Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-01February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 217 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 1, 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. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 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 Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to accept all items on the Consent Agenda for informa- tion. 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. Albemarle County Job Training Grant Progress Report, dated January al, 1989, as prepared by Albemarle County Schools, received as informa- tion. Item 4.2. Copies of the Planning Commission Minutes for January 10 and January 17, 1989, were received as information. Item 4.3. Notice dated December 29, 1988, from the State Corporation Commission, on an application filed by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., for an expedited increase in rates, was received as information. Item 4.4. Notice dated January 10, 1989, from the State Corporation Commission, on an application filed by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., to revise its tariffs, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-88-23. J. W. Sieg & Company. To rezone .75 acres from LI to CO. Property on the north side of Route 250 West, approxi- mately one-half mile west of intersection with EdnamDrive. Tax map 59, Parcel 23C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 1989.) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and Seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer the public hearing on this petition until March 15, 1989, at 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. SP-88-106. J. W. Sing & Company. To allow a bank -~with a drive-in window. Propertyi~:on the north side of Route 250 West, approximately one-half mile west of intersection with EdnamDrive. Tax map 59, parcel 23C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 17 and January 24, 1989.) 218 February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to defer the public hearing on this pettion until March 15, 1989, at 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. 7. Discussion: Crozet School - Financing and Plans. Mr. Agnor summarized a presentation he made last week on the possibility of using the existing Crozet School site for a new school. Reasons for using the existing site include: the similarity of the topography to the site considered for purchase; the proposed new building couldibe easily adapted to the old site; and, the cost of the project could be reduced by about $300,000. The disadvantages of using the old site are: operating the existing school on the same site as the new building will increase construction costs due to problems with storing materials and safety; the existing site is too small and additional land must be purchased; demolition of the existing building will further reduce any savings; and acquiring additional property across the road may necessitate a pedestrian overpass or underpass to mo~e children to and from play areas. Mr. Agnor said the staff estimated tha~ demolition and building pedestrian facilities would reduce the potential savings by one-half. Most of the remaining savings may be erased by the costs ~iof buying additional land and the increase in inflation due to delaying the construction. Mr. Agnor presented the following comparison of the costs of the Crozet Elementary replacement school and the Southside Elementary School. He reminded members of the Board that the Crozet budget includes $100,000 from the Route 810 improvement project and the variance between the amount bud in the CIP and the estimated cost of the Crozet project excluded any land costs exceeding the budget. The actual cost of the property for the Crozet replacement school is $330,000. Crozet Southside Architect VMDO HSM&M Square Feet 46,500 59,007 Students 450 600 Building Cost Site Work Furniture/Equipment Contingency Total Construction Administration Architect Land Acquisition (budget) Total Other Costs $3,128,000 676,857 215,000 295,143 $4,315,000 $3,348,000 968,000 290,000 $4,606,000 $ 35,000 35,000 280,000 320,000 150~000 175~000 $ 465,000 $ 530,000 Total Project Cost $4,780,000 $5,136,000 CIP Budget 4,179,200 4~980~000 Variance $ 600,800 $ 156,000 Mr. Way asked Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Adminis- tration and Finance, if the figure budgeted for land acquisition for the Southside school seems reasonable. Mr. Papenfuse said th9 negotiated price for the property is $210,000. In response to a question by Mr. Bowie, Mr. Agnor said the cost per square foot, including land acquisition, is $106.73 for the Crozet replacement school and $87.63 for the Southside school. The cost per square foot for construction only is $67.27 for the Crozet project and $56.73 for the Southside school. Excluding the contingency costs results in a cost per square foot of $86.45 for the Crozet school and $78.06 fo= the Southside project. Mr. Bowie asked why there is no contingency fund for the Southside project. Mr. Papenfuse said the architects are assuming that the contingency February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 219 for this project is in the $249,000 set aside by this Board as a contingency fund. Mr. Bain asked why the site work for the Southside school is to be so expensive. Mr. Papenfuse said the site had to be flattened to accommodate the design of the school. In the case of the Crozet replacement site, ,~th~ archi- tects designed the building to fit the site. Mr. Papenfuse said some off-site work for the Southside project, such as road improvements and sewer lines, were included in the estimate for site work. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor to present his memorandum dated June 3, 1987, concerning funding alternatives for the CIP. Mr. Agnor outlined funding options available to the County, including Literary Fund loans, Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bonds, general obligation bonds, current revenues, split-tax billing, sale of property and using carry-over funds from the operating budgets. Mr. Lindstrom asked when an application for VPSA bonds must be submitted. Mr. Agnor said in June, 1989, in order to be eligible for the sale of bonds in October and November, 1989. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the interest rate for general obligation bonds was lower than for other sources of borrowed bonds, low enough to offset the high cost of~applying for one of these bonds. Mr. Agnor agreed, if the County could receive a triple A credit rating, which he thinks is likely since the annexation issue has been resolved. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor to comment upon a memorandum from Mr. St. 3ohn to Mr. Agnor, dated January 24, 1989, which sought to answer questions raised by members of the Board during its meeting of January 23, 1989, on the issuance of bonds. Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum. He said there is no statutory limitation on how long the Board waits to sell bonds once they have been approved and authorized in a referendum. He said it is not unusual to wait as long as five or six years; if the Board were to wait longer, it could have the Court reaffirm the bond without a new referendum. Once the bonds are sold, Mr. Agnor said, arbitrage rules govern?~how long the Board can wait before spending the money. There must be a S'chedule of expenditures and/or investment of the bond proceeds either as a Whole or in increments. According to the County Attorney, Mr. Agnor continued,-ischool bonds and non-school bonds, such as highway construction bonds, c~nnot be combined in one referen- dum. Combining unrelated bonds would give the appearance of holding school bonds hostage to road bonds or vice versa; t~e voters must be allowed to vote separately on unrelated categories. Mr. Way asked Mr. Bowie to present his memorandum, dated January 27, 1989, concerning funding options for the CIP.. Mr. Bowie said the critical year of the CIP will be next year, 1989-90, when there will be a shortage of $6.483 million. He said the plan was to borr~ow this money locally using short term loans, and roll over these loans, reducing them annually. The money collected from the meals tax, $5.595 million from 1989 to 1993, was to have paid for these loans. With the failure of thee referendum on the meals tax, he said, there is no money available to pay for any short-term financing. To allow these borrowed funds to exist without being reduced could jeopardize the County's ability to borrow money from July through December of each year, when the County must rely on fund balances for operating costs. Therefore, he said, the County needs some long-term method for funding this shortfall. Mr. Bowie said there are also projects which are known to exist but are not included in the current plan, such as Burney Middle School, which will probably be included in the next update of the CIP. During a recent public hearing, he said, citizen after citizen said .they knew the Crozet project was over the budget, but they want the new school.to be built anyway. He said the residents of Crozet voted two to one against .~he meals tax, the only way the County had to pay for the school. Mr. Bowie said the County qualifies to p~rticipate in the VPSA program. He said the bonds can be used only for school~, but there is no limit on the total amount or the amount per project, and t~e funds may be used for both new construction and renovations. He said he thinks it would be appropriate to use YPSA bonds to cover the shortage of $6.4 ~illion and another $3.3 million currently expected to be met by a Literary Fu6d loan. He showed the costs of repaying a VPSA loan of ten million dollars over 20 years at seven percent 220 February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) interest. He said level funding the principal payments saves about 18 percenl of the cost of the interest. He said making the payments on the loan would equate to an increase of three cents per hundred dollars in the property tax, the only source of additional income currently available:to local governments~ Mr. Bowie said there may be no need for further VPSA bonds after 1989-90 Revenues from the lottery may become available to localities, as well as the ability to tax one percent of residents' income taxes. He said impact fees may also provide money for road improvements and possibly to build schools. He said growth in the County would increase property taxes, which could help repay the bonds. There are also surplus funds in two years of the current CIP, 1991-92 and 1992-93, which could make three annual bond payments. He said it is also possible that the meals tax may become aVailable, either through a successful referendum or by new state law. In conclusion, he said, the use of VPSA bonds would allow the Board to proceed with the current CIP and maintain some flexibility for future needs. He recommended that the Boar~ consider this option. Mr. Bain said he thinks the shortage estimated for next year's CIP is underestimated. Instead of $6.4 million, he thinks the shortage will be closer to $10 million, after the Crozet replacement school and Southside projects are bid. Repaying this amount will take about five cents of the real estate tax rates. He said the options Mr. Bowie mentioned to raise revenue for the County, such as the lottery and impact fees, may not be approved by the General Assembly. If there is no other alternative, he said, would members of the Board be willing to raise the real estate tax rate to cover payment of YPSA loans? If all else fails, Mr. Bowie said, if spending cannq~t be reduced, if no project can be deferred, he thinks there would be no cho~'ce but to raise the property taxes. But, he added, there would have to be no other alternative before he would support an increase in property taxes. ~ Mr. Bain said he thinks if the Board uses VPSA loana to fund this project, it should also use these loans for future schoo~ projects. He asked if members of the Board would be willing to apply for more VPSA bonds for worthwhile projects in the future years of the CIP. Mr. Way said the Board committed itself to supporting a number of school pr~ojects four years ago. Over half of these projects are completed. He said he is committed to finishing the rest of the projects on!~he list, which does not include a Northside school, or any other new projectSi~ He said he also believes the best way to complete the projects the Board ~s committed to support is through the use of VPSA bonds. He said he is not willing to hold projects promised support four years ago hostage to a bond referendum, but he may be willing to subject future school and road projectml, to such a referendum. Mr. Bain asked what the Board plans to do if the costs of the Crozet and Southside schools exceed the estimates, which they may well do, given the history of school projects. Mr. Way said he would support increasing the property tax in such a case. Mr. Lindstrom said the tax rate was reduced by five :~ents recently, an action of the Board he did not support. He said he woul~i support raising the tax rate back to its original amount. He said the figures have convinced him that using VPSA bonds is an economical approach, but he thinks something need~ to be done immediately about the Crozet and Southside schools. He said he does not believe a substantial change in the budget for the Crozet school is justified, because it already costs almost $20 per square~ifoot more than the Southside school, which will serve more students. He said he thinks the Boar~ should meet with the School Board to develop a basic design for future County schools, so the County will not have to pay for a new design every time it needs a new school. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the tax rate should be indlreased by five cent~ and pointed out that she did not support the reduction of iilthe tax rate to its current level. She said the residents of Crozet need a s~hool and she thinks the Board should do what it has to do to build this school'. February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 221 Mr. Way said he does not agree that the tax rate should be restored to pay for the Crozet replacement school. He said there is an option that may make raising taxes for this project unnecessary. Mrs. Cooke said there are more projects "coming down the pike". She said the citizens of this County did not understand the value of the meals tax and she believes the Board will have to do the next best thing, which is restore the property tax. Mr. Bain said the County would not have to make payments on a VPSA loan until next year and he hopes the General Assembly will have done something by then to help counties raise money. As for the Crozet project, he said, Mr. 3ensen's suggestions for reducing the cost of I/MDO's design are not feasible, since the bulk of the savings would be realized by running a gas line to the school and that is not possible. He said he wants to go forward with the Crozet project. Mr. Perkins said he supports using VPSA~bonds to pay for the Crozet project, but he is not willing to commit himself to raising taxes. Although the tax rate was reduced, he said, there was a reassessment that raised taxes 14 percent. He asked what would have happened if the tax rate had not been reduced and said he feels that extra five cents per hundred would probably have been spent on increasing local bureaucracy. He said the Crozet project has been held up long enough. He said the CIP budgets $4,179,000 for the Crozet project and he thinks enough funds should be added to cover the cost of the site. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board should wait until the bid is in for the Crozet project before it amends the CIP. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not willing to amend the CIP until more specific information is available. He said he thinks the question is whether to authorize the School Board to go ahead with the Crozet project and submit the plans to the State Board. Mrs. Cooke asked how the County will pay for the project. Mr. St. John said acquiring the site has nearly reached the point of no return: either the Board will soon have to appropriate funds for the site or decides not to buy it. Once the site is bought, Mr. St. John said, he thinks the Board is committed to build the school there. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that paYing f~r the site and the building will require an amendment to the CIP, which involves advertising for a public hearing. He said perhaps the Board should have staff advertise a public hearing on such an amendment, to be held at the earliest possible date. Otherwise, he said, he does not see how the Board can authorize this project to proceed. Mr. Bain said $624,000 is allocated to the Crozet project for site acquisition and design during this fiscal year of the CIP. He thinks this is enough money to acquire the property and all0~ the project to proceed without having to go through the formal process of amending the CIP until the bid comes in. Mr. Agnor agreed. Mr. Lindstrom s~id he supports this approach. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to direct the School Board to proceed with the Crozet Schoo% plans on the new site by sending plans to Richmond and starting the bid process. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messri~. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the following b~ placed on the agenda for the next joint meeting between the Board and the School Board: a discussion of standard plans for schools throughout the County. He added that there should be a realistic appraisal of the long-term capital improvement needs of the County so the Board does not have to levy a t~x increase on citizens every year to pay for projects. 222 February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on location of a solid waste transfer station near Keene. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on January 24 and January 31, 1989.) Mr. Home presented the staff's report. Although the County's existing and revised Comprehensive Plans make no direct locational recommendation for solid waste transfer facilities, Mr. Horne said, the Board has made the decision that such a facility is the desirable collection alternative to replace the Keene landfill, which will reach capacity by July 1, 1989. He said staff and a citizen's committee have undertaken a thorough site selection and development analysis in support of this policy decision. In consideration of the unique circumstances surrounding the need for a solid waste collection alternative for the southern area of the County and the extensive analysis conducted, planning staff finds the Keene Solid Waste Transfer Facility to be in compliance with the intent of the County's comprehensive planning policy and recommended favorable action by the Commission. This finding, however, was not intended to be an endorsement of other sites without the comprehensive service area and locational standards being established in the Public Facili- ties portion of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne said specific site develop- ment for this facility has not been reviewed as part of ~his staff recommenda- tion. This will be part of a site plan to be submitted l~ater for review and approval by the Commission. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 9, 1989, unanimously found the proposed solid waste transfer station located on Parcel 93 and a portion of Parcels 1 and 91 of Tax Map 121 to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, letters of appeal to this decision were received from Mr. John B. Berry on behalf of Mr. Douglas C. Wain; Mr. Douglas C. Wain, Jr., and Mrs. Mary M. Wain; and, Ms. Virginia R, Coleman, Mr. Bill- ings K. Ruddock, Jr., and Mr. Alexander W. Ruddock. Mr. Richard P. Moring, Director of Engineering, presented his memorandum dated December 29, 1988, outlining the reasons for choosing a manned transfer facility over other methods of waste disposal and the cr£~eria for the selec- tion of the site. Mr. Moring said citizens hav~ asked him why the transfer station cannot be located at the site of the existing landfill. He said this si,re is unacceptable because of access. New Virginia Waste Disposal Regula- tigons require that waste disposal facilities must be located on a hard surface road designed for the anticipated volume of traffic. He Said it would cost between $400,000 and $500,000 to bring Route 704, which Serves the existing landfill, up to these standards. Mr. Moring said he had '.requested that the Board approve the plans for the transfer facility and all:~w staff to proceed with condemning the property. Since this request was mad:~, the owner of part of the property has died and the heirs no longer wish to :~ell the property to the County. Mr. Moring also showed slides of the equipment that will be used at the new transfer station and of similar facilities in Powhatan County, Fauquier County, Virginia, and Ashford, Connecticut. Mr. Bowie asked if there would be something to handl~ recycling at this site. Mr. Moring said recycling is a separate issue and ~here are no details available yet concerning how the County will handle recycling. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Wain addressed the Board and said he lives directly opposite the proposed location of the transfer station. He said he agrees there is a need for a landfill. He said the County will have to comply with the same regula- tions for a transfer station as it would for a new landfill. He said the staff should study the proposed site further to make sure !it will meet the new regulations. He said having an attendant at the facility iwill not keep toxic substances from being disposed of in the boxes or insure that: the area will be kept clean. He said this facility does not belong in a r~sidential area. He said he believes that the compactors will be noisy. Runoff from the site will enter his water supply. He said moving the transfer facility away from a residential area should reduce the number of regulations p;lertaining to the facility and the amount of opposition from citizens. Mr. Paul Coleman addressed the Board and said he is s:peaking on behalf of the heirs of some of the property involved and adjacent property. He said the February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 223 transfer station will be messy and people will just dump their garbage at the gate if the station is closed. He said the heirs may have to sell a sizeable piece of property and no realtor has said that this transfer station will enhance the value of the property. Mr. George Hamii1 addressed the Board and said he owns a home in Keene. He asked how this facility could be built on land that does not percolate. He said washing the pavement will send contaminants into the groundwater and ruin the water supply. He asked if each and every bag of garbage would be checked to make sure no toxic substances are brought to the station. He said the pro- posed site is in a clean, quiet, residential neighborhood and everybody within a three-mile radius opposes the transfer station. He handed out pictures of the dumpsters currently in use at the Keene landfill and said they are a big mess. He also handed the Board a list of 140 signatures of Keene residents who oppose the landfill. He said the only people who refused to sign the petition were residents who live along the road going to the present dump. He complained that poor management by the County resulted in messy dumpsters and said workers should be sent to clean around them more often. He suggested that the County dig more trenches at the site of the current landfill. Ms. Andrea Tranck addressed the Board and said she is representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Recycling First Coalition. She said the opposition to the transfer station highlights the need for better long-term solutions for waste disposal. She said it is possible to "turn trash into cash", as many con~nunities throughout the United States are doing. She said many communities are reducing their municipal wastes by as much as 60 percent. She said that about 60 percent of the waste disposed of in landfills is demolition debris. She said it is important to study the composition of this debris, then to separate the useful components such as wood and donate it to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. She said brokers who handle recycled garbage demand two things: that the supply be steady and the garbage be separated. Mr. Calvin Woolford addressed the Board~and said he owns seven acres across from the proposed transfer station. ~f the County puts the transfer station where it plans to, he will not be able to build a house on this property because he does not want to live near a dump. Nor will he be able to sell the property. He said the value of his!iproperty was reassessed recently; his property is now 28 percent more valuable!~than it was a few years ago. He said he thinks his property is actually wort~ less since it is going to be near a landfill. He offered to sell the Board his seven acres for the land- fill, because he cannot use the property any llonger. Mr. Peter Bruns from Howardsville addreslsed the Board. He said he thinks transfer stations should be left open 24 hours a day or trash will accumulate outside the dumpsters. He said he thinks the transfer facility should be in a highly visible place, maybe closer to Scottsv'ille, so people will have a daily reminder of how much trash they produce. Maybe then they will produce less trash. Mr. Clifford Hamill addressed the Board 'and said he is a resident of Keene. He said many of the people who complain about the location of the current landfill and the dust along Route 704 moved there after the landfill was established. He said those people knew what they were getting when they bought the property and now they want to move the landfill. He said the only problem with the current landfill is that it is poorly managed. Ms. Debbie Staunton addressed the Board and said she has just purchased property on Route 715 about one-half mile from the proposed transfer station. She said she moved to Keene because it is quiet, pretty and clean. She said she has spent a lot of time and money fixing up her property. She said the tranfer station shDuld not be in a residential area and it will devalue her property and ruin the area. ~ Mr. Willis Jones addressed the Board and~said he lives on Route 715. He said building the transfer station at the proposed location will destroy the neighborhood and he thinks the landfill should remain where it is. Ms. Judith Wheeler addressed the Board a~d said she is the Postmaster of Keene and lives near the Post Office. She sa~d the transfer station would be 224 February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) too close to the Post Office and too close to many nice homes. She said the landfill should be left where it is. Mr. George Hamill asked why some citizens have keys to the gates at the current landfill and can dump their garbage when no one else can. Mr. Way said he was not aware of this situation. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. He asked Mr. Moring ti address the citizens' concerns about the transfer station contaminating the water supply. Mr. Moring said a septic tank will treat runoff as sewage. He said he is sure that the land percolates somewhere on this lot, but he cannot be sure until staff has access to the land. Ms. Staunton said whatever is dumped outside the fence will be washed into the stream and she knows garbage will be dumped outside the fence. Mr. Way said the alternative to the Keene transfer station is no trash removal system in the southern end of the County. He said he understands the citizens' fears that the transfer station will be poorly looked after, becaus~ he agrees with them that the present landfill is a mess and a disgrace to the County. He said there will be other transfer stations adross the County. He said this facility will not be seen from the road; it will not be an eyesore; and it will not smell. He said he knows the citizens of'Keene will not believe these claims until the County convinces them by making the transfer station in Keene a model waste disposal system. He agrees that the transfer station must be policed in order to keep people from dumping garbage on the site after hours. He said he sympathizes with the adjoining property owners who were not notified of the public hearing at the Planning Commission's meeting and apologized for the oversight. He also said he regretted that the Planning Commission did not discuss a specific site at the meeting. However, he thinks this proposal is the best alternative. -" Mr. Perkins said he thinks these transfer stations mre needed in other areas of the County that are farther away from the Ivy l~ndfill than Keene is~ He thinks the public will oppose other locations just aslistrongly unless the transfer station at Keene becomes a model facility. Mr. iBowie agreed and it is important that this transfer station be perfect. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much of the site will be taken up by the t st-ation. Mr. Moring said a couple of a~as might eventum~lly be needed for this use, including the road and buffers. Mr. Lindstrom .asked if accepting the recommendation of the Planning Commission would mean the transfer station would be built on a specific part of the parcel. Mr. Ho=ne said "no". Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the recommendation of?=the Planning Commis- sion. He said he is concerned that there may not be enough land left over to buffer the transfer station from the road and adjoining property owners. He said the County may need to buy more than five acres to mike this transfer station as little of a nuisance as possible. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to support the Planning Commission's recommendation that this transfer station is consis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan. ~' Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to explain the site plan rewSew process to the concerned citizens, assuring them that they could have so~e influence over final design of the transfer station. Mr. Horne did so. 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. (Note: The Board recessed at 10:51 P.M. and reconveyed at 11:00 P.M.) Agenda Itam No. 9. Appeal: River Heights Retail Preliminary Site Plan (deferred from January 11, 1989). February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 225 Mr. Home said staff redeived a revised site plan for the retail center yesterday and discussed the plan with Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Transportation. He presented the new proposal, which has an entry and exit on Route 29 North; an entrance-only from River Heights, which would entail the installation of a short turning lane; and an entrance and exit from the access road back to the Sheraton Hotel. He said the design of the building has been altered slightly to give it a front facade to these roads as well as to Route 29. Mr. Horne said the staff continues to recommend the accesses planned for this parcel for many years and he indicated on the map those two access points, which excluded any access from River Heights Road. He said using only these two access points would reduce the amount of the property that could be developed. If the Board feels the applicant is entitled to build the size facility he wants to build on this property, then staff would recommend that this proposal be accepted, Mr. Horne concluded. He also asked that the Board limit its approval to the concept of the new access proposal, because staff has not had a chance to review the new internal design and many of the details of the new proposal. The architect for the River Heights project interrupted and began to explain the new proposal. He said the original plan had an entrance and exit on River Heights Road and an entrance and exit on Route 29. This site plan was rejected and the applicant returned with a site plan that had an entrance-only on Route 29. During the discussion the last time this site plan was before the Board, he commented that an exit-way could be built from the private road leading out of the Sheraton Hotel to keep people from having to make a U-turn on River Heights Road. He said there is no way to make this exit a convenient and visible access. Mr. Horne said he thought the road accessing the property from the Sheraton roadway would be both an entrance and an exit. If it is to be just an exit, he said, he must rescind his comments. Mr. Way asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, i~ he wished to comment.~ Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the priorities of the developer are different from those of the County staff and ihimself. He said his priority is to protect the transportation system; the de~eloper's is to have access to his property and maximize the development on the !'site. He said this site plan meets the developer's priorities, but will cause U-turns on Route 29 and will not allow eastbound travelers on River Heights Road to reach the shopping center without first getting on Route 29. H~ said he thinks there must be a direct way for eastbound traffic on River Heights Road to reach the shopping center and the only possible route is throug~ the Sheraton access road. He suggested that staff be given more time to co~sider the site plan. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to defer action to the February 22, 1989, meeting at 1:30 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess=s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of SidewaLk Construction on Fifth Street Extended. Mr. Agnor said staff has reviewed ~i~he options proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation for sidewalk installation along Fifth Street Extended. They are: Option A: Rural cross section without sidewalk County Costs - none $3,782,300 Option B: Curb and gutter cross section with sidewalk on one side County cost - $332,700 $4,402,400 Option C: Rural cross section with sidewalk on one side County Costs $78,000 $4,170,700 He said staff recommends Option C. VDOT~will maintain the sidewalk, but the construction cost must be borne by the County. 226 February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Bain asked why VDoT had even considered Option B. Mr. Home said property along Fifth Street Extended is recommended for commercial development and medium- and high-density residential development and eventually the County may have to install curbs and gutters along this road. He said staff recom- mended Option C because it is the least expensive. He said it may be possible for developers on the north side of Fifth Street Extended to pay for some of the improvements in the future. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve Option C, a rural cross section facility with a sidewalk on one side only at an estimated cost of $78,000. 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. 11. Discussion: Decision to request public hearing on proposed improvements to Georgetown Road and Barracks Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he has had a request from the owners of the apartments on the corner of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road to hold.a public hearing concerning proposed improvements to these roads. He said VDoT will hold this public hearing, but has not set a date yet. No action was taken by the Board. Agenda Item No. 12. Chief of Police, Accept resignation of. Mr. Agnor said he has received a letter of resignation from Chief Frank Johnstone, effective February 28, 1989. Mr. Agnor recommended that~ the Board accept this resignation and added a brief statement of the chang~es in the Police Department from 1983 to the present. He mentioned the prpgress the Police Department has made in these four years in the areas of s~affing, training ant equipment: experienced officers have been hired; the poSition of police officer is now open to women; a new radio system has been~ installed; officers were supplied with automatic pistols; employees of the P~lice Department were given overtime pay and grievance procedures; a new recordg system was installed; and the Victim Witness Program was established~ Mr. Agnor said he would like to recognize Chief Johnstone's efforts in the ~ransition from a political to professional system of law enforcement in thee County and thank him for his service. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr.~Lindstrom to accept the resignation of the Chief of Police, Mr. Frank Johnstohe, effective Febru- ary 28, 1989. 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. 13a. Appointments: Joint Airport CQmmission. Mrs. Cooke nominated Mr. Gene W. Francis to fill the unexpired:!term of Dallas Crowe, said term to expire on December 1, 1990, and Mr. S~ewart C. Malone, whose term will expire on December 1, 1991. Agenda Item No. 13b. Appointments: BOCA Code Board~iof Appeals. Mrs. Cooke nominated Mr. Thomas B. Trevillian with term to expire August 21, 1993. Mr. Herman Key and Ms. Diane 3ackson were nominated by MrS. Cooke as alter- nates with terms to expire on August 21, 1993. Agenda Item No. 13g. Appointment: Library Board. Mrs. Cooke nominated Ms. Cindy Pronevitz to fill the unexpired term of Judith ~alker, said term to expire on June 30, 1989. February 1, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting) 22? (Page 11) Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the above six nominations. 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. 13c. AppOintments: Equalizati°n Board. Mr. Lindstrom nominated Ms. Charlotte Humphris for reappointment with term to expire on December 31, 1989. Mrs. Cooke nominated Ms. Barbara Staples for reappointment with term to expire on December 31, 1989. Mr. Way nominated Mr. Thomas Allison for reappointment with term to expire on December 31, 1989. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the nominations. 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. 14. Approval of Minutes: March 26, April 9, May 14 and May 21 (N), 1986; December 16, 1987; January 20 (A), January 20 (N), Janu- ary 26, and February 17, 1988; and January 23, 1989. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of February 17, 1988, Pages 22 and April 9, 1986, Pages 1 12 and found them to be in order. 29; Mr. Bain had read the minutes of December 16, 1987, Pages 8 - End; and January 20 (N), 1988, and found them to be in order with one typographical error. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of December 16, 1987, Pages 1 found them to be in order. 8 and Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for January 20 (A), 1988; and Febru- ary 17, 1988, Pages 29 End and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bruce Bishop spoke concerning waste disposal and said regardless of where transfer facilities are located, the garbage will be sent to the Ivy Landfill. With the current levels of use, the Ivy Landfill will last about ten years; sending refuse to Ivy that once was disposed of in the Keene Landfill will shorten its period of operation. He said the County needs to adopt recycling as a long-term solution to the problem of garbage. Centers for recycling should be established; businesses should be encouraged to recycle the materials they use, particularly paper; and the County, City and University should be encouraged to recycle aswell. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 11:45 P.M., with no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.