Loading...
08-26-81 Minutes MINUTES Augus~ 26, 1981 Supervisors %n Attendance: M~. ~arry G. Daniel, ckairman Mr. R. Ga~lan~ Dodd~ Vice Chairman Mr. C. L. Bookman Mrs. Joan ~irone Mr. E. Merlin 0~Neill~ ~r. Mr. Richard L. Eedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Robert Galusha~ Dir. of PErsonnel Mr. Robert ~odder, Bldg, Mr. Elmer Hodge~ ASSt. County Administrator Mr. William Eowell, Dir. Of General Services Mr. Stays Micas~ County Attorney Mr. ~a££rey Muzzy, Dir. of community Develop. Mr. Richard Me,Irish, Commonwealth's Attorne Mr, Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:10 a,m. {EDST). Mr. Bookman gave the invocatzen. It wa~ generally agreed to defer approval of the minutes until all ~oard members ware present. Mr. ~edrick stated that Ms, Cassandra Wynn, of th~ Richmond Time Dispatch, had ~ecently published a complimentary article ' regarding the Nursing Home and its camping trip for the at Camp Baker. Re stated that Ms. Judy Beach of th~ Nursing Eom staff coordinates mo~t of the program~ for the 9atiants which ar enjoyable a~ ~elt as beneficial. Mrs. Giron~ mentioned th~ vote registration program also coordinated by Ms. Beach, The Board autkorized a le=~er of appreciation to ~s. Wynna far her article and a letter tO ~S. Beach for her outstanding efforts at the Nursing Home. Mr. Hedrick stated that ~n the August ~ssue of Virginia Town Cities, an article was published written by Asst. ~re Chief Wesley Dolezal entitled "Stretch Your Dollars With Preventive ~aintensnce". He stated this is indicative o£ th= caliber of staff employed by the Connty. ~r. ~edrick in%reduced Mrs. Reth Kemp who had recently joined th staff in the County Administrator's Office, Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to buildin~ permit fees, subdivision fee~, ~onlng fe~ ~n~ si~e p~an fees. He statmd it was staff's recommendation that the fees for building permits ba udop=ed at =h~s time and that the r~maind~r of the ordinanc~ b~ deferr~, gl ~Lr. Hodder state~ that after discussing this matter with the homebuilders associations, it was recommended that the minimum building permit fee be based on 1,500 square feet rather than thc original proposal of lt?O0 square fea~ which was an average of the volume of construction over the past few years. He stated ths number Of inspections rsquired for a larger home are almost the same as ~Or smaller homss. He Stated at the present timer the fees are based on estimatud construction costs and this proposal would base the fees. on square foe%age. He stated the average east of inspections is between $70-75 and tho 1,500 Square footage factor should be sufficient to pay the cost of Operating the department. ~rs. Girone inquire~ if this would cover the cost for the operation of the BK~lding las~sctor's Office becaus~ if they do not, the funds will hav~ to come from the general taxpayers and she did not fesl this proper. Mr. Hodd~r stated it was f~lt thi~ would be sufficient and does incorporate the addition of two personnel. ~r. Bookman inquired if this calculation took into ~onsideration the slow building ~eriod. ~r. Hodder stated that he reduced the calculation by 15% to cover this factor. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this fee schedule ~heuld b~ reviewed each year re:her than every three Or four years. ~r. Hedrlck stated that this w~$ the intention of the staff. 5~rs. G/renu stated hoped that the Office Would be run in = cost efficient manner an~ that the fees weu!d no~ be raised in order t© hire more staff. Mr. Hodder sta~ed that the homebuilders have been very ceOpurative and extended his appreciation for their assistancu. He stata~ that this is a fee schedule similar to those used in other surrounding jurisdictions and it is a $%mpla method which should eliminate some of the controversy by builders when they apply for their permits. He stated that approximately $10,880 will be lost by reducing the uqu~re ~ootaqe but mo~t of this wil be recovered due tO the fact that by converting from estimated constr~¢tiun cost to ~quare footage cost, an additional amount will bu realized because of the original low estimated Mr. O'Neill joined the meeting. Mr. Bob Leiperts, Chairman o~ the Construction Cedes Committee the Richmond HCmebuild~rs A~soeiation and repressntive for ~he National E!uctrical Contractors Association of Rich~ond~ was present, He stated that they have worked with Mr. ~od~er and it had been a cooperative ~ffcrt. He stated %hat this change would sliminess arguments between builders ~nd the County staSf as to the estimated construction cost and the fee involved. H~ ~teted =hat ~here was a littl~ difficulty in that the $outhside Homubuilder~ generally tend to build smallsr homes and they felt they would be affected more. He stated ~hat the Const~¢tion Codes Co~L~ittee and NECA voted unanimously to endorse =his propozaI. H~ stated they would like a 30 ~ay delay prior to this ordinano~ being enforced. He stated it was hoped that the funds generated would bring the Office to a positive financial position. He stated it was also suggested that the funds be used to increase the staS~ as needed and/~r tO improve the expertise with training or with salary increases. He stat*d ZOncuivably there $=ill may b~ a deficit experienced in ~he Df~ic~ because of tho housing depression which is now catching up to Chesterfield County. ~e stated that at the current time, ~here seems to be no relief in sight. ~r. John Smith stated that he was in support of any ordinanos vhich woul~ change any restrictions from an "estimated" to an "aCtual" cost basis. Hs stated the citizens w~e pleased with ~r. ~odder's department an~ that he hoped the ordinanc~ did not state sstimat~ square £oot~ge but Would be actual. ~r. Micas ~a=sd that this couI~ be resolved in the building permit application. Mr. O'Neill stated that he f~lt the fee should be based on aetna. rather Lb~n the averag~ square footage being built in the County i.e., if a home were 1,100 sq. feet that is what the fee should be based on and not on the average of 1,50D ~q_ ft~ Mr. Hedrick ~taLed that all factors w~re considered, and that in order to operate the Building Inspector's Offic~ on a pay its own way basis, the amount of dcflars that wee needed was taken into consideration and this was the result of those calculations. He stated that jUSt as many inspections are needed for larger homes as for smaller homes and that the cost will be between 870-75 rather than $45-50. He stated that in fact, you ceuld say that in the Da~t, the larger homes were subsidizing the smaller and that the County could be establishing a policy to build smaller homes. Mr. Leiperte sba%ed that the hcmebuilders did want the fees reevaluated on an an~Bal basis rather tha~ every three or four years, assuming co~t increases Were neceggary. After further discussion of the matt~r, i~ was on motion of Mr. Bookman, resolved that ~ha ordinance relating to building permit fees ba adopted effective October l, Mr. O'Neill stated that he felt there would be problems incurred with the e~ective date as there may be an influx of permits in order to r~c~ive the lower fee. N~ stated he felt it should be mede effective on the date adopted. 51r. Leipertz sta~ed that they did not feel there would be an influx ~f permits requested, that thi~ time was needed to adjust some o£ the bids previously ~ub~itted on projects. Mr. o'Neill seconded Mr. Boekman's motion to adopt the following ordinanc~ ~ffectiv~ October 1, 1981: An Ordinance to Amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, aS A~ended, by Amendinq ~e¢~ion 6-4 Relating to Building Permit ~ees Be Ib Ordained by the Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County: 1. That Sectien 6-4 of the Code Of the County of Chesterfield is amended and ~eanected as ~ollow~: Sec. 6-4. P~rmit (a) ~enerall¥. Unless otherwise excepted, nc permit tO begin work for new ~on~truction, alteration, ~emoval, demolition Or other building operation for construction require~ ~y s~varal provisions Of the Virginia Unifor~ Statewide Building shall have been paid. NO emendmen~ be a permit necessitating an !additional fee because of an increase in the estimated cost the work involved sh~ll be approved until the additional ~ee has been paid. All such permits shall be issued by the building official On forms approved and furnished by hie office. The fee for permits shall b~ based upon the project cost in accordance with the ~OIlowlng schedule; Build~: a. Residential Building finished area. ...... $1.00 per 20 s~uare feet, 1,SO0 square feet minimum unflni~hed ar~a ........ square' feet accessory building min. Demolition ......... 366 Roving or relocating d. Cozener oial BuLlding $gructu=e, excluding signs r two thousand dollars or less ..... 10.00 Each additional thousand . . 3.00 u. Mobile home, including buildings ~ electrical and plum~ing ......... 25.00 fi. S~gns Sign permits, two thousand do!lets or less ....... Each additional thousand .... 3. Mechanical: a. When the co~t of labQr and material {applieant's cost) involved in installation, altarat£on, ~eplacement and/or repair $0-300 ............ IO,OO $301-500 ......... 15,00 $501-1,000 ......... 20.00 $1,001-2,000 ......... 25.00 $2 001-3 000 30 00 $3 001-4 CO0 35 O0 ~4,00!-5,000 ........ 40.00 Over $5,00I ........ 40.00 plus $3.00 for e~ch additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Ma~ximum permit fee . . . 1,500.00 Tka £ee for each plumbing permit issued shall include the installation, alteration, r~placement, and/or repair of any cn~ or all of the following: Wate~ service piping; building (including connection to ~he County water ~ysta~); water distribution piping; building sewer (including connection to the County sewer system); drain and vent Diping; gas piping~ private public wells, Dumps; etOrm draln~; traps & fixtures. When the cost of labor and material (applicant's cost) involved in installation, alteraticn, replacement and/or repair $0-300 ......... 10.00 $301-500 ......... 15.00 $1,00I-2,000 ...... 2S.00 $2 001-3 000 30 00 $~,001-4,000 ........ 35.00 $4t001~5,000 ..... Ove~ $5,001 ........ 40.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,00S or fraction thereof Maximum parm£% fee .... 1,50~.00 $I-3~7 When ~h~ cost of labor and material (applioant'~ coat) involved in ation, alteration, replacement and/or repair is: $0-300 ........... lO.D0 $301-~00 .......... 15,00 $501-1,000 ......... 20.00 ~1,001-2,000 ....... 25.00 $2z001-3~000 ........ S0.O0 $3,00~-4,000 ........ 35.00 $4,001-5,000 ....... 40.00 Over $5,001 ........ 40.00 plus $3.00 for each adQiticnat $1,000 or fraction thereof Maximum permit fee .... 1,500.00 f. Septic tank permit ....... 25.00 (4) Electrical: a. When the cost of labor and material (applicant's cost) involved in installation, alteration, re~lacem=nt and/or repair $0-300 ....... 10.00 $301-50~ .......... 15,00 $501-1,000 ......... 20.00 $1,081-2,000 ........ 25.00 $2,001-3,000 ........ 30.00 $3~001-4,~00 ........ $4,00~-5,~00 ........ 40.00 Over $5,~01 ........ 40.00 plus $3.00 for each additional ~1,000 or fractica ~aximum permit fee . . .1,500.00 (5} Electrical and plu~mbin~ cards: e+ Ma~ter card, annually . . . 5.00 Examination ........ 20.00 b. Journeyman card~ annually . 5.00 ~xamination ........ Ayes: Mr. Da~el, Mr. Bookman, ~rs. Girone and Mr. O'Nmill. Absent~ ~r~ on mo:ion of Mr. Book, an, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, i: was r~sulved th~% the public hearing :o consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as A~ended, by ~endinq Sections 18-11, 21-9 and 21-77 Relat±nq to Subdivision Fees, Zoning Fe~s and site Plan Fees be deferred un~il 2:00 p.m. un september 9, 1981. Ayes: ~r. Daniel~ Mr. ~oakman, Mrs. Giron~ Absent; Mr. Dodd. Mr, ~edrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a 9ub1£¢ hearing to consider an ordinance relat%ng ~ the payment explained that this fee ~as beinq requested by the Co:n~y in line~. ~ ~ta~ed ~he cable' company was in agreement with this propoeed ordinance. On motion of ~r. O'Neill, se¢ondud by Mr. ~ookman, ~he Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to Amend and Re~nact ~eotion 7-23 ef the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~-~ended, Rslating tv th~ Payment of a Permit Pea by the Cab~ Television Franchise Be It Ordained by the soard Of Supsrvisors of (1) That Section 7.23 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, a~ amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 7-23. Conditions of street oe~upancy. Th~ county hereby grants to the grantee the right to use ali public way~ owned ~y %he county for the purpose of installing cable television struc[ur~, lines, equipment and facilities, so long as such use is consistent with the legal rights owned by th, county and th~ requirements of ~his chap%er. Prior to insfallin, any such structure~, llnem, equipment end facilities, the utility department may require s~h modifications as will protac' th~ existing ~tilities within the public way. Grantee agrees to pay to the county utility department a permit review fee of $20.00 for each set of plans submitted to th~ county for review Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookma~, Mrs. Girone and Mr. O'Neill. Absent: Mr. Dodd. Mr. Charles Watson presented th~ Board with an ordinance relatin~ to g~mbling and requested that a public heaming date be set. He s~ated this ordinance is essentially equivalent to the state statutes prohibiting gambling, howeveg, if someone is charged under a County ordinance any zanies would go.to the County treasury rather than the State treasury. Mr. Daniel inquired if there were any Other such ordinances which could be changed. Watson stated that as they are discovered, changes are made as were the fund~ for traffic offenses and bad checks. On me,iOn Mrs. Circus, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board set the date of September 23, 19~1, at 9~00 a.m. for a public hearing ~e censida~ an ordinance relating to illegal gambling. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Bookman, Mrs. Girone and Mr. O'Neill. Mr. Dodd joined the meeting. Mr. Hedrick stated the ne×% item was discussion of leaf burning. MrS. Girone stated that she would like the Board to de,er on this matter. She stated that there had been ~everal good suggestions submitted and there %s ~ large committee which would like to evaluate some of these. Mr. Bookman Stated that this co,nitres is strictly in favor of banning Or prchibltinq, in fashion, lea~ burning. He stated he felt those in favor should also have input. Mrs. Circus s=a=ed that she felt this was in=ant cf Y_r. O'Brien and hie committee. Mr. O'Neill sta~sd he felt the end result would be that ~hers would still be people in %aver, and people oppomed. Mr. John 0'Brian stated that they would be willing to work with citizens on either mide of the issue. He stated that burning this fall would continue as usual. After further discussion of this matter, the Board deferred further di~eu~ion until Novembe~ 11, 19~1~ Vote: Unanimous On mo~ion of Mr. ~ookman, Seconded by Mr. Dodd, the minut~g Of August 12, 1981, were approved as amended. sent to the C±rcuit Court requesting that $2,000,000 for a solid waste disposal facility and $500,000 for improvsments to fir~ stations be added tO the bond referendum in ~Qv~mber. Mr. O'Neill sta%~d ~hat he ha~ ~ade a ps,sons% commitment to m~et with the area landowners in Greenyard to discuss the proposed solid waste disposal faciliBy and if this were approved he shill intended to do zo to work out any problems that might exist. Mrs. Girone sha~ed that in the 197S ~ond issue there had been funds to construct three fire ~tetions. She stated ~his additional $~00,000 would be used to complete those p~o3eet$, more specifically the Buford Road Station, as inflation and rlsiAg building costs have caused a price overrun. ~r. ~edrick stated the County had recomm.~nd~d this type of financing because it was the best and l~ast expensive way to finance the ~acilitia~. He ~tated the use of operating funds would impac~ ~he budget greatly and be more expenmive. On me,ion eX ~rs. Girone, ~onded by Mr. ~eokman~ be it resolved by the Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia: 1. It is hereby dmter~ined that it is necessary and sxpedlent for the County of Chesterfield, Virgini~ (~he ~'CGunty"), to: (a) ~rovide solid waste disposal facilities in :he County (~he "Solid Wests Disposal Project"); and (b) provide a fire station in the County (the "Fire Station ~roj~ot"); and It is hereby ~termined tha~ it is advisable for the County to contract debt and to issue ~eneral obligation bonds o~ the County to evidence such debt u~der the provisions of Chapter 5 of Title 1S.l of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act), in the maximum amounts and for the purposes as follows: (a) ~aneral o~ligation bon~s cf the County in th~ maximum amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000> £or the purpose of financing the ~osf$ of the Solid Waste Disposal Project; and gmnera% obligation bonds of the Connty in the maximum the purpose of financing the co,ts of the Fir~ Station ~roject~ The full faith and credit of the County shall be pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on all o~ said bonds, and a tax sufficient to pay th~ principal of and interest on all oi said bonds as the same mature shall be levied upon all the property subject to taxation by thu 4. The Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield, or any judge thereof, is hereby requested to order an election upor th~ questions of contracting such debts and issuing such purposes set forth in Section 2 hereof. ~. The Clerk of this Beard shall file a certified copy of this r~sol~tion with the Circuit Court of the County o~ Chesterfietd~ Or any judge thereof. 6. Thi~ resolution shall take effect i~ediately. 81-370 ir. Kurt Foerster, Insurance Risk Manager, stated that staff has ~et~rmined tha~ i~ would be economically feasible to cor~blne the TOunty and SchoOl System Workers Compensation programs using third party administrator to handle claims and less control services. ~e stated that catastrophe insurance will be 0urchased to limit the catastrophic less potential. He stated both the ~ehools and the County administration are in agreement. 5e stated this program ha~ the potential to says the County approximately $1,000,000 over a ten year period which will be realized by reducing expensive insurance costs. Be stated it will net require any additional costs if done at this time. stated that at the p~esent time the schools have, ~ut the County ~oes not have, catastrophe insurance and thi~ will protect the ~eun~y and its employees to a greater degree, Ee stated the ulalms service will include a loss analysis as wall as loss ~entrol an~ safety program, and it will make better ute of rehabilitation ca,vices. He stated this program will reduce the ~atas~rophe sxposure, will increase employee safety and morale ~nd will r~duce the number O! claims. ]tr. Daniel state~ that he felt the County should have had a safety program prior te uonsidering this program. Mr. Hedrlck stated shat a safety ~rcqram has begun. Mr. Dedd Stated he had been rsoemmending this ~y~u of progr=m for years and was glad to see this proposal ~ubmitted. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. O'neill, ~he 5card approved the oontra0t with Yeager & Associates to ~dminister th~ School and general County government workers Dompensation program; authorized the County Administrator tO ~xecute any necessary documents for ~he admi~istretlon of this )rogram and authorized the County Treasurer to advance sufficient funds %o ~eager and Associates, as ~stermin~d by the Direoto~ ~udget and Accounting, from which to pay claims %~c~rred. ;ate: Unanimous 4r. Badge Stated that ~taff has negotiated a ~inancial program ¢ith F&M for the new vehicle maintenance facility. Be state~ ~hat tho revenue bend financing previously reported was net ~ermittod by bond counsel and this proposed method of financing ~y use of anneal lease wnul~ be for 8 years at 10% interest. Mr. ~ookman inquired i~ this figure w~re a commitment even i~ ~nterest rates went down. ~r. Hedge stated that it would be a ]ommitnent for 10% on the unpaid balance for the tangth cf the Loan if the Board renews the annual lease. M~ sta~ed originally ~t was prepose~ to cost $124,~60 per !ear, and with this ~eqotiation it will cost an ad0itio~l $60,000. Ha stated ths ~aoility is exactly es previously discussed and at %he Location. Mr. Bookman inquired if the County should wait 90 days Ocr possible lower interest rates. Mr. Hodge stated th~ bi~ ~rice would probably increas~ if we waited 9O days and according ~e Craige, Inc. interact ia not expected to go de~r~. Mr. Hedrick ~tated that this i~ a nu~otiatsd rate and if may be a ga~ble as ~ates may increase/decrease. E~ stated at the current time, interest rates for this type of construction are b~tween 12-14%. ~r. 8ookman inquired if this lease could be prepaid if the Lnterest ratee decreased. Mr. Micas stated the lease could be )repaid at any time without penalty. After ~urther discussion of :he matter, it was on motion o~ ~r. Dodd, seconded by ~ookman, resolve~ that the County accept the negotiated lease for ~he financing of the new vehicle maintenance facility at 10% with ?&~ and the Chairman and County Administrator ara authorized ~xecute any necessary documents on behalf of the County with the ~nderstanding that staff will review this interest rate annually tO ~etermine if ~here may be a better rats available during thi~ lease period. V©ta: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated that the Blue Cross/Blue Shield rates for group health benefits for the employee~ has risen by 4~%. Mr, Beckman inquired if this were approved today, and another company was fOUnd to ba cheaper, could the policy be cancelled. Mr. ~edrick stated that it could be cancelled without penalty but the County weald have to pay an arrearage- Mr. ~alusha ~×plaina0 the effect of the rates on each type of subscriber to the policy, ~r. O'Neill stated that th~ County should he buying higher 11. A. ll.B. ll.C. Crees/Blue Shield has one of the highest premiums for dental coverage. Mr. Dodd stated he felt other insurance carriers should be investigated. He stated he felt ~he ra~e increase was unreasonable and for that reason he would abstain from voting on this ~tter. Mr, Bookman stated this investiga=ioe of other carriers should be top priority for the staff to review. Me $ta~ed that he did not feel the County should be paying more each year and receiving same benefits. Mr. Daniel at,ted that these costs disturbed him beGause there were no increase~ in benefit~ and there will be shortfall of $160,000 as estimated by staff. Mr. Hedrick stated that departments will try to absorb this additional cost in their operating budgets but a budge~ change may be needed in the iuture Bo cover a portion of this expenditure. After further ~iscussioa, it was on motion of Mrs. Girona, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, resolved that~ 1. The County A~ministratcr be au~hurlsed to renew the current contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield effective October 1981, the increase in rates tc ~e passed to employes and employer consistent witk the current ~istribution schedule. 2. The COUnty Administrator be directed ~0 =x~lore alternatives to the benefit structure of the current in an effort to contain future costs of the group health program which shall be done as soon a~ possible. (It is noted ~ha~ the County Administrator plans to astablish a committs~ ~twa~n the G~neral Ceun=y Government and the school Administration to review coverage, other carriers ~yes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Book,an, ~rs, Girone and Mr. O'Neill. ~bstention: Mr. Dodd. ~r. Muster r~ported on the ce~cesslon agreement at Point of Rocks ~ark with the Bermuda Optlmimt Club, stating that th~ Club was uoncurned with tko losses for the firs~ year as well as ensuing ~eare. Ns stated that he felt this would set a precedent if ~oard were to approve their request for waiving the fca. He ~tated that staff would like to proceed tO work with the ~non ~thletie Association to ascertain their interest in the ~oncession at the Park. It wan generally agreed to defer indefinitely the agreement with the Bermuda Optimist Club ~taff was authorized to proceed to obtain interest from ether motion of Mr. 0'~eill, seconda~ by Mr. Dodd~ the Board ~pproved and authorized the COunty Administrator to execute a Vepco saeement agreement to provide electrical service for ~he ~alling Croon Sewage Treatment Plant. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, s~conded by ~r. Dedd, the Board approved a flreworke permit for th~ Parks and Recreation Department on September 5, 1981, at the County Stadium which display will be conducted by Dixieland Disp%ays subject to the regulations of the Chssterfiald County Fire Department. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Nr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the settlement of the contract between =he County and RCAP by payment of an additional $1~,345 to RCAP for the Home Repair and Weatherization project in =ttrick with funde to come from the original Community D~velopment Bleak ~ran%. ll.D. 12. Unanimous This day L~e County Environmental Enginser, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination ef Canute Drive in Ampfhill Gar~ens~ Section 2, Resubdivieion, Lots 78, 7~ and 80, Dale District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mr. seconded by Mr. Dodd~ it is resolved that Canute Drive in Ampthill Gardens, Section 2, Rss~bdivieion, Lots 78, 79 and 80, Dale District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. A~d be it further resQlved, Phat th~ Virginia Department Kig~ways and Transportation, be and it here~y is requested to take into the Secondary System, Canute Drive, beginning at intersection with Old Zion ~ill Road, State ROKte 889~ and Canut~ Drive, SLate Route 2828, extending southeast 0~0~ ~ile to a ~ul-d~-sac. This road serves ~even (7) lots. And b~ it further reGolved, that the Board of Supervisors gua~an=ees to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a 50 ft. right-cf-way ~or this road. This section of A~pthill Gardens is recorded as follows= Section 2, Resubdivision, LOts 78, 79, an~ 80, Plat Book Page 23, september 19, 198~. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with ~irection$ from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Seti Court, Cyru~ Street, Photos Drive, ~hobus Court and Leopold Circle in Kinqs Foreste Sections 2 and 5, Dale Dist~iet. Upon ~onsideratio~ whereof, an~ on motion Of Mr. O'Neill, ~ecendad by Mr. Dodd~ it is resolved t~at seti Court; Cyrus Street, Pho~us Drive, Phcbue Court and Leopold Circle in Kings Porest, Sections 2 and ~ Dale ~is:riot, ~e and they hereby established as publi~ roads. And be it further reuolved, that th~ Virginia Department uf ~ighways and Transportatien, be and it hereby is requested tO take into the SecOndary System, S~ti Court, beginninq at its intersection with Cogbill Road, state Route 638, extending southwest 0.0S mile tca cul-de-sac; Cyrus Street, beginning at its intersection with Cogbill ROad, State Route 63~, ex~ending southeast 0.04 mil~ to the in==rseotion of Pkobus Drive, ~egi~ning et its intersection with Cyrus Street, extending southeast 0.05 mile to the intersection of Phobus tour=, then southeast 0.07 mile to a cul-de-sac; Phubus Court, beginning at its intersection with Phob~ Drive, extending $ou=heae~ 0.04 mile to a cml-ds-sac; Leopold Circle, beginning where State ~aintenance ends on e×istin~ L~opold Circle, S~ata Route 2829, ~xtendzng southwest 0.03 mile to a cul-de-sac. These roads serve 47 lots. And be it further remolved, that the Board of SUpervisors ~uaranteas ~o the Virginia Department cf R~ghways a 40 ft. right-of-way for all of these roads except Cyrus Street and 5eu9ol= Circle which have a 50 ft. right-of-way. These sections )f Kings Forest are recorded as follows; ~ction ], ~lat ~ook S~, ~age 70, March 20, 1980 ~ection 5, Plat Beck 35, Page SO, April 8, 1980 JOts: Qnenlmous ~r. Gee gave the ~oard the following Se~us re~ort on projects completed/underway in the County~ Intersection of Harrewgate and Route 1 -ComDleted: 2. Intersection of Happy H£11 Road and Harrowgate - Completed; 3. Castlewood Bridge Project - Completed in Jun~ Old Centralia Road ~ridge Project {except for resurfacing) to be completed within 10-14 days; 5. Rubbers Road Project - To be completed by 12-31-81; 5. Intersection of Chippeaham and ~oute 10 - To be completed by 7-1-82; 7. Route 360, ~rldge and approaches at ~elia County Line - be completed by 441-82; Buford and Forest Hill Project - To begin in near future; Intersection o~ Courthouse and Genito Reade - Will ~egin as soon am utilities are relocated; [~. Route 26, Chesterfield Avenue Project - Rids were received on 8-25-81, ~honld be awarded in n~xt ~ew w~eks. ~ow bid 11. Whitepine Lane Pro)ect - ~ids received last week, ~ho~l~ be awarded within 45 days. Mr. Gee stated that bids are running approximately 10% lower than anticipats~ for conatruo~lon. Mr, Dookm~n did not have any road matters to discuss with Gee. Mrs. Girone inquired about th~ right-of-way status for the Robious Road project. Mr. Gee stated he would meet and discuss this with her. Mrs. Girone inquire~ spout the improvements on Salisbury Road at the Fire Station. Mr. Gee stated the ~ur~ey had been completed fQr curb end gutter, they will be able to relocat= th~ signal~ in the near future and they will work wi%h everyone soncerned. ~rs. Girone inquired when the light wouk~ be installed at the Rockcre~t crossing. Mr. Gee sba%ed that Southern Railroad had not contacted hi~ regarding this matter. Mrs. Girone requested tha~ the Mighwsy Department initiate action. Mrs. Girone r~quested that the ~ighway Department use the street cleaner =o sweep th~ intersection Of Huguenot and Robious ~r. Gee ~tated that h~ would schedule this work. He added ~hat the sweeper is mechanically inoperable approximately ~0% of the Mr. Daniel thanked the ~ighway D~partment for the paving of Mr. Daniel stated that the intersection of Hopkins Road and ~hlppenham Parkway is a traffic disaster and requested that some plans be made to improve ~his area. Mr. Dodd thanked the Highway Department for the painting o~ lines at Route I0 and Gay Farms. Mr, Dodd stated tha~ hs had recsived a complaint from a resident on Meadowville at Sunset au his fenc~ i~ continuously being ~nooked down by vehicles leaving the road. He requested that poles or signage be in,tailed to ~ndicate the curve in =he road. Mr. Dodd requested that refl~etOrs be placed at the ditches on Curtis Stree~ going north to Route ~r, Dodd inquired if any improvements could be ~adu a~ ~hs ~ntersection of Kingsdale am~ Routs 1, such as blinking lights, if a traffic light cannot be installed, k~u. Gee stated the Departmena was still investigating this matter. ~r. O~N~ilt abated that ~o~e safety ~easures were still n~eded at RouSe 10 and 01d Stage, coming west, regarding the speed, He stated that the grass needed to be cut at Old Stage as well. Ee stated there ~ inadsquats sigh% distance at this location and there will be serion~ accidents if th~ location is not improved. 13. .Ir. O'Neill stated that widening is being done where ~ocessery but sometimes the lanes do net hay% enough tapering. Ee suggested that a resolution be adopted which would requeet reflectors to be placed in the pavement et some cf the more dangerou~ locations. He stated he felt a turn lane should be installed at Route 10 amd the 7-11 S~cre by the Courthouse, ~. Gee stated that the Highway Department did receive a grant placing reflectors in the roads and this is being done. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mrs. Girene, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, ~wo lan~ highways hav~ been widened to p~ovld~ %Uru lane at various intersections throughout the COUnty; and Whereas, these widenings have provided a considerable benefit in t~rms o~ traffic mobility and reduction in delays; and Whereas, pavement markings on some of the aforementioned intozs~ctiens require drivers to follow a lane transition7 and Whereas, ~hese pavement markings requiring a lane transition ~ann0t b~ soon during periode e~ wet weather. Now, Therefore, Be I~ Resolved that the Chesterfield County Board o~ Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia D~pa~tment of Highways and Transportatio~ to install ra£1e=tors in the pavement at all intersections where turn lanes have b~en added and painted on the pavement; And Be It Further Resolved that the locations for pavement-imbedded reflectors include, but not necessarily be limited to, the fellowin9 locations: 2. 3. 4. 5. ?. 8. 9. Route 1~ and Parker Lane Route t0 and Lori Road North Route 10 and Courthouse Road Route 60 and Robious Road Courthouse Road and ~meke%ree Drive Route 147 and 711 Route 147 and Route 60 I4r, O'Neill Stated ~hat he had read an article in the newspaper regarding ~tate matshing money to obtain £oderal funding. He stated that it was a matter of record~ that the matching funds route by milllcns cf dollars. On motion cf Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Board reappointed the following people to the Appoma%tox sasin Industrial Development Authority effective September 1, 198i through September 1, 19~2: E. Merlin 0'Neill~ er. William Gill Richard Hedriek Michael Duhus R. L. Gayla Dr. Freddie Nicholas 0~ motion of Mr. Bookman, ~oconded by ~rs. Girone, the ~eord extended the term of office for Nfs. Ann B%l*ha on the ~eep Chesterfield Clean Committee from December 1~, 1981 to December 10, 1982t Clover Hill District. 81-375 24~ A. ? Ute: Unanimous Dn motion of Mrs. girons, seconded by Mr. Bookman, ths Board tuthcrized the County Administrator to enter into a contract with ~all~y Neon and Advertising Company in the amount of $9,475 which ~a~ the iow bid for the construction of signag~ at th~ Airport ~ntrances to the County Industrial Park with the understanding that the Crog~wind R~staurant owner will pay $2,475 and 7e~nty will pay $7,000 from the Airport Industrial Park account ~i~h the sign indicating ~he Airport Business Park and Unanimous ~r. O'Neill stated that the Board bad approved three street lights for the Tinsberry Trace ~ubdivi~ion, but due to vandalism ~nd thievery, th~ area residents would like the original plan twelve lights approved. He stated that all light~ on the plan ~id meet the established criteria. Mrs. ~izone inquirsd if tbs ~evelopers of subdiui~ionm were being required to install necessary wirzng ~or s%ree~ lights. Mr. O'Neill ~tated ~evelopers have been required to do this for about three years. firs. Girone sha~ed she hoped all d~velopara wars being treated ~qually. Mr. McElfimh stated they were except in ~ome sx~enua~ing case~, After further discussion o~ the ma~ter, it ~as on motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dodd~ resolv~ that ~n additional nine street %£gk~s, in addition to the three oreviously approved, as originally requ~gt~d be ins%ailed at ~ost of $4,492,70 which fundz are hereby approved from tho Strait ~r. Mc~l~ish in~icated the yearly electrical cost would be · pproximately 81,040. ~r. Micas stated that the County had received a claim ~rom Rahman ~on~truotion Company in 5he a~oun~ of ~l,200,00d alleging that improper actions by the County direotly led to increased costs in ~hat amount for the Proctor's Creak Sewage TreaEment Plant. He ~tated the County did r~tain $200,000 in liquidated damages )ecause of the delay by Rahman in completing the project. He ~hated hhah the conmui~ing enginooz$ and the Utility Department ~ave reviewed the claim and dstermined that the County did not in ~ny way increase the cost to the oongraotor, On motio~ of the 5Card, the Board denied the claim submit%e~ ~y Rahraan %onstru~tion in the amount of $1,200,000. ~r. Pain%er presented the Board with the water and sewer financial reports, ~r, H~drick pointed out that there was an ~rror regarding the actual balanc~ on the sewer report which is ~1,155,229 and not the indicated $534~000. Mr. Bookman inquired ~bout the $268~000 listed as Miscellaneous. Mr. Quaiff stated ~hat it wes part of the Capital Improvements ~u~gat and ~he are not earmarked for any speei£ic projmcts at this tim~. Mrs~ Giro~e inquired about the $?0,0QQ indicated as the Midlethian Trunk Sewer Cash Refund. ~r. Quaiff stated he would check into this matter and advlse her. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, %he Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to ~x~cute any necessary documents for the following water contract: t6 ,B.4~ 16, C. 16.D.1. WS1-71CD/6(8)1711, Lucks Lane, Smoke=roe south Developer: Midtothian Development Corporation Estimated Contract Cost: $76,$37.20 Estimated County Cost: 38,402.80 - Refund through connections for Off-site and Estimated Developer Cos:: $38,124.70 Unanimous necessary documents for WB1-0~C/6(8)1051, wa=er lines along Route 360 and Genito Road ar~a, to Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. who submitted the low bid of $102,152.~0; appropriated from 263 Surplus to 350-1-~10~1-4393; and appropriated from 559-1-08640-0000 (advances by developers) to 380-1-61051-4393. I: is noted =hat $76,000 was previously appropriated for this project in the 19S0~81 capital improvements budge= for this project and =ha: negotiations a~e proceeding with the developers along ROute 36~ in order to obtain an additional $12,920 to assist in the cost o~ the line. On mo:ion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County AdministratOr to execute any necessary doctu~ents for the extension of the water line to ~erve residents along Woods Edge Road which cost is estimated to be $25,400 subject to each o~ the residenta agreeing to: 1. Pay the $5~O water connection fe~ and conn~ct %0 public water. 2. Pay $1~O towards :he cost c~ the fire hydrants. 3. Dedicate, at no charge to the Coenty~ any n~cessary water line easem~nt~ required to install ~his ~xtenslon. Vote: Unanimous It is noted that eight of the fifteen area resident~ have agreed tO connect a% thi~ time. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd/ the Board appropria:e~ an additional $13,235.09 fro~ 563 Surplus to 3S0-1-68422-4393 for a State ~ighway Project for the relocation of water lines on Willis Road~ W78-42CD, ~or which $15,819 had been previously appropriated, making the total county cost $27,017.05~ Mr. Painter presented the Board with e list of developer water a~d sewer conLracts executed by the Caun~y A~dinistrator. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator =o e×ec~te a deed of dedication from Clinton D. Goodrich and RO~a Mae Goodrich, et al., accepting same on behalf of the County, along Vote~ Unanimou~ B1-S77 / % 16.D.2, I6.D.3. 17, }n motion of Mr, Dodd, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the ~oard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute deeds ef dedication from the following property owners, accepting en behalf c~ the County~ for dedications through variaus parcel~ of and land located west of Old ~undred Road, Midlothian Raymond D. Williams and Violet G. Williams RaymOnd D. Williams and Violet G. Williams ~ormaI ~. ~OL~an {Widow) Normal G. ~cLean {Widow) 9homes W. McLean and Peg~- M. MCL~&n Thomas W. ~cLean and ~eggy M. McLean Vote; Unanimous Map section 24-6 24-10 24-10 24-18 ~4-10 24-10 ~r. Pope indicated that ~ke vacation of Turkey Run Drive had been advertised fo~ September 9, 19~1 and should not be heard a% thi~ time. It was generally aqrasd =a ~laoe this item on the ~e~tember 9~ 1981 agenda, ~r. ~drick info,ed the Board that the roads in tbs following ~Ubdivisions had been formally accepted into or abandoned from 2he S~ata System effective az indicated: ~en~th [~ongete, Section t {August 19, 19~1) [rangers Dri~ ~ Beginning at the intersection with ~ron Sri~ge Roa~, Route 1~, and running easterly ~ile to the in~e~$ectlen with Sandrock Court, then :ontinuing southeasterly 0.5I mile to the intersection ¢ith Briaruak Read, then continuing southerly 8.13 mile :o the intersection with Beulah Roa~, Route 641. 0.97 mi. ~androck Court - Beginning at the inter,teflon with ~rongate Drive and running south 0.06 m~le cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi. uerwood, Station A (Auqust 6, 1981) ~uckhcrn Road - Beginninq at its inter~eotion with ~euch Road, Route 655, extending south 8.44 mile to :be intersection of Deer Drive. 0.44 mi. ;asr Drive - Beginninq at its inturs~otion with )ear Drive~ ~ten~ing southwes= 0.04 mile to tho .nterseetion of Maplmridge Court, thsn southwest ),07 mile to th~ in==rsection of SpikehOrn Lane, then ~outhwest 0.06 mile to a temporary turnaround, 0.17 mi. ~apleridge Court - ~eginning at its intersection wi~h )merbrook Road, extending southeast 0,1~ mile !ul-~e-sac. 0,15 mi. Spikekorn Lane - Beginning at its intersection with Oe~rbrook Rued, extending southwest ~.42 mile to a temporary turnaround. 0.42 mi. Cool S~rin~s {August 6, swiftrun Road - Beginning at the intersection with 3e£furson Davis Highway, ~oute 1, and running westerly Q.12 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac. 0.12 mi. ~olar 1, $~cti~n 1 {August 6, 1981) Claypool R~ad - Beginning wh~re State maintenance ends cn existin~ Claypool Road~ Route 2726, extending Terrace, then southeast 0.05 mile to the intersection of Eastwcod Drive, than ~cutheast 0.07 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0~16 claypeol Terrace - ~eginning at its intersection with Claypool Road~ extending ~outhwest 0.04 mil~ to a de-sac. 0.04 mi. E~$twood Drive - Beginning at its intersection with Claypeel Read, extending northeast 0.07 mile to the inter~ection of R&stwood Court, then northeae~ mile to a hemDorary tUrnarOUnd. 0.10 mi. EastWOQd ~onr~ - ~eginnin~ at its intersection wit~ Ea~hwoo~ Drive~ e×tending southeast 0.07 mile to a cul-de-sac and exTendin~ northwest 0.05 mil~ to a temporary ~nrnareund. 0.12 mi. Ed~ekill Townhcusea, sections B and C (August 6~ 1981) ~oundheg Drive - Extension o~ Route 1709 westerly 0.12 mile to tie in~o pr©posed ~Qundhog Drive, 0, ~dgehi~l Townh~uses. 0.~2 Stonehenge, Section H (Auqust 6, 1981) Rexm~a~ Drive - Seyinnin~ at intersection with Sdenberry Drive, Route 2560, and going 0.09 mile southwesterly to intersection with Rex~oer Place then 0.03 mile southwesterly to a dead end. 0.12 Reemoor Place - Beginning at intersection with ~exmoor Drive and going 0,0~ mile no:thwesterly to intersection with Rexmoor Court then ~.04 mil~ ~orthwesterly to & cul-de-sac. 0.10 mi. ReRm~er Court - Beginning at intersection with Rexmoor Place and going 0.04 mile norkheasterly to e ~ul-do-eas. 0.04 mi. 3tcnemill, Section A (August 6, 19al) ~tene River Road - ~eginni~g at its inter,eerier with ' Zlkhardt Road, Route 663, e×tendin~ ~0utkwest 0,27 mile to the intersection of Old ge~ Trail, then southwest ].07 ~ile to the intcrz~cti0n of Marwood Drive. 0.~4 mi. Pld LO~ Trail - Seginning at its intersection wi~h ~tona River Road, extendin~ southeast 0.09 mile then turning nerthe~s~ 0.09 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.la mi. ~arwood Drive - ~eginning at its intersection with ~tone River Ro&d~ extending southeast Q.09 Rile to [~to existing Mazweod Drive, Route 2615. 0.09 mi. Newberry ~ewn~, Section E (August 6, 19~1) ~ewinqton Drive - Beginning Where State Maintenance ends on existing Newington Drive, Route 2173~ extending ~o~theast 0.03 Rile to e temporary turnaround. 0.03 mi. Length Sycamore square (August 6, 1981) Sycamore Square Drive - Beginning at ~he intersection with ~idlo%hian TuEnpike~ U, S. ROUte 60~ and going 0,21 mile northeasterly to intersection with We~£ield Roa~, Route 1002. 0.21 mi. Woodpecker Road, Route 627, and running eaoterly 0.05 mils to the intersection with Temple Court then continuing easterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Temple Plase, then continuing easterly 0.13 mile to tie Temple Place - Beginning at the intersection with in a cul-de-sac. 0,06 mi. in a cul-de-sac. 0.05 mi. Forest Bill Avenue, Route 633, and going 0.14 mile Alton, S~otion 3 (August 6, 1981) Maintenance of Sara Kay Drive, Route 2750, and running westerly 0.0~ m~le to en~ in ~ temporary turnaround. 0.0~ mi. Queensmill, Section A (August 6, 1981) Qu~nn~ate Road - Beginning at intersection with wi~h Royal Ridge Road, the~ Continuing 0.1~ mile northeasterly to tie into proposed Quee~sgate Roa~, Queensgate Read an~ going 0.12 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.12 mi. Royal Ridge Road - ~eginning at intersection with Queensgate Road and geing D.OS mile northwesterly %0 a temporary turnaround. 0.05 mi. Kingsoro~ Head - Beginning at the intersection with to a t~mpora~y ~ura~round, 0.O~ mi. Castle Hollow Road - Seginning at in~e~e~tion with =ie in=o proposed Castle Hollow Road, Section B, QueensmilI. 0.Q5 mi. Lake Genito, Section D (August 6, 1981) Ienis Lane, Route 2737, and ~oing 0.~7 mile easterly to intersection with Puckett CQurt, then 0.06 mile mile easterly tea tsmperary turnaround. 0.22 mi. 81-380 0.14 mi.{ L~nqth Puckett Court - Beginning at intersection with Puck~tt Place and going 0.13 miie northerly to a gui-de-sac. 0.13 mi Goby CouTt - Beginning ~t intersection with Puekstt Place and going 0.05 mile northerly to a cu!-de-sae. 0.05 5oll~ Ridge, ~ec~ion ~ (August 6, 1981) Egan Place - Beginning at its intersection with ~gan Road, ~xt~nding west 0.03 mile to a cul-de-sac and extsndinq east 0.19 mil~ to a cul-de-sac. 0+13 ~i. Egan Road - Beginning where Stahe ~aintmnance ends on axis:lng E~an Road~ State Route number not assigned, uXtunding nor=h 0.03 mile to its intersection with Egan Place. 0.03 mi_ ~ol!~ Riffgg, Section 4 {August 6, 1981) ~clridge Court - From Holridg~ Street, Route 2182, extending northeast 0.08 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.08 ~ls RO~ - ~eginning where State Maintenance ends Ca existing Able Road, Route 2t87, extending 0.02 mile to the intersection of Able Place then norhheast 0.03 mile to tie into existing Able Road, Route 2187. 0.05 mi Able ~lace - From Able Read, e~tendin~ northwest 0.14 mile to e cul-de-sac and extending 0.06 mile tO a cul-de-sac. 0.20 mi. Sunnybrook, 8action $ [August 6, 1981) Rollingway Road - Beginning at its intersection with existing Rollingway Roe~, Route 2790, and Sar&ts Lane, Route 27~5, e~tending 0.47 mile northea~ to Ridgerun Roa~, Great Oaks, Se~ion 2. 0.47 mi. ~o%%ytree Court - Ssginning at its intersection with Rol%in~ay Road, extending southeast 0.03 mile to a 0.04 mi. ~ollytree Terrace - Beginning at its intersection with ROilingway Road, extending souahaast 0.05 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.03 mi. Rolling-~ay ~errace - B~gignlng at its intersection with Roilingway Road, extending southeast 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.04 mi. Rollingwey Road, ex~ending southeast 0.06 mil~ to a cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi. ~uCtree, Section 1 (Auguet 6~ i981) ·all ~ickory Drive - Beginning at intersection with Old ~un~red Road, Route 6~2, and going 0.07 mil~ northwemtmrly to intersection with Tall Hickory t~en 0.03 mile northwesterly to intersection wi~h ~ecan Terrace then 0.07 mile to intersection with Acorn Hill Court then 0,06 mile northwesterly to a oul-de-sac. 0.23 mi Tall Hickory Court ~ Beginning at intersection with Tall Hickory Drive and going 0.05 mile southwesterly $1-$$~ 0.05 Pecan ~er:ane - Beginnin~ at intersect±on with Tail Hickory Drive and going 0,10 mile northeamterly Acorn Hill Court ~ Beginning at'intersection with ~all ~ickory Drive and going 0.06 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. Glebe Point, Section 1 {August 6, Glebe Potn~ ~ead - ~sginning at the intersactio~ with Bradley's Bridge Road, ROUt~ 631, and zunning 0.90 mile to the intersection with Rockyr~n Road, then continuing easterly 0.0~ mile to end in a dead end. ~o=kyrun Road - Beginning at the intersection with Slebe Point R~ad and running 2outhwest Q.31 mile to the intersection with Swift Water Road, then continuing ~esberly 0,09 ~il~ tO end in a temporary turnaround. Swift Water ~ead - Beginning at the intersection with Rockyrun Road and running southerly 0.13 mile to in a cul-de-sac. ~¢tJorooke, section 6 (August 6, 1981) Pepperid~e Road - Beginning at its intersection with Lau~eat~ Lane, Route 2263, an~ Pepperidge Road, Ro~te 226~ eitendin9 southwest 0.86 mile tO the intersection of Arehgrove Court then seuth~st 0.03 nile to a cul-de-sac. ~rckgrove Court - Beginu~ng at its intersection with ?epperidqe Road~ extending southeast 0.06 mile to temporary teen,round. ielonial Pine Estates, Section C (AUgUSt 6, 1981) ~u!ep Drive - Beginning at the interscction with ?oxbrook Drive, Route ~197, and running easterly 0.10 nile to the intersection with Julep Court, th~n ~ontinuing southwesterly 0.29 mile to =he intersection ~ith Julep Circle, then continuing westerly 0.13 ~ile :e the intersestion with Fo~brook Drive~ then continuing lerthw~st~rly 0.15 mile to e~d in a cul-de-sac. Isled Court - Deginning at the intersection with Julep )rive and running easterly 0.04 mile to ~nd in a cul- ~e-sac. ~alisbury, West Kennet Section (August 6, 19el} Netherfiald Drive - Beginning at intersection with wiuter£iuld Road~ Route 7i4, and goin9 8.19 mile westerly until thio drive turns and becomes Nether~ield Drive. South Netherfield Drive - Beginning Nuther£ield Driv~ b~comes $eu=h Netherflald Drive and going 0.06 mile southerly to a temporary Cenite Forest, Res~bdivlsion, Section C (August 6, 19~1) 0akmeadow Lane - Beginning where State Naintenance on Route 2748 and going 0.05 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. 81-~8E 0.i0 mi. mi. mi. 0.09 mi. 0.06 mi. 0.67 mi. 0.04 mo., mi. 0.06 mi. 0.0~ mi. Patterson Park, Sections A and B (August 6, 19~1) Troycott Road ~ Beginning at %ha intersection with Alco=~ Road, Route 1613, and running southerly mile to the intersection with Troycett Place. 0.06 Troycott Place -Baginning at the intersection with ?rsycott Road and running easterly 0.11 mile to end in a cul-de-sac, again Troycott Place beginning at the intersection with Troycett Road and running westerly 0.12 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Q.23 mi. Rural Addition (August 6, 1981) Beginning at ROUte 360 and centanuing in a northerly dir~ctinn 1,O0 mile to the entranca of the County landfill. 1.00 mi. Mayfair ~st~tas (August 6, 1981} 0~bridge ~oad - Beginning at Route 360 and running in a southerly di~eetion for 0.23 mile and than tying back in=e axisning ©xbridge Road, Route 2080. 0.23 mi. A~andonment {Augus~ 6, 1981) Old Location Of Route 2080, Oxbridga Road~ from Route ~r. Kedrick ~ubmitted reports ts the Board on the Completion of the Buspool ExperLment~ the Audit for the Co,unity Development Block Gran~ 1978-81, Landfill Rete~ and tha Engin~aring Report on tbs Solid Wa~e Disposal Facilities. ~a stated the Landfill Rates would be placed on the Septembe~ 9, 19~1, agenda for ~. Ramsuy explained that budget changes requested ~or the 3uvenile Datention Mums, General services and the School System were for grants. Mrs. Giron~ suggested that the grant funds for ~eneral Services for the Solid Wast~ Study grant be usad to pay for the recent landfill s~dy if possible. Mr. Ramsay stated that the County would hava some discretion on how ts uae the funds and he would check into this use. Mr. ~ow~ll s~at~d thaC the funds Ware planned to be used for ~onitering wells at the ~hester landfill site, maintenanca improvements tO the rafuse ~otl~ction rationes, etc, ~fter ~urther discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Book, an, seconded by ~r. Dodd~ fe~olved that %k~ 1. In~reased Planned Budget Ravenua ac~oun~ 111-t-O0012-0937-000 Shared E~enae-Da~ention Home by $10~4~ and ~ne~eaeed Planne~ Dudgat ~xpenditurs au=aunt 11I-1-06300-4513-880 Other Equipment by 2. Increased Planned Budget Ravanue account 220-1-40007-8961 R~veaue from the State by $8,895 and incraa~ed Planned Budget Expendituras as follows; 220-i-~0007-~74-000 CO~S., Seminars, ap. T~aining 220-1-40007-2656-000 Rapairs& Mai~t. - Landfill 220-1-40007-2607-000 Ro~air~ & Main~. - Equipment Total increase in expenditure~ And further ~he Board authorized the County A~mini~%ra~ox to accept these g~ant funds. Bermuda District Ecoff Park 330-1-95417-4393 Thomas Dale High sckool 330-1-95424-4393 Bermuda District Contingency 330-1-95446-4692 Total Bermuda District D~crease Clover Hill District Chalkley Elementary Henin~ Elementary Providence Middle Swift Creek Middl~ Clover Rill Contingency 330-1-95425-4393 330-1-95440-439~ 330-1-95423-4393 330-1-95431-4393 330-1-95446~4694 To,al ClOv~z ~11 District Decrease Dale District Bird Park Courthouse Complex F~lling creek ~iddle Falling Creek Elementary ~ensley ~lementary B~ulah ~lemen~ary Hopkins Elementary Salem Church Middle Total Dale Distrie~ Decrease Matoaca District Harrowgate Elementary Carver Middle Matoaca Higk School Matoaca Middle School Matoaca bis~ri¢% Con%ingency 330-1-954~2-4393 330-1-9~422-4393 330-I-95428-4393 330-1-95437-4393 330-1-95438-4393 330-1-95439-4393 330~1-95441-4393 330-1-95445-4393 330-1-95448-4112 330-1-95447-4393 330-1-95449-4393 33Q-t-95442-4393 33~1-95446-4695 To~aI Matoaca District Decrease Midlothian District Robious Complex ~idlo~ian Annex ~idlothian ~igh Cr~$twcod Elementary Greenfield Elementary 330-1-95407-4393 33~-1-95411-4393 330-I-954~5-4393 ~30-1-95429-4393 238-1-95430-~393 Total Midlothian District Decrease Increased Planned Bodget Expenditure~ Bermuda District ~oin= Of Reeks Dark 330-t-95401~4393 Chester Intermediate 330~1-9~426-4593 Total B~rmu~a District Increase Clovsr Hill District Grange ~aI1 ~lementary Reams Road Elementary Rcckwood ~ark Clover ~ill Sigh School Manchester High School Monacsn High School Davis Elemen:ary 330-1-954~5-4393 330-1-9541Q-4393 330-1-95421~4393 330-1-9~427-4393 330-1-95408-4393 ~30-1-95416~4395 330-1-95436-4393 Meadowbrock High School 330-1-95443-4393 Dale District Contingency 330-1-95446-4693 S1-384 $ ~99 4,910 1,746 $ 227 651 6,957 $50,840 2~700 171 ~4 200 $ 200 3~005 500 $15,S78 5,526 126 162 564 6,619 6,459 696 $ 4~337 13,292 17,35~ 3,227 11,676 $50,840 $ 5,002 $ 5,363 ~a~oaca District Ett~ick Pa~k 330-1-95418-4393 $ 1,5~ Harrowga~e Park 33G=1-95419-4393 11,43¢ Mateaca Park 330-1-95420-4393 2,945 Total satoa0a ~istrict Increase $15,878 Midlothian District ~idlothian Park 330-1-95403-43~3 $ 3,496 Watkins Elementary 330-1-954~2-4~9~ 1,233 Midlo~hian Contingency 330-1-95446~46~6 1,890 Total Midlothian District Increase $ 6,619 Insreased Planned Budget Revenue account 141-1-00012-0996-0~0 Preschool Incentive Grant by and increased Planned Budget Expenditure 141-1-2239t-45L3-000 Other Equipment Preschool Incentive by $11,130. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. O'Neill, the ~eard went tutu E×~cutive ~ession to discuss legal matters a~ permitted by Section 2.I-344 (a) (6) of the Code Of 9i=ginia, 19~0, as 81S070 from Agrieultumal (A) tc Light Industrial parcel fronting approximately 320 £e=t cn the north line of Road. Tax Map 82-14 (1) Parco! 3 {Sheet ~r. Bal~erson stated the Planning Commission had recommended ~deniel Of tkis request. He ~tnted that the applicant had requested withdrawal of the application. NO one wa~ pre~ent O'Neill, the Board accepted the request cf the applicant for Vote: Unanimous 81S095 In B~ude ~egisterial District, Charles k. Wongus requested a mobile home permit to park e mobile home On property which b~long$ to Charles A. Wongus, ~r. Tax ~ap 115-10 (~) Marqui~ Property, Lot la an~ b~tter known as 4~40 Shop Street (Sheet Mr. Bald~rson stated that the ~altA Department had not nQtifiec staff ss to whether or not thi~ parcel is suitable for installation of a well and septic tank and drainfield system. ~r. Wongus stated tkat hu had contracted with Stami~ ~. Lyttle Company for installation which will be completed in the near future. There was no opposition present. On motion of seconded by Mrs. Girane, this request for a mobile home permit WaS approved for a five year perioa. Vote: Unanimous 81S096 %n Bermuda Magisterial District, Nora Riddle re~uaSted a mobile home pe~mlt to park a mobile hom~ On property which ah~ owns. Tax Nap 98-I (9) Halfway House Heights, Block 4, Lots 39, 40 and 41 and befter known as ~0~24 Elokomin Avenue {She~t 32). Fo one was pzesent regarding this raguest. It was generally agreed that thim case would be heard later this date in order ho allow time for the applicant Bo appear. 81S007 {Amended) In Dale Magisterial District, Bremner, Youngbloed & King, Inc. requested rezoning fro~ AgriculB~:al (A) to Residential Townhouse-For-Sale (R-TH) o~ 17.5 acres, to Residential (R-22) of 27.7 acr~s, to Offic~ Sv~ine~s (0) af 10.8 aoras~ and to C0nvenienee Buslnesa (R-l) of 12.5 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned D~velopRen~ ~o permi~ use and bulk encompaasin~ the entire 68.5 acre tract. The applicants intend to const~uc~ single ~amily r~sidence$~ cluster home~, condomininms~ townhcusas, of~Xces and a neighborhood center within this development. This property fronts approximately 890 feet on the east line of Iron Bridgu Ro~d and also ~ron=s approximately 1,270 feet Qn the south line of ~entralia Road and lies southeast of the intersect%on of these roads. Tax MaD 96-9 (1) Parcel ~ (Sheet ~r. Balderscn stated that the Planning CoI~mission had recommende~ ~pproval o% this request utilizing the applicant's land u~e plan not the Master Plan nor staff's plan) subject to curtain :onditions. He ~tated aa a matter of clarification, Condition ~14 r~ferred to an ~0 foot right-of-way and it was %hat tho Planning Co~imsion could modify the design if the =riteria e~tablished ia satisfied and that the buffering is on the east/weot road and would not be requlr~d on the north/south ~Oad. Mr. Bal~erson presented slides outlining the area and ~picting the architectural design to be employed. ~r. Jim Park~, representing bhe applicant, stated that the ~pposi:ion and the epplicant~ were not &n total agreement but khe~e had been concessions made which brought ~he two sides closer together. Ho 9tat~d that i~ was a good plan, it was fair and equitable. 5e cited the history of the ~a~e stating it began in the Fall, 1980, t~ere had bean meetings with the opposition, the ~lanning Commisaion had approved tho request and then another meetin~ was held with the opposition, Mr. Parks ~tated that there was o~position becaus~ o~ the historic value of Wrexhem ~all hut this property would remain as it is agd there would b~ 1OW density in the area, ~e stated that the plannin9 principles for aurrounding uses were ccmpatibl~ in %hat there exists old and new structures, there exist modern and historic structures, ~he traffio impact will not be that great beaause of Route lO, etc. He stated that they have Compromised the buffers and the nun~er cf ~nits~ features have been added to ~rotect the puJblic interest ~Ad that they have proffered other o0ndltiona whfzh are outlined in the Staff Repor~ and farther he accepted Condition ~14 as indicated by Zr. Balderson. ~e stated that he did have some concerns about the other conditions regarding se~beoks, site p~anning features, etc. but added h~ ~ould not discuss those at this time. ormfer to construct a swimming pool or something that would be of ~ useful nature. He stated that they would lika the minimum for ~lu~ter/condominiums to be reduced from 1,800 square f~et to 1,200 square feet. He stated that the 1,~00 sq=aru fast would ~emaad a price of approeimatley $75-90,000 for which nee~ does lot exist in this area. He stated tha~ 1,200 square feet would is not what people want in 5his area, ~h=y want convenience to is being required. Mr. Bookman indicated there is 1,600 square 5or 1,880 square ~eet. Mr. Balderson stated the Planning ~ermr~ission had originally rsquired this sc that ~he quality of :he area could b= maintained above and beyond the design control ~nd they felt this was reasonable. ]avid M. White, attorney representing the opposition, introduced ~he Honorable ~rnes: P. Gata~. Judge Gates distributed picture~ 2~ the Board of Wrexham ~all; gave a history oS the home which he L770-1790, that it was restored in 1941; that a captain of ~ilitia died here in 1805; that the Walthall Grist ~ill is behind ~agnolia Grange, etc. 5e ~tated ~hat he has applied for Wrexham :his will mak~ a major impact on the pages of history a~ all a~e ~ta~l~y Hague restored this home and even though he spent 14 .£ nothing else. He ~tated that he and his wife purchased this listorio but nothing has been dona. ~veryoae, the applicants included, a fever by denying this ~equest. He ~tated that the historic area is not the only ~cr[ion tha~ should be addressed hut the entir~ development, as ~hera is every use imaginable included. He ~:ated there ~=gun and nors than =an be supportud. ~e stated that approval of this plan will eventually create a slum area. He stated the ~pplieant had approached him with their plans for the area. ~tated that utilities ar~ a 1Qng way off, that it will involve ~ppreximatley ~0 easements, etc. He etat=d that when he had ~evelcpers track record had to be analyzed, etc. for anything Dther than ~ingle family. He stated that office and re$idu~tial ~veloped and it should be something tha~ all can be proud of. 5e recommended aqainst giving the applicant carte blanche ~ppreval of this plan. 2e~nty. ~e stated that this should be planned and it is fuzzy, ~t be~t. He stated the b~st historical events in the history of ~evelop his property in low density end feels all the surrounding ~rea should be the same. Be stated that ~taff ha~ stated that =his will be th~ highest traffic volu~e generated in the County ~£ approved. ~e stated that the Zoning Ordinance stats~ that it requested that the Board "plan for planning baku" and not fur the "whim of a developer." He ~tated that all needed to be cognizant OK the area end taka pesitive step~ for planning at the Courthouse. Mr. ~hillp Daffron stated that ~e never has thought that "more better in land use or density". He stated that he did net see anything that said more ee/~mercial development was needed in the Mrs. Dottle Armstrong stated that she felt the Board should staff'~ attitud~ is re~leeted in the stat%neat "that such time as Wre~ham seeks zoning...'= indicates the disregard for what CUrrently ~xists. She stated that the historic area needs to be preserved, that it is up to the Board, that it ie =o their credit ~r discredit whatever happens, that methods and standards preserve historic areas should be investigated, etc. She stated ~hat these hi~toric areas should be given a chance to live and ~reathe for future generate%ns. Hr. Henry Myers, pr%perry owner across Route 10, stated that this ~eveloDment will bring drainage problems to hie lot ~r. Marshall Driskill stated that he was conc~r~ed for the 5i~torie val~e of Wrexhsm which iea landmark in County history. 4r. White ~ated ~hat everyone r~ng down Ruut~ 10 sees Wre×ham lull--that it is e pleasure and right of all citizens. He Stated :hat this ie in the political and religious heart of :he Go~nty. le stated that the highee~ and best u~e of the land would be for ~ church tO be built in the area. He ~tated that if this area is ]~stroyed, it will never be replaced. ~r. Oliver Rudy sta~ed that people whe respected historic value put their money where their ~ouPh was and spent their hard earned ~etlars in restoring this homesi~e. He ~tated that it is %he Board's responsibility to protect areas such as this for future generations. Ms stated he did not feel this area would attractive. Me stated that the Courthouse area should be pre~eoted and respected ae the Princmt$ Anne Courthouse area is. it ought to be here~ this is the focal point of history ~or Chemterfield. He stated that when considering zoning, you should consider the trends in the area, the growth ef the cor~munity, etc. He stated =here is no evidence which indicatee there is a market for this development in this area. He stated that if seeing cunt~nus~ along Route ID, it will look like Kou~e I. stated that the ~alfway ~ouse has been encroached upon and he did ~ot want to ~ee this happmn here. ~e stated ~hst the highest and best USe for this land would be to hold it for speculation. He stated there is no imm~dlate demand the= this land be utilized. 5e stute~ this development has a density of 4 homes pe~ acre and Brandermill ha~ only 3 ho~es par acre. He ~tated that if th~ elan is to be approved, that the square footage be required at ~,800 as it is the only way to insure the quality of the area. ~e stated that when there iS not a definite developer, conditions ~heuld shac~l~ ~n a manner to compliment what is there. Me stated thie plan is not proper. ~rs. Virginia Gates stated =hat she appreciated all that had been ~ai~ regarding Wrexham which incorporated what she woul~ hav~ hiked to have said. She state~ that ~he hoped a mistake was net 81-388 Ms. Ruth Ohl Kersey s~atsd that she hoped the Board would taro into consideration how Richmond did not properly preserve their historic sites and would protect Chesterfield'm~ l{r. C. F. Currin, Jr. stated that this case should not be ~onsidered on an emotional basim. Me stated that there ham not ~aen a commitment that Wre~ham will b~ registered with Historic Landmarks tom, mission, thag thi~ is a good plan, that ~uffers and concession~ ~ill preservm the area, ~hat everything ~hat is different ia not always bad, etc. ~ stated tka~ as the ~eveloper of the property, he wo~ld not do anything ~hat would be ~trim~tal to his reputation or th~ land. Mr. Parks stated that ~ycamore Square has been good for ~he County and this is being ~eveloped with the came idea in mind. Me stated that he did not )elieve Lhis world generate the highest traffic volumm of any ~evalopmant in the County. ~r$. Armstrong stated that she ~ad discussed the rmgistratinn of ~rexham with a me~lber cc th~ Board on the Mistoric Landmarks ~o~i~eiOn and it was their feelin~ tha~ i= would be ~r, Do~d inquired about the density of this development and ~randermill. Mr~ Balderscn stated that Brandermil~ was 3 ~er acre based on gros~ land area and that there i~ no greater ~ubdivision in the County ~han ~ per acre. ~r. Daniel ~tated that iL ~eemnd Dale District alwey~ qoa ~ontroversial cases. Be stated that nothing new wa~ stated at ~hi$ meetin~ than during the Magnolia Grange came. He stated ~hat was why hs recommended denial a~ ~hat time. Ke stated the ~agnolia Grange c~se has as~abllshed the precedent far zoning :rends at the Courtheume er~a and he had no alternative but ~ecormmend approval of the request subject to reduction of lensities; that the total number of r~eidential units in the ~roj~ct not e~ceed 1807 ~ha: Tra~t B and D be zoned Offims ~usinemm (0); Trac~ E zoned Convenience ~usines$ {M-i} subject to ~he condition =hat the proposed shopping center have a ~quare layout and design; Tract C be ZOned Residential 7ownhcusa-Por-Sale (R-TH}~ and Tract A be monad Re$idantia! iR-12) and subject to ~he following conditions in which the above e incorporated~ The below stated conditions notwithstanding, the land use plan prepared by Brother, Youngblood & King, dated March, 1981, shall be considered ~he plan of development. Unless otherwise s~ated herein, the textual stahement submitted with thm ~ppl~¢ation shall be adhered tn with r~spact to and bulk exceptions and requirem~nte. Tract boundaries may be shim%ed, provided =he acreage of any single tract is no~ increased by more ~han ten (10} percent. 2. The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage m[tuation, ~howing ~xisting drainage and the impact %hi~ project will have on the site end the surrounding area. The developer shall sub,it a plan to Environmental Engineering which will provide for on end off-site drainage control. The plan ~hall mxplain the method and show the facilities to be utilized in hhe hydraulic engineerinq Of this project. This plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission a~ the time o~ schematic approval for the first building constructed and in conjunction with Env±ron~ntal Engineering. This plmn shall be approved pzioz to clearing of any land and implemented p~ior t© ~h¢ issuance of any occupancy permit. The developer shall submi~ a plan for erosion and sediment control tn Environmmntal ~ngineerlnq. Snch a p%~n shall comprlssd of vegetative and engineering practices {as outlined in the "~rosion and Sediment Con~rol Technical ~andboQk" p~bllshsd by the James River Soil and Water Conservation District) to be uti[iz~d aS erOSiQn and sediment cnntrol measures for ~he project. The plan shall be approved By Environmental Engineering p~ier to the clearing any land. On-site retention shall be provided for that runoff which would drain to Tyler's Pond. This retention shall be desiqned to store a fifty (50] year fully developed condition with a release rate of a ten (10) year undeveloped k hydraulic a~alysis shall b~ submitted to Environmental Engineering for that area which drains to the north. If ~his analysis indicate~ that the existing downstream culv~rtz and ditches'are inadequate, on-site retention for tha~ area shall be provided. This retention ~hall have a storing capacity for a twenty-five {25) year ~torm with a release rate of two {2) years. Publ~c water and s~wer shall be ~sed and the dev~Ioper shal~ submit water and sewer plans for approval ho the Utilities Department prior to the issuance of any bu£1ding permit_ determined by th~ C©un~y RiGht-of-Way engineer~ ehali b~ of any building All commercial and office structures shall have an architectural style and layout the same as Sycamore Square. In conjunction with schematic plan review, colored renderinge shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for Curb and gutter shall bs utilized as deemed appropriate by Environmental Internal commercial, office and high density r~$1dential parking areas ~hall be curbed in a manner acceptable to Development Review at the time of site plan approval. This e~rbin9 shall be f~r :he purpose of cha~nelizing traffic. Commercial and office parking areas shall have at least ten (lO) square feet o~ interior landscaping for every two ~2) spaces. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum of fifty I~0) square fse~ and shall have a minimum dimension of tree kavi~g a clear trunk of at Isaac f~ve {5) femt, with the remaining area adequately landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other au~orlzed landscaping material not to exceed three {3) feet in h~ight. The total number o~ trees shall net be less than one Il) for each two hundred (~O0) feet or fraction thereof of requi~ed interior landscaped area. Such land,caped areas shall be located in such a manner so as to divide and break up the e~panse of paving. The area d~signated as require~ setbacks shall not be calculated as requirsd landscaped ar~a. A strip Of land at leaot five (5) feet in depth 1QCated between the abutting righ~-cf-way and the off-street commercial end office parking area(s) or e~he~ vehicular use area(s) which is exposed to an abnttin~ right-of-way shall be landscaped. Such landscaping shall include one ~ree each fifty (50) lineal ~eet ar fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located b~tw~en the abutting right-of-way and off-street parking area(~) Or other vehicular u~ area(s) and shall be planted in an area of at least twenty-five (25) square feet with a dimension of at ]ea~t five [5} fee~. The r@mainder of required landscaped areas shall b~ planted wi~h grass, groun~ cover, or other landecape treatment exluding pavement. All property other than the required landscaped ~trip lyinq between the right-of-way and off-street parking area(s) er other vehicular u~e area(s) shall b~ planted with Sl-390 L3. Within the Office Business (©) tracts, e twenty-five [25} foot buffer shall be main=a/ned for the length of th~ tracts which abut Wrexham. If~ howeverf Wrexham has been developed for commsrclal or office use et th~ time thi~ p¥Oject is constructed, the buffer shall not be required. These buffers shall be landscaped in accordance with ~he "~inimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buf£ers." Other than drainag~ or utility improvements, no facilities shall be permitted within these buffers. At such time that Wre×ham seeks zoning for commercial or office use, the Planning Cc~u~ission shall give consideration to allewing shared access through th~ ~ubject property. A specific landscaping plan shall be prepared and submitted to hke Planning Co~mission approval in conjunction with schematic plan review for d~velopment within the Office ~usiness (0) =ract~. If no loading or driveway areas abut the southern boundary of the proposed commercial area, a fifty (50} ~oot buffer shall be maintained along =he southern boundary; otherwise, a seventy-five (75} foot buffer shall be maintained. fifty (50) foe~ buffer shall also be maintained along the southern bondary of the propose4 high density residential area. Other =hen pedestrian ways and drainage and/ur utility improvements, no ~asili~ies shall be permitted with the~e buffers. If exiuting vegstation is dense a~d evergreen, and sufficient to screen these uses from ad2acent prope~t~ to the south, no additional planting shall be required. However, where existing vegetation doe~ not effectively screen the Auhje~t prQperty, additional plantimg shall be required. A specific land,capias pla~ shall b~ submitted to the ~lanning Commission ~cr approval in conjunction with schematic plan review of those areas which abut this buffer. A fifty (50) feet buffer shall be maintained along Csntralia Road. A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintaine~ along the length of the north/sonth eighty (80) foot right-of-way (as described h~rein) end along the east/west roadway from the western boundary of the R-9 and R-TH area to the east/west road's intersection with the north/so~th uighty (80) foo~ right-of-way. Other than public roads, u~ilities and drainage improvements, no ~acitit&es shall be permihhed within there buffer area~. These buffers shall be planted and/or harmed in a manner that will effectively ~¢reen the rear yards and parking areas from visw of the public roads. A landscaping plan depictinq this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan r~view for ~hoss areas which abut these buffers. Thi~ plan may be modified at the tlm~ of schematic plan approval by ~he Planning Commission as long as the spirit and intent ~s carried forth. A twenty-~ive (25) fo~t buffe~ shall be maintained between the proposed Convenience Business (B-l) area and the proposed Residential (R-TM) area. This buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines Landscaped Buffers." In conjunction with schematic plan review, a landscaping plan shall bm mub~itted to the Planning Commission for approval. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western boundary of Tract B and D and ~ore specifically, e~je~nt to the single family and tewnheuse d~velopment. This buffer ~hall b~ landscaped and/or harmed in a manner that will effectively screen the office use from the reuidentiai use. Other ~han p~blic roads, u=ilities and drainage improvements, no facilities shall be permitted within theme buffers. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in cenjnnotion with schematic plan revmew. iR. 19. 21, 23. The Tract "C" ar~a ~hall be zoned Residential Townhouss-Far-Sale {R-TH). Withi~ this tract, one of the following housing types and densities shall be permitted: Townhouses 8 un,ts/acre Condominiums 7 units/acre Cluster 5 units/aero The specific bulk requirements as outlined in the textual statement submitted with the application ~hall bo adhered to. The total number o~ residential units shall not exceed for Tract A and Tract C.' one grocery store and one other ~tore shall be permitted exceed the 12,000 square foot limitation in the COnVenience Business lB-l) District. The~e ~teres shell he separate {not in =he same struc=ure or physically attached} and shall not exceed 35~0Q0 ~_cuare feet each. Ail Other stores withir the ~-1 District ~hall conform to the 12,000 ~quare foot limitation. Excepting =hose conditions contained herein, the textual statement Submitted with the applica¢iea shall be considered ~ho devel0p~ent crltsria for the Convenience Business area and the Office Business (0) area. facilitate traffic movements within th~ tract end to preclude unnecessary use ef public roads. One freestandinq sign identifying the shopping center and office complex not tO exceed one hundre~ ~quare feet in ar~a shall be permitted along Route 10. This sign ehall identify the nature Of ~he ~evelopment an~ ~he tenants therein. The sign may be itl~inated, but ehall not be luminous. This sign shall not exceed a height of twenty-five (25~ feet. This sign shall blend with the architectural style of the develo~nent. Directional ~igns (entrance{exits) shall be permi~%9~ ane shall be governed by the minimum requiremenes as outlined in the Zoning Or~inau¢~ under Section 21-60 The office complex shall be permitted two (2) frsestendinq Signs~ one a= the major entrance from the internal east/west road and %ha north/south road. These signs shall b~ positioned uo us not to he vis&tlc from Koute 10 or Cen=ralia Koad, The office complex signs shall not ~xee~d a height of four (4) feet and shall be no larger than twenty (2O) square feet. These ~iqns may b~ illuminated, but shall not be luminous. ~eh separate commercial or office building shall be permitted one eign~ attached to the facade, not to exceed a total aggregate area o~ .5 square feet for each one foot of building frontage, These signs shall also blend with the architectural style of the development. Prior to erection of any signs, colored r~d~riugs shall be submitted to the klanning Commission for approval. Thiu package ~halI include typical styles, colors, areas and lettering. $1-392 2:. 27. 2~. 30. 32. 33. 34. No other advertising si~ns~ other than those ~dentifying th~ name and nature oX the commercial e~abllshments, shall be An all-weather ped~sfrian path shall be Drovided be%ween the residential and corm~ercial areas. The specific location end design of this path shall be determined at the time of schematic plan review. No residential unit Shall hav~ an interior gross ~quare footage of less =h&n 1,$00 square feet. Reurea=ional facilities to include e club house, tennis courts and/or basketball courts shall be provided within proposed R-TH area and shall COntain a minimum of ten (10} percent of ~he gross aoreage. Plans for the fac±lift,s shall be submit=ed to the Planning Commission far approval in conjunction with scheraatic plan r~view. Thirty-five (35) feet of right-of-way, measured from the c~ntafline of C~nt~lla Road, for the entire length of the property which abut~ Centralia Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County cf Ches=srfield, free and ~n~e~tricted. This dedicatio~ shall be ac¢omplishe~ prior to the issuance of any building permit. In order to provide adequate ingress and egress for right and left turn mov~meu%~, a minimum of twelve {12] f=et cf additional pavement shall be constructed alonq bo=~ Iron Bridg~ and Centralia Auad~. These lanes shall be oenStr~cted to State standard~ and taken into the State system prier to the issuance of any occupancy p~rmit. The easternmost ~Orth/south roadway shall have a minimum right-al-way of eighty (~0) feet. This right-of-way ~hall be dedicated prior to the issuance of any building permit. A crossover shall be c~nstructed in Iron Bridge Reed SO as to align with the propo~ed east/west road. k loft turn lane shall aisc be constructed to facilitate safe traffic movements into the development from Iron Bridge Road. These facilities shall be designed and cen~tructed to standards. The applicanf shall de~icete a right-of-way of not less than six:y {60) feet for the east/west collscter street and any additional right-of-way raqulred for the construction of a four-lane divided roadway from Iron Bridge Road 200 feet eastward. The four lanes will require a 1OO foot taper to two-lane roadway for the remaining length of %he east/west road. This ~edicatien shall b~ accomplished prior to the i~uence of any occupancy permit. Access shall not be permitted to the east/west r~adway within 200 feet Of Iron Bridge R~ad. OutdoOr lighting shall be low le~el not ~o exceed a heigh~ of fifteen (15} feet and positioned so as not to projeot light into adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall blend with the architectural styl~ of the development. And further ~he Beard aoe~pte~ the following proffered conditions by the applicant: 1. All cO~ercial bu£1dings in ~ract E shall have an architectural character and general arrangement/site conce~t aS provided in Sycamore Square Shoppinq Center. 2. 3. 4. Tract g stall be developed in accordance with R-12 zoning regulations. Tract ~ development shall be limited %0 office buildings_ Tract C shall be developed for residential purpo~ at densities not to exceed the following: Townhouses 8 units/acre Condominiums 7 units/acrs C2uster ~ units/acre The total n~oeT of dwelling unite developed in Tra~t A and C shall not exe~d 180. Vote: Unanimous 81S058 ~n Bermud~ M~gi~t~riaI District, Pef£ Cons~ractlon, Inc. requemted rezoning from Residential Townhouses-For-$ale (R-T~) R~sidential IR~7) plum a Conditional Use to permit 168 multiple family units on a 13.2 acge parcel fronting approximately 400 ~se~ on the southeast li~e CT Drewrys Bluff Road and located approximately 200 feet south of its intersection with swineford Road. Tax ~ap ~7-3 [7) Botany Woods; Block A, Lots 1-10; Block B, Lots 1-9; B~ock C, Lots 1-10; Block D, Lots i-9; Block E, Lot~ 1-9~ Block F, Lot~ 1~9; Block G, Luke 1-9; ~loQk ~, Lots 1-6; ~!oek J, Lots 1-10; Block K, Lots 1-9; Biook Lz Lots 5-9; Block N~ Lobs t-5; Block O, Lots 1-7; Block P, Lots 1-9; and %ax 167-2 (3) Botany Woods, ~lock L, Lots 1-3~ BLock M, Lots 1-5; and Lot 8 (She~% 23). ~r. Balderson stated tha~ the ~la~ning CQn~ssion ~ad reoo~n~nde~ denial of this application. He ~tated further that the Board of Supervi~o~ had de£e~r~ this cass in ardor to allow time fo~ th~ appiican% and the opposition to meet. ~e grated thac the appIicaat has proffered to ~onate 2.25 acre~ for a public area at ~r. 5~rr&~on Stoneman ~ta~ed tha~ ~his plan conforms to the General Plan 2000, that they agree to the conditions which were recormnended, %hat all public utilities are available to the sit~ includinq fire protection a~d school facilities, etc. ~s stated ~ha~ after ~wo meetin~ with th9 oppoeition¢ the applicant will proffer that 2.25 acrem be d~diea%ed in fee simple ~or use ~y tho area civic association, that they will dedicate a 50 foot r~ght-o~-way ~or the nor%h/sou%h access, that they will u~e an affirmative marketing progTam and that they will modify ~he proposal ~o 100 units rather than 168 to be constructed. He stated that zoning on this property was approved in 1968 for 150 multi-family units and in 1970 for 142 R-TH units and the zoning allows them to build Residential %ownhouses-For-Sale (R-TH). He stated that if this request is denie~, they would proceed wiQh a townhouse development aAd simply rent each unit, which is permitted by the Sorting Ordinance. bt~. Bryan Walker stated that this area is single ~amily rmsiden~ial and that a~artments and ~railer parks hav~ infringed the road widening; that a blend of restored homes in the area exist and that they wan~ ~he area to remain ~in~le f~ily. Ms. ~ally Johnson sta~ad that when prior zoninw wa~ approved for the area, the single family dwellings did not extend as far but now 50 reslden~e~ will be affected. ~r. Dodd in,aired if the pre,eat zoning would allow for thes~ unit~ to be r~nted. Mr. Balde~scn stated t~at it would if the units were created as fee simple lots, th~ owners could ~hsn decide to rent the units. Mr. Micas =rated thi~ was %~ue, but ih would be the first attempt to circumvent thi~ zoning. ~e stated Zoning Ordinan¢~ requirementm arm complied with. Mr. Dcdd inquired what the size ef the units would ~e. ~ir, $~oneman indicated approximately 6~-1,000 square ~eet. %here were approximately 50 people present in opposition. After ~urther discussion of the ma[t~r~ it was on motion of Mr. Dodd~ seconded ~y Mr. ~aniel, resolved that this request for rescuing ~ denied. 2he ~oard recessed for five minutes. Reconvening: ~1S055 In Dale Magisterial District, Continental Land ~ales, Inc. ~equssted rescuing from A~rieultural (A) to Residential (R-9) o~ ~ 27 acre parcel Which ti~s at the western ~rminua cf ~untingoreek Drive. Tax Map 79-8 (1) pa~t of parcel 4 (Sheet l~. Baldezsoa stated the Planning Commission had recommended ~pproval of this application, The applicant was not present_ Phone was no opposition present. On motion of ~r. Daniel, ~eCOnded by Mr. DodO, the Board apprQved this request. ~yes: ~r, Daniel, ~r. Dodd~ ~. Bookman and Mrs. Girone. ~b~ent: Mr. O'Neill. ir. O'Neill returned to the meeting. I1S066 In Dale MaqiaheriaI District~ B. Gordon Bmasley, Jr. requested an ~m~ndment to a previously granted Conditional Us~ (Cas~ 78S100} ~0 permit expansion of a playground urea for a child care center ~n a Residential IR-12) District on a 1.43 acre parcel which lies ~proximat~ly 200 feet off the north lin~ of Bonniebank Road ~easurad from a point approximately 300 feet east of its ~nt~rs~ctlon with Presto~wood Avenue. Tax Map 52-8 (1) part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 15). ~r. Balderson ~teted that the 9lanning Con, lesion had recommended approval of thim request sub3eet to certain conditi©n~. Mr. Beasley wa~ present and ~tated that h~ WQnld like this reducer approved in order to allow him 40 extra feet for a playground to the day care center. He stated that when he bought tko adjacent lot he was given a year to build a single family dwelling or agree to m~ll the lot back or make it available for sale. Hr. J. S. Pools was present and stated that he felt the lot would ~e sold fo~ business as no one would want a day care center nehind their home. Mrs. Girone inquired if the 40 %ee~ would be ~$ed jus~ for a playground and when the remainder of the lot is ~eveloped, would it be developed residential. Mr. Beasiey stated ~f%er further discussion, it wa~ on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~. 0'~ill~ rmsolved that this request b~ approved subject to the following conditions and wi~h the understanding hhah it is the ~oard's intention that LOts 14~ 16 an~ 17 will remain z~ned as originally approved for r~sidentiul devslomment ~nd that :hose parcels will not b~ zoned commercial O~ ~us~nes~: 1. A six (6) foot high eolid hoard ~ence shall be provided along the north~rn~ ~astern and western property 2. Conditions 1 through ~ of ~he original Conditional Use req~eet (Case YSS1O0) shall remain in affect. Vote: Unanimou~ Sls0~t (Amended) grante~ Conditional Use Planned Development (case SOS059) Uo fronting approximately 800 feet on the southwest line of Robious Road and locate4 directly across from its intersection with Eerl~ Settlers Road and better known a~ ~eritage Village. Tax MaD 17-2 (1) Parcel 10 lSheet 8}. ~r. Balderson stereo the Planning com~ission had recommended stated that this request would basically eliminate th~ pond~ th~ applicant would provide la~d for recreational fncil±ties to the utilized, it would not be necessary for ~his to be reheard by thl Planning Commission since it conforms to th= original approve~ Master Plan. She stated that approval is subject to development in accordance with Option "B". There was no opposition present. accepted ~he gist o~ la~d for recreational facilities and approved this request. In Bermuda Magisterial District, Earl ~. Hartm~ requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) of a 1.08 aor~ pa~cei frosting approximately 300 feet on the wes~ llne of Jefferuon Daviu Eighway and located approximately $0 fea~ north of ltd intereeo~ion with DuDont Avenue and better known as 7524 Jefferson Davis Nighway. Ta~ Map 67-7 (3) Rayon Park, Bloc} A, LOt~ 12 through 23 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval o£ this request. Mr. ~artman sta~ed that there were some comments nade earlier r~q&rding the unsightly busineaues on Route 1 and he felt it was because zoning condltion~ were not followed. He misted that h~ had taken the Van shop from the motion o~ ~r. Dodd, seconded by ~r. Bookman, it was resolved the± this request be approved, Vote: Unanimous 818069 In Bermuda ~agisteriai District, North Market Realty Corp. requested rezoning from Community ~usiness (B-2) to General Business (B-3) Of a 3.77 acre parcel fronting approximately 440 feet on the north line of Wes% Hundred Road and located approximately 400 feet wes~ ~f its int~r~ectiQn with Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 116-6 (1) parcel ?D and part of parcel Mr. Balderson indicated the Planning Co~mission had race'ended denial of this request. Mr. Oliver Rudy wa~ present raprese~in~ the applicant. ~e stated he fell there was some misundarstandin~ regarding this request and that the applicants only wanted to extend the zoning and requested that the conditions be eliminated. Mr. Dodd stated that he would like to see the exit irom the property 1Qc~t~'direotly across from the new fire ~tstion exit. Mr. Rudy ~tated that would be accomplished when the station is ~uilt. There was ~o opposition present, on motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by ~r. Bookman, it was resolved that ~hia request be approved. 81S071 ~n Clover Hill Magisterial District, Gaylord ~zooks Inv. Company requested rezoning from Residential (R-7} to Residential Townhouse-Por-Sale (R-T~) plus ~ Conditional Use Planned Development on a 11.717 acr~ ~arcel fronting approximately !,120 fast on the wes~ llne of Twilight Lane and located approximately 750 feet south of it~ intersection with Elkhardt Road. Tax Map 2~-15 (1) par~ of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recon~n~nded approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. S=eve Good,nan was present raprssenting the applicant. Mr. Bookmar stated that he would llke the minimum squats footage for each unit to be 1~600 square feet, he Would like the architecture be similar to Providence Green er Pe¢oshoek TOwnhouses and that the berm b~ constructed five feet above the highest elevation of ~he property. Mr. Goodman stated these would b~ acceptable. ~her~ wa~ no opposition present, On mctien of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Girone~ the Board approved this request subject 1. Thirty (30) f~et of right-of-way measured from the oen=erline of Twilight Lan= shall be d~d~cated to and for the Coun=y of Chesterfield, ~ree and unrestricted for th~ entire l~ngth Oi the property abutting this roadway, This dedication shall be acenmplished prior to the issuance any building permit. Twiligh~ Lane shall be constructed to VD~&T standards with twenty (20) feet of pauement from the southern edge of property to =lkhardt Road. This con~truction sh~ll be completed a~d taken into th~ State system prior to release of more than fifty (50) percent of the building permits and to the i~$uanoe 0~ any occupancy permit. 3. Fifty (SO) fee~ o~ right-of-way shall be dedicated along Middle Road to and for the County Of chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This dedication ~hall be accomplished prior to the r~teas~ of a~y building per.ins. Middle Road Extended shall be constructed to VDH&T standards with t~irty-twe (32} fe~% of pavement and curb and gutter. This load shall bs taken into the State System prior to the issuance cf any occupancy permit. 4. Clearing shall be limited to thirty (30) days prior to more than sixty (60) days. An earth berm having a ~inlmum heigh~ of five [9) feet abew the highest elevation shall be constructed along the ~utire northwest property line, as indicated on the plan s~bmitted with the application. This berm shall be planted with whit~pines, having an initial height of four (4} feet~ spaced a maximum cf seven (7) feet off center. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be conjunction with schematic plan review. gl-397 In order to avoid monotony nn~ create spatial variety, the facades of every third u~it shall be off-set four (4) feet. Every third unit []hall also have an exterior facade =onstructed cf different material than the proceeding two units. These ~nits shall be at least similar in architectural style to existing Pocoshoek Townhouses or Providence Green. In conjunction with schematic plan review, colored renderings and material samples shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for A Community Building and at least one tot lot shall be constructed te serve the residents of this development. These facilities shall be completed and operational prior to the issuance of the 5~th occupancy permit. ~. ~ach unit sh~ll have a minimum ~uar~ f$otage of 1,400 square feet. t0. The above crated conditions notwithutanding the site plan p:apare~ ~y Will£af~ J. $chmidt and Assooiuta~ ~uted Juna. I, 1eSl, shall b~ considered the Master Plan. (Not~: Pri~r to %he release of any building permits, schematic ~lans must be submitted to the Planning Co~mission 9or approval. glS085 ~ ~atoa~a Magisterial District, William Driskill se~oninG from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-~0] of a 52.3 ~crs parcel fronting approximately 140 fast on the wast line of Rhodes Lane and located approximately 4,~00 feet west of its (Sheet Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had approval of this request. Mr. Dick All~n was present representing tha applicant. There was no opposition motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dodd, this r~qusst was approved. Vote: Unanimous In Clever Hill Magisterial District, Martin ChevrOlet Salsa Corp. and David A. Trobour requested re=oning from Agricultural (A) Residential (R-15} of 9.5 acres, to Ganeral Business lB-3) of 22 acres, end to Light Industrial {M-i~ o~ 42.2 acres, plus a Conditional Use Planned Development ~nco~pan$ing the ant%re 73.7 acre tract to permit bulk and u~e exceptions to the Ordinance. This parcel fronts approximataly 1,100 feet on the ~uuth line of ~idlothian Turnpike and is located approximately 750 £ee= ecs= c£ i~z intersection wi~h Robious Road. Tax Ma~ 17-12 (1) part of Parcel 14 (Sheet 8). stated his concern about the pitch and decibels of the loud ex/~tg on Route 60. ~r. ~ookman stated that he would like should be located a maximum cf 150 ft. from the western property line but if possible should be de[iqned to be sh~red with future No opposition was present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, s~conded Mrs. Girone, this request wa8 approved subject =c the ~ollowing The conditions stated herein notwithstanding the application, accompanying textual statement and plan prepared by J. K. Timmone and Associates, ~ated May 18, 1981 and revised July 20, I981, shall bm considered the Master Plan, Approval of the Master Plan does not imply that the County qives final approval of any particular sabdiviuion road section. Working interpretations of any and all conditions and/or exceptions to the application shall 5e made by ~he Planning Commiu~ion at the request of the Department of Community plans as req~/irsd by ~ection 21-34 {L) [4}c of fha Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the Commission may conditionally approve schematic plans to asc~rtaln that they will be in conformance with the approved Master Plan and other appli- cable Ordinances. Approval of the Master Plan does not imply that the County gives final approval of any particular subdivision road section. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of this application does not guarantee that the developsr can build or construct facilities in the future in accordance with presen~ regulations, if County standards are more or restrictive than those eStabliShed herein, the County may require ounstruotion to adhere to the more restrictive standards. A copy of any cov~nant~, deed restriction~ and amendments related to homeowner associations shall be approved by the Division Of Development Review and the County Attorney's office for adher%nce to County Ordinance~ prior to the recordation of suoh documents. No uses shall be permitted which would use any water or sewer system other than the Chesterfield County public utility system. Approval of this request does not obligate the County ~o extmnd any water o~ sewer lines. All tensions and necessary improvement costs shall be borne by the developer. Prior to construction, water and sewer plans must be submitted to and approved by the Utilities Depart- me~t. Notwithstanding, the exceptions to use and bulk regulations granted herein, approval of the application by the ~oard of ~uporv~sors does not obligate the ~lanning Commission to approve a particular schematic plan whioh is not in con- formanoe with the spirit, intent and purpose of this request. 9. The number and location of fire hydrants shall be determine( by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer shall bear the cost for installation of hydrants, 10. D~dioation of com~cn open spaces to any community arian and 5he improvement~ therein shall be continually reviewed by the Planning Commission throughout the life cf the development in order that the areas do not become a burden at any one time on the lot owners in Moorefield. 11. The c~essover along Route 60 shall be recOnStructed at the orcseovsr shall conform to VKD&T standards and shall bs taken into the state System prier ~e the issuance of any occupancy per. its. A minimum of twelve (12) feet of additional pavemsn% shall be construet=d along the Midlothian Turnpike frontage. Thi~ 13. 14. 1.7. lane shall be csnstrusted to VOH&T Standards and taken into the s~ate System prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. The north/south collector road Shall be paved to a width of forty-eight {43} feet £rom ~idlothian Turnpike {Route 60) to the southernmost ent~aace of the proposed automobile dealerships. A raised median shall be constructed for a length Of 1~ ~eet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Access to this roadway shall be prohibited for a length of 165 feet south of Midlothian T~rnpiks. ' All other roads within the development shall have a minimum Of thirty-six (36) f~et of pavement. Concrete curb and gutter shall be constructed along the roadways within the ¢0mmeroial and industrial areas. All roads wi~h the commercial and industrial area shall have a minimum right-of-way of sixty (66] feet. All roads within the residential area shall have a miAimum right-of-way of fifty (50} feet. The proposed westernmost d~iveway ~om Route 60 to ~aIey Pontiac shall be located a maximum of 1S0 feet from the western property line but i~ ~ossi~le, should be designed so development to the west, This condition ~ay bu modified at the time of ~chematic plan review. The following uae oxecpticns shall ~e permitted in the Light Industrial (M-i) tract: a. Contractor's offices tad display rooms Boat sales, ~rovided there is no outside storage or dls~lay o. Carpenter and cabinet shops d. Electrical, plumbin~ and heating shops, sales and service~ e. Business Gfflces Pv~dio a~ tel~vlsisn broadcasting s~udios and office$~ exclusive of towers g. Radio, television and other home entertainment, sa/es and service h. Appliance sts~es ~av~gs and 10an institutions Fu=niture stores k. Philanthropic and charitable instltutlon~ I. SchoOls, colleges~ libraries and museums m. Churches n. Maintenance buildlng~ a~oeiated with the opera- tion and maintenance in the area of Zoorefield Park including ~torag~ and servicing of trucks and earth moving ec£uipment~ workshops, greenhouses, and material storage, provided that all exterior areas shall be visually screened and there ~hall be no offansiv~ operation of said facility as covered in $~ction 21-185 (b) of =he Chesterfield C0un=y zoning ordinance 0. ~ospltals, clinics, sanitariums, medical and dental laboratories p. Building materials, storage an~ sale~, provided there is no out~ide ~%orage or dimplay q. Contractor's shops and storage yards, provided there is no outside storage or display r. Electrical, machine~ ~quipmant and supplle~ ~nufacturing FRrnitu~e ~nd fixtu~e~ ~nufaeturing Mass trans~rtation Tran~rtation e~ipment manufacturing w. Textile mill products ~nufac=uri~g Tobacco manufacturing 81-400 Wholesale gre~r~bouse~ aa. Telephone booths bb. Paint and wallpaper sales co. Telephone exchanges dd. Government offices es. Parking for motor vehicles sales, ~rvice and repair, provided such use ia a~sooiated with proposed autom0bils dsale~ships in the Geaeral Business (B-3) tract. 18. In conjunction with the approval of this application, the following exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance shall be granted: a. A twenty-five (25) foot exception ho the lQ0 foot sotback requirement for M-1 uses which are adjacent tO property zoned residentially. b, A twenty-five {25) foot exception to the side yard setback requisement in the Light Industrial (M-l) tract. (Nste~ The thirty (30) foot corner side yard requirement shall be adhered to.) 19. The five (5) lots indicated for office use sa the Master Plan~ adjacent to Shenandoah Subdivision, shall be used exclusively as offices. Th~se structures shall not exceed a height of two ~2) Stories, excepting an English basement. ~he office s~ructures shall have an architectural style which shall blend with that of the surrounding singls famil~ res£de%ces. At the time of schematic plan review, colored renderings shall be submitted co the Planning Commission approval. This condition muy be modified at the time 0~ schema=is plan reivew. 2O. In ~he Light Industrial [M-I) area, a seventy-five (75) buffer shall be maintained along the eastern, Southern and western property lines wheze adjacent to property zoned residentially and a f~ty {F0} foot buffer along tSs easter~ and western property lines where adjacent to property p~esently zoned Agriuultural (A). If the adjacent property to the east or west is developed for commercial or industrial use, the fifty (50) foot buffer requirement shall be eliminated. With the exception of the two (2) retention basins, there shall b~ no fsciliti~s located within these buffer areas. Existing vegetation shall be maintained in these burpers and where necessary, these buffers shall be supDlemeabed with additional planting so as to affect n visual screen. A specific landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. 21. The cto~e~t edge of =he ~roposed water line o~ the retention basins shall be tucated a mia~mum of sixty ({0) fa== from adjacent properhy and the proposed Residential property to the south. This condition may be modified at tbs tame o£ schematic plan review. The harms adjacent to these lines shall have a 3.1 slope. The buffer area shall be landscaped primarily with eve~gre~s and supplemented with shrubs and deciduous trees. A specific landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted tO the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan rsvlsw. 22. The applicant and/or developer shall provide an accurate account o~ the drainage situation showing e~isting drainage and the i~pao~ individual tracts, as they are dsvsl0ped wil] have on that tract, as well as the surrounding area. The developer shall submit plans for on and off-site drainage control to Environmental Engineering for approval. The plans shall a×plain the ~ethod and facilities to be utilize( ~1-401 in the hydraulic engineering of :he project. The~e plans shall be approved by Environmental ~ngin995ing prior to the issuance cf any building 10ermit for the clearing of any land. It shall be understood thee E~vlrcnmental Engineering may impose conditions, requirements or m~asure$ which iE deems neCeSSary tO insure that proper drainage control is provided for and maintained. The approved plans shall be implemented in whatever stages or phases acceptable to and necessary a~ determined by Environmental Engineering. !3. For individual tracts as they a~e developed, the applicant and/or developer shall submit plans fo~ erosion and sediment control te znvironmemta~ Engineering. Such plans are to be utilized as erosion and sediment control measures for the project. Generally, such practices shall bs those ou~llned in the "Erosion and Sediment Control Technical ~andbook" published ~y the James River soil Water Conservation District. However, it is to be understood that additional requirements and m~a=ures may ~e instituted by environmental Engineering upon review of the plans. The plans shall be a~proved by Environmental Engineering prior to any clearing or grading. The plan's measures shall be implemented price to the Prior to the release of any buildin~ permits, an indemni- fication agreement shall be submitted to environmental proposed retention facilities. Upon completion of con- All driveways, parking areas and roadways shall be paved, curbed and gutaered. This condition may be modified at the time o~ achematic plan review. 26. The existinq downstream situation through Shenandoah Subdivision shall be analyzed for p~oper design based on higher density zoning upstream. 27. All existing single family homes (both existing and proposed) shall have the 100 year flood plain and/or backwater no higher than one (1) foot below the finished 28. No drainage shall ~xit the property to the e~st between Route 60 and Shenandoah Subdivision. property (behind 9700 Tux£ord goad) sha~l be eliminated and other means of retention used (i.e., underground, parking lot, ~xishing pipe u~der Tuxfoxd ~ead has the capacity to prior to any clearing, grading or other land disturbing activities a preconstructien meeting ~hall be held with Environmental Engineering. 31. The retention devices shall be designed and installed in conjunction with any oommereiaI or industrial development. 3~. All utilit~ lines shall be p~ovided with undergroun= distribution. 33. All private drives in the B-3 and M-1 tracts shall be paved to a width of not le~s than twenty~five [25) feet, utilizing curb and gutter. This condition may be modified at th~ time of schematic plan review. 34. 35, 37. 39. 41. All exterior lighting shall be low level not to exceed height Of fifteen [15) feet in the Light Industrial area and forty (d0) feet in the Gen~ra/ Business (B-3) area and positioned so as not to project ligkt into adjacent properties. The design of the lighting fixtures shall be comparable with adjacent residential uses. ~ach dealership in the General Business (B-3) tract shall be permitted two (2} freestanding signs not to exceed a total square footage of four hundred and forty-six (446) square feet for each dealership. ~hese signs may be illumi- nated, hut shall ~ot be luminous. An additional free- standing sign shall be permitted for each dealership along the north-south roadway. Other than directional signs and a sign identifying the industrial park~ ne other free,tending ~ignS shell be permitted. One si~n no~ to exceed 100 square feet in area shall be ~ermitted alonq Route 60 identifying the industrial p~rk and tenants ~herein. This sign shall no: ~e luminous, hut may be illnminat~d~ All signs shall blend with the architectural style of the development. Prior t0 erection, colored renderings shall be s~bmitted te Development Review for approval. Due to the potential problem of aerators as to maintenance cost, etc. the two (R) feet plus or mince Of pending water shall ~e eliminated and paved /ow flow channels installed or the depth~ Of the water shall b~ maintained per the guidelines Of the Soil and Water Conservation Commission so that the elimination of algae, water wee~a, etc. will not depend on the continual operation of the aerators. All drainage and erosion Control CO~4itions sta~ed herein may be modified at ~he time of schematic plan review. The existing single family dwelling ~ay be converted for office use in the future. The decide/ level of %he ~alerehips' loud speaker systems shall not exceed the d~cib~l level of Route 60. Vote~ Unanimous 81S076 In Midlothian Magisterial District, Applegate Realty, Inc. requested a Conditional Use to permit a ~eal ~state office in a Residential (R-9} District on a .27 acre parcel fronting approximately 90 feet on ~he south line of Smoketree Drive and located appro×i~ately 70 fee= east of its intersection with Poplar Ridge Road and better known as 11237 $~oke~ree Drive. TS: Map 27-9 (2} smokstree, Section A, Block A, Lot 10 (Sheet ~). Mr. Baldersen stated the Plannin~ Commission recommended denial of this request. Mr. Jeff Applegate was Dre~ent and stated that he would like this approval for two year~ or until ~moketree has been compIe~ely developed. ~e stated the rssident~ w~ru opposed and he did not see a r~ason for this a~ th~ ~odul hom~ will stil] ~×ist and he woul~ only he adding desks and phones inside. Mr. hike Gill, representing the neighborhood, stat.d that =hey were Opposed ~e e business in the residential area which are prohibited by the c0nvanants of the ~ubdivision, that there were 22 families epposed, that the Planning coK~ission had recommends denial, that this would, set a precedent for additional ~usiness, that trash will aocumulate, that traffic at this home w~l! cause problems, ~tc. He ~tat~d that Mr. Applegate had been a good neighbor in the area hut the mod~l hom~ ha~ imposed some difficulties. Sl-40S ~r. Gary Sheahan stated that this is %he main thoroughfare through the develop~eRt, the driveway iu small which would cause cars to be parked along the side o£ the road eausinq problem~, that it would present a safet~ Drcblem with the school buses, etc. Ha ~teted a sign would be ins=ailed which should not be in a residential neighborhood. Ha presented a petition signed by th~ resident~ in opposition. Mrs. Girone staked that she ~elt the integrity of th~ residen~ia! zoning should be prctocted, that problems would exist with the traffic, tha~ ether real estate would bs sol~ from this location and thi~ would b~ showing preferential treatment to one real ~state firm and that it would set a precedent. Mr. D0dd inquire¢ if ~r. Applegate sh0~ld be given a deadline in which =e terminate this business. It was generally agreed ~hat ~0 days should b~ sufficient. On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~oconded by Mr. Dodd, this request was denied and the applicant was given 60 days 1n which to remove his real estate office from this location. Vote: Unanimous 81S077 In Dale Magisterial District, Stamie E. Lyttle requested a Conditional Uso to permit a plumbing, heating and air conditioning ~orvioe effioe in an Agricultural (A) DiEtrict on & ,95 acre parcel fronting approximately 350 feet on the east line u~ Iron Bridge Read and located directly across fro~ its intersection with Royal oak Drive and better known a~ 47~ Bridge Read. Tax Map 41-14 (1) 9~rcel 4 {Sheet 15}. ~r. Baldurson state~ th~ ~!anning Commission had approved this =equest ~ubjeot to certain condition~. ~r. Ted 5arris wes ipr~ant representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptabl~, There was no opposition present. On motion or ~r. Daniel, s~cond~d by Zr. Dodd, this request was approved s%bject to the foltowin~ conditions~ 1. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall he granted to and for Stamie E. Lyttle and shall net be transf~rable nor run with the land. 2. This Conditional Usa ~hall be res=rioted to use of th~ existing structures presently tucated on the parcel. No new building~ ~hall be permit=ed. Residential appearance Of the property shall b~ meintain=d. 3. Only one (1) si~n, identifying ~his use, not to e~ceed four (4} squar~ fee% in area, shall be Dermitt~d, This sign shall neither be luminous, nor illuminate~. 4, A minimum of flv~ (~) parkin~ spac~ shell be provided, These spaces shall either be pav~d or 5. Ail exterior lighting shall be iow le~el and positioned so ee not to project light into adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shell b~ mounted no higher ~han fifteen (15) feet. 5. A landscaping plan for that area lyinq between the Route right-of-way and the proposed parking areas shall ~ubmit~ed =e Deve!epm~nt Review for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. Plants shall be of sufficient ~ensity and heiqht se as to screen tho proposed parking area from view of Rout~ %0. Outside ~tOrage of any materials, equipment or supplies shall be prohibited. The above stated conditions n~twi~hs~andinq the site plan submitted with the application shall be Considered the plan of ~evelopment, ~he above ~t~ted conditions no:withstandin~, the bulk requirements of the office Business (O) Distri¢~ shall be applicable. In Clover Hill and Midlothian Magisterial Districts, Brandermill requested an amendnen% to previously granted Conditional Uss Planned Development (Case 74S021) to p~rmit commercial, trade, music, dance, business, vccagional, and traxning schools in ~-1 Districts. This r~quest encompasses the planned development of Brandermill which lies on =he north line of Route 360 and ~outhwest of its intersection of Coalfield and Geni~o goads. Tax ~ap ~1-12 (1) Parcels 1 and 6~ ~ax Map 62 (1~ Parcel 20, Tax Map 36 (1) Parcel 4, Tax Map 47 (I) 9aroels 6 and 9; Tax ~ap 61 (i) ~arcels 6, 8, and 9; Tax Map 46 (1) Parcels 32-1 and 23-1; and Tax ~ap 61-16 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheets I3 and 20). ~r. Dalderson aaa=ed =ha= the Planning Commisien had recommended approval C~ this request. Mr. Campbell was preeen~ representing the applicant. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by ~rs. Girone, the Soar~ a~p~oved this request. $15096 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Nora Riddle requested a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property which she owns. Tax Map 98-1 (3} Halfway ~onse Heights, Block 4, LOts 39, 40 and 41 and better known as 10324 ~lokomln Avenue (Sheet 32). The applicant was not present, Mr. Dodd stated that this was a hardship case and it was on his motion, seconded by Mr. O~Neill resolved that this request be approved for five years with the u~der~tanding ~ha% the approval is granted ~or :he applicant's mother only. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went !into ~xeou~iv~ Session to discuss legal matters as permitted by Section 2.1-344 ~a) (6} of the Code of Virginia, 19B0~ a~ amended. Vote; Unanimous Reoonvening: On motion of Mr. Bookm~n~ seconded by Mrs- Cirone, the Board adjourned at 5:15 p.m. until 10~00 a.m, On September 9, 1981. RicH~r~d L. ~odrick County Administrator 81-40S