Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-15268 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 15, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, 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 7:35 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. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve Item 4.1 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff's Office, Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail, for the Month of January, 1989, were approved by the vote shown above. Item 4.2. Letter dated February 6, 1989, from Oscar Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, re: Westover Drive was received as information, as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated October 15, 1986, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective February 6, 1989. ADDITION LENGTH Westover Hills ~ Route 1701 (Westover Drive) - 0.11 Mi. From 0.21 mile West Route 1702 to West cul-de-sac" ~ Item 4.3. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for January 24, January 31 and February 7, 1989, received as information. Item 4.4. Memorandum dated February 6, 1989, from the County Executive re: "County/City Revenue Sharing FY 89-90.," received as .~nformation. Item 4.5. Copy of the 1988 Annual Report of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, on file in the Clerk's Office.~ Agenda Item No. 5. SP-88-99. Steven Sullivan (Deferred from January 1989.) Mr. Home noted that the applicant has again requested deferral; this time until February 15, 1989. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer hearing this petition unti~ March 15, 1989, at February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 269 the request of the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-88-25. Holly Memorial Land Trust. To rezone two acres from R-l, Residential, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property on the east side of Rt. 29, approx, one-half mile south of its intersection with Rt. 649 (Airport Road). Tax Map 32, Parcel 42H. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1989.) Mr. Horne gave the staff report: "Character of the Area: The Forest Lakes development is to the north and west. Holly Memorial Gardens is to the south. Two dwellings and a barn are located on this site. Comprehensive Plan: This property is in the Hollymead Comnamity. The current Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial uses in this area. The proposed plan revisions recommend a "community service" designation which would include among other uses, a funeral home. Staff Comment: This property was rezon~d from a rural to a business designation in June, 1979. However, cox~ercial zoning was not reflected on the current zoning map. The 1979 zoning limited usage of the property to a funeral home. The,lcurrent petition proposes a traffic limitation of 430 vehicle tripsliper day per acre, which is consistent with the recent Forest Lakes ~commercial rezoning. This generation rate reflects highway oriented uses on relatively large parcels. In this case, it would allow a~total of 860 vehicle trips per day which would effectively preclude!many of the high generation HC uses. Staff opinion is that the applicant's proffer adequately reflects the public interest, and staff recommends approval of' ZMA-88-25 for Holly Memorial Land Trust.i" Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 24, 1989, unanimously recommended approval subjec!~ to a proffer dated January 12, 1989, and signed by Mr. Robert W. Jackson whii~h said, "... that we proffer not to exceed 860 vehicle trips per day for this property." Mr. Way opened the public hearing at this time. Mr. Robert Jackson, an attorney with Michie, Hamlett, Lowry, Rasmussen, and Tweel, spoke on behalf of the petitioner. ~ He said he concurs with the staff report, and would be happy to answer an~ questions the Board might have. Mr. Paul Wood said he purchased the prope~rty about six years ago with the intent to use it for a funeral home. Since t~at time, other options have become available for a possible location. Sh6uld he decide not to build the funeral home on this property, he is petitioning for a change because it is zoned for funeral home use only at present. There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matier placed before the Board. Mr. Bain asked if access to this property! on Route 29 is jointly used. Mr. Horne said immediately to the north of th~ property there is a joint access easement. The access to the commerciat~ development to the north is already set by proffer. Mr. Bain asked how far south this proper~y is from the Forest Lakes entrance. Mr. Home said he thinks it is aboa~ 900 feet south of the relo- cated entrance to Forest Lakes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if staff felt comfor~ble with the access shown in the site plan. Mr. Horne said they did. Mr. Lindstrom said given the staff's 270 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation, the request seemed appropriate to him. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve ZM3%-88-25 subject to proffer dated January 12, 1989, and signed by Robert W. Jackson, limiting vehicle trips as recox~ended by the Planning Commission as follows: "Please be advised that we proffer not to exceed 860 vehicle trips per day for this property." Mr. Bain asked what the proffer limitation included. Mr. Home said the proffer would preclude drive-in windows of any type and no highway-oriented retail stores. It would allow a small amount of retail sales. He said on this acreage, depending on the square footage of the development, traffic would generally be equivalent to some type of office use. He said that would be reviewed and the regulations enforced during site plan~review. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-88-17. J. Todd Samperton. To rezone 6.226 acres from R-1 to R-10. Property on the north side of Rt. 250 East, adjacent to the west of Glenorchy Subdivision and to the east of the.proposed Westminster Canterbury. Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A1. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1989.) Mr. Home explained that there was an original staff Zeport as well as an addendum. He said the proffers he had handed out to the B~Oard effectively superseded the addendum staff report. Therefore, Mr. Horne gave the original staff report as follows: "Staff Comment: An explanation of the character of this area is as follows: _i This property is presently unimproved. The property '~rontage is approximately eight feet above the grade of Route 250~ and slopes moderately upward from the front to the rear. It is '~parsely vegetated, primarily in evergreens. The eastern and ~ear boundaries are wooded. Ail properties directly adjacent are presently vacant. Properties adjacent to the north, east and south are koned R-i, Residential. Glenorchy subdivision consists of 27 platted lots with an average 1.5 acre lot size, of which nine are presently built. Properties to the west are zoned R-6, Residential, a~ PRD, Planned Residential Development (Westminister Canterbury). .~ Background: Prior to 1980, this property was zoned B~i, Business. Cox~nercial zoning was extensive in the area at that t~me. There is no development proposal history in our files on this ~roperty. Comprehensive Plan/Relation to Surrounding Area: This property is within Urban Neighborhood Three and is designated within the current (and proposed) Comprehensive Plan for medium density ~esidential land use (5-10 du/ac). A stream, which traverses the~front residue tract in Glenorchy and the rear of this property, is the boundary between the low density residential and medium densit~ residential designations. The stream and topography (this area is at an eleva- tion well above Glenorchy) provide a natural transiti~ buffer. High density residential land use is designated from ~orth Pantops Drive westward to the commercial area. Approval of th!is request will probably make the existing R-6 zoned property between this site and North Pantops Drive more susceptible to rezoning C? R-10. Transportation: Free Bridge and U. S. Route 250 East .~re scheduled for major improvements and widening. In thms area, Ropte 250 will be improved to a four-lane divided highway with a mini~num of 800 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) feet crossover spacing. This property frontage is closer than 800 feet to the crossover to be established at the Westminister Canterbury road. Therefore, if an entrance is established on its frontage, there will be only right turns in and out. Staff recom- mends that the applicant attempt to connect to the road for Westminister Canterbury. The Virginia Department of Transportation comments are attached." 271 At this point, Mr. Horne said he wanted to elaborate on the transporta- tion issue because it was the major topic of discussion at the Planning Commission hearing. He said there is a possibility that the entrance on the frontage of this property, if the applicant could not obtain a crossover easement, would be closer to the crossover than what is normally considered adequate for standards on four lane divided highways. He said action was deferred by the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to attempt to find cross easements in order to get to the Westminister Canterbury crossover. Mr. Home said the applicant was not able to do that. In lieu thereof, a proffer was submitted and later amended to address that issue. Mr. Horne then continued with the staff report: "Statement of Intent: R-iO~ Residential Zoning R-10 districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to provide a plan implementation zone that: - Provides for compact, medium-density residential development in areas having adequate public facilities and utilities within the communities and the urban area in the comprehensive plan; Permits a variety of housing types; Provides incentives for clustering ofidevelopment and provision of locational, environmenta~ and developmental amenities. R-10 districts may be permitted within the community and urban area locations recommended for medium-density or high-density residential use in the comprehensive plan, in proximity to supporting facilities and where public water and sewerage utility services are reasonably available to the site. This site appears suitable for the density and dwelling unit types permitted under R-10, Residential, zoning. BaSed on full potential development, approximately 56 dwellings units may be developed. Staff opinion is that R-lO zoning would ibe in general accord with the Comprehensive Plan and with zoning gnd intended uses to the west. There is a natural buffer between this property and low density Glenorchy to the east. Therefore, staff recommends approval." Mr. Horne said the most recent proffer is dated February 9, 1989, and is signed by J. Todd Samperton as follows: ~ Development of the property will not exceed a traffic genera- tion of 60 vehicle trips per day as~'determined from the current edition of the ITE Traffic Generation Handbook, until such time as: Access is established at a proposed~icrossover; or Access is established in accordance~with the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation's recommendation as to minimum distance from a crossover for a multi-lane hSghway with a 45 mph design speed; 272 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) At such time as either Condition 2 or 3 above is satisfied, this property shall enjoy a gross density of ten dwelling units per acre. Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of other County regulation at the time of site plan or subdivision review, as the case may be; Prior to any development of the property, the applicant shall grant access easements to serve adjoining properties. Such easements shall be located the distance from the right-of-way of U. S. Route 250 in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation recommendations and shall serve the property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A(3). Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 31, 1989, recox~ended approval by a five to two vote, subject to the applicant submitting a written proffer reflecting his verbal agreement that access to the site will be at a point midpoint between two crossovers and also that cross easements will be granted to adjacent properties. Mr. Horne said staff's opinion is that the written p!roffer meets the intent of the Planning Commission. The midpoint between the two crossovers has been somewhat superseded by events. The day of the rezoning hearing, the field review of this property was taking place. Therefore, at the time the report was written, staff did not know where the crossovers would be. He sai~ staff now knows where they will be, and he pointed out those locations on the map for the Board. He said the proffer basically states that the applicant will not exceed the traffic generation of R-1 zoning, wh~h~ is one dwelling unit/acre for 6.2 acres. They will either go to a crossq~er or establish an entrance reflective of VDoT's standards for the minimum ~istance between a crossover and an entrance for a 45 mile per hour road. ~e said YDoT has not yet said what their recommendation would be for sight di~.~ance on this section of Route 250 East. .~ Mr. Bain asked if the sight distance would be approximately 400 feet in either direction. Mr. Horne said it would be between 400 and 450 feet. Mr. Perkins asked if another crossover is going to be established other than the one presently at Glenorchy ~ Mr. Horne said the exact location has not been fully~ildetermined as yet. It could be at the current Glenorchy entrance or be a relocated entrance to Glenorchy. ~" Mr. Lindstrom asked what the implications would be f~r an entrance under proffer No. 3 if VDoT determines a 50 mph design speed wo~ld be appropriate. Mr. HOme said it would be similar to what was done on 014 Ivy Road where a parcel was rezoned to a higher density with a voluntary p~offer that until 01~ Ivy Road was improved, the applicant would not enjoy the ~ensity benefits of the zoning. If the applicant cannot comply with ¥DoT standards in this case, he is limited to 60 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Lindstrom ~said proffer No. 3 refers to a 45 mph speed, and everyone is assuming it wili' be a 45 mph design speed. What happens if VDoT establishes a 50 mph speed? ~iMr. Home said the plans have already been drawn and would have to be completely redone if the design speed is changed. He said he doubts very seriously, that the design speed would be changed. He pointed out that this is a voluntary proffer, and the applicant is accepting the limitation of 60 vehicle t~ps per day ~f somehow he cannot meet VDoT's 45 mph design speed. Mr. L~ndstrom said that is not how he reads the third proffer. He interprets it to mean that if VDoT sets some other design speed, the applicant would not hav~! to meet it. He would only have to meet the 45 mph speed, il Mr. Bowie suggested that the applicant might want to ?~hange the wording to say he would meet the design speed, whatever it might ~. Mr. Horne said that would solve the question from the County's point of ~ew. However, it may cause some complications as to the location of the en~Mance. He said it would be up to the applicant to change the wording in any ~case. The public hearing was opened, and Virginia Gardner, ~ realtor repre- senting the purchaser, came forward to speak. She said th~ applicant is February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 273 willing to change the wording in Item No. 3 of his proffer to indicate that he will meet VDoT requirements at the design speed determined by VDoT if the Board feels it is necessary. She said that was the intent of the third proffer anyway. Craig Van de Castle said he has worked at Monticello from time-to-time since 1984. His concern is whether this parcel would be viewable from Monticello. He said there are places along that section of the road which are visible from Monticello, although he has not checked this particular parcel. Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if that had been determined by staff. Mr. Home said he believed this parcel could be seen from Monticello. Mr. Van de Castle suggested that criteria relating to parcels that can be seen from Monticello be established for the staff review process. There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie said the proffer as amended tonight by Mrs. Gardner seems to take care of the problem of access for this petition. The point about Monticello is well taken, although there other places such as Pantops that can be seen from Monticello. He said he does not have a problem with the appli- cation. Mr. Way asked if there was any discussiqn at the Planning Commission regarding Mr. Van de Castle's point. Mr. Ho=ne said he thought not. He said it is a significant point, and the real chalienge would be the Worrell proper- ty between Route 250 and the River, which would have a much higher impact than this property. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secdnded by Mr. Bain to approve ZMA-88-17 as recon~nended by the Planning Com~.~ission subject to written proffer dated February 9, 1989, and signed by J. Todd Samperton amending Item No. 3, verbally agreed to by the applicant as follows: 3. Access is established in accordanc~iwith the Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendation as to minimum distance from a crossover flbr a multi-lane highway at the design speed determined by VDoT as applicable to this section of U. S.!?Route 250. Mr. Lindstrom noted that as part of overall County planning near Monticello, the visual effect should be considered and addressed. Mr. Perkins asked if there are any provisions to attempt {to keep the existing vegetation and to use construction materials that would blend in with the land. Ms. Gardner said at this point they have not considered the actual site plan. However, there would be architectural controli'as part of this development, according to the property owner. Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 1. Development of the property will no[ exceed a traffic genera- tion of 60 vehicle trips per day as!determined from the current edition of the ITE Traffic GeneratiOn Handbook, until such time as: 2. Access is established at a proposediicrossover; or 3. Access is established in accordance'!With the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation's recommendation as to minimum distance from a crossover for a multi-lane h~ghway at the design speed determined by VDOT as applicable to~ithis section of U. S. Route 250. · At such time as either Condition 2 dr 3 above is satisfied, this property shall enjoy a gross density of ten dwelling units per acre. Nothing stated herein sh~ll be deemed to preclude 274 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) application of other County regulation at the time of site plan or subdivision review, as the case may be. Prior to any development of the property, the applicant shall grant access easements to serve adjoining properties. Such easements shall be located the distance from the right of way of U. S. Route 250 in accordance with VDOT recommendations and shall serve the property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 78, Parcel 55A(3)." Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-102. Bobby & Barbara Graves. To allow for grocery and garage facility with fuel pumps. Property on the north side of Rt. 250 West near its intersection with Rt. 750. Tax Map 69, Parcel 51. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1989.) Mr. Way said the applicant had requested withdrawal by letter dated February 13, 1989. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve withdrawal without prejudice at the applicant's request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro?i Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-88-28. Elsie Chamberlain La~rsen. To rezone 6.930 acres from R-1 to C-l, with proffer. Property on the west side of Alderman Road and south of Midmont Lane. Tax Map 76, ParCel 3. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 3~! and February 7, Mr. Horne presented the staff report: "Character of the Area: The Midmont property is developed with a single-family residence. It was named for the middl~i mountain between Lewis Mountain and Observatory Mountain. Th9 original two-story, seven-room brick structure was built about' 1760; there have been several subsequent additions. The yard consists of four terraces including the patio, which includes trees a~d boxwoods which are 75 to 300 years old. The property is relatively level in the immediate vicinity of the house. It slopes moderately to severely down to a stream and up a hill from the stream. Critical slopes (25% +) comprmse approxi- mately one-fourth of the site, within two areas. Property on three sides which is zoned R-I, Residentfal, is owned by the University of Virginia and is developed with the!physical Plant and Zehmer Hall for the Division of Continuing Education and Space, Energy Astronomy Building. The character of uses within these buildings is light industrial and office. The prope~%y to the east is in church use and is located within the City of C~arlottesville. Across Midmont Lane to the north is a residential neighborhood of low-density, single-family detached houses within th~I City. Midmont Lane continues past Zehmer Hall as a gravel ~ad which provides a secondary access to St. Anne's School and ~peveral resi- dential streets in the City. Some properties may be jpusceptible to additional development or redevelopment. Midmont Lan~ and Kent Road, a residential City street, intersect in a "V" w~th Alderman Road. This site does not drain into a reservoir watershed. Public water and sewer are available. History: In December, 1988, these applicants withdr~w a rezoning request for R-10, Residential, zoning. Prior to 1980i, this property February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 275 was also shown for low density residential zoning. There is no other history in our files. Applicant's Proffer and Request: A schematic development plan is submitted as a proffer. The applicant proposes as scenario #1, a mixed commercial and R-10, Residential, development. The commercial development involves an inn, restaurant, and reception and meeting rooms. The residential development would be comprised of 50 dwell- ing units. The second scenario presupposes that the commercial uses are not feasible or not approved. This second proposal is for residential use and associated clubhouse, with the number of dwell- ing units not to exceed 69. Comprehensive Plan: At this time, there is no official position on the appropriate land use designation for this property. Therefore, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan will focus on other standards and goals. The current Comprehensive Plan shows this property within Urban Neighborhood Six, designated for Public/Semi-Public Use noted as University of Virginia property. This designation has been deter- mined to be in error because the propergy is in private ownership, not in University ownership as thought.~ The property is within Area B for City-County-University of Virginia review. This land use designation is proposed to be changed in accordance with the City- County-University Study findings. At this time, there is no offi- cially adopted guideline for this property in the Lewis Mountain study area. The report of the Study Advisory Committee, the first study in a multi-step process, recommends low density residential use limited to four dwelling units/acre,~or 35-75 student beds. This Committee has noted that any devel6pment should consider the property's steep slopes and historic character. Summary and Recommendation: Staff offems the following summary comments and recommendation regarding Z~A-88-28 and SP-88-111, Midmont Limited Partnership: 1. Existing Zoning: Existing zoning m~Y not provide appropriate use of the property based on other develbpment in the area. Staff is not prepared to recommend other zoning without further study, due to the complex characteristics of this p~operty and its setting, and due to the pending Lewis Mountain Study.3~ The R-l, Residential, Statement of Inten~ includes that the dis- trict: "Provides for low density residential development in community areas and the urban area ~here either existing character of development and/or the!!absence of water and sewer utilities are related to applicable densities." This district exclusively allows single-~amily detached dwellings at a density of one dwelling units/acre. D~velopment of this property into six or seven single-family residences would not, in staff's opinion, easily permit preservation of i~s historic character and critical slopes, nor be consistent with ~xisting development in the area. 2. Proposed Zoning: This property meet~ a portion of the loca- tional criteria for commercial designatiqn and is in contradiction to others. Commercial zoning is appropriate insofar as this prop- erty is within an urban area near a central business district, but is not appropriate in terms of access and environmental criteria. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial office as a transition use between residential districts and more intensive commercial and industrial uses. Vacant~ ~ommercial zoning is more than adequate to accommodate future need~. The proposed high-density residential us~ could be deemed appro- priate under certain criteria and inappropriate under others. 276 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Residential development at the density requested, will not allow for preservation of the critical slopes and the historic resource. 3. Precedent for Similar Requests: Due to the unique locational, historical, and environmental characteristics of this property, it is unlikely to set precedent for similar requests. 4. Recon~nendation: Based on the issues sum~narized above, staff recon~nends denial of ZMA-88-28 and SP-88-111. While the applicant proposes preservation of the historic structure and contributions towards improved access, staff is of the opinion that the property is not suitable for the proposed zoning which will overburden the land, necessitating disturbance of critical slopes and some amount of negative impact on the transportation network. In addition, some aspects of the commercial use (scenario #1) may have an adverse impact on the adjoining residential neighborhood, at certain times. Following is staff opinion on the major issues involved in this rezoning request: 1. Environmental Impact: The environmental elementS upon which this is focused are the stream and critical slopes. The unnamed stream which bisects the property continues to Emme~ Street. The area of The Dell beside the Education School, is subject to flood- ing. Staff is unaware of the extent of the flooding~on this proper- ty if any, or of the cause of the flooding at The Dell. Development will be subject to the Stormwater Detention Ordinance which requires no increase in rate of runoff after development. D~velopment under current or proposed zoning would necessitate streami6rossing and additiona-~ runoff. Therefore, this is not a rezonih~ criteria. The two distinct areas of critical slope according t~ the proffer plan are in a commons area and an area for the commeCcial develop- ment, with a small portion in an area for residenti~$ development. The applicant is of the opinion that more accurate t~pographical information will show less area of critical slope; staff can only comment on the information supplied at this time. The applicant requests permission to build on critici~l slopes in accordance with Section 4.2.5, Modification of Regul?tions, at the time of site plan submittal. Because the primary commercial devel- opment area is almost entirely in slopes of 25 perce~t or greater according to the proffer plan, by acceptance of this ilproffer the policy issue of construction on critical slopes is approved subject to meeting the engineering criteria. The Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan include ptandards for the protection of critical slopes. They are considered a natural resource because they require protection in order to!~maintain the existing balance between slope, soils, geology and v~getation. It is the County's intent that development and other h~an activities should adapt to the natural environment rather than ~odifying it with unknown consequences to accommodate development i~and man's activities. Staff recognizes that cluster development of other t~an single family units will better protect the critical slopes~ However, the requested zoning overdevelops the land and necessmta~es destruction of critical slopes. 2. Preservation Of Historic Resource: The historic i~structure and garde-~s ~ ~ e~si-~y u-~-~able ~s ~ ~r~ngle family res{dence today. The proposed use of the structure, mn staff s op~nmoq, does consti- tute a conversion compatible to its historic character. Staff will add, however, that the amount of commercial development proposed with associated parking requirements may encroach intb areas intend- ed for preservation of the historic resource. February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) 277 3. Traffic Impact: Development under existing zoning generates 60 vehicle trips per day. Development as proposed in scenario #1 generates a total of 789 vehicle trips per day, not including that generated by reception and meeting areas, and 483 vehicle trips per day in scenario #2 as calculated from I.T.E. (traffic consultants). According to the City, the present traffic count on Alderman Road is 8,230 trips per day including "significant" truck traffic. Traffic counts for Midmont Lane are not available. The minimal sight distance at the intersection of Alderman Road and Midmont Lane, and the substandard separation between Midmont and Kent Road cause concern about the proposal's impact on Alderman Road. Kent Road and Midmont Lane meet in a "V" with no separation, on a curve on Alderman Road. The curve, which is posted at 25 MPH, is on the peak of a hill in the direction of Ivy Road. As a result of the vertical grade difference, sight distance is limited to 250 feet. Although this is the minimum sight distance required for vehicles traveling 25 MPH, staff opinion is that traffic travels faster, which renders the sight distance inadequate. To the west, towards the University, adequate sight distance may be obtained by prohibiting parking in the first three spaces marked and by relocating the University Transit Service bus stop. The lack of separation of Kent Road and~idmont Lane is not easily remedied due to existing development. Vehicles waiting to exit either road pull far enough out onto Alderman Road as to effectively block sight distance in that direction., The situation is exacer- bated during peak traffic events such as Mass at the Catholic Church or class at Zehmer Hall, or during a meeting or wedding as antici- pated with this proposal. No solutions to the access issues have been determined at this time. The applicant intends to explore other routes for access, but none appears feasible at this time. The pro~fer includes a contribution toward study of the problem and toward i~stallation of a traffic signal. A traffic signal would reduce the level of service on Alderman Road and would be difficult to!~oordinate with Kent Road. Staff recognizes that there may be reasonable uses for this property that may exceed traffic generation unde~ existing zoning. However, the proposed type and extent of development would clearly be con- trary t~ Section 1.4, to protect the he~ith, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public. Under scenario #1, the commercial use introduces different types of traffiC. A portion of the guest traffic will be non-local and therefore,~unfamiliar with the area. The inn and restaurant will utilize truck traffic to a certain extent for delivery and service. Staff i~ecormnends that in consider- ation of the traffic impact, the Plannin~ Commission and Board of Supervisors recognize that this is an urban intersection. The Commercial Districts general intent ~otes a review of transpor- tation impacts shall be a ma3or consideration in the establishment and development of all commercial distridts. Hotels and restaurants are typically oriented to highway locations. The commercial uses proposed are not of a neighborhood servi~e and are better suited to highway locations. 4. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses:;i. The proposal is compatible with the Church and University uses, but!is incompatible with a low density residential neighborhood. Commercial office or multi-family resident uses are recommended transition~ between such uses. Staff wishes to point out, however, that the r~sidential neighborhood is not directly part of this property's immediate neighborhood but is a secondary setting. In staff's opinion, ~evelopment of this property would have minimal direct impact on the ~esidential area. This evaluation is based on the following: 278 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) a) b) c) d) The residential neighborhood is not physicallyabutting this property. It is adjacent insofar as one lot is located diagonally across Midmont Lane from this site. The residential neighborhood's direct access is through other roads. Both neighborhoods are served by Alderman Road. The rear of the houses faces Midmont Lane. Development of this property as proposed, will be internally focused. The proffered preservation areas, particularly saving an area of landscaping on the Midmont Lane frontage closest to the houses, will create a visual and sound buffer. Off-site impact from the develop- ment would primarily result from increased traffic. Traffic impact could include the following: a) b) c) d) Travel delays from congestion of the Midmont Lane and Kent Road intersection; Headlight glare from vehicles exiting the development; Peak parking needs during commercial uses, such as weddings, may overflow into the residential neighborhood; Increased short-cutting through residential streets. Please note, however, that any development of this property could exacerbate some of these items, such as short-cuttihg. Staff has previously been made aware of the existing problem Of short-cutting, such as between Alderman Road and Emmet Street. Affected residents may choose to approach City Council for solutions which may include alterations such as one-way access or cul-de-sac str~eets. Certain aspects of the commercial proposal may leadi~o increased outdoor activity and associated noise levels. Thes~i!aspects include contemplated outdoor dining or reception area. Be advised that the applicant proffers a limit to the hours of operation!and to .the maximum noise level, to address such concerns. a. Availability of Utilities: Planned public water, i improvements for 1989 will provide adequate domestic and fireflow~;~water. Public sewer is available; however, the City has not responded as to the sewer capacity. b. Proffer: Section 33.3 of the Zoning Ordinance rAquires prof- fered conditions to be reasonable. There is some concern that the proposed proffers are so specifically limiting as to. be difficult to implement. If this proffer becomes infeasible, staff is not pre- pared to allow less restricted commercial or high-density resi- dential development. The applicant proposes an extensive list of proffers~i~to minimize negative impacts on surrounding properties. These r~sult in part from concerns expressed by adjoining owners. Some of~ those items proposed will effectively limit adverse impact from t~raffic, noise and visual aspects of the development. Others may be~ difficult to enforce and/or create additional conflicts. Residential restrictions include the following: To limit the number of townhouse residents, a maximu~ of four unrelated adults will be allowed per unit; this is t~o fewer people per unit than our Zoning Ordinance would allow. Thi~ results in less general impact by fewer people using the land. ~ However, it is difficult to enforce. There are proposed limits to ~he amount of parking provided. This will detract from use of thi~! property as a parking lot for commuters to the University, but may .in fact, especially during peak events, lead to off-site parking. The maximum noise generation is based on the County's standards within Section 4.14, Industrial Performance Standards, but is not required for residential use. Comment on the hotel restrictions include the following: Due to its location, particularly the proximity to the University, staff February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) foresees frequent usage of the meeting and reception rooms. Staff would question the reference to "private" groups being granted permission. If the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approve this request, staff recommends that proffer No. 3d) not be accepted. A limit to odor is subjective and unenforceable. Without further study, staff cannot comment on the road maintenance question or on alternate access. c. Adjoining Owners Comments: See (on file) letter in opposition to rezoning from the City of Charlottesville's Department of Commu- nity Development and from Mr. Hartwell Gary, a resident of the adjacent neighborhood. Most concerns expressed such as traffic, impact on the residential area, and comprehensive planning have been noted previously in this report. Conclusion: While the applicant proposes sensitivity towards the access problem, compatibility with the residential neighborhood, and preservation of the site's historic character, staff cannot support the rezoning request. The proposed type and amount of development further overburdens the transportation network and develops critical slopes. ~he staff, therefore, recommends denial." 279 Mr. Home said the Planning Commission,,at its meeting on February 7, 1989, unanimously recommended denial of the petition. Mr. Home said the applicant has statedithat the topography map provided is in error, and the applicant believes the ~rea has less critical slopes than it appears at this time. However, the applidant stated to the Planning Com- mission that it is not their intent to request a waiver to build on critical slopes. ~ The public hearing was opened, and the applicant's architect, Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, came forward to speak. He said h~ was asked by the owner of the property to join with her in attempting to d~velop the project to preserve the house and certain elements of the site. The!'!~property is currently in a rather precarious position in that the option perio~ within which she has to exercise a private development option is limited to F~bruary 28. The price of the property as a result of its proximity to the~!!~nive~sity of Virginia is such that very few options other than a sale to the University of Virginia are available. The price is also such that it d~ands a certain level of develop- ment to make it economically feasible for pr~yate development. He said he has attempted to develop the property while preserving the historic gardens, stream and slopes. He pointed out that in t~e event the owner fails to exercise her option, the University of VirgiMia is next in line for an oppor- tunity to purchase the property. One of the~'issues the applicant faces is the pressure of the time element. As Mr. Home mentioned, the applicant is not requesting approval of development on critical slopes. They have asked for commercial and residential development with ~e understanding that the commer- cial portion may be turned down. If the Boa~d feels that the commercial part is not feasible or is undesirable, the appliqant understands that and has proposed an alternate residential scenario, imf. Wassenaar said the applicant is interested in developing a quality projectilthat is sensitive to the neigh- borhood and is willing to follow the County'si~review process and submit proffers to ensure that the character and characteristics of this property are not jeopardized. Mr. Wassenaar said he is cohcerned because the University has identified this land as a critical part O~ its development pathway and is applying a considerable amount of political p~essure on the County and the City to ensure denial of a reasonable develop~ order to assure its acquisition of this prope Mr. Wassenaar said the proffers submitt expressed by the neighbors in meetings with this property would probably result in additi nent proposal in private hands in ~ty. address many of the concerns em. He said any development of )nal traffic concerns. As an advocation of the applicant's interest in sol'zing those problems, they are proposing to participate with the City, Countz, and University to try to solve the traffic problems in a constructive way. He said they understand there are limits to the development because of the critical slopes and because of 280 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 13) additional engineering difficulties arising in the site plan review process. Specifically, the applicant asks that the County retain control of this property, allow the applicant to submit to the County's review through the site plan process, allow the applicant to meet the criteria the County deter- mines to be reasonable for the property, and allow the applicant to keep the property in the County's tax base. Mr. Wassenaar urged the Board to consider the fact that many of the participants involved withthis property have a significant conflict of interest, and there is a great deal of pressure on this property. Mr. Hartwell Gary, 2001 Thompson Road, said he lives about a block from the property and is an opponent of the petition. He said he and his neighbors are residents of a small City area known as the Lewis Mountain neighborhood, consisting of about 16 square blocks, bounded by Ivy Road on the North. He said their neighborhood is not typical of University neighborhoods in that this one has not changed over the years and contains overwhelmingly family residences as opposed to student rentals and the resulting deterioration of maintenance that sometimes occurs. He said that was not accidental. They took steps to prevent the area from becoming a parking lot for University staff. They had successfully opposed rezoning requests in and around this area on a number of occasions. He said survival of such ua small residential neighborhood, which is surrounded by much more intense uses, is a very thing. Having a high density residential use or a commercial use thrust upon them could be the "leak in the dike" that protects this neighborhood from urban decay. He said he and his neighbors are not tryinglto protect an investment. Down zoning might actually make the neighbo~!p better off finan- cially. ~i Mr. Gary said the most important thing for the Boardi!to understand is that their neighborhood will bear the brunt of any rezoni~g at "Midmont". Functionally, "Midmont" is at the center of the neighborb'~od. The only access to "Midmont" .is through Lewis Mountain neighborhood. Mr.i~iiGary said Alderman Road was a neighborhood street which less than careful planning by the Univer- sity of Virginia has turned into a traffic nightmare muc~iof the day, and it bisects his neighborhood. He said any additional "Midmost" traffic must come via Alderman Road, which would make a currently serious p~oblem an one. The Midmont Lane and Alderman Road intersection is already dangerous at certain times of the day for pedestrians. Even though there is speculative talk about other possible access ways, the fact is there .~s no practical alternative. -~ Mr. Gary said there has been a suggestion that "Midm~nt" is bounded by light industrial and institutional uses and that some dow~ zoning would be appropriate for this reason. He pointed out that the Univeristy's Buildings and Grounds operation is not an industrial one. It is andillary to the University, and has been located behind a wooded area. I~ is already sched- uled to be relocated. The institutional uses are not incompatible with low density residential uses, such as the Catholic Church which is part of his neighborhood. What is incompatible is a commercial use or, the kind proposed and a high density residential use of the kind proposed, i~r. Gary said such a rezoning would violate every principle of good land use pl~nning by allowing in the functional center of a neighborhood a use that is ~mpletely out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Gary said it is an ~palling idea. The issue is not steep slopes; it is the survival of his neigh%orhood. Mr. Gary said most of the proffer conditions, in his opinion, are {ilusions. Many are virtually unenforceable; some are unenforceable as a matt~i~ of law. The historic nature of the property should be considered care~!nlly. If Mr. Chamberlain's lovely gardens, boxwoods, and croquet court's'are to be saved, why not save the 19th and 20th century portions of the ho~se as well. Mr. Gary said the timing of the project is the most critical p~oblem. The appli- cant is requesting a rezoning with inadequate topography m~ps, no adequate traffic studies, and an inability to study every crucial e~ement, saying the rest will be worked out at the site plan hearing. At the ~eighborhood meeting when the development proposal was presented, the applicant~indicated an intent to build across the stream and pipe the water. He said if>!that has changed, he is not aware of it, although Mr. Horne said they intend~to build away from the stream. Finally, Mr~ Gary said there is a disastrous ~recedent that could be set by this rezoning. He said for the first time since~ihe has lived in Charlottesville, the University is trying to act responsibly in dealing with its neighbors by coming to the neighborhood and trying to ~lan with them. To February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 281 completely disregard the impacts of this development is to invite the Univer- sity to ignore its effect on local communities. For all involved, that would be disastrous. Regarding the political pressure by the University, Mr. Gary said, the City is speaking on behalf of the residents. The residents are not being pressured by the University. He said they oppose the project because the University cannot possibly do anything as bad as this. The University has said they will do something reasonable without the resulting problems that this project will cause. Mr. Gary said on behalf of the 182 persons who signed the petition he presented to the Planning Commission, he asks the Board to deny the application for rezoning. Mr. SatYendra Huja, Director of Planning and Community Development for the City of Charlottesville, said the City, County, and the University are planning jointly after a long period of discussion. This area is part of that study, and was added to the Lewis Mountain Study at the request of the County. The Advisory Committee had recommended that this site be developed at low density with four dwelling units per acre or forty to sixty bedroom dormi- tories. He said the proposal submitted to the Board is contrary to that, and it would not bode well for the County to disregard the joint planning that is being developed. Secondly, Mr. Huja said, Midmont Lane is an inadequate street which has access to Alderman Road. It is being used as a collector street from the University. At the point wh~re these two intersect, there is a visibility Problem which Mr. Home pointed~out and which makes the situation worse. Development of this nature would add~lanother 600 to 700 vehicle trips per day which would further deteriorate the t~raffic situation. Another concern to the City is the stream going throHgh the property. He said he cannot see how this proposed development can ilbe accomplished without damaging the stream, especially in view of the drainage problem already existing. Mr. Huja said evem though the property is in the!i~!!County, its proximity to the City is a concern because the City has made serious attempts to preserve historic properties. He feels the proposed development would basically destroy the historic value of the property. The City feeils there will be a significant adverse impact on the neighborhood in terms Qif through traffic and in terms of the character of the development being incompatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Huja said he is not aware of any political pressure being applied by the' City on the University, although the City do~s not hesitate to express its concerns. Mr. Huja said the proposal is notl sensitive to the site nor compat- ible with the neighborhood. For those reasons, the City hopes the Board will deny this petition and any other similar requests. Mr. Raymond Haas, representing the University of Virginia, said he had written a letter to the Chairman expressing ~he University's concerns about this proposal. He said he included in the l~tter everything he could think of that would describe the University's unique ~elationship to the property. The University is next in line for acquisition. ~!He said there has been no commit- ment made as yet. He said the University do~s not know exactly what the property would be used for should they acqui~e it. He said the University does work with the City and the County in loo~king at neighborhoods that surround the University. The technical commi!~tee which reviewed the property recommended that it be used for low density ~esidential, and he said the University subscribes to that committee's recommendation. The present draft of the University's Master Plan calls for th~ conversion of the physical plant area to academic use. That will represent a ?i~ignificant improvement to the neighborhood and to that entire area. ~ Mr. Peter Munger said he lives on Kent ~ad which is adjacent to the property in question. He wanted to add to t~ comments that this neighborhood is one of stability. Many of the residents ~'~ave lived there for twenty to thirty years. It is an area of family residences, and would be incompatible to an adjacent commercial development. Of p~ticular concern is the traffic impact. There is also concern that if parkimg is restricted on the property in question, there would be overflow parking 'ibnto Kent Road. Mr. Munger said he would prefer not to see this type of development in his neighborhood. With no one else from the public rising ,to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Boar~. Mr. Lindstrom said this application presents a proposition that is not unusual for the Board to hear, although the s~te is unique. This is a pro- posal in black and white, and people are asking that it be denied for some- thing that is not in black and white. The ability of the County to control 282 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting (Page 151 the fashion in which this property will develop if it becomes University property is subject to an agreement of understanding which is not a binding, legal document enforceable in any way, shape, or form. Area B under this agreement in which this property lies, happens to be an area in which there no agreement to abide by County land use regulations as is the case in Area C Regarding pressure from the University, other than the letter from Mr. Haas, Mr. Lindstrom said he had not received a single comment about this applicatiol from anyone at the University. He said the fact that access to this site is as limited as it is, the fact that it is difficult topographically, and the fact that it has an historic structure on it all makes him uneasy about even the technical staff's recommendation of four units per acre for a potential sixty residences on the site. He said he tends to agree with the Planning staff's position that this proposal is too intensive. One thing he does like about the proposal is that it has been sincerely made. It is something concrete, and he feels the essence of the proffers can be enforced. However, even with the proffers, it is more intensive than what would be appropriate for a six acre parcel with the attributes described, even if the commercial portion is deleted. Mr. Lindstrom said it would take a fair amount of study and planning to determine what an appropriate use would be. He said he can only hope that the anticipated cooperation by the UniverSity will occur, and that the County will be in a position to deal effectively, from a planning standpoint, with what would be proposed there if this proposal is not accepte~ by the Board. Mr. Bain said with no access other than those street's heavily travelled already, the small size of the tract, the topography of ~he tract, and the stream through the tract, he has a real problem seeing a~thing other than a very low residential use for this property. He said it i~ a good plan to do what the applicant feels can economically be done to suppi6rt such a project, but it is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mr. Way said it is unfortunate that there is such t~me pressure on the part of the applicant. He said he basically agrees with ithe previous comments by Board members. The argument that the County can have bore control over this property by approving this application is a tempting one. If this application were before the Board without the possibility:~of the University obtaining it, Mr. Way said he would still be inclined not~to support the proposed use for this particular property. Mr. Bowie said he agrees completely with the cormnentlS~ by the Board. He said wherever this proposal could possibly be located in ~he County, it would still be an overdevelopment of the site. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with what has been said. ~iIn addition, this proposal would jeopardize the character and integrity of ~hat neighborhood. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to deny ZMA-88-28 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a real concern about the r~commendation of the Technical Committee to the Planning and Coordination Counqil. He said he has not seen those plans, but is not sure he would be able to hccept their recom- mendation. He said the site is so constrictive that he fgDls the density they recommend is still too intense. Mr. Home pointed o~ that actually the committee in question is the Advisory Co~nittee. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and~ the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,~i Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. !~ (The Board recessed at 9:07 P.M. and reconvened at 9:!17 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-111. Elsie Chamberlain Lateen. To allow for an inn and residential uses in the C-1 zone. Property on ~he west side of Alderman Road and south of Midmont Lane. Tax Map 76, parcel 3, Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31iand February 7, 1989.) '~ February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) This item became moot upon denial of Agenda Item No. 9. 283 Agenda Item No. 11. SP-88-114. Village Animal Hospital. To amend a prior special use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing veterinary office. Property in the Village Office Complex on the east side of Berkmar Drive between Rt. 29 North and Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Tax Map 61U, Section 3, Parcel 5a. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 31 and February 7, 1989.) Mr. Horn, gave the staff report: "Condition #3 of SP-82-48 limits the veterinary clinic use to two condominium units totalling 2,200 square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to expand into the remaining ±1,570 square feet of the building. Staff opinion is that the request is reasonable, and expansion will not adversely affect other properties in the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following revisions to conditions of approval of SP-82-48: Building Official review to insure compliance with the noise limitations of Section 5.1.11 of SUpplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; me No outside kennels or runs shall be permitted. Only animals requiring hospitalization may be baarded; Approval is specific to property designated "5a, 5b and 5c" as shown on condominium subdivision pIat titled "Village Offices" located on lots 6 and 7, Berkmar Cgnter, Deed Book 589, page 229, in the Charlottesville DistriCt, dated May 14, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc'~'''~ Mr. Horn, said the Planning Commission, ~t its meeting on February 7, 1989, unanimously recommended approval with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Horn, said staff has received no'complaints or comments from anyone in the neighborhood, and recommends aPProval of this request. The public hearing was opened, and the applicants, Dr. Chris Middleton and Dr. A1 Smith, veterinarians and owners of the Village Animal Hospital, came forward to speak. Dr. Middleton said due to the growth in ~their practice it had become necessary to have more space. They would li~e to stay in the present location and expand to the adjoining space. He said they plan to utilize the space for storage, additional office space and additional kennel area. They plan to have about 20 kennel cages and seven runs wiChin that space. Use of the kennel area would be by approximately 50 percent of their present practice. They would like to use the additional portioni for boarding animals that need special care which commercial kennels cannot!provide. Mrs. Cooke asked what size animals couldibe cared for in this hospital. Dr. Smith said basically they cared for dogs and cats. They could not accom- modate large farm animals. ~ The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mrs. Cooke said she had not received any'opposition to this request either, and would support it. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission with the conditions set out below.' AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Building Official review to insure compliance with the noise limitations of Section 5.1.11 of Supplementary Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; 284 February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) No outside kennels or runs shall be permitted. Only animals requiring hospitalization may be boarded; Approval is specific to property designated "5a, 5b and 5c" as shown on condominium subdivision plat titled "Village Offices" located on Lots 6 and 7, Berkmar Center, Deed Book 589, page 229 in the Charlottesville District, dated May 14, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: March 26, May 14, May 21 (N), 1986; January 6 (A), January 13, January 26, February 17, November 2 (N), November 16 (A), 1988; January 23, 1989. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of May 14, 1986, Pages 1 12; May 21 (N), 1986, Pages 1 - 9; January 13, 1988, Pages 1 - 10; and January 23, 1989, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bain had read the minutes of January 13, 1988, Pages 29 - 41 and found one typographical correction. Mr. Way had read the minutes for March 26, 1986; January 6 (A), 1988; January 13, 1988, Pages 10 19; January 26, 1988; and February 17, 1988, Pages 1 - 11, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for January 13, 1988,~'iPages 42 found them to be in order. End and Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by"Mrs. Cooke to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the mot:ion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom,~ Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the:~i~genda from the Public and Board Members. Mr. Agnor handed out to the Board members for informaition an architect's sketch of a proposed identification sign for the visitor'Mi entrance and the new police entrance at the County Office Building on McIn~iire Road. He said the yard signs currently being used can be blocked by car~i in the parking areas. The identification signs will be similar to those,across the front of the building, only smaller in size. He said unless the B6ard objected, these signs would be included in the remodeling of the buildingii There was no objection from any Board member. Mr. Agnor distributed a memo dated February 15, 1989; regarding the use of carry-over funds in the FY 88-89 Operating Budget. He~said several Board members had asked about the School Division's allocation q~f carry-over funds totaling $960,000. The information was distributed to eli~minate confusion on the issue. Mr. Agnor summarized for the Board the status of legislation on develop- ment impact fees and recordation taxes. He said these biiils are in the General Assembly's Senate Finance Committee and will probably never get out of that Committee. He said the Chairman of the Committee has.'~ indicated he will not even put them on the agenda. He also said a bill regarding the addition of a one percent local option income tax has cleared the G~neral Assembly but is limited to Northern Virginia and Norfolk only. It does require a referen- dum. February 15, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 285 Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that on the Action List of items to be used in the selection of a Chief of Police, an item should be included to the effect that written comments on the interview of finalists will be obtained by Mr. Agnor and then distributed to the Board. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to February 22, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. At 9:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn to February 22, 1989, at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None.