Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-16 adjMay 16, 1984 Afternoon (Adjourned from May 9, 1984) A j~int meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held on May 16, 1984, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 9, 1984. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: and Peter T. Way. Messrs. Frederick R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. David ?. Bowerman, Richard P. Cogan, Mrs. Norma J. Diehl and Messrs. Richard F. Gould, Timothy M. Michel, James R. Skove and Harry F. Wilkerson. OFFICERS PRESENT: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive and Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. 4:07 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, at Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting of Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Cooke is absent because business demands made it impossible for her to attend, and Mr. Lindstrom is away at a conference. Mr. Fisher said that a copy of the 1983 Annual Report of the Planning Commission has been received by all the Board members. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Bowerman, Chairman of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said that in the four and one-half years during which he has been a member of the Commission, he feels the current Commission is as good as any Commission on which he has ever served. He feels that the present Commission has been very effective especially during the l~st five months. Mr. Bowerman said some of the items which he would like to discuss today are attempts the Planning Commission is making to deal with lengthy agendas. Mr. Bowerman said the Annual Report ~was submitted to the Board and the Commission members wanted to be sure that any items in the report for which the Board has questions can be discussed. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission recognizes that there are some problems with the Zoning Map and the densities allowed; particularly the increase in densities allowed by some of the bonus provisions regarding landscaping and proximity to schools (definition of the type of school, is unclear, and location of the property being within one-half mile of the school needs to be defined). Mr. Bowerman said the Commission feels that in some cases the densities allowed using bonuses are on land which cannot support such densities, and which good planning would not allow. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission wishes'to look at these bonus provisions and maybe reduce same or at least give the Commission more control over granting these bonuses than is currently permitted. Mr. Fisher asked if many applicants have made use of the bonus provisions. Mr. Bowerman answered that in the urban ,area, bonus provisions are being used by developers whenever possible. He continued that where these provisions are being used, the terrain is generally rather rough, and much of the land is being left in open space. This has resulted in the very intense use of land on some applications. Mr. Bowerman said that every time an application contains use of bonuses the Commission questions use of some of these provisions. Mr. Fisher commented that in the urban areas, practically every piece of land lies within one-half mile of a school, depending on how that distance is measured. Mr. Fisher asked about the bonus provisions for low and moderate income housing. He asked if any developer has been able to take advantage of this provision. Mr. Tucker said there have been two people who discussed using that provision. Mrs. Diehl said that in theory the bonus provisions sound really nice. She said that because these bonus provisions are allowed in the urban area and the urban area is essentially already developed, the Commission members feel that the urban land is just marginal land to begin with. ~Mr. Cogan said the bonus provisions are often used as a tool to make something fit that normally would not fit. Also, there is an overlap between the bonus density and what should normally be required anyway. Mr. Cogan said he feels that things have gotten out of hand; the use of the land is being overintensifed and the County is receiving nothing in revurn. Mr. Wilkerson asked if land is dedicated for highway purposes and then for some reason the highway is nov built, if the developer can request his land back for another use. Mr. Tucker said once land is dedicated, the developer would have to come before the Board of Supervisors and request that the land be abandoned so the developer would have use of same. Mr. Fisher pointed out that this would apply only if the land were truly dedicated; if the land had only been reserved, the developer still owns the land. Mr. Tucker acknowledged this to be so adding that in such a case, the developer would have to appear before the Planning Commission and request that the Commission allow a different use of that property. Mr. Bowerman said that the study of the bonus provisions in the Zoning Ordinance is one of the first things coming up on a future work session of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman said he thought bonuses were originally offered by the Board of Supervisors when creating the new Zoning Ordinance in order to encourage development within the urban area. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission intends to study the bonus provisions and in all likelihood, will recommend reducing the density provisions in some districts, or recommend that more public gain be obtained from the granting of these bonus provisions. Mr. Fisher said the concept of granting bonuses was to encourage developers to provide amenities they would not ordinarily provide. Mr. Bowerman said another area of concern regards mobile home subdivisions. The Planning Commission ran into problems with this last month in terms of placing same in proximity to existing development, areas where the mobile homes might be placed, and lack of utilities. The Com~on wants to look at this question since the Comprehensive Plan suggests trying to encourage that mobile homes be placed in certain locations, particularly 169 May 16:1984 Afternoon (Adjourned from May 9~ 1984) where public utilities are available. Mr. Skove pointed out that with reference to this issue, the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous in that it requires location outside the growth areas, yet public utilities are needed and can only be obtained in the growth areas. Mr. Fisher said he believes there have been provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for mobile home subdivisions ever since he has been on the Board, adding that only one or two requests have been received in all this time. Mr. Fisher said there has not been a large demand for these types of subdivisions, but on the recent request, the very scale of the mobile home sub- division is what struck him. Mr. Fisher said if steps can be taken to encourage smaller mobile home concentrations, same might be acceptable and better for the community as a whole. Mr. Bowerman said there are some existing mobile home parks in the urban area lying between Route 29 North, Hydraulic Road, and Rio Road, and he believes the land will be eventually developed into something else. He suspects there will soon be a demand for relocation of some of these mobile home units. Mr. Cogan said one problem is a conflict between what is required by County ordinances for mobile homes, and what is economically feasible for those individuals who wish to place same. Mr. Cogan said that locations within the urban area for mobile homes where utilities are available are simply not economically feasible to develop. A developer would be wiser to develop the land into some other use. This results in mobile home units being located outside of the urban area where there'are no public utilities. Mr. Cogan agreed with Mr. Fisher that while studying this whole issue, smaller scale parks should be reviewed as opposed to very large concentrations of these units. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission also needs to review special use permit provisions for mobile homes. In almost every case where an objection is made, it involves the statement that a particular mobile home is not conducive to the neighborhood and really belongs in a mobile home park. This creates a conflict in that the applicant then states that there is no room in a mobile home park to locate the trailer. Mr. Bowerman referred to another item mentioned in the Commission's Annual Report which is to study the so-called 29 North Corridor in terms of patterns of development and impact of the same on the surrounding areas. Mr. Skove suggested that some of the land use planning in the' Comprehensive Plan for that corridor be reviewed. He noted that it seems unlikely the area will get any relief from traffic congestion by any sort of a by-pass route for the ne~ fifteen or twenty years. He feels it is necessary now to look at the projected land uses along that Corridor all the way to the Greene County line. Mr. Skove feels the area around the Airport should be included in this review as should all areas which feed directly into Route 29 North. Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission has consistently denied applications for commercial development on Route 29 above the Airport Road (Route 649) because it has been felt that there is enough commercial land already zoned in the Ho!lymead area. Mr. Fisher said the problem on Route 29 North came about because when zoning first went into effect in 1968, the land along Route 29 from the City limits to Rio Road had some water and sewer lines; this was then the land chosen for commercial use. From that point in t~me, the land was strip developed all along Route 29 North. The Board has attempted to protect the highway beyond Airport Road from such strip commercial development. He commented that it is very difficult to determine what lands along the highway are going to develop versus the need for further commercial development and how it should be done. Mr. Skove said review of this area must be done with the idea in mind that there will be no relief for traffic from a by-pass for a very long time. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Roosevelt had told the Board last week that even if the County and City were in perfect agreement as to location of such a by-pass, same would no~ be built during this century. Mr. Fisher said the Board and others made a strong presentation for funding of the 29 North improvements at a Highway Department hearing in Culpeper recently. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, if he knew of any changes in primary road funding at the present time. Mr. Roosevelt commented that the Board's trip to Culpeper last month brought some positive results. According to the Highway Department internal planning documents, which Mr. Roosevelt received after the Board's appearance in Culpeper, the tentative date for the six-laning of Route 29 North between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road, ahs been moved from early 1989 back to sometime in mid-1987. Mr. Roosevelt said he has heard unofficially that there will be a large amount of money added to the Six-Year Plan for Primary Roads; the new plan will be issued soon. Mr. Fisher said this is very good news. Mr. Roosevelt said the six-lani of Route 29 North could not be moved further ahead because of the engineering work and the public hearing processes; 1987 would be the earliest date this project could be started. Mr. Bowerman said another item in the Annual Report deals with some streamlining procedure the Planning Commission has taken to speed up the review cycle. He then quoted from the Report as follows: "The Commission will continue to review and monitor its attempts to streamline and make more efficient both subdivision and site plan review. The members of the Commission are very aware of the desirability of the public hearings on both subdivisions and site plans which will affect adjacent or nearby property owners. At the same time, it is important that these reviews do not take so much of the Commission's time that rev±ew of and recommendations on long-term planning problems are slighted." ~Mr. Bowerman said the Planning Commission had requested a report from the Planning staff on this subject. It was surprising to him the amount of time the Commission could save taking collectively all the things the Commission has done. Mr. Tucker said that in September, 1983,-the Planning Commission initiated an experimental subdivision plat review which entailed encouraging submission of preliminary plats rather than just final plats. From a surveying point, a schematic plan could be prepared, metes and bounds would not have to be placed on the plat, and not as much engineering work needed to be done. By doing this, the Planning Commission could review the preliminary plat, then authorize the staff to review and approve the final plat provided the final plat followed fairly closely to the preliminary plat. This process has been going on since September. During this time, May 16, 1984 Afternoon (Adjourned from May 9, 1984) twenty-two preliminary plats have been reviewed by the Planning Commission; thirteen have been approved; nine have been either withdrawn, denied or are still pending; out of the thirteen approved, ten were authorized to be given final approved by the staff. In projecting this out, this equates to approximately four hours of time saved by the Planning Commission. '2, Mr. Tucker said there are some other measures which the staff has taken which were initiated by the Planning Commission. One is the waiver of a site plan (this is allowed by Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). This allows the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for a site plan upon the recommendation of the planning director when the site plan would not forward the purposes of the ordinance and not serve the public interest. This request for a waiver goes to the Planning Commission, but takes only a few minutes to review; the Commission then grants staff the authority to review a final site plan. This has been a great savings in time to both the Planning Commission and the applicant. Another measure concerns amendments to site plans. Prior to 1980, any amendments to site plans had to go to the Planning Commission for approval. This required going through the same process as that used for the initial site plan. There is now a provision in the Zoning Ordinance which allows staff to approve certain minor amendments. This too has been used successfully and saved both the Planning Commission and applicant considerable time. Usually when these amendments are proposed, construction is already under way, and the applicant is anxious to receive approval right away; this measure has been very helpful. Another measure is reviewing required site plans at the same time as the rezoning or special use permit is heard.~ This saves the Commission from going through essentially the same process twice because the Commission is able to approve the site plan at the same time as the rezoning is approved. If a special use permit is required by the rezoning, conditions can be placed on the site plan, allowing the staff to approve the site plan after the special use permit is approved. ~Finally, said Mr. Tucker, the revised private roads provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance allow the staff to approve private roads where there are only two lots involved or it is a family division. Mr. Tucker said he envisions that this change will save some time in the future; this amendment has just recently been approved. Mr. Tucker said is has been determined that the combination of all of these measures will save approximately two to four items per meeting for the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman commented that at this point there has been no consensus reached concerning further streamlining of the Planning Commission's agenda. It is his hope that a consensus can be reached soon so the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the Board. The Planning Commission wants to study the issue of subdivisions in general; if there are any subdivision requests that could be approved by staff, under what circumstances this could be done, the right of appeal of adjacent property owners as well as the applicant if either were displeased with the staff recommendations; the right of any Commission member to appeal .that particular subdivision to the Commission. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are a lot of routine subdivision plats which require Planning Commission review; it is the Commission feeling that not all of these plats need to be seen by the Commission if there are no objection~ from members of the public. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Tucker has.just reminded him that the Subdivision Ordinance does not require notification of adjacent property owners on plats for subdivisions, but the Commission does this as a matter of course. Mr. Tucker refuted this saying that while the State Code does not require notification to adjacent property owners, the County's ordinance does. Mr. Bowerman stated it is the intent of the Planning Commission to continue notifying interested members of the public of all requests and filings. Mr. Fisher said his concern about the Planning Commission delegating more and more of its quasi-judicial authority to the staff is that the citizen who must deal with the staff finds himself at the mercy of the staff to not only interpret the regulations, but actually to approve his plan. However, Mr. Fisher said that if there is some way that this can be done with innocuous cases to speed up the process, this is fine. He feels the problem would be in trying to determine which cases are innocuous and.which are not; such provisions would be difficult to write into an ordinance. Mr. Skove said he agrees this is difficult, but he feels it is imperative to be flexible; if a citizen wishes to come before t~he Planning Commission for approval of a request, this option should be open to that citizen. Mr. Fisher said he feels notification of applications received to adjacent property owners is very critical. He continued that keeping a record of where decisions are made, and how decisions are made if this is not part of recorded minutes, is also a problem. Mr. Bowerman said that often complaints are received from adjacent property owners that they were .not notified of a particular request. It is later found that the complaining party had recently purchased his lot so was not the owner of record in the County's files. Mr. Bo~erman said with the new computer operation, he hopes this will become less of a problem in that records will be maintained on a more current basis. Mr. Bowie said he is pleased that the~Planning Commission intends to review how the Route 29 North Corridor should be addressed in terms of land use planning. He agrees that it is important to alleviate the Planning Commission from reviewing many of the routine cases which take so much time; this will be a better method as long as the appeal process remains. Mr. Cogan said The streamlining process is necessary in order to allow the Planning Commission time to devote to long-range planning. Mr. Cogan added that he feels any County citizen who wishes can demand the attention of the Planning Commission itself. Mr. Tucker said he had received a letter from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, who commented on the streamlining process. Mr. Tucker said he will make it a point to send copies of Mr.-Elrod's comments to all members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher asked if the staff was having an easier time getting completed site plan and subdivision plat filings by the time the Technical Review Committee meets each month. Mr. Tucker said this has improved but he attributes this to the Planning Commission taking a very hard,nosed approach and not being receptive to reviewing incomplete plans which causes the Commission to place a long list of conditions on approval. Members of the Technical Review Committee also refused to review incomplete plans. This, said Mr. Tucker, tends to force the applicant to submit a complete preliminary set of plans in order to eliminate returning at a later time for review. Mr. Cogan commented that he has noticed a 95 percent improvement in this regard. Mrs. Diehl commented that this has saved considerable time since previously many items were deferred for lack of sufficient, information. --May 16, 1984 Afternoon (Adjourned from May 9~ 1984) 17! Mr. Tucker pointed.out that because the staff does not have the discretionary powers of the Planning Commission, the staff tends to be somewhat harder on surveyors than does the Commission. Mr. Bowerman noted that on several occasions, the Planning Commission has been used as arbitrator in situations where the applicant has been unable to reach an agreement with the staff. Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone wanted to make comments.on low and moderate income housing. Mr. Fisher said the bonus densities were included in the Zoning Ordinance to help provide this type of housing by. giving essentially "free" land for the units. These provisions have been used in the three years since the ordinance was adopted. Either land is cheap and developers are not willing to make the adjustments necessary to obtain a few extra units, or construction has been so slow that not much has been going on. He asked what the County could do to encourage construction of low and moderate housing. He noted that mobile homes are the only answer for many people. Mr. Fisher said he did an analysis of mobile home ownership which indicated that with the high interest cost, fast payoff and quick depreciation, this is a very expensive means of housing over ten years or longer. Mr. Michel pointed out that this is a national problem and he is not sure anymore can be done than is already being done. He added that developers are not addressing this problem because it does not pay for them to do so. Mr. Skove mentioned multi-family housing as one possible answer to the problem. Mr. Michel said some means needs to be found to encourage ownership as opposed to leasing. Mr. Skove commented that the economic system itself is the problem; banks require a large amount of cash in the beginning, these are the "flexible" interest rates, so the financing is just not available for conventional dwellings. Mr. Fisher said the County already makes grants to individuals with existing homes who cannot afford to pay for materials to improve their homes (this is the AHIP program). He commented that some communities in other states have gone much further than this, although he does not recommend that the County undertake such a scheme. Mr. Fisher said one of the problems is that when the public gets involved in subsidies other than "free" land, the first owner gets a windfall upon sale unless there is some sort of lien on the property which would return that initial public contribution. Mr. Fisher wondered if anyone has considered some type of financing scheme which would address this problem. He would like to explore the economics of this but does not want the public left "holding the bag". Mr. Bowerman said he had talked with Mr. Tucker this morning and he raised the issue of roads shown in the Comprehensive Plan which run through an area contemplated for development (new collector and through roads). It is the policy of the Highway Department to not accept such a road into the State System until the road is built to its ultimate design standard. When an applicant is only going to create a portion of the traffic that will use the new road, that applicant is not willing to build the road to its ultimate standard. The County, therefore, is in limbo concerning the status of these roads shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said several months ago, at the request of the Planning Commission, the Board made a plea to the Highway Department on this issue and he personally made a specific plea on this issue at a Highway Department meeting in Culpeper. A letter was then received from the Highway Department stating that it was unlikely there would be any change in the Department's policy. Mr. Fisher said the policy of the Highway Department really requires that roads in a county's comprehensive plan be built to the design standards of that Plan. Mr. Fisher speculates that unless some change in policy is made at the State level, road planning will have to be done for much shorter periods of time rather than long-range planning. Mr. Tucker said he is concerned that developers will try to meet the demand for housing by developing in the rural areas using their five division rights, or by requesting a special use permit, or the developer will design his road so it is in~ a lo. cation just off-set from the location shown in the County's long-range plans just to provide access to his property Mr. Tucker said this would be a terrible waste since the County would be able to get at least fifty percent of a new road alignment built by the developer. Mr. Fisher said if that is true~ then the areas being shown for development in the Comprehensive Plan may never develop. Mr. Cogan said this is just poor policy and poor policy produces poor results; poor policy really creates attempts to circumvent same. Mr. Fisher said he has had no results from his discussions with legislators regarding this issue; there seems to be little real sympathy for this problem. Mr. Fisher said he really sees no solution other than short-range planning as opposed to long range planning in a comprehensive plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not believe the suggestion just posed by Mr. Fisher will be acceptable to the Highway Department as long as it is known that eventually the road will ultimately require four lanes, or be constructed to a higher standard than that shown in the Comprehensive Plan,. Mr. Bowerman wondered if it would be possible to have a provision for a temporary private road accompanied by a maintenance agreement, with the clear intention that as development occurs, the road will be upgraded and transferred to public ownership and maintenance. Mr. Tucker said this idea has been considered by the staff and was even implemented on one occasion (for the connection of Greenbrier Drive through Townwood). He said this might be an alternative providing maintenance agreements were adequate. Mr. Michel asked who would pay for the maintenance of the road. Mr. Tucker answered that maintenance would be borne by all the property owners in that development until such time as the State took the road into the system. The problem he sees with the Highway Department's policy is that these new roads being discussed would initially only serve the people in the immediate development. Eventually, when the road is completed for its full length, there would be through traffic, but this might not take place for as long as twenty years. Mr. Fisher mentioned as an example, the extension of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road through Hollymead to Proffit Road. He said that even if this road were constructed, there would be no great amount of traffic on same until someone builds the bridge across the' Rivanna River. At that point~ through traffic would increase tremendously. Mr. Bowerman said this is a question that the Planning Commission and Board will have to find some practical way to deal with. ;L72 May 16, 1984 Afternoon (Adjourned from May 9, 1984) Mr. Fisher suggested that as an alternative, all roads be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan, so there will be no ultimate standards. Mr. C0gan said whatever Change the County made in the Comprehensive Plan would be countered by a change in Highway Department policy. Mr. Fisher then referred to a comment made by Mr. Roosevelt concerning the private road provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance and how these provisions may affect bringing existing private roads into the State system. Mr. Tucker said a letter was recently received from the Highway Department stating that if a subdivision ordinance permits a road to be built to a standard less than the Highway Department standard, this road will not be accepted into the State system-at the Highway Department's expense. This has caused the County to reconsider its private road provisions. Mr. Roosevelt said that the County comes into contact with this policy of the Code of Virginia known as the "Rural Addition" law. Mr. Roosevelt said there is an allocation in the Highway budget each year of $20,000 which has historically been used for rural additions. This money can be used to upgrade roads that are not now in the system. But, by having a "private roads ordinance", the County will not be eligible to add subdivision streets. If there were no private road provisions, then any subdivision street that was platted prior to July of 1976 would be eligible for these funds. Mr. Roosevelt said as long as a road could be brought into the system as a rural addition, the preliminary engineering costs could be greatly reduced. Mr. Roosevelt said that under the rural addition law there is no requirement for preliminary engineering work; this would be waived. At the present, ,anyone wishing to have a subdivision street brought into the system, even if willing to absorb the entire cost of upgrading the road, would also have to pay the preliminary engineering costs. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Roosevelt if it is true that any subdivision platted prior to 1959 is still eligible under the rural addition laW. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. Mr. Roosevelt added that most of the additions requested in recent years have been subdivision streets rather than just old roads J that were not taken into the system when the State first took over highway maintenance. Mr. Bowerman asked if this means that the "private roads ordinance" needs to be reviewed again. Mr. Tucker said probably so. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any other items to be discussed. Mr. Agnor suggested setting a date for the next joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher suggested a joint meeting for a progress report in late fall. Mr. Fisher then recommended the date of October 3, 1984 as the next joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher requested that copies of the minutes of this meeting be sent to all members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher commented that the minutes of the Board's meetings are being kept fairly current. He asked Mr. Tucker if the Planning staff is keeping fairly close to schedule. Mr.' Tucker said his staff is rather far behind; the Planning Department is understaffed just for transcribing minutes. Mr. Tucker said the staff is still behind, but the situation has improved since last year. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Planning Commission does meet every Tuesday night and has for at least four years. He said he would like to have a person on the staff who would do nothing but attend Planning Commission meetings, take notes, and transcribe same into minutes. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission minutes have legal implications in law suits. Mr. Tucker said he did not know of any legal implications, but agreed that it would be better to have the minutes kept current. Mr, Fisher asked how it is possible to write an action letter without first composing a set of minutes. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the action actions are written from notes taken at the meeting. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Tucker place a high emphasis on getting the Planning Commission minutes brought up-to-date. Mr. Bowie suggested that perhaps Mr. Tucker could suggest some alternative as to how this task can be accomplished. Mr. Tucker said he feels the best alternative is to hire a part-time person whose sole task would be to attend meetings and take and transcribe notes. Agenda Item No. 3. At 5:27 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of legal matters concerning Virginia Federal Savings and Loan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 4. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which began at 4:00 P.M.