Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-12-18December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on ecember 18, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, harlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. isher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, ~unty Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, irector of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. hairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order-at 7:32 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda ~tem No. ~. Co~sent~Agenda~ Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, ~o approve the consen~ agenaa ana accep~ Item 4.4 as information. Roll was called and the ~'otion carried by the following recorded vote: YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. AYS: None. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses in which the Compensation Board participates, for he Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of ovember, 1985, were approved as presented. Item No. 4.2.a. Request was received to take McClary Court in Gilbert Heights Subdivision nto the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Gilbert Heights Subdivision: McClar¥ Court: Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the edge of pavement of Route 600 and the centerline of McClary Court, thence in a northeasterly direction 1,033.77 feet to station 10+43.77, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 709, page 56 and Deed Book 861, page 441. Item No. 4.2.b. Request was received from Mr. James M. Hill, Virginia Land Company, to ake Bob White Court in Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision into the State Secondary System of [ighways. The following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision: Bob White Court: Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the centerline of Bob White Court and the edge of pavement of Thrush Road, thence in a southwesterly direction 551.45 feet to station 5+61.45, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 694, page 545. Item No. 4.2.c. Request was received to take a new loop circulation road (Route 9009) at Broadus Wood Elementary School into the State Secondary System of Highways. Item No. 4.3. Request was received for the abandonment of the old circulation road Route 9009) at Broadus Wood Elementary School. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System due to relocation and construction of Route 9009; and 218 December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined in green on the attached site plan (on file), be added to the Secondary System pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia: Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the centerline of the loop circulation road and the edge of pavement of Route 663, thence in a northwesterly direction 803.32 feet to station 8+03.32, the end of the loop circulation road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section as indicated in red be abandoned: Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge of pavement of Route 663 and the centerline of the school's circulation road, thence in a northwesterly direction approximately 540 feet to station 5+40, the end of the loop circulation road. Item No. 4.2.d. Request was received to take Gloucester Court in Carrsbrook Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. The following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Carrsbrook Subdivision: Gloucester Court: Beginning at station 0+10, a point common with the centerline of Gloucester Court and the edge of pavement of Gloucester Road, thence in an easterly direction 568.71 feet to station 5+78.21, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and TransPortation is guaranteed a variable right-of-way of between 45 and 50 feet along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 851, page 416, and Deed Book 832, page 586. Item No. 4.2.e. Request was received from Mr. James M. Hill, Jr., Virginia Land Company, to take Commonwealth Drive in Westfield Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Westfield Subdivision: Commonwealth Drive: Beginning at station 0+26, a point common With the edge of pavement at Hydraulic Road and the centerline of Commonwealth Drive, thence in a northeasterly direction 2,494 feet to station 25+20, the end of the temporary cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 70 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement~along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 704, page 517, Deed Book 697, page 425, Deed Book 712, page 688 and Deed Book 575, page 282. Item No. 4.4. A copy of Planning Commission minutes for its meeting of December 3, 1985, received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: To receive suggestions from the public on appointment School Board members effective January 1, 1986. (Notice of this public hearing was published the Daily Progress on December 6, 1985.) Mr. Fisher said a new requirement under Code Section 22.1-29.1 states that all appointing ~dies of School Boards shall conduct a public hearing prior to the appointment of .those ~embers for the purpose of receiving comments from citizens. Mr. Fisher said this is an ~xperiment in democracy. He then opened the public hearing. Mrs. Martha Wood, President of the Albemarle Education Association, said the Albemarle tion Association is pleased to support the concept of this open hearing for the appoint- of School Board members. The AEA believes that School Board members should possess the ~llowing characteristics: a love of education; a primary interest in advancing the cause of Lll children; persons who can view the whole picture of a given issue and are willing to take ~n active role in the formulation of policy and the discussion of issues; be willing to ask lard and sometimes unpopular questions; have the time at their disposal to investigate the iieeds of the schools, the needs of the students and the needs of the educators in the schools; December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 219 be open-minded, independent thinkers and have no hidden agendas; and have some knowledge of basic educational theory. The Albemarle Education Association appreciates the opportunity to come before the Board of Supervisors to express these beliefs and interests, and awaits the Board's decision in the new year with interest a~d anticipation. Mrs. Jannene Shannon said she lives near Covesville, has two children in the Albemarle County school system and would like to speak on behalf of Mr. Ed Bain, Jr. Mrs. Shannon said Mr. Bain has supported events at Western Albemarle High School even though his children are not in high school. Mr. Bain is interested in the activities of all children and is dedicated to making schools better for children. His qualities of integrity, fairness and dedication would be a tremendous asset to any school board. Mr. Gregory Shasby, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Linda Perriello, addressed the Board. Mr. Shasb¥ said Mrs. Perriello is an individual who directs a tremendous amount of energy and interest to the school system, sets goals and gets the resources that are needed to accomplish those goals, and has the ability to work with individuals, groups and organize activities. Mrs. Perriello was also one of the facilitators of getting youth sports into the school system. Mrs. Perriello would make an excellent School Board member and he strongly supports her candidacy. Mr. Clifford W. Haury, speaking on behalf of Mr. Ed Bain, addressed the Board. He found the following statement from a newspaper: "The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place." Mr. Bain would bring a combination of self interest and public interest to the School Board. During the next school year, Mr. Bain will have three children in the school system. That is essential because the children will bring to him in the capacity of a School Board member that little bit of energy and that little extra bit of knowledge that has served him so well in his residency in the county. Mr. Bain displays good knowledge of the school system, has experience with the PTO, a member of the ad hoc building committee, member of the Parent Advisory Committee and through his children is actively involved in sports. Mr. Bain has a great ability to see the needs of the system beyond his district which is a very strong attribute for anyone who occupies a position on the School Board. Mr. Haury believes Mr. Bain would serve the best interest of the children at all levels. He has the ability to work within resources to provide for the children of Albemarle County the best possible education at all levels. Mrs. Sue Lewis, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters, addressed the Board. The League of Women Voters several years ago developed the following criteria for appointments to School Boards: the person should have an interest in and a commitment to public education; a commitment to equity described as having a regard for the individual differences as well as concern for the entire community; a willingness and ability to serve effectively - someone with time, energy and health; integrity, initiative and courage of convictions; an ability to work with others and to speak articulately and persuasively with a broad knowledge of the issues; an ability to think in a critical and constructive manner about all issues related to public education; an ability to recognize general principles and apply them in particular cases in discussions and decisions; a creative approach to problem solving and an ability to stimulate decisions within a group; an ability and energy to follow through on Board decisions and implementation of Board policy. The League of Women Voters are very pleased that the selection process for members of the School Board has moved to this open public hearing. Mrs. Charlotte Dammann, speaking on behalf of Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, addressed the Board. A School Board member should know the entire community and the impact of each school on its individual community. A School Board member must make hard decisions and often with limited funds available. It is essential to set priorities and stick to them. Mr. Rasmussen has the ability and has demonstrated through his community service and profession that he can listen to both sides of an issue and make a judgment that is fair. Mr. Rasmussen possesses the qualities, experience and desire to make an excellent School Board member. Mrs. Sally Thomas, a former member of the School Board, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Linda Perriello, addressed the Board. Mrs. Thomas said Mrs. Perriello is a person effective in dealing with people, effective in looking at the problems of the school and she developed a field hockey league for girls. The School Board is about to have all male members. An important aspect to remember is that over half of the students, employees and parents are women, therefore it is very important to have a woman on the School Board. Mrs. Perriello is an outstanding candidate. With no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said this is one of the first public hearings to be held on School Board appointments in the State of Virginia. There are five excellent candidates from the Samuel Miller district. He feels a very strong responsibility to find the very best person for the position. He then asked the candidates who were present to stand: Mrs. Linda Perriello, Mr. Ed Bain, Jr., and Mr. Bruce Rasmussen. Mr. Lindstrom acknowledged the following persons from the Jack Jouett district: Dr. Charles Tolbert and Mr. A1 Goode. Mrs. Cooke said apparently the people in the Charlottesville District are pleased with Mr. Armstrong, who is currently on the School Board. She thinks it is wonderful that the criteria verbalized for a School Board member are all present in her selection of Mr. Armstrong. She feels that absent from the remarks is a sense of business and a touch with the business world. The school system is big business and unless an individual has some perception of dealing in the business world it would be very difficult for that individual to address the business problems of running the school system. There being no further comments, the Board continued with the scheduled agenda. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-85-17. Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Request to rezone 19.309 ~acres from R-6 to HC. Property located on west side of Rt. 29N, adjacent to Rivanna Amoco Service Station. (Deferred from November 6, 1985 at the applicant's request). December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Horn presented the following revised staff report dated October 29, 1985: Requested zoning: HC Highway Commercial (PROFFER) Acreage: 19.209 acres Existing Zoninq: R-6 Residential Location: Property, described as TM 45, parcels 109, 109A, 109B, and 93A, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N near the SPCA. Character of the Area: Properties to the north are zoned R-6 Residential and HC Highway Commercial and uses to the north include HUB furniture store. Property to the south is zoned HC Highway Commercial its entire depth and is undeveloped. Properties to the west are zoned R-6 Residential. The SPCA is adjacent on the northwest. This property is undeveloped as zoned and wooded. Comprehensive Plan: Existing Highway Commercial zoning in the area appears more extensive than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. In development of the 1980 zoning map, prior commercial zoning in the area was generally recognized. Generally, this resulted in commercial zonings of greater depth from Route 29N than are depicted on the Land Use Plan Map ~for Neighborhood One. This has resulted in more land zoned for commercial development than is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for development by year 2002: Vacant* Comprehensive Plan Commercial 98 acres 65 acres Commercial Office 7 acres 25 acres *Does not include properties developed since adoption of 1983 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Neighborhood One is 'overzoned' for general commercial development and 'underzoned' for commercial office usage. Other appropriate Comprehensive Plan recommendations for Neighborhood One and commercial use in general are as follows: - Current land use trends (commercial and industrial development along Route 29 and residential development to the west) should continue with primarily medium-density residential development along SPCA and Rio Roads in areas presently undeveloped (p. 150). Future highway-oriented commercial development should be located exclusively in clusuers with common access points on sites of a minimum three acres in area. Highway-oriented commercial develop- menu nou located in such clusters should utilize service road or reverse frontage access shared by two or more esuablishments to minimize the number of intersections on the higher functional class roads (p. 129). Rezonings to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be accomplished under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan (p. 130). Commercial office uses should be employed as transitional areas between residential areas and heavier commercial or industrial areas (p. 130). Initial Review of ZMA-85-17: Initially, this petition was a request for conventional Highway Commercial zoning. Neither Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation nor the Planning staff recommended favorably on the original submittal since commercial zoning sought was of greater depth than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan and would have increased traffic generation to Rt. 29N. Applicant's Proffer: In attempt to overcome negative aspects of the proposed rezoning, the applicant has proffered two limitations on the properties: 1. To restrict development of parcels 109 and 109A so that traffic generation under proposed zoning would not exceed generation under current zoning;* 2. To limit access to Rt. 29N to three (3) entrances to serve parcels 109, 109A, 109B, and 93A. * Parcel 109B is developed with an Amoco service station and is zoned HC. Parcel 93A is zoned HC. These proper- ties have been included for access purposes only and are not otherwise subject to limitations. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) ( Page 5 ) Staff Comment: Staff offers the following comment regarding the applicant's proffer: The proffer of "status quo" traffic generation negates concern as to additional traffic to Rt. 29N: At 450 vehicle trips per day/acre, traffic generation for Parcels 109 and 109A under conventional HC zoning would be over 12,300 vehicle trips per day. Under the applicant's proffer, traffic generation would be 4430 vehicle trips per day. (Should this petition be approved, it would be appropriate for the applicant and County to agree on a specific generation figure). This would translate to an average per acre generation of about 160 vehicle trips per day which is low intensity for commercial development (i.e. - CO: 200-600 vehicle trips per day; R-15:105-140 vehicle trips per day). The limitation to three entrances is viewed as an improvement over existing circumstances: The applicant has proffered to limit access to four parcels (combined front- age of 1215 feet) to three entrances. While the proffer is not explicit at this time, two entrances would be on the Amoco property and the third entrance would be at the Woodbrook crossover. Most traffic would be concentrated at one Amoco entrance and the Woodbrook entrance. Under this rezoning combined traffic generation would be about 11,200 vehicle trips per day. Five entrances currently serve these four properties. Under County regulations staff opinion is that an imposed limitation to fewer than five entrances would be difficult to achieve. Staff has discussed the proposed access limitation with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the County Engineer who generally agree that the proposal would be an improvement. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has cautioned that entrance and/or crossover modifications may be recommended at the Amoco site and emphasized that the Amoco crossover is recommended to be closed under the U.S. Rt. 29N Corridor Study. Staff opinion is that, with cited clarifications, the applicant's proffered rezoning would be an improvement over current zoning in regard to traffic concerns on U. S. Rt. 29N. As stated earlier, zoning depth is greater than recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. It should be noted, however, that the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be used for precise area measurements. The depth of commercial development along this section of Rt. 29N could be set more accurately based on the general policies cited in this report. The Commission and Board should determine if this rezoning would better serve the general public welfare than a strict reading of the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Staff Recommendation: Approval, if clarifications to the proffer are made by the applicant, and a revised written proffer is submitted. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 29, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-85-17 subject to the following proffer dated October 17, 1985 signed by Charles W. Hurt. "October 17, 1985' Ron Keeler, Senior Planner Albemarle County Planning Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Keeler: I am the owner of Parcel 93, Tax Map 45, which is presently zoned highway commercial in entirety. As contract purchaser of Parcels 109A- and 109, Tax Map 45, with combined acreage of 27.3 acres, I would like the County to change the zoning on the back portions of Parcels 109A and 109 from residential to highway commercial so that they will all have the same depth of commercial zoning. I will limit the access on Parcel 93 to one entrance and limit the entrance on Parcels 109A and 109 to two entrances. I will limit the development on these parcels so that they will not generate any more traffic than they are presently zoned for. Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I am Yours truly, (SIGNED) Charles W. Hurt" December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) The following letter dated December 13, 1985 addressed Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning, from Dr. Charles W. Hurt was also received: "This letter is to acknowledge that I recognize that the State is considering closing the cross-over in front of the Amoco Station on Route 29 North. I am not in favor of this closing, but I recognize the fact that the Highway Department appears to have the right to open and close cross-overs at their own discretion." Mr. Horne said that on December 13, 1985, Dr. Hurt appeared in his office and wrote an amendment on the proffer to wit: Change the second sentence of the second paragraph to read: "I will limit the development on these parcels so that they will not generate any more traffic than they are presently zoned for; NOT TO EXCEED 4,430 V.T.P.D." Mr. Horne said Dr. Hurt initialled the proffer and he witnessed this by initialling same and added the date "12/13/85." Mr. Horne said the purpose for applying for this rezoning is to develop all of these parcels as one property which will allow an additional depth to the zoning in order to develop an internal loop road system which essentially would go from the Woodbrook crossover in a loop manner through the property and then exit out of the property near the Amoco station. The basic proffer is that the traffic generated by the property to be rezoned would not exceed the traffic generation that could take place under the current R-6 and commercial zoning categories and that the access for parcels 93A and 109B would be limited to three total access points including the one at the Amoco station and one major entrance at the Woodbrook crossover. Mr. Fisher said he does not interpret the proffer to include parcel 109B. Mr. Horne said he thinks the intent of the proffer is to include 109B. Mr. Fisher suggested that the intent of the proffer be clarified with the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom asked for an explanation of the comparison in traffic generation figures. Mr. Horne said the staff used the existing R-6 zoning and the number of residential units that would be allowed under that zoning to generate a figure using seven vehicle trips per day/per unit and came up with a figure of approximately 4430 vehicle trips per day. That was applied as a strict limitation. The applicant proffered that he would not generate any more vehicle trips per day should it be rezoned to HC than he could by right generate under the R-6. The result is a written designation of a specific traffic generation. Mr. Horne said parcels 109 and 109A are being changed in designation. An attempt to control access is on parcels 93A 109, 109A and 109B. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Horne how he will ascertain the number of vehicle trips per day, police those vehicle trips and determining the configuration of development that would generate the given number of vehicle trips per day. Mr. Horne said the staff uses data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers and other sources. In this case, the staff would also use some figures from the Federal Highway Administration. Based on the specific type of use, the size and various characteristics, there are projections for vehicle trips per day. As site plans are brought to the County, staff would monitor the total traffic generation in the area and not approve development on site plans that would exceed the 4430 figure. There would not be an actual measurement after development; the vehicle trips are projected at the time of site plan review. Mr. Lindstrom asked what development is on the adjacent parcels to the back of these parcels. Mr. Horne replied the SPCA and basically single-family residential developments. Mr. Fisher said he does not interpret the proffer the same way as interpreted by Mr. Horne. Mr. Fisher then read the second paragraph of the proffer. He interprets the proffer to mean only the three parcels. Mr. Horne said that is not the intent of the proffer. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition without the written change "not to exceed 4,430 v.p.d". The intent was to clarify the original proffer by.stating a specific traffic generation count. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a substantial amount of grading will be necessary before any development can take place on these parcels. Mr. Horne said grading will be required for commercial development, but not as much will be required for residential development. Mr. Fisher commented that he feels another option for this odd-shaped piece of property would be to rezone the back portion of it to residential in order to conform to zoning on adjacent property. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that using the deepest lot as an example and saying all of these lots should be rezoned that way will create a domino affect for more commercial depth in this area. Mr. Fisher asked what depth is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial. Mr. Horne said it is fairly narrow basically as currently zoned. Mrs. Cooke asked how the other properties became zoned commercial. Mr. Horne said the other properties were in use as commercial development prior to the last change in the Comprehensive Plan, so those properties were zoned to their entire depth. Mr. Lindstrom said those properties that were developed and those that had valid site plans, were treated specially because the Board did not want to inhibit anybody's ability to use those lands for whatever zoning category in use at that time. This petition, if approved, would let those exceptions start to dictate the pattern of development on adjacent properties. The intent in the Comprehensive Plan is that all of the commercial be limited to the depth of parcel 109B exactly as it is now shown. Mr. Horne said the thrust of the staff comment is that there is a set of standards in the Compre- hensive Plan to look at, and one of those is some type of internal access to do clustering of commercial development as opposed to strip commercial development. Mrs. Cooke said if the Board approves this rezoning, it leaves the rest of the area open for more commercial rezoning requests. The public hearing was opened. Dr. Charles W. Hurt, the applicant, addressed the Board. Dr. Hurt said he is the contract purchaser for the entire tract of land subject to approval of this rezoning. He also owns parcel 94 which is zoned commercial for its entire depth. This. area would not be a very pleasant place in which to have housing with the SPCA Road at the back of the property, a motorcycle shop on one side and a mobile home sales facility on the other side. His idea of putting in an internal loop road system to allow clustering of commercial development will cut down on strip development along Route 29 North and will decrease the need for extensive grading. Also, this proposal will not particularly increase the traffic on Route 29. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 223 Mr. Fisher asked if the proffer relates to the entire the three parcels. Dr. Hurt said no; the intent of the proffer was as first stated by Mr. Horne, and that is to limit the traffic on that portion of the property, but not to exceed what it's present zoning category. Mr. Fisher said the amendment caused the problem with the proffer. Mr. Lindstrom said the language should be: "I will limit the development on parcels 109A and 109 so that they will not generate any more traffic than they are presently zoned for". Dr. Hurt said that is correct; Mr. Horne supplied the number because he thought that the statement might cause some confusion in the future. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said this land lies in her district. She sees the value of Dr. Hurt's proposal with regard to the loop road. She did not realize there was that much residentially zoned land in the parcel; however, the property does back up to the SPCA Road and is adjacent to other commercial parcels. If this loop road can eliminate the need for an excessive amount of grading, she is inclined to support the request. Mr. Bowie said the problem on Route 29 North is traffic and entrances. The fact that this request reduces traffic by one-third the amount projected in the Comprehensive Plan and reduces the entrances with the loop road, he tends to support the request. Mr. Fisher said he did not know how this request reduces the traffic to one-third of the amount projected in the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that Dr. Hurt commented that the traffic will still be 11,000. Dr. Hurt said the uses will not exceed that traffic projection, but he feels the traffic will be reduced through the clustering. Mr. Fisher said 4,400 vehicle trips are only for the back portion; the frontage of the property is still going to generate 6,000 to 7,000 vehicle trips per day. Mrs. Cooke said she does not see this as reducing the number of trips and traffic, per se. She sees this proposal will eliminate the congestion, entrances, exits, etc. on Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher said he sees just the opposite effect. It is stated in the Comprehensive Plan that crossovers should be no closer than 500 feet apart. These are the only two parcels on the entire strip that meet that standard in the Comprehensive Plan. He personally feels the way to solve the problem is to rezone parcel 93A back to residential. That action would improve the situation and would move toward implementing the Comprehensive Plan. He has serious problems with continually expanding commercial zoning on Route 29 North. Mrs. Cooke asked what type of housing could be constructed on the presently zoned resi- dential property. Mr. Horne said six dwelling units per acre maximum. That is multi-family housing. Mrs. Cooke said she feels there is entirely too much multi-family housing in the area already. She cannot see putting anymore residential development in the area. Additional residential would impact the schools and require more services than are available in the area. Mr. Way again asked Mr. Horne for an interpretation of the proffer. Mr. Horne asked Dr. Hurt if he has any interest in parcel 109B, the Amoco station. Dr. Hurt said the Amoco station is part of the property that he has a contract to buy subject to rezoning. He is attempting to provide some large pieces of commercial land for uses that do not generate very much traffic per acre. Mr. Horne then asked Dr. Hurt if the limitation on the number of access points applies also to the Amoco property. Dr. Hurt said he is not sure. The staff member who went over this with him drew on a map what made sense, and he agreed to it. He does not believe it increased the number of entrances, but kept the number to the same number that presently exist on the property. Mr. Horne said the proffer as it stands now would not limit parcel 109B. That property is subject to the purchase agreement and is part of the property that the applicant is attempting to include as part of his access limitation proffer. As currently written, however, it does not include 109B, so that parcel would not be subject to the proffer. There could be the entrance at the Amoco station and three additional entran- ces. The intent was to have three entrances by also limiting the access to the Amoco station, but that is not what the proffer states. In terms of the traffic generation, the applicant would limit the traffic generation on those two properties to exactly what the traffic genera- tion would be today, with the combination of the frontage HC and the R-6. The traffic generation from the R-6 alone is 4,430 vehicle trips per day. At 8:40 P.M., the Chairman called a recess to allow Mr. Horne and Dr. Hurt to clarify the proffer. The meeting reconvened at 8:48 P.M. Mr. Horne presented the following revised proffer to the Board: "I am the owner of Parcel 93A, Tax Map 45, which is presently zoned highway commercial in its entirety. As contract purchaser of Parcels 109A, 109 and 109B, Tax Map 45, with combined acreage of 27.3 acres, I would like the County to change the zoning on the back portions of Parcels 109A and 109 from residential to highway commercial so that they will all have the same depth of commercial zoning. I will limit the access on Parcels 109, 109A, 109B and 93A to no more than three total entrances. I will limit the development on these parcels so that they will not generate any more traffic than they are presently zoned for." Mr. Horne said the staff and the applicant are clearly in agreement on the number of vehicle trips per day, and will not include that number in the proffer. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Hurt if that is his proffer as read by Mr. Horne. Dr. Hurt replied yes. Mr. Fisher asked, for the record, the total traffic count anticipated from all of these parcels. Mr. Horne said the total anticipated traffic count from all four parcels is 11,200 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the process followed here tonight is legal. Mr. St. John replied yes. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve ZMA-85-17 with proffer dated October 17, 1985 and amended verbally on December 18, 1985 and approved by the applicant, and set out directly as above. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Fisher said approval of this petition goes the wrong way with respect to the Compre- hensive Plan. The process should be to change the Plan and not deviate from the Plan. He does not see a great public need to be served by this request, and he will oppose the petition. Mr. Lindstrom said he would agree with Mr. Fisher if he thought there was any chance of this Board doing what he thinks should be done on Route 29 North, but he does not think it will ever happen. Pragmatically he must look at what is already developed on Route 29 North and is likely to continue to be there, and recognize that this is a more logical, better planned development than the County would otherwise get. He, therefore, will support the motion. With no further comments, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-85-75. Marriott Corporation. To locate a motel/hotel or inn in Branchlands PUD. (Deferred from December 4, 1985.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1985.) Mr. Horne presented the following staff report: "Request: Motel (20.4.2.1; 22.2.2.7) Acreage: 4.13 acres Zoning: PUD (commercial/service) Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcel 1 (part) is located on the east side of Rte. 29N in Branchlands PUD. Character of the Area: This site, a portion of Area F in Branchlands PUD, is south and adjacent to Fashion Square Mall and east and adjacent to Albemarle Bank & Trust. The applicant proposes access to Fashion Square and Branchlands main entrance which will require careful planning due to elevation differences. Staff Comment: During development of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance, hotels and motels were provided by special use permit primarily due to proximity of C-l, Commercial, zoning to established residential areas. In this case, the proposed Marriott motel would be remote from areas designated for residential development, therefore, compatibility is not a concern. under previous review of Branchlands PUD, traffic generation was a principle concern in regard to proposed land use changes. The proposed motel would consist of 146 rooms and restaurant seating for 50 people. This would result in traffic generation figures comparable to uses permitted by right. Staff recommends approval subject to: Motel limited to 146 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity; 2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63; ® Resolution of access prior to scheduling of site plan for Planning Commission review. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 19, 1985, unanimously recommended approval of SP-85-75 subject to the conditions as recommended by the staff but changed condition ~1 to wit: "Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity. Mr. Horne said the 160 rooms are consistent with the traffic generation anticipated in this section of the Branchlands PUD, therefore, the staff has no problems with 160 rooms. The following letter dated December 12, 1985, to the Board of Supervisors, from Mr. Fred S Landess was presented: "Marriott Corporation will appear before you on December 18, 1985 to request a Special Use Permit to allow them to build a 150 to 160 room motel in their new 'Courtyard' concept. The Special Use Permit is required as the proposed site is 4.1 acres in Area F of the Branchlands PUD. Under zoning for this area, a Special Use Permit is necessary for a motel. At its meeting on November 19, 1985, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Special Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity; 2. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26/SP-80-63; and Resolution of access prior to scheduling of site plan for Planning Commission review. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9 ) 225 Marriott's only concern with the above conditions is the general nature of condition number 2. Because the Branchlands PUD covers a substantial area and is expected to be developed in a combination of residential and commercial, most of which has not yet been planned, Marriott would like to have the conditions be more specific in order for it to proceed with its site plan. Because of the location of the proposed Marriott site, it is believed approval of the Marriott site plan can be made and construction started without in any way compromising the plans or conditions for the overall development of Branchlands PUD, as set out in the letter of February 20, 198.1 concerning ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63. Specifically, the requirement for the construction of Section 3 of the Collector Road could cause substantial delay, as the specifics of that road evidently have not yet been worked out. The road will not have any connection with the proposed site and will have no function for or impact on the proposed Marriott facility. Therefore, Marriott does not feel it should be a condition for its site plan approval. If the County feels it must, however, it would seem the County's position could be protected by the developer responsible, in this case being Belvedere Land Trust, bonding the construction of that road in an amount to be determined by the County Engineer. Likewise, because of the location of the proposed site on the edge of the PUD, the handling of utilities and stormwater drainage for the site will have little or no effect on the remainder of the PUD. It would seem these matters could be handled as a part of site plan review, with the only concern being they would not interfere in any way with the overall development of the PUD. Finally, it is agreed the new access from Route 29 is to be constructed as of the time of development of this site and thus it would seem appropriate to treat the access road to the site as a part of the site plan review. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Board approve the request for Special Use Permit SP-85-75, amending the conditions to read as follows: Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity; A bond to be posted in an amount determined by the County Engineer for construction of Section 3 of the Branchlands Collector Road prior to site plan approval; and The access road to the site, stormwater detention provisions and utility plans for servicing the site shall all be considered as a part of site plan review and approval. Mr. Horne then presented the following memorandum dated December 13, 1985 to the Board: "This memorandum is in response to a letter submitted to the Board of Supervisors dated December 12, 1985 from Fred S. Landess. The Department of Planning & Community Development and the County Engineer reviewed this proposal and would like to recommend the following revised condi- tions of approval: Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity; Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 with the agreement that a bond is to be posted in the amount determined by the County Engineer for construction of Section 3 of the Branch- lands collector road prior to site plan approval; construction plans for Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road must be submitted to the County Engineer, and reviewed by the County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to the extent necessary to accurately establish an accurate bond prior to site plan approval; and The access road to the site, stormwater detention provisions, and utility plans for servicing the site, and their interrelation to the overall plans for the PUD, shall all be considered as part of the site plan review and approval. The Board of Supervisors should be aware also that this Department is actively engaged in the discussions with all owners of the Branchlands PUD concerning amendments to the conditions of approval of that PUD. We do anticipate that an application will be submitted to the Planning Commission and Board in the near future for revisions to those condi- tions which we hope will simplify and clarify many of the conditions. We do not anticipate that any of those proposed amendments would effect any action by the Board of Supervisors on this special permit." Mr. Horne said under the current conditions of the PUD, any use in Section "F" that would increase traffic along the existing Branchlands entrance road, would necessitate the reloca- tion of that roadway and then some arrangement made to get that access road to the develop- ment. An existing condition for the PUD is that Section 3 of the roadway be built at the time of development of Section "F". The applicant has proposed to bond that roadway. The staff 228 December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) has no objection to bonding for a limited period of time. During that one year period, the applicant would have time to come back with an amendment to the general conditions on the PUD. If that amendment were not approved, Section 3 of the roadway would still have to be construc- ted by either the County, using the bond, or be constructed by the applicant. Section 3 is to eventually connect to an area in Squire Hills that has already been platted. The road has been designed and will be connected to an area near the existing Branchlands entrance road. The staff does not feel that this limited period of time will endanger the existing conditions of the PUD and/or the construction of the collector road. There is extensive fill that will have to take place before the motel can be constructed on this site, and that fill will dictate where the actual access comes into Section 3 from the collector road. Mr. Fisher asked if during discussion of bonding for Section 3, if there has been discus- sion of not building the road. Mr. Horne said not as far as the staff is concerned; there has been no discussion of not building that collector roadway. The bond will be for one year only. After one year there would either have to be a change in the conditions that would dictate when and how this road would be built, or the road would be built in conformance with the existing condition which state that the required improvements shall not be deferred for a particular phase beyond the development of that phase. There have been some discussions as to whether or not it is economically feasible to build the roadway under the current conditions. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Fred Landess, representing Marriott Corporation, addressed the Board. Mr. Landess said Mr. Michael Assad, Regional Real Estate Director for Marriott Corporation, is also present. Mr. Assad will address the Board first to give a general idea of Marriott's plans and concepts. Mr. Landess said he will then address the Board on the conditions. Mr. Assad said Marriott Corporation is proposing a hotel concept, which is a luxury facility at a moderate price. Marriott spent three years analyzing customers of the lodging industry, and then targeted a segment of those customers including the business traveler and the leisure traveler. This evolved into the Courtyard concept by Marriott. The idea behind the motel is to have a residential appearance, very low profile product to cater to a very specific-type of traveller. Mr. Assad presented photographs showing the proposed structure and explained the design, the decor and the landscaping. Mr. Assad said the lounge and restaurant seats about 50 people and neither are intended to pull the public in from the outside. Mr. Landess again addressed the Board, and said he would like to discuss the interaction between the various parties involved in the project. He said the only concern the applicant has with the conditions as set out in Mr. Horne's memorandum of December 13, is the require- ment in condition $2 "... construction plans for Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road must be submitted to the County Engineer, and reviewed by the County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to the extent necessary to accurately establish an accurate bond prior to site plan approval". The applicant is concerned with the amount of time it will take to meet these requirements. It is the applicant's feeling that once a determination has been made as to the designation, type of collector road, and what the distance of the road, that his engineers can make an estimate within five percent of the actual cost. The developer is willing to post the bond with a ten percent margin for pending error. The applicant would like for the condition to state "... a bond is to be posted in the amount determined by the County Engineer for construction of Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road prior to site plan approval." This amended wording would eliminate the require- ment that the detailed plans be reviewed by the Culpeper Division of Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and then come back to the County. The applicant does not feel construction can get started this spring if they have to go through the process in this order. Mr. Fisher asked if that is the only change requested by the applicant in the proposed condi- tions. Mr. Landess said yes, the applicant is satisfied with the remaining conditions. Mr. Lindstrom asked on what the County Engineer would base his bond amount if condition $2 is amended as suggested. Mr. Landess said the primary consideration deals with the type of road which is to be built. The road itself means absolutely nothing to Marriott since it will not touch the Marriott property nor will the Marriott property have access to the road. He assumes this is just a good opportunity to deal with the road while Marriott Corporation is working on its' project. Once the County Engineer determines by estimated traffic counts the designation or type of road, the distance of the road, any stream that may have to be bridged, and the elevations, then there are formulas available to estimate the cost of the road. Mr. Landess said there is one stream that runs through the area. Dr. Charles Hurt next addressed the Board. Dr. Hurt said the collector road shown running through Section "A" and Section "F" has already been designed and plans have been submitted for approVal. If the County will give him permission to build the road, he would like to start on the road immediately. One of the problems with this PUD is that the people associated with it have changed from time to time, and, therefore, it has been very difficult to get everybody to agree on how to interpret the conditions. He understands from reading the conditions that the road could be built without any approved site plan as to how the property is going to be used. This is an approved PUD, and things are taking place on different parts of the property. He submitted a grading plan to the County over a year ago so he could start the road. He does not want to wait until the Highway Department approves the road. It is very difficult to know what the traffic count is going to be on the road. He would like to go ahead and put the drainage structure in, do the grading, and put down a road that he feels will be adequate for a long period of time, but he does not want to waste money on something that will provide a benefit to no one. Mr. Fisher said the Highway Department will not agree to take the road into the State system unless the Department knows the ultimate use of the road. Therefore, the Highway Department will not approve the road plans until the owner informs the Department of the use for the property. Dr. Hurt said they have held many discussions that possibly commercial roads should be maintained by the merchant's association. Mr. Fisher said this is not a commercial road, but a collector road, an ultimate main thoroughfare all the way through to Rio Road. Dr. Hurt said he would like to have the road a public road, but sometimes it is difficult initially to decide on the design of the road. In the long run the road will be public, but until the properties along the road are built on he would like to be able to maintain the road. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page tl) 22 7 With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens if the Board accepts the suggestion of the applicant to change the condition. Mr. Horne said he does not think it would be a good idea to totally accept the suggestion of the applicant. The intent of condition 92 is to provide the County Engineer and the Highway Department with the plans and allow them to review the plans to the extent necessary to establish the bond. That review may be something less than the final sign-off by the Highway Department in Culpeper on the final set of plans. He has spoke quite extensively with Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, and they envision that most likely the County would get the original set of plans from the developer, review those plans and send the plans to the Highway Department. The plans would then come back to the County Engineer with a set of comments and then further revisions would take place. If the plans come back and the comments are minor, and Mr. Elrod feels he is able to set the bond at that point, the bond will be set. If the plans come back and a total redesign of the roadway is require, then Mr. Elrod will tell the applicant to revise and resubmit the plans. The staff is hoping that with enough prior discussion while these plans are being designed, the staff can help "head off" a major redesign after the plans have been submitted to the Highway Department. The staff does not think this condition will cause undue delay. If the plans are completed in a manner to meet Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards, the staff feels that a bond can be set by March. Mr. Horne said this is standard procedure. Although a final signature from Culpeper is not necessarily required to set the bond, the County Engineer is not willing to set the bond without a set of plans to review and an indication from Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation as to its' attitude towards the plans. Ultimately this road will be a public road. Mr. Fisher said he remembers that one of the reasons this PUD was approved, ten or more years ago, was the gaining of this road as a public collector road as an alternate to Route 29 North. He thinks the Board must be careful that any actions that it takes are in that direction unless there is a conscious change to completely abolish the idea of a public parallel road. Mr. Landess again addressed the Board. He said Marriott Corporation has a deadline for filing a site plan on March 3 in order to be heard by the Planning Commission on April 22. The applicants are Worried about how much time it will take to get any approval from CUlpeper. Mr. Horne said if the plans are to be submitted soon, and the plans have been designed in accordance with VDH&T standards, the staff honestly thinks that the plans can be reviewed to the extent that a bond can be established. The staff does not want to delay Marriott unneces- sarily, but the staff does not want to be hanging its hat on the design of the road, particularly because there is a stream crossing present. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that the Board should leave the condition as written. He can understand that the County Engineer must have something more definitive than an estimate of how many vehicle trips are going to be generated. He supports this special permit with the conditions recommended. Mr. Bowie said he also supports the special permit as recommended and does not feel that the conditions are unreasonable. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-85-75 subject to the following conditions as recommended by the staff: Motel limited to 160 rooms and restaurant limited to 50 person seating capacity; Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-26 and SP-80-63 with the agreement that a bond is to be posted in the amount determined by the County Engineer for construc~ione of Section 3 of the Branch- lands collector road prior to site plan approval; construction plans for Section 3 of the Branchlands collector road must be submitted to the County Engineer, and reviewed by the County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to the extent necessary to accurately establish an accurate bond prior to site plan approval; and The access road to the site, stormwater detention provisions, and utility plans for servicing the Site, and their interrelation to the overall plans for the PUD, shall all be considered as part of the site plan review and approval. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: September 12, 1984. Mr. Fisher had read pages 27 (Item 21) through the end of the minutes of September 12, 1984 and with the exception of a few typographical errors found that portion of the minutes to be in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the minutes of September 12, 1984 which were read by Mr. Fisher. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Ivy Area School Site. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors and the School Board had a joint meeting on December 16, 1985 at which the Board of Supervisors requested from the School Board additional information on the Ivy area school site. It seems to him there was little analytical detail as to why one site was chosen over the other site. He would like to know how each site affects the specific travel time of individual pupils and how these sites affect pupils that 228 December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) come from the eastern part of the district on Rt. 250 that have a choice of going either north or south. There were a number of questions he did not feel had been adequately answered. He was looking for justification for accepting the recommendation of the School Board, but did not receive it. Some parents have suggested to him that there should be a better analysis of the pros and cons of the Meriwether Lewis site vs. the Murray site, the cost savings by moving such times as the Media Center to Murray School, any reduction in rent from relocation of the school for emotionally disturbed children, and the long-term costs for continuing to operate Murray School. He suggests that the Board request additional information from the School Board for the January 8, 1986 meeting. Mr. Bowie said he would like to go over some of the figures for the two sites because there seems to be a $1 million difference. There are other schools which critically need repairs, upgrading, classrooms, etc. He cannot understand how everything can be afforded from the information provided. He thinks it is important that the Board look at the total costs of all the schools for the next two or three years instead of taking one item at a time. Mr. Way said the only problem he sees is that it will be February or March before the Board has the whole picture on the two sites. The one point in the consultant's report on which there has been no disagreement among the committee members is the priority for this particular school. He has no problem with going ahead with this school as the first priority before all of the information is in on the other schools. He also supports getting additional information on the two sites so that the Board will feel comfortable when it makes a selection. Mrs. Cooke said she was unable to attend the joint meeting with the School Board and asked for the list of questions presented to the School Board for answer. Mr. Fisher said he had a list which was not carefully defined. The Board and the School Board talked about the items on the list, and people responding by "arm waving". Mrs. Cooke asked if the School Board has a copy of this list for response. Mr. Fisher said a complete list will be developed and given to the School Board. Mrs. Cooke said if there are unanswered questions, a list should be developed and submitted to the School Board to give the School Board an opportunity to address those concerns. Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be reasonable to expect the School Board to have the answers to those questions at the next Board of Supervisors' meeting. Mr. Fisher said there is really not much time and a decision is needed quickly to move forward. He will compose a more complete list by Monday if that is acceptable to the Board, and if the other Board members have questions, he will include those questions on the list. Mr. Henley said he is in agreement with the Chairman's suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks if the Board members have questions, the questions should be stated now. He then asked how were the estimated costs developed for the Site Committee. Is there more information available with respect to renovation costs? Are the figures solid without the need for major architectural review and involvement? Mr. Tucker said the figures can be reevaluated. The renovation costs were derived from figures used from the renovation of Broadus Wood Elementary School since those were the most recent figures the Committee had. Mr. Lindstrom asked if anyone actually walked through and reviewed the condition of Murray School. Mr. Tucker said no, but Mr. David Papenfuse did provide the Site Committee with plans that the School Board and the staff had developed for the expansion of Murray School several years ago. The Committee then based the figures on the same type of square footage assuming that similar additions would be added, but the engineering staff did not go through the school. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the financial advantage that is seen in using the existing Murray School building will be dissolved or be radically diminished after seeing what actually needs to be done. Is there any way the Board can get a more definitive idea on Murray School without waiting two months? Mr. Tucker said he is not sure the County has the capability on existing staff to do this work. Mr. Lindstrom asked if using three weeks would give enough time to enable someone to go through the building and give the Board a better idea of the costs involved. Everybody is looking for a substantial savings at Murray School. Mr. Tucker said at this time of the year and in such a short period of time, it is hard to say whether someone would be willin~ to do that. Mr. Lindstrom said a project of this size should have somebody who is knowledgeable reviewing the building and, also, there is a big difference in ages between Murray School and Broadus Wood School. Mr. Lindstrom said he likes the idea of using the Murray School building, but he does not want to select Murray, and then two years from now find out that it will cost the County an extra million dollars to complete. If there is a way to get more information now he would be more comfortable. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Andy Overstreet just informed him that the School Board intends to meet the last week in December to review proposals solicited from architects for a school site. Mr. Overstreet suggests that the School Board hire one of those architects to make an analysis of the Murray School site to provide to the Board. Mr. Bowie said he tends to be in favor of the Murray site, but he also would like to get more information since the figures have been wrong on the last three projects. He also cannot support hiring another architect to provide another set of figures when the figures from Broadus Wood are available. Mr. Lindstrom said he will have a tough time supporting going ahead with selection of a site unless more information is provided. He does not agree with the attitude that no more information is going to be helpful. If the Board is going to defer this decision, then there should be more information made available. He asked Mr. Overstreet how much it would cost to get this additional information. Mr. Andy Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools, said if the School Board received authorization to proceed with the employment of an architectural firm, the information could be packaged at a reasonable cost without the Board of Supervisors committing to the overall planning phases of the project. It would seem that since the School Board is planning to contract with an architect anyway, a reasonable first step would be to request a projection of costs for the Murray School site. Mr. Lindstrom said if the architect can do a preliminary evaluation of both sites, would that require taking bids. Mr. Agnor said a solicitation of proposals has already been received. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any reason the architect would have to redraw the specifications. Mr. Fisher said he is worried about the same firm doing the evaluation and doing the work. There is an incentive to shave the figures so that it is a bigger job and therefore it may not be a very disinterested evaluation. December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 22B Mrs. Cooke said there has been mention of three renovations the County has just completed. In all three cases it cost a tremendous amount of money, much more money than anticipated which is going to be true of any renovation undertaken. There is no way to come up with a true figure. She has a problem with spending lots of money to decide whether it is going to cost this figure or that figure, when the money spent trying to make a decision could be put to better use in the actual project itself. There is no question in her mind that the cheapest and best way to go is to build from scratch. Mr. Fisher said he disagrees. Mrs. Cooke said she has a problem with spending a great deal of money to try and project how much money a project is going to cost only to come up on the short end and end up spending a whole lot more money. Mrs. Cooke asked if Broadus Wood is the exception to the renovation projec- tions undertaken by the County. Mr. Agnor sa~Ld Broadus Wood is not the exception, the same applied to Red Hill. The County has had major problems with the Courthouse renovations and with the building on Court Square. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him the Board should do as suggested by Mr. Overstreet, authorize employment of the architect within some limitation of funds. Mr. Overstreet can provide the Board with that limitation at the meeting of January 3, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with that recommendation. He has struggled with this proposal and one of the biggest problems is not having enough information to make a rational decision. The two sites are so alike and it appears that the deciding factor will be the dollar figure. If the Board is going to focus on the dollar amount, then it needs a solid handle, which the Board does not have right now. Mr. Henley said the Board has more confidence in architects than he does. If you give them a figure they are going to spend that much no matter what. He is willing to give the architects a flat fee, tell them to build the school around that figure and inform them that there will be no more money. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board prepare a list of questions for the School Admini- stration and the School Board to work with and ask for the cost of hiring an architect for the preliminary work for the January 3, 1986 meeting. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees that more information is necessary, but she does not believe that she is going to let a dollar figure determine exactly what is the best educational plan for the overall good of the educational system. She thinks that the Board must start looking at what is best for the educational system. Mr. Fisher said he also agrees with Mrs. Cooke, but his decision will not be based just on this one school, but on all of the schools in the system. With $2 million of local money and Literary Fund loans, the County can build two $3 million projects right now or build one $4 million project. It makes a big difference as to what can get done within the system. Mr. Henley commented this decision is applying good business sense. Mrs. Cooke said good business is not always the cheapest way to do something. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to receive the following information: (1) more specific information in support of the School Board's view that there is a significant value to the Murray School for the other uses they have in mind; (2) the costs for upgrading Murray School as a Media Center; (3) the rent and other costs saved by abandoning the present facilities; and (4) the cost of operation, maintenance, personnel and everything else that would be necessitated to maintain Murray as a utility building. Mr. Henley said he does not have any strong feelings toward either site. He thinks the Board needs the best school for the least amount of money and he does not want an extra $1 million spent if there is no need to do so. Ten minutes travel time and a little incon- venience is not enough reason for him to not to go with Murray if that is the best way to go. He is willing to wait to get more information. Mr. Way said he would like the following information: (1) how much surrounding land must be acquired if the Meriwether Lewis School site is used and ; (2) will houses have to be removed. Mr. Bowie asked how the land would be acquired. Mr. Fisher said he has heard that there is one parcel which would have to be cOndemned. He is also concerned about how realistic appraised values are when acquiring property. Mr. Henley asked what kind of delay there would be in condemning property. Mr. St. John said the delay would not be very long since the only question would be one of compensation. He does not know if anyone can answer the question of how much to rely on the appraised value when going into condemnation proceedings especially when there are advantages to be gained. Mr. Lindstrom said the another question is the cost to develop the road. He asked if there is anything the Highway Department can offer with respect to improving the intersection. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has already looked at sight distance and feels that it is adequate. Mr. Henley asked for verification of the costs for road improvements. Mr. Agnor said for clarification, the fee that Mr. Overstreet will bring back to the Board on January 3, will be the architect's cost for evaluation of the remodeling of Murray School and construction of a new school at the Meriwether Lewis site to have comparative updated figures on both sites. Mr. Fisher said his understanding is that the architect will evaluate the Murray School facility and then make a decision as to which site to do future work. Mr. Agnor said if that is the case the Board will be looking at a figure on Meriwether Lewis that was not generated by an architect; the figure was generated by the staff. He thinks that both sites should be looked at. Mr. Lindstrom said his understanding was that both sites would be reviewed. Mr. Fisher said he will prepare the list of questions and send it to the School Board. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public. Mr. Fisher said he was notified by a member of the Highway Commission that there is a meeting on December 19, 1985 at 2:00 P.M., at the Highway Department Building on Broad Street, Third Floor Conference Room, Richmond, concerning the Piedmont Corridor Highway. People and legislators from Lynchburg are going to the meeting. It was ascertained that no Board members could attend the meeting. Mr. Agnor was directed to send a member of the staff. Z30 December 18, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. St. John said the Greenwood Chemical Company injunction is ready to go,to the judge to extend it until June 30, 1986. This is pursuant to the Board's agreement and intention when it was first filed. No action has been taken because the EPA and State Health Department are still cOnducting investigations on the site. There have been interim reports from them and these reports do not show any violations of regulations of the law. The final report will contain some recommendations for the future handling of the waste that is on the site now. Mr. Bowie said he has a concern with regard to SP-85-54, Keswick Country Club. (Mr. Lindstrom said he is unable to participate in a discussion with regard to Keswick Country Club because his firm represents the applicant. Mr. Lindstrom then left the meeting at 10:15 P.M.) Mr. Bowie said part of condition 91 reads "The location of the 36 additional suites shall be no closer to existing private dwellings than the current clubhouse." The condition makes it impossible to build the 36 suites unless they are built on top of the clubhouse. All around the clubhouse are guest cottages and utility buildings, and as he remembers the intent was not to expand the club area. He has discussed this with the County Attorney and is requesting that the staff draft some new words for the end of that sentence to convey the meaning so Keswick Country Club can proceed with construction. This information should be provided at the January 8, 1986 meeting. Mr. St. John said the letter to the applicant is only a staff product and he feels a clarification may can be made from the actual minutes of the meeting. Miss Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, said the minutes of that meeting do not provide a clarification of the language. The applicant has seen the minutes and listened to the tape recording. Mr. Fisher asked that the staff clarify condition ~1 of SP-85-54, Keswick Country Club, concerning location of the 36 additional suites. Mr. Horne said 'the staff will review the condition. Agenda Item No. 11. Cancel January 2, 1986 meeting. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to January 3, 1986, 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7. At 10:40 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to cancel the meeting of January 2, 1986 and adjourn to January 3, 1986 at 1:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.