l'akes on -the property and compri'sed''of '7'0 dwel'l'i'ng ~uni'ts, 'i'notu'di'ng '~ 'o~l'cu'l'a't'i'on of the density in dwelling units per acre: The revised application plan proposes 70 dwellings on 20.94 acres for a gross density of 3.34 dwellings per acre. A Land Use Summary follows: LAND USE SUMMARY Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Total Site Area Total Dwelling Units Average Lot Area Total Lot Area Dedicated Open Space Off-Street Parking and Driveways ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation Right-of-Way Gross Density Net Density PRD PRD 20.94 acres 7O 0.05 acre 3.43 acres (16.38%) 15.14 acres (72~30%) 1,43 acres (6.83%) 0.94 acre (4.49%) 3.34 du/acre 14.40 du/acre 2. Uses for the balance of the property are to be proposed: The applicant proposes to maintain the remainder of the property under prior zoning (i.e. - ZMA-79-18). With modifications occasioned by the current request, this would yield 37 dwellings on ~ 53 acres or 0.7 dwelling units/acre. Overall density for Grayrock/Jarman Gay II Planned Residential Development's would be 1.3 dwelling units~acr~e. ~The applicant is requesting that the remaining property-stay'under the existing Jarman Gap II PRD with 37 units.) Staffoffers~the following comments: de Orchard use of the southern portion of the property could be continued as a non-conforming use; Grayrock PRD and revised Jarman Gap II PRD could develop as two independent projects or open space/recreational facilities could be shared under a unified homeowners accociation [staff recommends that these options be left to the discretion of the applicant); Since the applicant has proposed no changes south of the lakes, staff has not recommended re-evaluation of the conditions of approval of ZMA-79-18 Jarman Gap II PRD, except that dwellings be reduced from 47 to 37 units. Or'her possible zoning designations for the area south of the lakes are RA, Rural Areas and R-1 Residential. Since this property is in a designated growth area, RA zoning is viewed as inappropriate and inconsistent with the statement of intent of that zoning district, even though the current use is orchard. R-1 Residential zoning would be consistent with other undeveloped properties in the immediate area. R-1 would permit 16 - 42 additional single- family dwellings. (This is in addition to the 37; a total in that southern portion~if rezoned to R-1 of 53 to 79 dwelling units.) Recreation provisions for Phase I/Grayrock PRD are to be stated: The applicant has stated that: 'Recreational amenities for the Grayrock PRD shall consist of a small playground' and tot lot to be located in the open space area between the two ponds. In addition, picnicking and other passive recreational opportunities will be afforded by the wooded area north of the easternmost pond. And, of course, the ponds themselves may provide certain water related activities such as canoeing, row boating and fishing.' August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 523 Staff would recommend a minimum of 3500 square feet of developed active recreation area (i.e. - tot lot; playground). The recreation area should be established with development of 35 dwellings. Define whether or not the increased traffic on the surrounding highways would constitute a public danger: Staff has obtained accident data for I983 from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Staff would recommend that data of this nature and any projections/extrapolations or other 'data adjustments' be viewed cautiously for the following reasons: Accident data is based on entire road length. The data can be manually broken down to road segment, a time-consuming and expensive process; Accident data is not readily available as to casual effects (i.e. - road, weather, driver conditions); Currently, data has been obtained-for one year only which may or may not be indicative of long-term experience; Staff has not evaluated data as to other cautions. SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM ACCIDENT SUMMARY: 1983 (PER MILLION MILES TRAVELLED) Accident Injury Death Rate Rate Rate (Number) CNumber) [Number) Virginia 357 202 3.3 Albemarle County 435 (588) 199 (270) 3,8 (5) Route 684 149 (1) 149 (1) 0.0 Route 691 278 (5) 222 (4) 0.0 Route 788 0 0 0,0 For 1983, of the three categories listed, injury rate was higher for Route 691 than the 'average' secondary road in Albemarle County and Virginia. Ail other categories indicate that Routes 684, 691 and 788 are 'safer' roads than the 'average' County or State secondary road. It is not anticipated that increased traffic would change accident, injury or death rate though increased traffic would likely increase the number of such events. Since these roads are comparatively 'safe' at this time, staff would anticipate no change in status due to volume, unless Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is unable to provide timely maintenance which could result in pavement dangers [i.e. - potholes, pavement rippling, broken pavement at shoulders, etc., which would £urther reduce capacity/safety). 5. S~af~-~e~recommend conditions for approval: For ZMA-79-18 Jarman Gap II PRD: (a) Amend condition one as follows: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 37 lots. Location and acreages of land uses shall comply with the approved plan as amended by ZMA-84,29 '~r[ay'rO'CM PRD. Open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number og lots approved in the final subdivision process. (b) Delete condition eleven (see condition 5a. of ZMA-84-29): 11. The homeowners agreement shall contain a provision requi~ing that the land now in and around ponds be protected against erosion should the dams fail and not be replaced. For ZMA-84-29 Grayrock PRD Section 8.5.1(i) 1. requires submittal of a report by the applicant stating among other things agreement to 'proceed with the proposed development according to regulations existing when the map amendment creating the PD district is approved, with such modifications as are set by the Board of Supervisors and agreed t9 by the applicant at time of amendment'. Staff recommends approval of Grayrock PRD with the following provisions to be included in the report required by Secton 8.5.1(i) 1. Approval-is for a maximum of 70 townhouse dwelling units with all units to be served by gravity sewer. Land uses and acreages shall he in general accord with the Land Use Summary depicted on the Application Plan; A minimum of 3500 'square feet of developed recreation area shall be provided at time of approval of 35 or more dwelling units; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including evidence of acquisition of all necessary easements. Fire official approval og method of fire flow provision. The Planning .Co~mission shall not review any final plat or site plan prior to compliance with this condition; August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State Secondary System, including acquisition of any sight distance easements'which may be required; Water quality Best Management Practices shall be employed as recommended by the Watershed Management official and County Engineer. More specifically, the following shall apply: Preservation of the existing lakes in a manner that will provide detention and pollution removal. Minor alterations of the outflow structures may be required as approved by the County Engineer; Implementation of BMPs that are applicable to the site to control runoff and pollutants, to preserve the groundwater table and to eliminate erosion. These BMPs may be grass filter strips, level spreaders, sediment traps in drop inlets, infiltration trenches, and porous asphalt, as suitable to the site soils and the proposed development as recommended by the County Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission. Developer cash contribution to off-site drainage and runoff control projects in accordance with the County ordinances and policies effective at the time of approval of any site plans. Provision shall be made for internal access for emergency vehicles from Grayrock PRD to Jarman Gap II PRD to.be approved by the Fire official and County Engineer; Three copies of a revised application plan are to be submitted in accordance with 38.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such plan shall reflect the conditions contained herein as well as revised conditions of ZMA-79-18 and more specifically: ae Composite plans of ZMA-84-29 Grayrock PRD and ZMA-79-18 Jarman Gay II if open space/amenities are to be shared; or b. Individual plan revisions for Grayrock PRD and Jarman Gap II PRD." Mr. Tucker said when the Planning Commission reviewed the plan for Grayrock it was for the 294 units and the vote was three to two for approval. The Commission has not seen this revised plan since the Board requested that the staff and applicant revise the plan. Mr. Fisher stated that suggested condition #4 for approval of road plans does not specify which roads in the PRD are to be in the State system. Mr. Tucker replied that the cul-de-sac has not been named at this time and he suggested calling it the "collector" road. The State will not take into its system the side streets because they have parking on them. There is only one road in the plan that will qualify for acceptance. Mr. Fisher asked how preservation of existing lakes would be insured in perpetuity. Mr.. Tucker replied that what has been omitted is a separate condition to speak to the homeowners agreement. As indicated, this property could-be developed as two separate PRD's and'it may be that only one group of homeowners would have the benefit of using the lakes. Mr. Tucker suggested that this be left up to the applicant.'- Nr. Fisher asked if playgrounds, roads that are not in the State system, and maintenance lakes would normally be covered by a homeowners agreement. Mr. Tucker replied yes. Mr. Fisher said that should be noted as a possible defect. Mr. Lindstrom asked if part of ZMA-84-29 is an amendment to ZMA-79-18. Mr. Tucker replied that ZMA-84~9~aso~g~l~y~r~posed~toi~ake~he place of ZMA-79-18 totally· But the two properties contained in the application have been separated so technically the plan on the southern part is still valid. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Robert B. McKee, representing the applicant ~ addressed the Board. He stated that it was the owner's desire to have the lakes under the control of the homeowners association of Grayrock. However, as a part of that covenant the lakes would be accessible to and for use by the balance of the property. In the event that Jarman Gap PRD were developed in the future there would need to be some sort of common h~ homeowners association agreement between the two separate projects, whereby the lakes would be under the control of both developments. Mr. Fisher stated that maintenance of the lakes has to be addressed in the conditions of approval. Mr. McKee said that responsibility will rest with the Grayrock homeowners associatio~ Mr. McKee then addressed item #7 calling for a revised application plan. He said a plan addressing the area north of the two ponds has been prepared and there is already a plan of record for the envire site. He did not see any reason to copy the plan that was approved in 1979. Mr. Tucker stated that there are basically two plans. There is an old plan for the southern part of the property and a new plan for the northern part. The staff wants one plan that shows both parts together. This will avoid any confusion and questions in the future. It can be very difficult to combine two sets of plans when neither are complete and b~th have separate conditions, layouts or designs. Mr. McKee replied-that the applicant would comply with this condition. Mr. Robert Savage, the owner, addressed the Board. He said that "in perpetuity" is a long time. These are spring-fed lakes on the property and as long as the springs continue to feed the lakes, the intention is to keep them the way they are. M~. Fisher said they are being presented to the Board and to the' homeowners as an amenity, so are therefore something to be maintained by the' 'hOmeoWners~ not by the County or the owner. ~t is best to have that spelled out at the beginning. August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Edward Bauer, representing the Crozet Community Association, presented his comments to the Board. He addressed two concerns of the Association. The Association's first concern is the splitting of the PRD in two parts. In April the Board asked staff to see if Phase I could be approved while the southern portion of the property remained a orchard. He did not think this was done to allow the applicant to come back with a request for higher density. Although the staff report did not come up with any way to avoid this, there is no reason to split the PRD into two portions. The second concern is the density on the~property. Crozet Community Association has been considering both the Comprehensive Plan and the Grayrock plan since the last meeting. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a 600 percent increase in population and if the roads are dangerous now, there is no real likelyh0od that they will get better. The Associatio expressed feelings of anxiety and apprehension. He would like to point out that the concerns of the people are reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. The most commen~s he has heard are that the community not be fragmented. There is a standard in the Comprehensive Plan which provides fo~ a density above two units per acre and is directed to this point of fragmenting the ~ community. Page 181 of the Comprehensive Plan states: ,'Ail dwelling units above a density of two per acre should have unobstructed pedestrian access to a community center, a neighborhood center and public recreation." In Mr. Donnelly's April 9 report, he said that if development was going to be at the lower end of the ranges in the Comprehensive Plan, the population would grow from 1925 to 11,380 which is just below the 13,270 designated maximum development ~o potential in Crozet. At the upper end of the ranges, the population would grow to 30,325 which means that the Association wants to somehow keep the average density of development at the lower end of the range. He urged the Board to limit development to two units per acre. Mr. McKee has said that townhouse development is not economical if there are only two dwellings per acre. Comprehensive Plan envision townhouses being close to the center of the community so a person could walk to the business center, and that two-acre lots be put in outlying growth area. Mr. Bauer said this provision was quoted from the Comprehensive Plan in the original staff report on Grayrock. Grayrock is not the center of the community. It is only a center of activity for the neighborhood. Presumably whatever will be built in the way of recreation will be for the use of the residents of Grayrock neighborhood and not open to members of the public. Mr. Henley said in reply to Mr. Bauer's remarkes, he believes the Comprehensive Plan states "should" and not "shall". Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bauer if he was advising the Board to deny this application. Mr. Bauer said he is not, but does not want the Board to approve more than two units per acre. In the near future the owner can come back and also have a townhouse development on the southern portion. Mr. Henley said in that case plans would have to be changed and he does not believe the Board would agree. There were over 300 units shown on the original Grayrock plan. Mr. Bauer said his logic is to allow two units per acre which will be 17_4]units. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if the entire amount of acreage on the Grayrock plan is 73 acE~os. Mr. Tucker said yes. The density, if approved by the Board, plus the amendment to the~ Jarman Gap II RPN would be 107 units on 73 acres. On the northern part, the density will be approximately 3.3 du/acre. The southern part will be considerably lower. Mr. Tucker said the reason for this is that the road on the northern part (Rt. 684) is still considered by the Highway Department as tolerable. Route 691 on the lower side (southern side) is nontolerable. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom responded to a point Mr. Bauer made at the beginning of his presentation. Given the fact that Crozet is a growth community in the Comprehensive Plan, it would not be consistent with the County's planning to show the balance of the property essentially as for future consideration. He is satisfied with the staff's solution that the balance of the property remain in the zoning category that it presently holds, which is another PRD, adjusted appropriately to reflect the land that has been taken out to create the Grayrock PRD. He recognizes that the applicant could come back for another rezoning and whenever that happens the Board will have to interpret the plans and consider Mr. Bauer points. He was concerned with approving the 294 units all at once, but now is more satisfied with the 107 units, which is a much more gradual development in the Crozet community. He expects to support the petition and then asked if the lakes and their maintenance could be elaborated on further. ; Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to suggest an amendment that would incorporate a homeowners agreement into the conditions. Mr. Tucker suggested that a condition #8 be worded: "County Attorney approval of homeowners association agreement, which shall include among other things, maintenance of the lakes, recreational areas and non-state roads." Mr. Bowie said he did not have much trouble with this petition the first time around although he voted to defer for additional studies. A community center can be carried to extremes. As for keeping citizens and children off the road when the recreational facility is on the site itself, if there is footpath access to that Facility, then that intent has been met. There is no reason to open the facility to the public since it is built with private funds. If the owner came back for an upgrade of this petition he would tend to vote no, but at the present he does support this application. Mr. Fisher restated Mr. Tucker's suggested language for condition #8. He also suggested an amendment to condition #2 by adding "or bonded" after the word "provided" and the word "subdivision" between "of" and "apprOved"; and inserting the word "collector" in condition #4 between the words "of" and "road". He asked if there were any other amendments suggested at this point. Mr. Tucker said that since the applicant has indicated they do intend to show the open space and amenities for shared maintenance item #7b could be deleted which deals with ~nd~vidual plan revisions. Motion was then offered by M~. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve ZMA-85-29, with the following conditions (provisions) to be included in the report required by section 8.5.1(i) of the Zoning Ordinance: August 21, 1985 (Rexula-r Night Meeti-ng Approval is for a maximum of 70 townhouse dwelling units with all units to be served by gravity sewer. Land uses and acreages shall be in general accord with the Land Use Summary depicted on the Application Plan; e A minimum of 3,500 square feet of developed recreation area shall be provided or bonded-at time of subdivision approval of 35 or more dwelling units; -- ~ Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans including evidence-.of acquisition of all necessary easements. Fire offical approval of method of fire flow provision. The Planning Commission shall not review any final plat or site plan prior to'. compliance with this condition; County Engineer and Virginia Deparment of Highways and Transportation approval of ~.; collector road plans for acceptance, into the State Secondary System, including acquisition of any site distance easements which may be required; Water quality Best Management Practices shall be employed as recommended by the Watershed Management official and County Engineer. More specifically, the following shall apply: Preservation of the existing lakes in a manner that will provide detention and pollution removal. Minor alterations of the outflow structures may be required as~, approved by the County Engineer; Implementation of BMPs that are applicable to the site to control runoff and pollutants, to preserve the groundwater table, and to eliminate erosion. These BMBs may be grass filter strips, level spreaders, sediment traps in drop inlets, i~filtration trenches, and porous asphalt, as suitable to the site soils and the proposed development as recommended by the County Engineer and approved by the Planning Commission; c. Developer case contribution to off-site drainage and runoff control projects in accordance with the County ordinances and policies effective at the time of approval of any site plans. Provision shall be made for internal access.for emergency vehicles from Grayrock PRD to Jarman Gap II PRD to be approved by the Fire official and County Engineer; Three copies of a revised application plan are to be submitted in accordance with 38.5.5-'- of the Zoning Ordinance. Such plan shall reflect the conditions contained herein as wet1. as revised conditions of ZMA-79-18 and more specifically: a. Composite plans of ZMA-84-29 Grayrock PRD and ZMA-79-18 Jarman Gap II if open space./~ amenities are to be shared; -- County Attorney approval of homeowners association agreement, which shall include among ~'-~ other things, maintenance of the lakes, recreational areas and non-state maintained roads... The motion carried by the following recorded vote: .... AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and L~ndstrom. None. Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-85-42. James K. Barr Estate. (Deferred from August 7, 1985.) Mr. Tucker stated that the applicant has requested deferral until September 4, 1985. ~isher noted that the applicant's letter was dated August 16, 1985 and wanted to know if the.~ adjoining 'hh~ property owners had been notified. No member of the public was present to speak. Mr. Tucker replied that the applicant requested deferral in order to amend his plans in ~ accordance with the concerns of the Planning Commission, and also to solicit Anput from a adjoining property owners, who would use the internal road he plans. The applicant has not had an opportunity to complete all these tasks thus requests deferral. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial, but ~ggested ~t may haYe recommended ~ approval if the density were lowered. Mr. Fisher stated that if the applicant is planning to amend his plans, he feels the petition should go back to the Planning Commission. The Board should not look at something that is different from what the Planning Commission considered. Mr. Tucker said the Commission stated they would look at it more Favorably if it was develope~ at a lower density. Mr. Fisher said the Board should either hear what the Commission has he-~rd or let the revisions go back to the Commission. The Board can take a look at the appiication~o but they could refer it back to the Commission. Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be appropriate.~to~ inform the applicant of the Board's concern, and state that the application may be referred back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said a statement could be incorporated, into the letter when rescheduling the application, to the effect that if there are substantial change~ the Board will reserve the right to refer the application back to the Commission for additional hearings. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer SP-85-42 until September 4, 1985, at the applicant's request. In the letter to the applicant, the Board requests a statement to wit: "If substantial changes in the plan are presented at this time, the Board:is reserving the right to refer the application back to the Planning Commission. If the applicant': feels this may occur, he may wish to just go back to the Planning Commission himself, so as to cut out an additional hearing on the petition." The motion carried b.y the following re~orded vote: .... AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. August ~21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-85,19. James E. Crenshaw. To rezone a 1.3 acre parcel form C! to HC Existing use Texaco Service Station. Property located on northwest quadrant of Rt. 250 and new Rt. 20 intersection. Tax Map 79, parcel 4. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the D.a!ly~Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Character of the Area: ~his property is developed with a gasoline service station and auto rental. While some other properties in this quadrant are developed, substantial vacant C-1 Commercial zoning exists. (Mr. Tucker said the zoning on the west side of Rt. 20 is C-1. The majority of zoning on the south side is PD-SC where Riverbend Shopping Center is located. Most of the land to the east of Rt. 20 and north and south of 250E is Highway Commercial.) Staff Comment: The applicant proposes construction of a one-bay automated car wash. The facility would be operated by bloth coin and token (tokens will be distributed with gasoline sales). Since the car wash would be automated, 24-hour service is possible. Wash water would be recycled reducing water consumption to the rinse cycle (i.e. - above 10 pe!rcent of normal consumption). Staff opinion is that the site is adequate to accommodate this additional use and that the applicant's requeslt is reasonable. However, staff has the Df following concerns: The Rt. 250E/ Rt. 20N/Rive~rbend Drive intersection is a major intersection requiring thorough analysi!s of development proposals in the immediate area; This rezoning petition is .a conventional rezoning. If approved as submitted, any Highway Commercial use could be subsequently established. Also, approval would indicate availabilitly of unrestricted Highway Commercial rezoning possibilitites for other p!roperties in the area; ¸4. The site plan as currently proposed is unacceptable in terms of on-site circulation and traffic conflicts with Rt. 20N; (Mr. Tucker said the plan has now been revised and meets with the staff's approval.) The applicant proposes continued usage of the well and septic system. Items 1 one 2 two are clearly matters to be considered in rezoning. Staff would also recommend resolution of is. sues in items 3 and 4, and authorization of staff approval of site plan fol;lowing review by the Site Review Committee." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 6, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning. However, the Commission noted that it did not grant administrative approval or give staff the authority to approve the site plan administratively because of concerns regarding connecltion to public water and sewer. Basically, the Commission feels this site should connect to public water and sewer which ara currently available across the str~eet as well as in Riverbend Sihopping Center. The Planning Commission_ required ~ an~.~dSac~nto~D~y~o~n~,~ilco Gasoline, to hook to public water and sewer. Staff had problems with traffic circulation regarding this particular site plan. The circulation for the car wash has been changed so as to meet with staff approval. The Commission felt the rezoning request was appropriate even though ;the property is contiguous to other C-1 zoning and approval could set a precedent. This is an area that could support highway commercial because of its access and frontage on Route 250 EaSt. Mr. Fisher stated that any site plan has absolutely nothing to do with the request that is before the Board. The Board is being asked to provide unrestricted highway commercial zoning on this entire parcel. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker what the Comprehensive Plan shows about highway commercial in this area· Mr. Tucker said the Plan basically just shows commercial zoning. It does not distinguish between highway commercial or general commercial. Route 250 East is proposed to be four-laned at some future time. The portion of the gasoline station where the pumps are located will then have to be moved back but where the car wash will be situated w.ill not be impacted. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a minimum acreage required for highway commercial. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe so. Mr. Bowie asked if both sides of Route 250 are already zoned highway commercial. Mr. Tucker said that on the east side it is. On the south side of 250 is planned development-shopping center which allow many uses which are controlled through submitted plans. Ail of the area east of Rt. 20 on 250 is highway commercial. The public hearing was opened. Mr. E. B. Jordan, representing the applicant, addressed the Board. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Jordan that the Board is not reviewing the site plan. Whatever plan is shown to the Board cannot be a part of the action that will be taken here. Mr. Jordan explained that he was here to solicit the Board's support to change the zoning of Pantops Texaco from C-1 to Highway Commercial. The applicant proposes to install an automated car wash service. They surveyed their customers about a month ago and came up with between 250 and 300 people who would like to have a car wash on this property. The car wash will be installed to the rear and side of the property. The cars that go into the car wash will come back out on the property at the 250 exit or on Rt. 20. The traffic will basically be the same as the existing traffice on the site. The car wash will wash a car in a minute. The applicant proposes using well water. The well was tested and proved to have a very good water supply from the Rivanna River. He explained that the system that will be used will reclaim 18 of 20 gallons of water used, thus only two to three gallons of water is used with each car. Grates August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) will be at the bottom of the site to drain that water which will not be ~ecycled. The water that is not recycled will be taken to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and they will, process it. There will be no strain on public utilities. The building will be called Texaco.~. Systems 2000. The area will be landscaped and this will be a great addition to the neighb~ooc The car wash will not be operating 24 hours; probably from 6 a.m. to 12 midnight. Mr. Fisher interrupted Mr. Jordan and restated that what the Board is doing is to decide if this land should be made available for all the uses that are permissible under highway~. commercial zoning. The Board is not concerned with plans for the land. That proposal would not be binding. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jordan if he could speak a little more as to why this property should be zoned for highway commercial.use. Mr. Jordan stated that most of the parcels east of this property are ha already highway commercial. When the gasoline station moved to this location, highway commercial zoning was not required. They would have applied for highway commercial if that was needed. With no one else to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker if the strip of land along Route 20 east of this property is highway commercial. Mr. Tucker replied yes, everything from the Wilco Station is C-1. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to read the items that are permissible under highway commercial. _Mr. Tucker read the items from the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Cooke stated she had no problem with supporting this request. The businesses t~at are presently located in this area are compatible. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mrs. Cooke. Also, he has walked over the entire plot and the access points and found these acceptable. Mr. Fisher said he also tends to support this request, but cautioned the Board not to confuse the zoning action with the site plan which is a separate approval the Planning ~o Commission must give. At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve ZMA-85-I Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-85-51. Faith Mission Home. To allow a home for developmentally disabled persons on 99.0 acres zoned RA. Property located on Rt. 601 about .9 miles north of Rt. 604 and Rt. 810. Tax Map 3, parcels 6 and 6A. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 6 and August 13, 1985.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report and noted that the correct acreage for this petition is 94.05: "Character of the Area: The main portion of the Mission Home complex is across Rt. 601. Other properties in the area are large tracts. This property, acquired by Faith Mission Home in 1976, contains one dwelling (with lifetime rights for the previous owner). Staff Comment: Faith Mission Home, in operation for some twenty years, is an education/ residential care facility for ambulatory, brain-injured children. Under this petition, the applicant proposes the following: To provide care, residence and individualized vocational skills for older boys and girls who have outgrown the elementary facility; Part of the property will be utilized as a small agricultural project for boys consisting of perhaps twelve beef cattle, some garden farming and firewood cutting for private use; Dogwood Cottage is a proposed group home for four boys, eighteen years and older. There will be house parents living in one part of the Cottage to supervise the boys. The primary intent is to provide a structured, individualized environment for further development in practical skills. Goals for these youth would include some cooking, financial management, etc., including projects in item 2; Although we have no present plans for constructing another group home, this would remain a possibility for the future; Another proposed use for the property is for staff dwellings. are employed at Faith Mission Home. Staff Section 5.1.7 of the Supplementary Regulations states that: ae Conditions may be imposed on such homes to insure their compatibility with other permitted uses but such conditions shall not be more restrictive than those imposed on other dwellings in the same districts unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of such home; August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) 529 In particular, homes for developmentally disabled persons shall be subject to Albemarle County Fire official review. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has stated that: 'A commercial entrance with adequate sight distance will be required to serve this site. The Department recommends that a site plan be submitted for any development at this location so that it can be reviewed for compliance with the Department's standards.' Staff Recommendation: From the applicant's description, it appears that the only immediate construction would be Dogwood Cottage to house four boys and house parents. Additional development contemplated at some future date would include another group home and staff housing. Staff offers the following comment and recommendations: Both immediate and future possible development appear consistent with 'by right' residential use of the property. Since only dwellings are proposed, staff recommends that no additional analysis under the criteria for issuance of a special use permit is warranted; Since the only immediate construction proposed is the Dogwood Cottage, staff does not recommend requirement of a site plan or commercial entrance to the property at this time. However, the applicant is encouraged to plan for future development including location and construction of a commercial entrance at this time. Under Section 5.1.7(a) staff can determine no need for special conditions', other than Fire Official approval as required under 5.1.7(b). Staff recommends approval, including future possible development as outlined by the applicant, subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building Official approvals; Staff approval prior to issuance of each building permit to insure compliance with Section 5.1.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and construction of commercial entrance when deemed necessary." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 6, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of this special use permit with the above recommended staff conditions. They added a third condition to wit: "Future possible development shall be restricted to that which is outlined in the applicant's letter of July 3, 1985 to Mr. Ronald W. Keeler (copy on file)". Mr. Tucker said items one through five were taken from the applicant's letter and presented in the staff's report for the Board's review. Mr. Tucker explained that the intent o: Mr. Yoder's letter is that the special use permit would be tied to these five items. Mr. Fishei did not feel that any statement limits future development. If approved this way, the applicant is basically saying that anything they want to put on these acres can be done so as a matter of right. Mr. Tucker said that was a correct interpretation. Future development is outlined in the applicant's letter. The things they are proposing are Uses they can do as a matter of right, but a group home is being requested at this time. The other items are things they may want in the future. Mr. Fisher said he wanted to tie approval down to one statement. Mr. Tucker stated that the Board would have to determine tonight the limitation on development of the property. Mr. Tucker explained that the way group homes are designed in the zoning ~ o~i~ance, for example, is that in the R-10 district a group home could have a density of ten dwelling units per acre. In the rural areas district similar types of uses are provided. Mr. Fisher said this approval will not increase the densit~y but only provide for this type of use. Mr. Tucker said that the staff did not feel the things applicant wants to do in the future are in conflict with what the zoning district already permit. Mr. Fisher said he felt that someone might interpret the letter as giving the right to do those things. Mr. Fisher suggested there be no increase in residential development rights from what exist on the property now. The public hearing was opened and Mr. Yoder addressed the Board. The applicant explained that they have presently outgrown the facilities they have. There are presently four group homes, no room for any more, and parents are concerned about the children's future. They want to build a group home at this location, not fill the property with group homes, but want to haw the option to add another group home in the future. There are a number of married staff workin at the home. They also want the option to place some staff dwellings in the future. The applicant is not seeking a density increase. He is looking at a miniature farm program. With no one else present to speak the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker suggested condition #3 be worded to state: "future development shall be a_~ restricted to group homes or staff homes not to exceed the density permitted within the RA district". Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley to approve SP-85-51 witr the following conditions: 1. Fire and Building official approvals; Staff approval prior to issuance of each building permit to insure compliance with Section 5.1.7 of the Zoning Ordinance and construction of commercial entrance when deemed necessary; Future development shall be restricted to group homes or staff homes not to exceed the density permitted within the RA district. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and~Li~ds~rom. None. Mr. Way. 53O August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie said that last week it was mentioned that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission~ minutes could be attached to the other paperwork on each petition. That was done for tonight's meeting and he thanked the Clerks for this. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Endorsement of Airport Authority debt for vehicle parking project. This item was deleted from the agenda by Mr. Agnor and deferred until ~ September 4, 1985. Agenda Item No. 14. School Fund Transfer for Fiscal Year 1984-85. Mr. Agnor noted~receipt of the following memorandum dated August 16, 1985 from Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance: "The School Fund completed the 1984/85 fiscal year with total expenditures being less than the budgeted appropriations. However, the cost centers listed below exceeded their appropriations which can be offset by transfers from other cost centers with unexpended balances. COST CENTER BUDGET ACTUAL OVEREXPENDITURE General Compensation School Board Community Services Vehicle Maintenance Special Education Crozet School Murray School Red Hill School WAHS-Instruction Burley Middle School Jouett Middle School $18,902,585.00 $19,005,575-.24 $102,990.24 614,081.00 8,713.00 329.780.00 202,704.00 32,286.00 23,239.00 47,448.00 253,875.00 89,015.00 127,817.00 614,997.83 -8,828.28 351,119.11 204,593.46 33,866.81 24,384.61 52,827.23 260,259.33 128,005.01 128,437.63 916.83 15.28 21,339.11 1,889.46 1,580~81 1,145.61 5,379.23 6,384.33 39,005.01 620.63 These overexpenditures resulted from: General Compensation. The majority of this amount resulted from the Schools elimination of vacation accruals of which you were advised by memo dated August 23, 1984. 2. Vehicle Maintenance. Purchase of repair p-arts. Burley School. The gas meter installed had not been added to the City of Charlottesville billing system which resulted in several years back charges being received in 1984/8-5. You were noti-fied of this by memo. Utility Cost. The majority of-the remaining overexpenditures are due to actual cost of electrical and gas services exceeding budget projections. As previously stated these overexpenditures can be offset by transfers from other cost centers with unexpended bala-nces and your approval of the attached transfers is requested. No additional appropriation is required." Mr. Agnor reported that if the requested transfers are not made, the audit report wil~-cOm, out with a negative comment which could affect the County's ratings for borrowing moneys-.---Mr~ Agnor said the School Fund had $27.8 million-for operations and ended the year with revenues exceeding expenditures by slightly more than $23,000-which increased that fund balance in t'he School Fund to a total of $187,111. Mr. Fisher recognized the new Superintendent of Schoo.ts,-:N. Andrew Overstreet, and the School Finance Director, David ~penfuse. Mr. Overstreet said they were present in the event that a clarification was needed· Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by .Mrs. Cooke, to approve the followi~ng transfers in the School Fund to offset overexpenditures. --- Transfers to: Expenditure Code(s): Description Amount 1 2000 60000 100135 1 2000 60000 201400 1 2000 60100 300218 1 2000 60111 540104 1 2000 60133 540700 1 2000 60151 300100 1 2000 60623 510200 1 2000 60628 510200 1 2000 60629 510200 1 2000 60761 510100 1 2000 60771 510200 1 2000 60773 510100 Comp-Teachers Stipend - Vacation Tuition - Pupil Copy Supplies Repair/Maintenance Professional Health Service Heating Services Heating Services Heating Services Electrical.Service Heating Services Electrical Service $28,162.85 74,827.39 916.83 15.28 21,339.11 1,889.46 1,580.81 1,145.6t 5,379.23 6,384.33 39,005.01 620.63 August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) vote: Transfers from: 1 2000 60774 510100 1 2000 60772 510100 1 2000 60763 100202 1 2000 60753 100202 1 2000 60751 510200 1 2000 60633 510100 1 2000 60633 510200 Electrical Service Electrical Service Stipend Activities Stipend Activities Heating Services Electrical Service Heating Services 7,772.73- 5,246.09- 4,015.11- 1,903.54- 25,495.66- 2,000,00- 2,000.00- 1 2000 60621 510200 1 2000 60171 100201 1 2000 60171 540200 1 2000 60171 541200 1 2000 60154 300218 1 2000 60154 700100 1 2000 60153 550100 1 2000 60145 700100 1 2000 60140 100123 1 2000 60132 541700 1 2000 60131 510200 1 2000 60131 540700 1 2000 60130 100145 1 2000 60120 200900 Heating Services Stipends Inst. Food Service Supplies Education/Rec. Supplies Tuition-Pupil ~_~_~Machinery & Equipment Travel Machinery & Equipment Comp-Instructuional Puel& Lubricants Heating Services Repair/Maintenance Service Comp-Bus Drivers Unemployment Insurance 6,000.00- 51,500.00- 6,000.00- 16,000.00- 1,000.00- 1,000.00- 1,000.00- 1,400.00- 14,000.00- 6,000.00- 1,200.00- 1,733.41- 20,000.00- 6,000.00- The roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Mr. Fisher said he had attended the "All-Teachers Day" at Albemarle High School today. There are quite a number of new teachers in the system. The spirit and enthusiasm expressed by the~people who spoke was evident and he was very pleased to observe that. Agenda Item No. 13. Authorization for Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation to proceed wit remodeling Visitor's Center Building. Mr. Agnor presented the following memo dated August 16, 1985: "You will recall the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, in their twenty year lease of the Visitors Center Building, planned to design and pay for remodeling improvements to the building to accommodate the Visitor's Bureau and Foundation's use of the building. The design plans for the improvements have been completed by Johnson, Craven and Gibson, architects, and a copy forwarded to this office requesting authorization for the Foundation to proceed. The changes have been reviewed with the Visitor's Bureau Board and the Management Committee. The principal alterations are: 1. The ramp to the visitors entrance is being altered to take visitors to the middle of the existing terrace on the front of the building where they can choose to go to the Visitor's Bureau through the existing entrance, or to the Foundation's exhibits in the lobby area in the center of the building through existing doors that have primarily served as exit doors. Once inside, visitors can move from one area to the other. 2. Handicap access will be on the north end of the building on an existing ramp. A new entry and exit will be provided.on the north end. 3. Access to res~rooms from the terrace will be provided. access is from the inside, which will also be retained. Currently 4. The gift shop will be relocated to the north end of the building in one of the two theater locations. One theater will be retained. The Visitor's Bureau will retain an information desk in the south end of the lobby area, and two existing offices for its staff. The Foundation will occupy two offices also. Except for a gift shop and theater, the balance of the building will be used for exhibits on Jefferson and Monticello. The remodeling is scheduled to commence in September, and will be staged to minimize disruption in the use of the building. It is recommended that the Foundation be authorized to proceed with the work." ~!ia'~aMotion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the changes to the Visitor's Center Building and authorize Mr. Agnor to execute the necessary documents on behalf of the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. 53£ August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: February 13 and February 20 (night), 1985. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve February 13, 1985 minutes, pages 1 through 12 as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public. Item No. 4.2 from Consent Agenda. County Executive's Financial Report for June, 1985. An audited financial report for the period of July 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985, dated August 15, 1985, was reviewed by the Board. The June 30, 1985 General Fund balance increased by $2,595,000 as a result of the excess of revenues over budgeted amounts and the unexpended balan~ of appropriations increasing the General Fund balance to $12.9 million. In addition, the General Fund cost cen~ers experienced no over-expenditures for FY 84-85. The School completed FY 84-85 with current revenues exceeding expenditures by $23,668.53. This amount, plus the previous fund balance, gives the Education Department a positive fund balance of $187,111.47 (A copy of the above referenced report is on file in the Clerk's office). Mr. Bowie reported that the General Fund has a $2.5 million surplus. The School Board had $23,000 out of a $37 millian budget. He commented that none of the County department heads wen1 over the budget and all managed within their allotted amount of funds. He wanted to ~ congratulate them on their work. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor why there was a 60 percent varfance on earnings on investments. Mr. Agnor explained that there were more funds to invest than anticipated at the time the budget was drafted. Also, it was projected that the downward turn in the interest rat~ would occur in August and it actually came much later. Mr. Lindstrom said last Spring the Board had discussed having a preliminary budget work session in the middle of autumn when the initial revenue projections are made for the coming. budget year. He asked if this is still possible. Mr. Agnor replied the staff would like to finish one quarter of the year before making the projections. Also, the staff will need to knob who will be involved. Mr. Lindstrom felt it should be this Board and staff. Mr. Bowie stated that perhaps the Board might come up with some firm guidelines for those requesting funds in thc next year. Mr. Fisher said the Board might try doing this once and see what happens. Mr. Agnor said he received a copy of a letter from the Governor's office to Mayor Raymon Thacker of Scottsville indicating that the town's application for Community Development Block Grant funds for $40,815 has been reviewed and approved. Although the Governor's office i~ indicated that it has not completed the review, the funds will be provided. Mr. Agnor said thai the money that was put in the County's Capital Improvement Budget for the Scottsville Levy Project should be left there for the time being. Mr. Agnor stated that a draft of the County's first Annual Report had arrived on his desk today. The report is still in rough draft and he is sending it back to have it reprinted before the Board reviews same. Miss Neher said that Mr. Jim Peterson called and said that the Region Ten Community Servic~ Board is going to ask that the Board and City Council have a joint meeting like they had last Fall. The date suggested is October 17, 1985. A letter will follow. Mr. Agnor said he had received a call this afternoon from the University of Virginia administration indicating that the Alumni Association that holds an option on property in the vicinity of the Airport has notified the property owner that they are going to exercise the option. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Delegate Allison Smith commending the County on the selection of its new director of planning, Mr. John Home, Jr. He has done an ~ outstanding job in Frederick County and Mr. Smith is sure he will do a good job in Albemarle. Agenda Item No. 16a. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, the Board went into executive session at 9:15 p.m. for legal matters, the Starks pending litigation, the Greenwood Chemical case, and potential ligitation regard to the flood control program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. Mr. Henley left the meeting at this time and did not go into executive session. At 10:14 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. August 21, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 17. Adjournment. At 10:15 p.m., on motion offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, the Board adjourned until September 4, 1985, at 3:00 p.m. Roll was callsd and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom. None. Messrs. Henley and Way.