1988-03-16March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 16, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie and Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 P.M.),
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mo%ion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and
seconded .by Mr. Bowie to approve Item 4.1 of .the Consent Agenda and accept the
remaining items as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sher-
iff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of February,
1988; approved as presented.
Item No. 4.2. Letter dated March 9, 1988, from J. G. Ripley, Director of
Planning and Programming, Highway Department, concerning policy revision
pertaining to state and local participation in the cost of right-of-way,
sidewalks, utility adjustments, and storm sewers on improvements to the
state's highway systems, received as information as follows:
"The attached policy revision, pertaining to state and local partici-
pation in the cost of right of way,.sidewalks,~utility adjustments,
and storm sewers on improvements to the state's highway systems, was
adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on February 18,
1988.
Section 1.00 of this policy is applicable to the secondary system of
state highways in counties. This revision provides the following
principal changes on secondary system projects:
Permits the right of way cost for sidewalks, where justi-
fied, to be borne by secondary~construction allocations for
the county. ·
Where the Department determine~ the utilization of curb and
gutter projects' construction as the most economical
design, the cost of the necessary storm sewer and appurte-
nances may be borne by secondary construction allocations
for the county.
Required right of way acquisition costs for projects within
towns operating under Sections 33.1-79 and 33.1-82, Code of
Virginia, may be provided from the secondary construction
allocations for the county, in the same manner as pre-
viously permitted for projects situated beyond the corpo-
rate limits of such towns.
1.09
1.10
1.11
2.00
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
2.05
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Where, through zoning and development control ordinances,
the local governing body requires participation in the
off-site drainage and where their plans from an overall
standpoint reasonably conform to the above-established
policy, the local governing body's plan shall become the
Transportation Board's policy for that locality.
The adjustment of utilities necessitated by the construc-
tion of sidewalk or storm sewer will be borne by secondary
construction funds, except where the utilities are located
on public property which has been dedicated or acquired for
street or road purposes, including uses incidental thereto,
or where there are franchise or other provisions whereby
the utility owner is required to bear the expense of such
relocation or adjustment.
Unless otherwise specified by state statute or policy of
the Commonwealth Transportation Board, all other right-of-
way required for improvements to the secondary system shall
be acquired by purchase, gift, or power of eminent domain
and cost thereof financed from secondary construction funds
allocated for use in the county.
URBAN AND PRIMARY SYSTEM PROJECTS WITHIN THE CORPORATE
LIMITS OF CITIES AND TOWNS
The provisions of this section apply to improvements in
cities and towns for which construction funds, pursuant to
Sections 33.1-23.2. 33.1-23.3 and 33.1-44~ Code of Virgin-
ia, as amended, are allocated.
Ail storm sewers, both parallel and transverse and all
appurtenances, such as drop inlets, manholes, etc., that
fall within the right-of-way limits of ur'.~n improvement or
construction projects on existing or new iocations and are
considered necessary for adequate project idrainage by
Department engineers will be financed at ~he percentage
required by law for the construction of the project;
provided none of the storm water to be conveyed is diverted
from another watershed.
All storm sewers and outfalls constructed outside of the
normal right-of-way limits of urban projects that are
considered by Department engineers as necppsary for ade-
quate project drainage will be financed at'the Percentage
required by law for the construction of th~ project;
provided none of the storm water to be conveyed is diverted
from another watershed.
Ail storm sewers and outfalls constructed Outside of the
normal right-of-way limits of urban projects that are
considered by Department engineers as beyond that needed to
adequately drain the highway project shalllbe financed on a
run-off ratio basis between federal and/or~istate funds and
city or town funds. I
Whenever parallel storm sewer, manholes, ekc., within an
urban project or outfalls beyond the right'of-way and
project limits are utilized by a city or t9wn for the
conveyance of diverted storm drainage, thed the cost of
such storm sewers, outfalls, etc., shall b~ financed on a
run-off ratio basis between federal and/oristate funds and
city or town funds." ~
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated March 7, 1988, from J. G~ Ripley, Director of
Planning and Programming, Highway Department, concerning County Primary and
Secondary Fund (Revenue Sharing Program) Fiscal Year t988~89; received as
information. {
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated March 1, 1988, from Mr. Gerald E. Fisher,
State Secondary Roads Engineer, Highway Department, concerning policy revi-
sions for rural additions.
"At its February 18, 1988, meeting, the Commonwealth Transportation
Board amended its Rural Addition Policy for the acceptance of certain
roads into the secondary system pursuant to Section 33.1-229 and
subsequent sections of the Code of Virginia. Attached is a copy of
the revised policy and related standards.
The principal policy change affects the method by which a county's
maximum allocation to rural additions is calculated. Currently this
is set at two percent of total secondary allocations (maintenance and
construction). The revised policy sets the maximum at five percent
of secondary construction allocations. For most counties, this will
mean a small increase (see last two columns of attached listing based
on FY 1987-88 allocations). The Commonwealth Transportation Board
has authorized those counties which would have a lower limit under
the revised policy to use whichever limit provides the higher amount
for FY 1988-89.
The major change to the standards affects rural additions with
traffic counts of 50-99 vehicles per day. Under previous standards,
such additions did not have to be hardsUrfaced. Under revised
standards, all additions with 50 or more vehicles per day will be
hardsurfaced. This requirement is in keeping with our continuing
efforts to ensure surface quality commensurate with traffic use.
I would call your attention to the TranSportation Board's request
that Boards of Supervisors weigh carefully the public necessity for
any proposed rural addition against other needs of the secondary
system in their counties.
If you have questions, the Resident Engineer assigned to your county
is available to further explain this policy revision."
Moved by Mr. Quicke , seconded by Mr. Bacon that
WHEREAS, due to changing conditionS, the general policy for the
acceptance of rural additions into the Secondary System of State
Highways which became effective July 1, .1964, no longer fully serves
the intended purposes; and
WHEREAS, there are subdivisions whieh were developed prior to
the establishment of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's subdivi-
sion street policy and where the developer is no longer at interest,
thus leaving the residents therein without public service; and
WHEREAS, in many counties subdivisions were developed subsequent
to the Board's subdivision street policylbut prior to the establish-
ment of a subdivision control ordinance in the county and where the
developer is no longer at interest, thus~again leaving the residents
therein without public service; and
WHEREAS, it is the sense of this Board that the rural addition
policy should be revised to provide for Changing conditions and to
aid in providing relief to the property ~wners in the aforementioned
subdivisions.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached "Rural Addition
Policy" for the acceptance of roads into the Secondary System under
the provisions of Section 33.1-229 and sdbsequent sections of the
1950 Code, as amended, is hereby adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all previously adopted policies
regarding rural additions be and hereby ~re rescinded.
lO
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mrs. Cooke said she does not believe that the applicant has done her
share of the research on the merits of the various sites. She said she does
not like to deny anyone an affordable home, but she thinks the applicant
should look harder at an alternative site.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to deny
SP-87-99. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-1. Robert Hull. To rezone 6.53 acres from RA
to HC to allow for U-Store-It mini-warehouse facilities. Property located on
south side of Route 649, one-tenth miles west of intersection with Route 29
North. Tax Map 32, Parcel 41H. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 1 and 8, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This tract consists of 8.97 acres with 2.44
acres adjacent to Route 649 currently zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
The HC portion of the property is developed with Team Tires and also
is an approved location for a video rental business.' The rear
portion of the property which is subject to this rezoning petition is
vacant and heavily wooded with immature evergreens. Access would be
provided through the existing Team Tires entrance. Properties to the
north and east are zoned commercially. Property to ithe south is
zoned LI, Light Industrial, while Rural Areas zoning!exists on the
immediate west.
Comprehensive Plan: The Hollymead Land Use Plan shows this area for
commercial development with surrounding areas propos,ed for industrial
usage. The Plan states that: 'Additional commercial areas are
planned for the intersection of Route 649 with Route 29. These new
areas may be developed as highway-oriented commercia~l to serve
residents of the Hollymead community as well as travellers on Route
29 North. '
Staff Comment: While the applicant intends to develop this property
with mini-warehouses, no zoning proffer has been submitted. Staff
opinion is that Highway Commercial would be an appropriate zoning for
the property in view of Comprehensive Plan recommendations and that
no usage proffers are warranted. Virginia Department~ of Transporta-
tion has commented that 'this request is in agreement with the
Comprehensive Plan. This section of Route 649 is currently
non-tolerable. This request would generate more traffic than is
currently allowed by right.' Staff will recommend maintenance of a
tree buffer along the east, south, and weSt portions!of the property
during site plan review and that access will be restricted to the
existing Team Tires entrance. Staff recommends apprQval."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meet~n8 on March 1, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of the petition. .~
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the a~plicant wished to
address the Board. Mr. Bob Hull said he thought his request would bring the
into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. ~
property
Since there was no one else who wished to speak to t~is issue, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before th~ Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. I~indstrom to approve
ZMA-88-1. There was no further discussion. Roll was cal~ed and the motion
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
11
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-1. Colonial Baptist Church. To allow for
church facility on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property on north side of
Route 250 East, approximately one mile west of its intersection with Route 616
at Boyd Tavern. Tax Map 94, Parcels 42 (part of) and 46. Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and 8, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The subjeCt property is currently used as
farm land. The topography of the site is moderately rolling. There
exists a large number of mature deciduous trees along the frontage of
this property. The surrounding area is typically rural, with limited
low-density residential development.
Staff Comment:
The applicant proposes to construct a building of approximately 5,000
square feet, with 2,500 square feet to be designated as area of
assembly. The applicant has not indicated plans for future expansion
at this time.
The applicant proposes to retain as much existing vegetation on site
as possible. This will further screen the structure from Route 250
East and adjacent properties, in addition to required landscaping.
The Virginia Department of TransportatiOn recommends a 200-foot long,
12-foot wide right turn lane, With a 200-foot long taper lane, in
addition to a commercial entrance.
The Virginia Department of Transportation's recommended dimensions
for the turn and taper lane are based on the minimum design speed of
Route 250 East. This recommendation does not take into consideration
traffic generation in relation to the proposed use, or the fact that
most of this site's traffic will be generated during off-peak hours.
The County Engineer is of the opinion that a 200-foot by 200-foot
turn and taper lane is excessive for th~ proposed use. Further,
there is limited road frontage on this ~ite to accommodate the
Virginia Department of Transportation'si~recommended turn and taper
lane. Staff is of the opinion that obtaining additional road front-
age for the VDoT's recommended turn andltaper lane is not justified
based on the proposed use. As an alternative, a 150-foot long,
12-foot wide right turn lane with a 50-foot long taper lane is
recommended. Staff concurs with the County Engineer and is in
support of this recommendation.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with criteria for
issuance of a special use permit, and i~ is staff's opinion that a
church in this location would not be obtrusive nor out of character
with other uses in the area.
Staff recommends approval of this petit$on subject to the following:
1. Area of assembly shall be limited ko 2,500 square feet;
Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non-
worship uses will require amendment to this petition;
Administrative approval of the sit~ plan after review of the
Site Review Committee;
Construction of a 150-foot long, 12-foot wide right turn lane
with a 50-foot long taper lane."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, .at its meeting on March 1, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval subject to t~he four conditions.
12
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeti~g~
(Page
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne what uses could be made of this property,
if the special permit were approved with the recommended conditions. Mr.
Home said there could be worship services, which did not have to be restrict-
ed to Sundays, and some accessory uses, such as Sunday School, and Vacation
Bible School. Mr. Horne said day care was not one of the uses included under
accessory uses.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought one of the conditions should stipulate to
which parcel the special permit applied.
Mr. Perkins said he did not like shortening the turn lane off a highway
with a 55 mile-an-hour speed limit.
According to the staff report, Mr. Lindstrom said, the applicant would
have to obtain additional road frontage to build the 200-foot turn lane. From
looking at the map, he said, it looks to him as if the applicant has enough
frontage to build this turn lane. Mr. Home said he would check the site
plan.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to
address the Board. Mr. Ed Leake, pastor of the Colonial~Baptist Church,
addressed the Board. He said this is a new church, onlyifour years old. The
congregation currently meets in the old McIntire School building. He said the
church would like its own facility. He said the church and parking lot would
be nes~l~ into the site to retain the beauty of the natural setting as much
as possible. He said he felt that a 200-foot by 200-foo~ turn and taper lane
was not necessary, since the church wo.uld generate most ef its traffic during
off-peak hours. Route 250 East has a 66-foot right-of-way at this point. He
said the pavement for the turn and taper lane would fit into the right-of-way,
the additional ditches and banked slopes would not. In ~ddition, he said, a
200-foot turn and taper lane would affect a neighbor's driveway to the east of
the entrance.
Since no one else wished to speak to this application, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the 150-foot taper lane recommended by the
staff was sufficient for the church at its present size. If in the future,
the church expands, he said, then there may be the need ~or a longer turn
lane. He said he supported the application, but thought it was a good idea to
identify which parcel would be covered under the special ~ermit.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. iPerkins to approve
the application with the conditions of the Planning Commfssion and adding
Condition No. 5, which reads: "5. This application applies to the 10.44
acres as shown on site plan drawn by Steve Key and initialed by JTPH and
March 16, 1988."
Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the motion, but mny expansion of the
use of this church would make him think the full taper and turn line should be
required.
Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full b~low:
1. Area of assembly shall be limited to 2500 squar~ feet;
2. Sanctuary and classroom expansion or day care a~d other
non-worship uses will require amendment to thislpetition;
3. Administrative approval of the site plan after ~eview of the
Site Review Committee;
Construction of al50-foot long, 12-foot wide rSght turn lane
with a 50-foot long taper lane;
March 1~1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
lB
This application applies to the 10.44 acres as shown on site
plan drawn by Steve Key and initialed by JTPH and dated March
16, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 8. CPA-88-1. Scottsville School. To amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 15: Village of Scottsville
Land Use Plan, with respect to the use of the Old Scottsville School Building.
The proposal is to amend the land use from institutional to medium density
residential in order to coincide with a rezoning request for R-10 residential
density (ten dwelling units per acre). Property located on Route 1301 in the
Village of Scottsville. The main building is presently not used, however, the
gym is used by the Parks & Recreation program. Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 76
and 76A, and Tax Map 130, Parcel 8lA (part of). Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March l~and 8, 1988.)
Mr. Way said the Board would consider this agenda item in conjunction
with Agenda Item No. 9.
Mr. Home presented the following staff~report:
"History: The Albemarle County Board o~ Supervisors on November 21,
1985, adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan
(CPA-85-6) as described above and to initiate a rezoning (ZMA-85-30)
of the same property from VR, Village Residential, to R-10, Residen-
tial. On February 12, 1986, the board withdrew both CPA-85-6 and
ZMA-85-30 without prejudice. On January 25, 1988, the Jordan Devel-
opment Corporation applied for the same rezoning. As current owner
of the property, the County is initiating this CPA to coincide with
this rezoning request.
The original school was built in 1924. Additions were constructed in
1959 and again, in 1960. The building has been subject to flooding
on numerous occasions, most notably in 1969 from hurricane Camille.
The Scottsville levee, targeted for completion in 1988, is intended
to protect downtown Scottsville, including the school building, from
future flooding. The U. S. Corps of Engineers has determined the one
hundred year flood plain resulting from~completion of the levee will
not infringe upon the portion of the prqperty proposed for residen-
tial use.
The building was used as a school until 1981 when the new elementary
school on Route 20 South opened. Currently, the Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation Department operates several programs in the
gymnasium and cafeteria including the youth basketball program,
karate classes and exercise classes. The Parks Department is also
responsible for renting and scheduling Various public meetings and
civic group activities in the gymnasium. The remainder of the
building is not in use.
With regard to improvements to the build'lng, asbestos was previously
removed from the gym and cafeteria. The County approved spending
$57,000 for asbestos removal in the 1985-86 Capital Improvements
Program for the remainder of the building.
Proposal: There has been a history of interest concerning possible
adaptive re-use of the structure for elderly housing. Previously, a
private company proposed to rehabilitate~the school to provide 30
units for the lower income elderly. Theicurrent proposal would
create 35 units for the same market. Th~ feasibility of such a
conversion in use could be enhanced by u~e of the Albemarle County's
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Grant ~rogram for rental property.
A preliminary analysis of the structure ~ndicates adaptive re-use
could create approximately 35 one bedroom and/or efficiency units.
The County will retain use of the gymnasium area for community and
recreation use through a long term lease agreement.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: iThe~proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment to change the designated ~and use of the old school
14
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night'Meeting)
(Page 14)
building to residential use meets the following goals and~objectives
of the Plan:
Human Resources
Goal 3:
Provide safe, sanitary and adequate housing for Albemarle
County residents of all income groups.
Objectives:
Take advantage of and promote Federal and State programs as
they relate to Albemarle's housing problem.
Maintain the wide choice of housing types and locations
available in the county to the extent that this policy does
not conflict with other conservation, agriculture or
residential policies.
Development
Goal 5:
Conserve and promote efficient energy utilization in the
County.
Object ives:
Continue to encourage land use arrangements and densities
that facilitate energy-efficient transport'ation systems and
reduce the need for, and utilization of, ~he private
automobile.
Goal 6:
Establish balanced residential communities in the County
with the provision of adequate employment and service
facilities.
Objectives:
Maintain land-use planning and facility s~andards for new
housing development which encourages the use of good design
and the provision of pedestrian, recreation and service
amenities.
Continue to encourage variations in housing types and
densities and to keep business uses to scales appropriate
for their location near residential areas.
Continue to review the location, population, size, kinds of
public facilities and utilities and character of develop-
ment to be maintained for country villages~where growth is
to be encouraged.
Maintain regulations and incentives which shift scattered
rural development into villages with sizes'and character
comparable to existing villages in Albemarle County.
Additionally, the land use plan narrative for the Village of Scotts-
ville states 'utilization of the Scottsville school for public and/or
recreational purposes should be considered in the development of the
village' The Community Development Plan section states that the
County's role in providing new housing units should 'focus on Federal
and State programs and on proViding incentives to deVelopers-builders
at the local level. Provision of new units, if on a~large scale,
should be considered appropriate in growth areas' Also, the section
states the County should 'promote the availability of an adequate
supply of housing units ... through the development uegulation
decision-making process.'
Relative need for Residential Development in the VilSage of Scotts-
ville: During recent years, very little residential!development has
occurred within the Village of Scottsville. The 198~ Development
Activity Report and a 1987 comparison of building permits for new
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
residential dwelling units indicates that one residential building
permit has been issued in the Village Of Scottsville since 1983. No
new lots were created in the village area during 1986. A 1986
inventory of residential development has identified within the
village boundary of Scottsville the following residentially zoned
acreages:
Total property zoned residential acres
Developed residential acres
Undeveloped residential acres
609 (100 percent)
- 262 (43 percent)
347 (57 percent)
The Old Scottsville School property is within a five minute walk of
the post office, branch library, police station, fire and rescue
squad station and commercial core of Scottsville. In this regard,
the school property is unique in terms of its size, development
potential and relationship to an existing community.
Demographically, the Scottsville area exhibits need for provision of
some type of elderly housing. The 1980 Census reported a population
of 528 persons in Scottsville and its immediate vicinity. Of that
population, 102 persons (19.3 percent) were 65 years of age or older.
County wide 11.9 percent of the total population was 65 years of age
or older in 1980.
In the Scottsville area, 30.3 percent of those persons 65 years or
older reported a 1979 income below the poverty level (as compared to
a County average of 7.7 percent of the total population).
In 1980, the Census identified 75 rental units within the Scottsville
area. Of that group, only four units were reported vacant. There-
fore, due to a comparatively large elderly population, the relatively
high incidence of elderly 'disadvantaged' and shortage of available
rental housing, a housing development for the elderly appears to be
justified.
In addition, due to the census factors described above, the
Scottsville area was targeted as a priority area in the analysis for
identifying rental rehabilitation strategy areas for the Moderate
Rehabilitation Grant application. ~
Staff Recommendation::
The staff recommends that the Albemarle ~County Comprehensive Plan
1982-2002 be amended as follows:
Amend Map 15: Village of Scottsville Land Use Plan as it
relates to the Old Scottsville SchOol property. The recommended
land use would be changed from public institutional to medium
density residential.
Amend the text of pa~e 202~ the Sco~tsville Plan, to describe
the proposed re-use of the Old Scottsville School.
This recommendation is based on the finding that adaptive re-use of
the Old Scottsville School for elderly mental housing would be
appropriate and in keeping with the goals and objectives of the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982~2002.
Since staff review was limited to adaptive re-use for low-income,
elderly housing, this recommendation does not necessarily support
standard residential development."
Mr. Horne said the Planning CommiSsion, at its meeting on March 1, 1988,
unanimously recox~ended approval of the amendment.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-88-2. Jordan DeVelopment Corporation. To rezone
a five acre parcel from VR to R-10 to allow for the rehabilitation of the
former school building into housing facilitie~ for low/moderate income
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
elderly. Property located adjacent on the west side of the Town of Scotts-
ville and St. Route 1301. Tax Map 130A(2), Parcels 76 and 76A. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and 8, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Foreword: This report assumes that the Comprehensive Plan has been
amended in accordance with CPA-88-1. Usage of the property is
assumed to be dependent on execution of the purchase agreement
including fee acquisition of additional land from UniRoyal (The
school building currently encroaches on UniRoyal property. Addi-
tional land adequate to maintain required building setback should be
acquired and rezoned).
This zoning map amendment is being presented in conjunction with a
request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate this property
for medium density residential. If that accompanying Comprehensive
Plan amendment is not approved, then this zoning request would
clearly not be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Character of the Area: This site is bounded on the'inorth, northeast
and east by residential neighborhoods in the County land in the Town
of Scottsville. The areas in the County are zoned ~, Village
Residential, and consist of mostly single family dwellings. Adjacent
lands to the south and west are also zoned VR, Village Residential,
and are vacant. Further to the west is property occupied by UniRoyal
which is currently zoned heavy industry and is occupied by a manufac-
turing facility. Further east, in the Town of Scott. sville, is a
mixture of commercial and residential development in the downtown
area of Scottsville. ~
Staff Comment: i~
This property is located with the flood plain of th~ James River.
With the completion of Phase II of the levee at Sco~tsville, it is
the understanding of the staff that this property would no longer be
within that flood plain and would be protected from ~the one hundred
year flood. County staff has requested formal action by FEMA to
amend the flood plain designation for this property,i The Building
Official has stated that a building permit could no~ be granted for
construction on this site until he had received certification that
the property was no longer in the flood plain. Pha~e II of the levee
at Scottsville is scheduled for completion in 1988. ~
Page Street (Route 1301) which directly serves this parcel is a paved
state maintained road in good condition and is currently serving 269
vehicles per day. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
commented that the road is currently tolerable. VDOT has recommended
that a site plan be required so that access can be addressed.
There are existing connections to public water and slewer at the
school at this time. Existing water pressures are ~timated at 850
gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch. The Fire Official
has stated that this is adequate to serve a proposed~ residential use
of this structure. The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated
that they would anticipate that the flows from residential units in
this structure would be roughly similar to the flows that were
experienced during the use of the structure as a schbol. While the
proposed connections will be reviewed at the time of~ development, the
Service Authority does not anticipate any unusual problems.
Uses involving housing of the elderly have been consistently reviewed
for compliance with Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff
opinion is that the proposed rezoning is consistent With this cri-
teria. In addition, physical impacts of the propose~d development to
the immediate area would not be objectionable: }
Housing for the elderly would not generate~significant
amounts of vehicular traffic. Most of thelneeded services
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
17
for the residents are within a five minute walk to the
downtown Scottsville area;
The physical and visual impact of housing for the elderly
in the existing structure would be very minimal;
The applicant has submitted three proffers to limit this rezoning
petition (See Attachment A):
No more than thirty-five (35) residential apartments will be
developed on the property. There will be no further additions
or expansions of any type on the site.
Tenancy will be limited to persons of low to moderate income
aged 62 and over.
Rental subsidy assistance under the Section 8 Moderate Rehabili-
tation Program will be used to the extent and for the length of
time available.
Staff opinion is that these proffers adequately limit zoning of the
property to the proposed usage and minimize issues of precedent for
conventional higher density zoning requests. Staff recommends
approval."
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 1, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted request to rezone 3.864
acres from VR, Village Residential, to R-10,1Residential (proffer). This
recommendation for approval is subject to the proffers as outlined in the
letter dated February 15, 1988, which follows, and adding Proffer No. 4:
"Mr. John T. P. Horne
Director of Planning and Community Development
Albemarle County Office Building
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22901
Dear Mr. Horne:
In consideration of the Corporation's petition of January 25, 1988
for the rezoning of the old Scottsville School (Tax Map 130A(2),
Parcels 76 and 76A to an R-10 district from a Village Residential
district, the Jordan Development Corporation proffers the following
considerations:
No more than thirty-five (35) residential apartments will
be developed on the property. There will be no further
additions or expansions of any type on the site.
Tenants will be limited to persons of low to moderate
income aged 62 and over.
Rental subsidy assistance under the Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Program will be used to the extend and for
the length of time available.
If additional information is needed, please notify us.
Sincerely,
Forrest D. Kerns (Signed)
President
Added:
The property will not be used for any of the uses allowed
under R-10 zoning prior to the satisfaction of all terms,
conditions and contingencies set forth in the contract
dated January 13, 1988 between the petitioner and County of
Albemarle."
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would be done with the portion of the property
colored yellow on the map. Mr. Horne said that property is not being zoned at
this time. There is a contingency to the purchase agreement, he continued,
that states the purchaser must be provided with free and clear title to that
property.
Assuming this property is acquired, Mr. Lindstrom said, will the Board
have to go through this whole process again? Mr. Horne said the property will
have to be rezoned, but, in his opinion, the Comprehensive Plan will not have
to be revised.
Mr. Bowie asked if Proffer 4 meant that the property could be used for
nothing else if the Board were unable to satisfy all the~terms, conditions and
contingencies of the contract. Mr. Lindstrom said the proffer does sound as
if there will be no use of the property if all the conditions are not met.
Mr. St. John said the proffer is worded this way because the County cannot
have an automatic rezoning in advance. Mr. Horne agreed.that this proffer
could take away all use of the property, but he does not think this will
happen, since the County owns the property and would the=efore be most
affected.
Mr. Bowie asked if the project has been approved for Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation rent subsidies. Mr. Horne said the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has approved the project, and agreed to
allow it to enter an AHAP. Once the project has entered an AHAP, Mr. Home
said, it will be honored, regardless of whether the Section 8 program is
extended.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. He said this is the third public
hearing the Board has held on this issue. Tonight, he said, he will allow the
applicant and other proponents of the project to speak for 15 minutes, then
the opposition will have 15 minutes to present their case.
The applicant's attorney, Mr. Nicholas Munger, addressed the Board and
introduced the architect for the Jordan Development Corporation, Mr. Daniel
Debettencourt, to show the Board how the old Scottsville School will be
adapted to suit the project.
Mr. Debettencourt, of D.D. Associates, said he has been working on this
project since 1985. He said the first aspect of the project was its historic
value. He said the School was built in 1924 and is immed~ately adjacent to
the western boundary of the Scottsville Historic Districti In early February,
he said, he met with Mr. John Wells, of the Virginia Hist6ric Landmarks. Mr.
Debettencourt read a letter from Mr. Wells, in which he said he was pleased
with the proposed rehabilitation of Scottsville School. Of the school itself,
Mr. Wells said: "While the building is no architectural Marvel, it is a
valuable element of Scottsville's cultural history and evidence of the commu-
nity's investment in education." Mr. Debettencourt said kart of the project
will be to build the exterior of the school up to the condition it was in
1924. He said the proposed renovation program will also ~ebuild all public
spaces within the school, the stairwell and the corridors~ to their original
condition in 1924, adding period light fixtures and rebui!ding the
wainscotting and the wood floors.
The second issue, Mr. Debettencourt said, is the strl
the building. The School stands in the flood plain, with
six feet in the first floor of the building. He said he
engineer evaluate the building, who identified some damage
wood floors, but concluded that most of the damage was cot
building was suitable for the proposed renovation.
~ctural integrity of
a high water mark of
~ad a structural
~d areas, such as the
metic and the
Mr. Debettencourt said the third issue was the suitab~ility of the School
as a place for the elderly. He showed the Board plans fo~ the renovation and
said 26 of the 34 apartments would be easily accessible t~ the physically
handicapped. ~
Mr. Ed Whalen, a resident of the Scottsville District, addressed the
Board and said he supported the proposed Scottsville project. There is a
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
great need in the County, he said, for decent, affordable housing for the
elderly poor. This project would address this need and could be a real boon
to the Scottsville community, he said. He said he expects a community of
elderly people, with a wealth of knowledge and experience, to be a financial
and social asset to Scottsville.
The Secretary of the Scottsville Ruritan Club, said the Ruritans at their
Marchmeeting, endorsed the use of the Scottsville School for the project
planned by the Jordan Development Corporation. He said the Ruritans felt this
project would go hand-in-hand with their hopes to develop a mini-park on the
Scottsville School grounds controlled by the County Department of Parks and
Recreation. He said the Ruritans believed this project would benefit the
community financially. Speaking for himself, he said, he would like to go on
the record to say that the opposition of the Scottsville Town Council to this
project is based on racial and social prejudice. He asked the Board to
approve the project.
Mr. Jerry King, a member of the Advisory Council for the Jefferson Area
Board on Aging (JABA), presented a resolution passed by JABA, asking that the
Board approve the sale and use of the Scottsville School as housing for the
elderly and handicapped.
Mr. Way asked if anyone else would like,to speak in favor of the project
and said they would have about thirty seconds.
Mr. Franz Stillfried, a resident of the'Scottsville District and a member
of the Independent Resource Center (IRC), addressed the Board. He said the
IRC was gratified to learn that 30 of the units would be accessible to people
with disabilities. Based on his own experience, he said, there is a critical
shortage of affordable housing in this area ~hat is accessible to the handi-
capped. He said he believes the Jordan Development Corporation has addressed
concerns about the safety and the suitability of this project. He said the
people who will live in this development hav~ given much to the community over
the years; now it is time to give something ~ack to them. He asked that the
Board approve the proposal to renovate old Scottsville School.
Mr. Way asked if there were anyone present who would like to speak in
opposition to this project.
Mr. Jesse Grove, Attorney for the Town of Scottsville, addressed the
Board. He said he might favor the project if it were located somewhere else.
The proposed renovation, he said, is contrary to the Town's zoning ordinance
and to the flood plain ordinance. He said the project will encroach upon the
historic district the Town has tried to protect over the years. No matter
what the Federal Emergency Management Association says, he said, the School
still stands in an area that has been flooded and may be flooded again. If
the County allows multi-family dwellings in this area, he said, the County
owes it to the elderly people who will live hHre to protect them from the
floods. He suggested that the County take over the operation and maintainence
of the levee.
Mr. Grove said he thinks the request to 'rezone is premature. He said the
contingencies in the contract should be satisfied before the Board acts to
rezone this property. He said he sympathizes with the elderly people and
supports housing for them, but he does not t~ink this is the proper location
for such a project. ~
Mr. Harold Pillar addressed the Board and said he was not against old
people or poor people. He said he suspects the members of the Board have
already made up their minds. He said he does~not think the Board has consid-
ered any other proposal for the school. He said children in Scottsville have
to ride the bus for one and one-half hours tolget to school. Scottsville
School was abandoned because it lies in a flo6d plain, he said. If the School
is good enough for elderly housing, he said, ~t's good enough for a school.
The people of Scottsvile are not interested ih preserving just the building,
he said, they would like to keep that buildingasa~hool.
Mr. Raymon,~ Thacker, Mayor of the Town of Scottsville,.addressed the
Board. He said he is concerned that the Board is moving too quickly on this
project. He said he is concerned that removing Scottsville School from the
2O
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
flood control ordinances of the Town of Scottsville might endanger the flood
insurance program that covers homes and businesses in the area. He said he
would like to have assurances from the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency
that this will not happen, before the Board takes action on this request.
Mr. J. Gilbert Sox~ers, a resident of southern Albemarle, asked that the
Board not approve the project. He said it makes no sense to him to change a
school into a housing project and then build another school. He said there is
a movement away from the big, centralized schools of the 1960's and toward
smaller, community schools. If floods are no longer a threat to the
Scottsville School, he said, the School should be used for the reason it was
designed and built.
Since no one else wished to speak either for or against the project, Mr.
Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Home to describe his communications with the FEMA as
related to Mr. Thacker's concern about flood insurance. Mr. Home said a
representative from FEMA assured him that reclassifying this property would
not make any of the properties receiving flood insurance now ineligible for
the insurance. He said there were two ways action can be requested from FEMA.
The first way is with a letter of map revision, which is usually done for a
broad area, rather than juSt one property, and which does involve a change in
insurance rates. The second way is through a letter of map amendment, which
involves specific properties and this is what the County has requested from
FEMA: a letter of map amendment on this parcel only. The County has not
asked that any other property in the area be reclassified.
At 9:33 P.M., the Chairman called a~? recess. The Board reconvened at
9:43 P.M.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John for his feelings on the possibility that
merchants and homeowners in Scottsville might lose theirlflood insurance as a
result of the reclassification. When the levee is certified, Mr. St. John
said, FEMAwill probably reclassify the entire area from ~unprotected flood
plain to protected flood plain. He said he interpreted Mr. Thacker's concern
to be based on a feeling that the Board was moving too fast, that it should
wait for FEMA to certify the levee and reclassify the area before the Board
rezoned the School.
Mr. Bowie said the contract is contingent upon the levee being certified.
Mr. St. John said he believes the Mayor is concerned thatlthe official act of
rezoning could have an adverse impact on the flood insurance program. One of
the requirements for a federally insured flood program is that the locality
not allow any construction in a flood plain. He said the' crux of the matter
is whether FEMAwill consider this act of rezoning a violation of the require-
ments for the flood insurance program. According to Mr. Horne, Mr. St. John
said, the FEMA will not take this position. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought part of the concern was due to the fact
that constructing a building in a flood plain may create hazards for people
and property who live downstream. In this case, he said,~the County would not
be adding anything to the flood plain, but would be renovating an existing
building, without expanding it in any way. Mr. St. John paid Mr. Lindstrom's
argument was logical, but no one could be sure what the FEMA would do after
learning that the Board has rezoned this property. Nevertheless, Mr. St. John
said, he thinks it is unlikely that residents of the Town!of Scottsville will
lose their flood insurance. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said FEMA was against government-sponspred construction in
the flood plain. Rezoning, he said, is not construction, lnor does it trigger
construction. Mr. St. John said this was true, but another requirement for
the federal flood insurance program was that the locality!~must enact a flood
plain zoning ordinance. He said he agreed with Mr. Linds~rom, but believed
there was room for concern.
Mr. Horne said the provisions of the flood plain ordinance are triggered
by a building permit and actual construction, not zoning.~
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
21
Mr. Way said he felt he should try to respond to the concerns raised by
Messrs. Pillar and Sommers. In principle, he said, he agrees with what these
men said. He attributed his decision to run for public office in 1968 to the
closing of the Scottsville School. He said he would be in favor of reopening
the old Scottsville School as a high school, if he thought there were a chance
of this happening. He said there are several reasons why it is very unlikely
that Scottsville School will ever be a high school: its location in a remote
corner of the County and the lack of a significant population of high-school-
aged children nearby. If the Jordan Development Corporation did not renovate
the building, he said, he does not think anybody else will and the Town could
lose the building entirely.
Mr. Way said the requested rezoning has to take place before anything
else can happen and before HUD will release the funds. Mr. Way said he will
support the request for rezoning, even thOugh he thinks the concerns raised
are legitimate, but he thinks this project will be good for the community of
Scottsville.
Mr. Bowie said he served on the Building Committee, which has been trying
the solve the problem of what to do with the Scottsville School Building for
almost three years. He said the building is deteriorating and the property
has been vandalized. He said if the County c0uldn~-~ an agreement with a
buyer, the building would either be razed or it would become an eyesore. Once
the project is finished and the School is landscaped and returned to its
original condition, he said, he thinks the residents of Scottsville will be
very pleased with the project. Nor, he said, can he think of a better loca-
tion for housing for the elderly than five minutes away from everything they
need.
Sometime in the future, Mr. Way said, he thought the Board should meet
with the Town Council to discuss financial concerns relating to the operation
and maintenance of the levee. Mr. Bowie said he agreed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
CPA-88-1, as recommended by the Planning Commission which is to:
"Amend Map 15: Village of Scottsville Land Use Plan as it relates to
the 01d Scottsville School property by changing the land use from
public institutional to medium density ~esidential.
Amend the text on page 202, the Schoots~ille Plan to describe the
proposed resude of the Old Scottsvile ScAool."
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
ZMA-88-2 with the proffers set out in a letter dated February 15, 1988,
addressed to Mr. John T. P. Horne, signed by Mr. Forrest D. Kerns, PreSident,
The Jordan Development Corporation, and adding Number 4 as set out above.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Proffer set out below:
No more than thirty-five (35) residential apartments will be devel-
oped on the property. There will be no further additions or expan-
sions of any type on the site.
Tenants will be limited to persons of low to moderate income aged 62
and over.
22
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
Rental subsidy assistance under the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilita-
tion Program will be used to the exten~ and for the length of time
available.
The property will not be used for any of the uses allowed under R-10
zoning prior to the satisfaction of all terms, conditions and
contingencies set forth in the contract dated January 13, 1988,
between the petitioner and County of Albemarle.)
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-87-22. Reynovia Land Trust. To rezone 165.3
acres from R-1 to PRD. Description of request includes 207 single-family
units on 68 acres (1.3 units per acre), and 100 multi-family units on 11.5
acres (9 units per acre). The applicant proposes 68.3 acres as open space.
Property located on west side of Route 742 at intersection of Route 20. Tax
Map 90, Parcel 36A. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 1 and March 8, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following proposal:
"APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The Application Plan proposes residential development and open space
areas as follows:
GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
207 single family lots on 68 acres
100 multi family units on 12.1 acres
1.86 dus/ac
3.04 dus/ac i(net)
8.26 dus/ac (net)
USE ACREAGE
PERCENTAGE TOTAL
Residential 80.1
Public road right-of-way 17.5
Open Space 67.7
48.4 percent
10.6 percent
41.0 percent
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development regulations~requires the
Commission in its recommendations to the Board to include findings as
to: ~
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district
proposed in terms of: relation to the comprehensive plan;
physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to
surrounding area;
Relation to major roads, utilities, public fac£1ities and
services;
Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suifiability of any
proposed agreements, contracts, deed restrictions, sureties,
dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or
the need for such instruments or for amendments~in those pro-
posed; and ~:
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied
to the particular case, based on determination that such modifi-
cations are necessary or justified by demonstration that the
public purposes of PD or general regulations as~applied would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifica-
tions.
Based on such findings, the Commission shall recommend approval of
the PD amendment as proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated
modifications, or disapproval.
The remainder of the staff report will address these!issues.
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
23
Comprehensive Plan/Relation to Surrounding Area:
Mill Creek PRD is located in Neighborhood Four of the Urban Area.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential in this
area with a range of one to four dwellings per acre. Proposed gross
density of Mill Creek PRD is 1.86 dwelling units per acre. Multi-
family units are proposed within the development.
In the past, some concern has been expressed as to appropriateness of
multi-family development (regardless of density) in low-density
areas. At staff request, the Application Plan has been amended to
provide some buffering between multi-family units and adjoining
properties. Staff may recommend supplementary screening during site
plan review dependent on the adequacy of existing conditions. Under
these circumstances, staff can determine no objection to mixing of
dwelling types.
Site Characteristics/Relation to SurroUndin~ Area:
Several loam soils are present on this site, with moderate to severe
limitations on development. The Soil Conservation Service has stated
that 'there are a large number of soils on this parcel of land. Most
of the soils are deep or moderately deep and well drained. The
problem areas will be those where the slopes are steep. Soils in the
steep areas will be very shallow to bedrock.'
Avon Street generally runs along a ridgeline. Several tributaries to
Biscuit Run originate in this area, some of which feed Lake Reynovia.
The western portion of the site slopes dramatically to off site
Biscuit Run tributaries. The majority of the site, however, slopes
toward the center, draining to Lake Reynovia. Most runoff to Lake
Reynovia would pass through a stormwate~ control lake. Staff will
recommend that all drainage areas to Lake Reynovia be protected by
soil erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction
activities. (This may require off-site~installation of control
measures on Lake Reynovia property).
Due to steepness of the site, the applidant has requested two modifi-
cations of standards/regulations:
1. Modification of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
curvature standards to reduce horiziontal curvature for the
entrance roadway from 410 feet to 300 feet.
2. Modification of Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE, CHARACTER of the
Zoning Ordinance to increase proporltion of 'unusable' land and
consequently reduce proportion of 'usable' land in open space.
VDOT curvature standards: Attachment A ~contains several items of
correspondence related to waiver of VDOT curvature standards as well
as a request to the County Engineer's Department relative to road
grading on critical slopes.
While waiver of curvature standards is pcimarily a matter for VDOT to
consider, issues of safe and convenient access are also zoning
matters. The applicants justification f~r the waiver request is in
terms of excessive fill and other grading necessary to meet VDOT
standards with the entrance road in its ~urrent proposed location.
Public right-of-way still exists along the prior alignment of Avon
Street which may allow the access to be ~oved southward. This issue
should be thoroughly explored, and VDOT Standards met if practical.
Regarding grading for road construction 6n steep slopes, the County
Engineer provided written recommendationion February 10, 1988, for
realignment of certain road segments intended to reduce curvature and
improve lot layout related to drainage and slope (See Attachment B).
Again on February 22, 1988, the County E~gineer recommended that
'final road alignments shall be designedilto minimize the impact on 25
percent or greater slopes and shall be s~bject to approval by the
County Engineering Department' and that such an arrangement would
provide 'enough latitude to ensure final road alignments are the most
24
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
environmentally sensitive we can obtain. (See Attachment C: Final
Engineering comments on this rezoning).
Open space requirements: Section 4.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance
limits the amount of required open space which may consist of the one
hundred year flood plain, lands in 25 percent or greater slope,
public utility easements, stormwater detention/flood control devices,
and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables.
In order to meet these requirements for Mill Creek PRD, about 29
acres of developable land would need to be included in open space.
This could result in a loss of a substantial number of lots (while no
analysis has been made, theoretically, more than 80 lots could be
lost). The applicant has requested modification of~this requirement
(See Attachment D) based on Section 4.7.1 which cites such Comprehen-
sive Plan objectives as:
Provision of active/passive recreation;
Protection of areas sensitive to development;
Buffering between dissimilar uses; and
Preservation of agricultural activity.
Application of the first three objectives is appropriate in this
case. Staff can support the requested modification provided that
these three objectives are pursued in good faith:
Provision of active/passive recreation: The Application Plan
should be amended to note active recreation areas within the
multi-family area as required by 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance
and previously recommended by staff.
Ce
Protection of areas sensitive to development: ~n Site Review
Committee meeting and in a subsequent meeting, the Planning and
Engineering staffs recommended redesign of lots~to reduce steep
slopes and exclude streams/significant drainage swales (See
Attachments B, C, E). Rather than recommend deletion of lots at
this time, Planning and Engineering staffs will'recommend that
each lot contain a minimum area, exclusive of critical slopes,
intended to accommodate buildings and provide some usable yard
areas. In regard to drainage concerns, the applicant should
agree to divert/pipe drainage where design criteria cannot be
met (in this case, design criteria shall be the same as for Mill
Creek PUD). ~
Buffering between dissimilar uses: As stated e~rlier, the
Application Plan has been amended to increase b~ffering between
the proposed multi-family area and adjoining properties.
Additional screening may be required. ~
In summary, due to drainage to Lake Reynovia, soil limitations, steep
slopes and presence of streams/swales, staff favors emphasis on usage
of open space to protect areas sensitive to development. As a
condition of modification of open space regulations ~s provided by
Section 8.5.4(d), certain areas proposed for development should be
included in open space. Staff could support a corresponding increase
in the number of multi-family units provided such increase can be
accommodated in an environmentally sensitive manner. ~
Transportation: This section of the report will discuss external and
internal roadway matters related to this proposed development.
Discussion of curvature waiver and internal realignment has already
been provided under site characteristics.
External Roadways: The Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
Study (CATS) report proposed no improvements to Avon Street (Route
742). As VDOT observed in 1987 during review of Mil! Creek PUD,
traffic on Avon Street exceeded CATS projections for~the year 2000.
Staff at that time stated that 'the fact that curren~ traffic levels
exceeds CATS projections for the year 2000 emphasize~ the need for
continued transportation planning and constant monito~ring.' Recently
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
25
during review of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, VDOT recommended
that attention be given to inclusion of Route 742 into the plan for
improvement.
Also, since that time, agreements have been finalized with the
developer of Mill Creek PUD for a portion of an east-west connector
road from Avon Street to Fifth Street Extended and engineering
feasibility studies have been completed for the portion of the
roadway west of Mill Creek PUD. In addition, engineering studies are
complete for an east-west connector roadway from Avon Street to Route
20 South.
Mill Creek PUD was approved for more than 300 dwellings, the current
Mill Creek PRD proposal exceeds 300 dwellings and staff anticipates
submittal of Hillcrest as a planned development in the near future
(Prior Hillcrest proposal was for 720 dwellings). Again, staff
emphasizes the need for continued transportation planning in the
southern urban area.
Regarding access from Avon Street into Mill Creek PRD, VDOT has
recox~ended (See Attachment E):
A three-lane width access road at the intersection with Route
742 to provide for one in-bound lane and two out-bound lanes;
2. A right-turn lane on Route 742;
3. A left-turn lane on Route 742;
4. Improvement along the frontage of Route 742 to include 26 feet
of pavement from the centerline and curb and gutter and appro-
priate storm sewer.
The Application Plan has been amended tQ include Items 1 and 2 above.
Staff recommends that additional study be undertaken to determine if
a left-turn lane is warranted. This study should be a part of the
applicant's traffic analysis required by VDOT to determine design
criteria for internal roads). This study will be completed with the
initial subdivision proposals. Staff d~es not recommend improvement
to Avon Street as recommended in Item 4 Isince such improvement in
staff opinion is not directly attributed to this proposed develop-
ment.
Internal Roadways: County Engineering and VDOT recommend urban
cross-section (i.e.- curb and gutter) on internal roads. YDOT
recommends 'curb and gutter for interna~ roads due to terrain, lot
sizes, and scope of development.'
The County has no consistent policy regarding urban versus rural
section. In September, 1987, the Planning Commission's transporta-
tion and public services subcommittee endorsed a staff report which
recommended that urban section be required in cases where average lot
frontage was 70 feet or less. Under that recommendation, urban
section would not be required in Mill Creek PPD. This item was
discussed extensively during review of Mill Creek PUD. The Planning
Commission approved rural cross sections on roadways in that develop-
ment. Lot sizes and frontages in this PPD are very similar to the
previous PUD. Planning staff recommends approval of rural cross-
sections here, based on the previous decisions of the Commission.
The staff will bring the proposed policy to the Planning Commission
for formal adoption in the near future.
For a development of this scale, staff r~commends two reasonably
direct means of access to external public roads. The Application
Plan has been amended to accomplish thisi, recommendation by a private
road linkage at the lake which will also, provide access/parking to
the lake area. Due to the topography, staff opinion is that a
linkage between Mill Creek PUD and Mill Creek PRD would be imprac-
tical.
26
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Public Utilities: Public sewer would be extended through Lake
Reynovia to serve this development. Consistent with Planning Commis-
sion policy, easements will be obtained prior to subdivision review.
Public water will be available from the nearly-complete storage tank
located to the north. Elevation of the storage tank is not adequate
to provide fire protection and may not be adequate to provide domes-
tic service throughout this development. System enhancement will be
necessary. Dispute exists as to whether the developer or Albemarle
County Service Authority is responsible for necessary system enhance-
ment. While this is a matter to be addressed by those two parties,
staff will be unable to issue any final subdivision approval where
fire flow is inadequate.
Schools: Children from the development would attend Rose Hill
Elementary, Walton Middle, and Albemarle High Schools. The School
Board's site selection committee is evaluating several sites in the
southern urban area for location of a new elementary school to serve
the Rose Hill school district. A recommendation from the committee
to the School Board is anticipated in the near future.
Staff Recommendation: Staff opinion is that Mill Creek PRD generally
satisfies the requirements as to findings by the Commission under
Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to r~ads, utilities,
public facilities and services. As described in this report, staff
opinion is that additional revision to the Application Plan and
agreement by the applicant to pursue recommendations! of the Site
Review Committee in good faith are warranted to make positive find-
ings as to:
The suitability of the tract relative to the proposed physical
development;
Its relation to surrounding area; and
As to developmental guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
Approval of this rezoning does not relieve the applicant of any
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, or other
applicable law except as specifically modified or waived by the Board
in this approval. Likewise, approval does not preclude the Planning
Commission from exercise of its discretion in future site plan and
subdivision review.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-87-22 subject to the following
revisions, modifications and agreements:
Each lot shall contain a 5,000 square foot building site with a
length to width ratio not to exceed 2.5:1. No ~riveway shall
encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25 percent or
greater. ~i
Staff will recommend deletion of additional lot~ due to drainage
concerns during final approval unless adequate ~orrective
measures are proposed by the applicant. The number of proposed
single family detached units lost as a result of slope, drain-
age, or other design considerations (excluding the desire of the
developer) may be added to the number of multi-family units.
Ail roads (with the exception of the private ro~d provided for
emergency purposes) shall be built to VDOT standards for rural
cross-section and placed in the Secondary Syste~., at time of
development of the residential areas utilizing ~hose. roads. A
looped road system providing for emergency access shall be
provided at the earliest reasonable phase of development. A
phasing plan proposing sequential improvements ~hall be submit-
ted with the revised Application Plan. ~,
As to the request for waiver of %rOOT standards,~'.~fDOT curvature
standards shall be met, if practical, by relocation of access to
-947
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
27
Avon Street. The Planning Commission may require a left-turn
lane on Avon Street if the same is deemed to be necessary to
provide safe and convenient access and avoid congestion on Avon
Street.
Soil erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be
employed to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Engineer
to provide protection to Lake Reynovia, including installation
of off-site measures, if appropriate. This provision shall be
deemed to be satisfied by separate agreement between the devel-
oper and owner of Lake Reynovia.
As to the request for modification of Section 4.7.3 OPEN SPACE,
CHARACTER, such modification is granted subject to compliance
with Condition 1 above, provision of active recreation in
accordance with Section 4.16 in the multi-family area, provision
of buffering to adjoining properties, and compliance with
Condition 4 above."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 8, 1988,
recommended approval by a vote of four to one. Mr. Horne said a change in the
site plan made the waiver of VDOT curvature requirements no longer necessary.
He handed out copies of the revised application and showed on the map how the
roadway will be changed to meet VDOT standards.
He said the staff also worked with the applicant to determine whether the
lots could have houses built on them. Some ~ots had to be expanded, or
combined with others, or eliminated, to provSde buildable areas. He said the
revised plan shows 209 single-family lots, an increase of two lots over the
plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. H~ said the revised plan also shows
11 buildings to be used for multi-family units, rather than the ten buildings
in the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Horne said the staff believes all bat two or three lots now meet the
County's building requirements. If the Board wishes to approve this request,
he said, he would suggest approving it for 2Q7 single-family units and 100
multi-family units, which is what was advertised.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much open space was required for this applica-
tion. Mr. Horne smid 25 percent of tb~-s{~,mrea, or roughly 42 acres._ Of
that 42 acres, Mr.~~o~s~ai~a~es
~De unusable~TMr~7, horne
said Mr. Lindstrom was right. He said the applicant came very close to
meeting the number required for open space, but did not even approach the
requirement that only 30 percent of the open space could be unusable land.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the open space would be unusable. Mr.
Home said he did not know, but he thought most of the open space was unus-
able. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not sure he Understood the rational behind
the waiver. Mr. Home said the staff felt that the open space, in this case,
would be used less for recreation and more for buffering. If the staff is
saying that it is no~ necessary to set aside a portion of developable land for
open space, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the staff is saying the zoning
ordinance need not be followed. Mr. Home sa~d the staff has discussed with
the Planning Commission that the open space requirement may be excessive in
the urban area. Nevertheless, Mr. Lindstrom Said, the open space requirement
is still part of the ordinance and he would not wish to set the precedent of
acting without regard for the ordinance. He Said it bothers him to squeeze
every last lot out of a piece of property without heeding zoning requirements.
Mr. Home said the staff based its recommendation on the fact that the open
space would be used for buffering rather than.recreation and that it might not
be appropriate to delete large sections of developable land from an area the
County wants developed.
One of the reasons for requiring that open space be usable land, Mr.
Lindstrom said, is to make recreational areas available to the people who will
live in the development, reducing the need for public parks. He said it is
important that the open space be suitable for~recreational activities other
than just rolling downhill. He said he does not want to waive the requirement
without knowing just how much of the open spa~e will be unusable.
28
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
If the ordinance were applied strictly, Mr. Home countered, 30 acres of
developable land would be removed from a site that has only 1.86 dwelling
units per acre. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood the Planning Commission
planned to suggest increasing the size of the growth area on Route 20 North to
offset the fact that so much land in the urban area cannot be developed due to
slope.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what were the issues raised during the Planning
Commission's discussion of the request for rezoning. Mr. Home said questions
arose concerning the modification of the open space requirement, the suitabil-
ity of this property for the proposed density and whether the roads should be
built with urban or rural cross-sections.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board agreed to allow the developer of the first
part of Willoughby subdivision to use rural cross-sections on its roads,
because the developer complained that installing curbs and gutters would be
very expensive. Curbs and gutters were included in later parts of this
subdivision, he said, and these later sections looked much neater and nicer
than the early section. He said he thinks the use of the rural cross-section
reduced the resale value of the houses in the early subdivision. Mr. Horne
agreed that the issue over rural versus urban croSs-sections was basically one
of present costs versus future costs.
Mr. Bain asked if there would now be two entrances ~to the subdivision
instead of one. Mr. Horne said "yes"; the entrance added!would access the
multi-family portion of the project from Avon Street. Mrs. Horne said neither
the staff nor VDOT has had a chance to study this second,entrance. Mr.
Lindstrom asked why this application was before the Board, if VDOT has not
reviewed the roads. Mr. Home said the Board could attach conditions concern-
ing access if there is concern.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. George Gill~am, representing the
applicant, addressed the Board. He said he would not mind deleting the access
onto Avon Street. Without this access, he said, an inte=nal road would have
to be built over steep Slopes, which would necessitate mHch cutting and
filling. He said the Planning Commission did not find th~s desirable.
Mr. Gilliam said Section 4.7.1 of the Zoning OrdinanCe states that open
space provisions "are intended to encourage developmenta~.iapproaches reflec-
tive of the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan by permiltting flexibility in
design." Mr. Gilliam then read the four objectives open ippace is expected to
serve, which are also mentioned in the staff report. He read on: "To this
end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or site development plan proposing
inclusion of open space areas, the Commission shall consider the appropriate-
ness of such areas for the intended usage in terms of such factors as loca-
tion, size, shape and topographical characteristics". Heisaid he thinks the
developer has satisfied the requirements. The requirements for open space, he
said, does not contemplate that the Board will extract la~ge areas of
buildable land from the developer. He said this might force the developer to
buy more farmland in order to build the same number of ho~ses, which would run
counter to what he sees to be the Board's objectives. Helsaid this property
could be developed, not as a PRD, but as a conventional development, and get
just about the sane density without providing any open space. He said he
thinks the aims of the Board would be better served if th~ property is devel-
oped as a PRD.
Instead of staying with the 5000 square foot buildin!~ site, he asked, is
the staff now recommending that there be 207 lots with bu~lding sites as
defined in the ordinance without reference to any specifi: square footage?
Mr. Horne said not necessarily: 207 of the 209 proposed .ors meet the square
footage requirement; it is more a question of how long th developer wishes to
haggle over two lots. He said the staff recommends keeping the square footage
criteria and developing only 207 lots. If there is a maximum of 207 lots, Mr.
Gilliam said, he will agree to it. But, he said, Sectmon.4.2.1 of the Zonmng
Ordinance establishes the requirements for a building site and states "for a
use served by a central sewerage system, the applicant sh~ll demonstrate that
the building site is of adequate area for the proposed development". If the
Board wishes to adopt a minimum building site of 5000 square feet, he said,
the Board should amend the Zoning Ordinance.
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
29
Mr. Way said he understood the staff's recommendation: if most of the
open space was too steep for recreation, then at least the lots should be big
enough for families to enjoy.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this request, Mr. Way closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he appreciates Mr. Gilliam's argument: that his
client plans to save the rural area by building as intensively as possible in
the urban area. He said he may support this.request, but he cannot support it
on the basis of current information. He said he is concerned about creating
many small lots without a large, usable open space. He said he also thought
it would be better to install urban cross-sections on the roads in the subdi-
vision. He said it may be more expensive, but the developer will probably
pass the cost to the people who buy the lots. He said he thinks the curb and
gutters will benefit the homeowners and increase the resale.value of their
homes.
h0~efore he can support this request, Mr. Lindstrom said, he would like to
knowAmuch of the open land can be used for recreational activities. He said
he would also like to know more about the two entrances.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Home about the staff's fourth condition, which
concerns soil erosion and sedimentation control measures and states "This
provision shall be deemed to be satisfied by,separate agreement between the
developer and owner of Lake Reynovia". Mr. Bain asked why the County would
not participate in the agreement. Mr. Horne said the present owner of Lake
Reynovia was concerned that too much runoff might make swimming in Lake
unpleasant, so the sedimentation control measures are stricter than they might
be otherwise. If some future owner of the lake wants to use the lake for
something other than swimming, then the developer of the adjacent property
would not have to satisfy such strict sedimentation control measures.
Mr. Agnor suggested that the Board defe~action on this item until the
staff could gather the information requested iby Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie said the applicant shows 41 percent of the development would be
left in open space. He said he thinks the open space meets the requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. He said he could support this request tonight.
Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Horne could provide some information on the open
spaces set aside in other subdivisions and how these spaces are used.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Gilliam what he thought of the rural versus urban
roadways. Mr. Gilliam said he thought the rural cross sections benefited both
the homeowners and the developer. He said he could present more information
on this later if the Board decided to defer action.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Daley Craig if he wished to address the Board. Mr.
Craig said it was difficult to re-pave roads with curb and gutters. Even-
tually, after the road has been re-paved several times, it no longer drains
well. If the Board is interested, he said, h~ can present photographs and
data on the drainage problem. '
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to
defer deciding this matter to April 6, 1988. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-88-3. Harry O. Potchernick. To locate a
double-wide mobile home on north side of Route 618, approximately two-tenths
of a mile east of the intersection of Route 708 and Route 618. Tax Map 115,
Parcel 27E1. Scottsville District. (AdvertiSed in the Daily Progress on
March 1 and March 8, 1988.)
Mr. Home presented the following staff report:
30
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
"Character of the Area: This property has access to State Route 618
by a private easement. While the site is not heavily wooded, sub-
stantial screening exists to the north and east. To the south,
existing screening is moderate. A clear view of an adjacent home
exists to the west. Five (5) mobile homes exist within a one mile
radius of this site. The area is typically rural, with limited low
density residential development.
Staff Comment:
It appears that the proposed mobile home site will not be visible
from the State Road, while the mobile home will be visible from an
existing residence to the east.
One letter of opposition has been filed against this petition. The
letter raises concerns over devaluation of adjacent properties.
The applicant intends to live in the mobile home, rather than rent
the dwelling.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2:
a. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of
the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
de
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator
and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department
of Health, if applicable under current regulations;
landscaping and/or
Maintenance of existing vegetation,
screening to be provided to the reasonablei'satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator. Required screenSng shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should
die."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission heard this request at its meeting
on March 8, 1988, and unanimously recommended approval wi~h the conditions
stated.
Mr. Way asked how big the parcel was. Mr Horne said~ll.3 acres.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to
make a statement. Mr. Russel Potchernick said his father, and mother would be
living in the mobile home.
Since no one else wished to speak on this request, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs.-Cooke to approve
SP-88-3 with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstcom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2:
a. Albemarle County building official approval;
b.
3.1
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile
home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administra-
tor. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die.)
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointments: Community Services Board. No
appointment was made at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12b. Appointments: Equalization Board. Motion was
offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. William L.
(Bill) Howard for the calendar year 1988. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12c. Appointments: Social Services Board. No appoint-
ment was made at this time.
Agenda Item No. 12d. Appointments: Transportation Safety Committee. No
appointment was made at this time.
Not docketed. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority Board of
Directors. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
reappoint Mr. Samuel D. Craig, III to represent the Rivanna District for a
term to expire on April 16, 1992. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes:
April 15 (N) and June 17 (A), 1987.
January 21, April 15 (A),
Mr. Way had read the minutes for January=21, 1987 (Afternoon) and found
them in order. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes for April 15, 1987 (Afternoon)
and found them in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for June 17, 1987
(Afternoon) and found them in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve
the minutes which had been read. There was n6 further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Messrs. Bain and Perkins.
32
March 16, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public.
Mr. Agnor said he has learned of a computer program used in designing
dams, which could cut in half the cost of the Lickinghole Creek project. He
said he had tried to learn more about the program in time for the joint
meeting with City Council. Now, he said, City Council has decided that it
does not want to meet with the County to discuss the project.
Mr. Agnor said there was also a new schedule for budget work sessions.
The work sessions will begin March 23, 1988, at 2:00 P.M~ He said he would
try to have the budget to the Board by Monday, March 21, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom
asked when the public hearing will be held. Mr. Agnor said it will be held
after the work sessions. Mr. Lindstrom said it concernslhim that Board
members may commit themselves to particular projects before getting a clear
idea of what the public wants. He said he would rather have the public
hearing before the work sessions begin. Mr. Agnor said d public hearing could
be held Monday, March 21, 1988.
Mr. Bowie said he thought having the public hearing early in the budget
process was a good idea, but he thought it should be held sometime in Novem-
ber, before the staff has spent so much time on the budget.
Mr. Way asked if Board members wished to hold a public meeting on
March 21, 1988. Mr. Bowie said he could not attend. Mr. Way pointed out that
Mr. Agnor may not have the budget ready by Monday. The Clerk suggested adding
the public hearing to the agenda for Wednesday, March 23, 1988. Mr. Bowie
asked Mr. Agnor if he and the staff would have the proposed budget ready by
this time. Mr. Agnor said "yes", but there would have to be a press release
so the public would have something to comment upon.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to ask for
public comments on the 1988-89 County budget at the meeting to be held on
March 23, 1988. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Property Ma~ters.
At 11:41 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom aad seconded by Mr.
Bowie to adjourn into executive session to discuss proper~y and personnel
matters. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: '~I
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 12:05 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to March 23, 1988, at 2:00, Room #7. With
no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn this meeting until 2:00 P.M.,
March 23, 1988. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.