Loading...
07-28-1982 Minutes MINUTES July 28, 19~2 M~. Harry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mr. Richard L. Hedrick CO. Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balder~0n, Dir. of Planning Mr. Robert Galnsha, Dir. of Personnel Phil Hester, Dir. of Parks ~ Recr~atlon b~. Blmer Hedge, Asst. County Administratc~ ~r. William Howell, Dir. of ~eneral Services Mr. Robert ~eden~ Dir. of ~uman Service~ Mr. Richard McEIfish~ Environmental Bngineer ~. Jeffrey Muzzy~ Dir. of Community Develop. ~ir. Robert Painter, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Lane Ramsey, D~r. of Budget & Accounting Mr. David Reeve, Dir. of Juv~nil9 Detention ~ome Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. Dexter Williams~ Chief~ Trans. Plan, Ir. O'Neill called the ~eetin9 to order at the Courthouse at On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board ~pp~oved the minutem cf July 14, I9~2, as amended. ~yes: Mr. O'Neill~ Mrs. ~irone, Mr. Bookman and Mr. Dodd, Absention: Mr. naniei because he was not pre~nt at tho meeting of July 14, 19S2. Mr. Masden invited the Board to a reception in honor of Mr. Albert Wynn~, ~dministrator o~ Mental Health/Mental Re~arda%icn, who wes retiring from County service effective July 3Q, 1982. He stated the reception would be held this afternoon a~ 4:00 p.m. at the Mental Health/M~ntal Retardation Center. Mr. O'Neill recogniz~d~~. J. Ruffin Apper~on who was present_ On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, Mr. J. Auffin Apperson was appointed to the Chesterfield-Colonial Heights Social Servi=e~ Board in January, Wherea~, Mr. Appersun wa~ elected Chairman of thm ~oard an8 served in that Capacity from January, t97~ - June, 1982; and ~%~e~eas~ Mr. App~rson did fai=hfullv perform th~ duties and discharge the responsibilities incembent~'upOn a msm~r of the Beard; and Whereas, ~r. Apperson'e term on the Board expired on June 30, 1982 and accordinq to the bylaws of the Board cannot be reappointed et this time; and ~hereesz Mr. Apperson'm ~gh%een and one-hslf yeara of ~rvic~ to tko citizens oX Chesterfield COunty deserves special ~ecognition. Bow, Therefore Be It Resolved ~hat the Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County hereby expresses itu appreciation t0 Mr. Ruffln Appe_eun for h~e loyal and dedicated service to the ~it~zene of Chesterfield County. And Further Be It Eesol~ed~ that a plaque inscribed as !oll~ws be presented to Mr. J. Ruffin Apperson: J. KUFFIN APP=RSON IN APPRECIATION FOR DEDICATED S~RVICE ON TH~ CHESTERfIELD-COLONIAL HEIGHTS SOCIAL S~RVICES BOARD JANUARY, 1964 - JUNE, 1982 BOARD CHAIRbg%N JANUARY, 1972 JUNE~ 1982 Unanimous ~r. O'Neill presented the resolution ~d plaque ~e ~r. Apperson. Zr. Apperson stated his appreciation for this recognition. !ir. O'Neill recognized Mr. William g. Ritchie who wa~ pre~ent in the audience. On mo~ion o~ the Board~ the following resolution Whereas, Mr_ ~illiam G. Ritehi~ was appeinte~ to the 2he$~erfield-celonial Heights Social S~r%~ic¢~ Hoard in August, !986; and Whereas, Mr. Ritchie wa~ elected Vice-Chairman of the Board ~nd served in that capacity from January, 1~72 - Jun~ 19~2~ and Whereas, Mr~ Ritehie did faithfully perform the duties and ~imcharge the re~pGn$ibilities incumbent upon a member of the Soard; and Whereas, Mr. Ritchie's t~rm on the Board expired on June 30, fPS2 and according to the bylaws of the Board cannot be ~eappointed at ~his tCme; and Whereas, Mr. Ritchie's twenty-mix y~re of service to the r~tizens of Ch~terf£eld County deserves special recognition. Now, Therefore, Be ~t Resolved that the Board Of Supervisors 5f Chesterfield COunty h~r~by e×presses ils appre~iat±ou-te Mr. qilliam C. ~itchie for his loyal a~d dedicated service %o the ~itizens of Chesterfield County. And Further Be It Resolved, tha~ a plaque ins~ribe~ as ~Qll©ws bm presented to Mr. William G~ Ritohi~: WILLIAm4 G. RITCHIB IN APPBECIATION FOR DEDICATED SERVICE ON THZ CHEST~REIELD-COLONIAL EEIGHTS SOCIAL S~RVICES BOARD AUGUST, 1956 - JUNE, 1982 ROAR~ VICE-CHAIP~A~ JANUARY, 1972 - JUNE~ 1982 ;ote~ Unanimous 4r. O'Neill presented Mr. Rit0hie with the plate and resolution. 4r. Ritchie ~xp~es~ed his appreciation for thim recognition. 82-Bll two men had 9ivan unsslflshly of their fine ~n~ efforts while on ~he Social service~ ~oard and the County is greafly indebted to them. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr_ D©~, the Board: Budgeted amounts need te be raised from $383,8D0 to $502,700. $119,700 Increased (Decreased) Expendifures: Social Services ~0D0 is for youth services from St. Joseph's Villa $123~000 2spiral items. As it turned out, the ~ome ~hle %Q make tk~ purchase in 1981-82. $119,000 ~r. ~odge in~rodaoed Mr. Jim Rapp~ I%~.IC; Mr. Wick Lvne, Rdminimtrafor of ~ohnston-Willis ~ospita%; Mr. B~b LUX~ School ~oard; an~ Mr. Rom Jones, Blue Cross/Blue Shield. ~e stated that ~everal meetings had been held to discuss the inmurance program [a~ County amd School employe~s. ~. Ra~ reviewed the ~ackground information ~egarding ~he emp[~yees~ health car~ )rogzam which he stated was a good progr~m. ~e stated that th~ ~lan which th~ Ceun%v currently has is somefim~s r~ferzed to a~ ~!ank check coverage-es ~t b~s[cally covers all ax~ens~s and it i~ the broadest coverage available and ~ha~ i~ basically is a self-insured program with Blue Cros~/~luc Shield ~eing the administrator. He s~a%ed that inflation for medical ex~ense~ is 20~251 this year and thaf there needs tc be an incent~v~ i~ which to reduce such costs. ~e reviewed several exhibits with the Boar~ and indicaBed that although the cumulative deficit as of June, 1982 is $102,895 there should be 5ddad to that, RI00,UOQ to cover expenses incurred through October, but not actually pai~ ~or which the County is liable if another carrier other than Cross/Blue Shield is ckosen. ~r. Hedrick skated that the first two quarters o£ this year shows a better experience than th~ previous quarters_ Mr. Bookman inquired if the bids were ba~d OD the first ~wo quarters Or if the experience through June 30 wes forwarded to all bidders as Blue Cross/Blue Shield would have access tO more information. im~ue for the la~h %we quarters as it ~ould not provide any significant additional information. ~e s~ated they look at trendz throughout, no~ at individual quarter totalS. Mr. Rapp sBa%ed that Blue Gross/Blue Shield is fha only so[~pany who submitted the proposal with stop loss. Mr. Daniel inquired if the only variable was mark up. Mr. Hed~ick stated tha~ al/ companies receXve4 ~he bid specifications an~ mos~ submitted a self-insurance program with an administrative charge. ~ etafed [hat they could have suggested another plan as Blu~ Cross/Blue Shield and ~ns other company did. M~. Bapp s%a~ed the other 3ompany ~nb~ittad a certain dollar figure per day, eEc~ but it ~as a much mcre complicated plan to understand. intend ~c stay with as each time there is a change, employees morale is affected. Mr. Lyne stated ~hat he was impr~ed with ~tructuring of incentives was %he key tQ bringing health card ~o~ts down. He sba%ed he felt this presentation was fair and :alanced. ~r. Bookman stated he felt ~h~ Board should defer this for two ~eeks. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the School Board and the ~mptoyees should se~ the preaentation as well in order that they ~ight understand what the ~oard is considering. Mr, Kedriek ~nquired if the employees were then expected to take a posibi©n. ~r. Daniel stated thaK hs felt the empl~voe~ should be given the lre~entah~on in order that they night understand the %lternatives were proposed which are a $250/$500 and $500/$1000 :top loss coverag~ for individual/family coverage and the reascnin~ behind the proposed change in coverage. ~r. Yogi Berger, representing A~seciated Claims Service, stated ~hat companies do care abeut all the claims for quarters which ~re completed and that he takes exception to Mr. ~app's statement ~hat they do not. Be ~tated that his eompany'm proposal has ~dvantages which allow the County to accumulate in~er~st on [or the coveraqer they provide a program of helping inform ~ployees how to stay healthy, etc. He stated tke~e is also a [ifferenc~ between paying claims and administering olai~s as .dministering claims would scruhiniz~ them. Mr. Bedrick stated ~hat he ~elt i~ ~hs Beard heard Mr. Berqer~s pr~mntation they ~uld nave to afford all bidd~r~ tbs same opportunity. Mr. laniet inquired if at! bidders had the same specifications. Mr. iedrick stated yes nnd tha~ the time limit was extended to allow dditional tim~ to review additional ~ata requested from the heir bids substantially ~ased on one Coaster's dlaims.' ~e hated he discumsed wi~h Mr. Barges his helping in thi~ process .f insurance DU~ tha~ he had declined in ©r~er that he might hid n the eroject. Mr. Berger ~ated he had eiZerad to help and not id on %he program. Mr. ~edge stated that the sooner the Board ould vote on this matter, the b~t~er~ as a contract still needed c be written. After £urther d~scnm~ion, it was on motion of ~okman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that this matter be alerted until August 11, 1982 which will allow time for the mployees to be told of th~ proposals. otc: Unanimous r. Bookman mtated he felt there may be some legal matters which ight need to be addressed. Mr~ Dodd stated h~ felt the Beard ould have to vote on %his on August 11, 1982. motion of M~. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Bookman~ the Board alerted Consideration of ~he employment of an additional s$i~tant County Attorney until Executive Session to diseu~a erSOnnel matters a~ permitted by ~ection 2.1-344(a) Il) of thm ~ode of virginia, 195~ am amended. Zone: Unanimous Masden s~ate~ tha~ ~h~ General Assembly cf Virginia had :nested Senate Bi%~ 219 whle~ mandates such things as each .oeaiity to designate e lead agency to coordinate long-term care ~zvices and establish a long-term Qare coordinating cor~it~ee, ~ubmission o~ a plan to th~ Share Council indicating the lead ~genc¥ and a plan for a continuum of long-term care, and mplementation of the plan by July l, 198~, which assures the rest ~ffeetive uti'lization of all fund~ availabl~ for long-term ~ar~ service~ in the jurisdiction. Mrs. Oirone stated gte felt ~his 7egisla~ion was totally unnecessary an~ tha~ the County ~keuld comply in the least costly and easiest manner which aha !~lh, for example, ~he Department of Social Services was ~elified to do. After further consideration, it was on 82-313 motion of M~. Panicle seoonde~ by ~rs. Girone, r~olved that the followimg resolution be adopted: Whereast the General Assembly of ~irginiar at its 1~ C©n~monwealth ia support of community based re~ource~ to avoid inappzopri~De institutionalization of impaired elder!y) and Whereas~ Senate Bill 219 (Va. Code Sections 2.1-373.3 et seq.) r~qui~e~ ~ach l~cal governing body to designate a lead agency and a Long Term Care Coordination Committee~ and Whereas, each locality must submit a plan which shall be i~plemented by July 1, 1983, providing a continuum of long-term care to impaired elderly. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Division of Human Services is designated %he l~ad agency for Chesterfield County as required by Senate Bill 219 tc coordinate lung-term care planning and services to the impaired elderly. And Be It Further Resolved, that the Directors of Chesterfield County DeparTments of Health, Social £ervic~s and Mental Health and M~ntal Retardation, Nursing Rome, Rte-Admission Screening Committee and the Area Office on Aging shall constitute a cemz~ittee ~e coordinate services to the i~paired elderly. And Be It Further R~o~u~d ~h~% re~on~endations and ~lans required under Senate Bill 2]9 shall be approved by this Board prior to ~ubmin~ion to %he ~ta~e Coordinating Council. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Bookman, th~ Board approved the revised bylaws for the Youth Services Co~issi0n, a eo~y Of which iu filed with th~ papers of this Board_ Mrs. Qirone requested that lvLr. Masden investigate a recent statement that the men~ally r~a~ded traveling to the chesterfield Vocational Center are being charged for transportation and advise thm Board ~e to what is actually happening. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dodd~ the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereasr the Virginia Commission of ©u~door Kecreation provides funds ~e assist political subdivisions of the State of Virginia in acquiring and developing open ~pace and ~ark lands; ~o ~evelop park land~ sad Whereas, this area ie deemed of high acquisition and development priority by said Board of Supervisors and shall be re~erre~ to as Appomattox River Water Access; and Whe=aas, in order %o attain funding assistance from the the Beard of Supervisors guarantees a proportionate share of the Whereas, the proportienete project share ia ~unded fifty percent ($0%) bY the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation and fifty (BO%}~by the Board of Supervisors, 82-3].4 may be necessary to pa~it the £ermulation, approval and funding of the AppomaLtox River Wafer Access gives its assurance that the fends needed ms th~ proportionate share of thm cost of the approved program will bs provided, And 5e It Further Aesolved that the Board of 9ives atm assurance that the General Provisions -~ Procedures will be complied with in the edministratien Of this project: And 8e It Further Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors Mr. O'Neill inquired when this approval might be expeo~ed. Hasher stated that the nemt meet of the Commismicn of Outdoor Recreation would bm in either August or Septerlber and the next meeting of the Appomattox River Water Authority for final appfeval would be in August. Mrs. Girene stated tha~ she would like the Parks and RecreaCion Department ~o ~e investigating a possible access to %he Jam~s River in the ~u~ure which might be included in a future bond [~sue or other funding and hopefully~ there might be e donation )n motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~r. Bookman, the following ~esolu~ion was adcpted~ Whereas, The Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation, in :moperation with Wells Farqo Bank, provide~ funds to assist ~olitical subdivisions of th~ Stats of Virginia in d~velop~ng ~ells Fargo Camefields: and Whereas, There are urgent need~ within Chesterfield County o ~ev~lop such a facility~ and Whereas, The development of this facility i~ deemed of high riority by said Board of Supervisors and sha!~ be located within Whereas, In order =o attain funding assistance from the irqinia Comraission of Outdoor Eecr~ation and Wells Fa~u Bank, t is necessary that the Hoard of Supervisors guarantees a rcportionate share of the Cost thereof; Whereas, The proportionate project share is funded ~enty-five hundred dollars ($2~5~0) by ~hm Virginia Commission f Outdoor Recreation, %wanly-five hundred dollars ~lls Fargo 5a~k, and the remainder of costs including the value ~ Volunteer labor required for a portion of the installation by %e Board of Supervisors. info~mation or materials as may be necessary to be provided to the appropriate State agency and te enter into Such a~reement as may be necessary to permit th~ formulation, approval and funding of the I{ugu~not Par]i Fitness Trail Projeet~ And Be It Further ReSOlved, that the Board ef Supervisors gives its ~ssurance that the funds needed us the proportionate ~hare of the cost of the approved program will be provided up to $2,600; gives its assurance that the requirements of this program and the Virginia Outdoors Fund Fiscal Procedures will be oemplied with in the administration of this project; And Be It Further Re~olve~, that the BOard of Supervisors gives its assurance that all other applicable $tate and Federal regulations governing such expenditure Of ~unds provided by the Virqinia Commission of Outdoor Recreation will be comDlied with in ~he administration of this project; And, Al~e, Be It Further Resolved, that the ~rqmnla National Association ars respectfully requested to assis~ in the pro,pt approval and funding of the Huguenot Park Fitness Trail Project in order to enhance the atam~rd of recreational enjoyment for all our citizenry. ar. O~Neill stated h~ thought perhaps a trail of this type should be located in a more ~e~tral location'~ for example, the Dal~ Park. Mr. H~ter state~ that thi~ znvolves volunteer assistance ~hieh is b~ing received from the lees1 Lien's Club, Greenfield iommunity Association and St. Edward's Boy Scouts. Ee added that ~here is no other facility available at thi~ time. ~rs. Girone ~hanked the Park~ and Recreation Staff for the wor~ ~t the Robious complex and during the recent tournament. 4r. Dodd Stated that he would lik~ the Beard to approv~ the Construction of a concessions building at ~eoff Park. 5e stated labor would be furnished ~hreugh the Votechnical Center and with the a~sistanc@ of the Chester Little League. He stated that the Parks and Reoreation Department will oversee the construction. He stated this Wa~ an innovative way to have the building constructed. Mm. O'Neill sta%~ there had been a problem when this type of labor was suggested for ~arrc~a~e and Matoace Parks. Mr. Micas indicated that ~robtem dealt with ~he ownership ~uestion and not tko construction aspect. After further ~iseuasion it was on motion of ~r. Dodd, seconded by ~r. Bookman, resolved that ~,OOO each he appropriated from the Contingency lec0unt and the B~rmuda District 3¢ Road Funds for the ~onstruction of a concessions building a~ ~c0ff Park in sceperaticn With Parks and R~oreation Department, the Chester Little League and the Votechnical Cen~er. In motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard ~pprepriated $64,400 f~m the unexpended por~ion of the 198t-S2 ]on,inFancy funds for the interior park road construction at >oint of Rocks Park. 92-316 :. Dodd stated that he did not want thlm in any way to slow down ~r stop the construction and right of-way acquisition for the recreational access road to the Park itself. )n motion of Mr. Doddr seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved .he request of the Acta Temple ShrinurS~ Mini-Patrol to conduct a ~otorcvcle event at the stadium complex on October 2nd subject to :he musical festival permit requirements. motion of Mr_ Bookman, seconded by Mr. Dani~l~ the Board ~pproved a fireworks permit for the Chesterfield County Fair ~sociatio~ ~o b~ held on September ~6, 17 and 18 subaeot tc the ~egulations of the Chesterfield Coumty Fire Department. motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board ~pproved and authorized the County Administrator tO execute any ~ecessery documents for a Transportation Safety Grant in the ~mount of $12,000 for completion of the Skid Pan and further the ~oard accented tbs grant and authorized funds to bs appropriated the Skid Pan account. ~his day the County Enviroumentat Engineer, in accorda6ce with ~irections from this Board~ made report in writing upon his ~xamlnatioe ef Fra~ar Drive and Corner Rock Road in Roxsbire, Upon consideration ~her~o£, and on motion of ~r. Book,an, ~eo©nded by Mr. Daniel, it is reoolved that Framer Drive and lerner Rock Road in Roxshirs, Sec%ion S, zi~lothlan DiEtrict, be ~nd they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~part~ent of {ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to ~ake into the Secondary System, Framer Drive, b~ginnin~ where ~tat~ ma~n~enance ends, Framer Drive, State Route 1223, end going 17 mile northwesterly ho intersection with CorDer Rock Roa~; ~ormer Rock Road, ~his is the newly constructed portion being a~ _ntersection with Framer Drive and going .07 mile northeasterly :o tee into existing Corner Rock Road, State Route 728. These ~oads serve 15 lots. And b~ it further resolved, that th~ Board of ~upervisore ~u~ren~ees te the Virgzn~a Department of Highways a 50 it ~ight-of-way for th~s~ roads, Thi~ section of Koxshir= is 7ecorded as follows: Section 5, Plat Book 37, Page gl, Nnve~tber 21~ 1988. ~ote: Unanimous ~hi~ day the County Environmental Engineer~ in accordance with lirections from this Board, ~ade repor~ in writing upon his ~xamination of R©binw@o~ Drive amd Robinwood Court in Robinwood, i~ctions 1, 2, 3, ~ mad a portion of 5, Dale District. Upon ~oasideration whsreof~ and on motion of Mr. B~okman, ~econded by Mr. Daniei, it is resolved ~hat Eobinwood, Sections ., 2, 3, 4 and a portion of 5, Dale District, he and they hereby ~re established as public roads. 82-317 lO.H. ll. And be it £%lrther resolved, Shat the Virginia Department Of Highways and Transnortatlon, be and it hereby 4s requested to take into the S~condary System, Robinwood Dr~ve, this is a !oep road, beginning at its intersection with Cogbill Read, State Route 638, extending northerly .05 milo to the intermectien of Robinwood Court, %hen looping westerly .50 mile back tQ its intersection with Cogbill Road, ~ta~e Route 630; Robin%;ood Court, beginning at its ~ntersection with Rcbinwood Drive, extending westerly .12 nl]s to a cul-de-sac. These roa~s serve 56 lots. And bm it further resolved, that the ~oard of Supervisors guarantees te the Virginia Department of ~ighwaye a 5D ft. right of-~ay for all of these roads. These sections of Robinwood arc recorded a~ follows: Section 1, Plat BOok 37, Page 71t Hoverer 2G, 1980. Section 2, Plat Bock 37, Page 72t Nove~foer 20, 1980. section 3, Plat Book 37, ~ago 73, November 20, 198C. Section 4, Plat Bock 37, P~go 74, November 20, 1980. Section S, Plat Book 37, Page 75, November 20, 198Q. Vote: Unanimous On mo=ion o£ ~. Bookman, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the B~ard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Childscapes~ Inc. who submitted %he low bid of $14,~74 for playground equipment to be installed by Parks and ~ecreation Dm~t. Sot D&~is Elementary, Rockwood Park, Huguenot Park and Scoff Park with funds available from donations on ~tion of Mr_ Bcokman~ secomded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a bingo/raffle hermit for Virginia State University Athletic Boo,tars ~or cai~ndar year 1982. Vets: Unanimous on motion o~ Mr. Doniel~ seconded by Mr. Bookman, the Board L. Reappointed ~r. Richard Blanton to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority effec=ive July 1, 1982 until June 30, 1986. 2. Appointed Mr. W. Robinson Worth, Jr. to tho Chesterfield County Tell Read Authority whose term is effective June 23, 1982 and ~ill exoire on Juno 24, 1986. Mr. Hedrick advised the Boar~ of other outstanding appointments. Mr. H~drick advised the Boaf~ that representatives of the HighWay Department would not be present at the meeting as scheduled. He stated further that ~{r. G~e had requested the ~oar~ me, hers te contact him if they had any road matters te discuss. ~. Hedrick stated the Highway Department had forwarded ~he Con~ty a request from the contractor, awarded the Salem Church Road project, to uloee a portion of th~ road during construction. Mr. Williams indicated property owners had besn ~nformsd of this for safety reasons tQ separat~ the ,raffle from the construction. J~. Daniel requested that th~ press b~ given a release indicating the areas to be restricted. On motion of Fir. Daniel, Seconded by Mr. Dedd, the Board eppreved the closing oi a portion of salem Church Road for thirty days in order to expedite the current reconstruction project on Salem Church Road from Can,rails Road 82-318 13.B. t3.C. 13 .D. north past the Salem Church ~lementar¥ and Middle Sch0olg. I% is further und~rsuood that S~lem Church Road will be closed to through traffic between the intersection uf Old Warren Drive and the intersection of Gatesgreen Driv~ for up to thirt~ day~ durin Aug~. While this secfion of Salem Church Road is ~losed, g traffic will be detoured on a posted route consisting o~ Old ~arren Drzve, Pest ~orn Drive and Centralia Road. VOte: Unanimous Mr. NU~zy presented the Board with various funding ootiens should th~ Board decide to proceed with the Courthouse Read'Extension Project which included Revenue Sharing ~un~i~g, Rural Addition Funding, General Fund and Contingency Funds, ~ stated the project was estimated to comb approximately $290,000 not including approximately $40,000 of improvements which the School Beard will prev~O¢ for access to the new elementary ~cheel. The cost Of drainage improvement~ is estimated to cost approximately $120,000_ He stated that COunty forces could begin work on ~ome o£ =he drainage improvements and =he remaining road construction could be funded in subsequent year~' capital improvement budgets. br. Daniel and }Ir. O'Neill stated =hey were unaware that the Board had made a decision to proceed with th~ project. Mr. Bookman stated the cost has been ruduced considerably by staff performin~ soma of the work_ Ther~ was some ~iscussien reg~rdin§ the Ziqhway Department's requirements for base and asphalt. Mr. Dodd suggested ~hat when construction b~qan~ that the road might be tar and graveled and then proceed with the capital improvement f~nds later for asphalting. H~ ~tated, however, he is more interested at this time in having road improvements in his area. Mr. O'Neill e~ated the Countv requir~n ~evelopurs to prepare for reade, etc. when d~veloping and yet the County is not. ~Ir. Hedniok inquired what ~taff time would be needed. Mr. McElfish stated one operator for the equipment. Mrs. Girone s~at~d she felt this wa~ a County-wide project and not confined to one district. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt the drainage improvements could begin but before anything ~lse, that this ma=tar be bzought hack before the Board and that it not take priority over uny other County drainage projects. On motion of Mr. BOOPunan, seconded by br. Danfott the Board authorized staff to proceed with County forces to eccomD!ish as much of the drainage improvements Qn the Ceurtheus~ Road ~xt~nde~ project as possible, with the understanding that this project net take priority over ~ny other drainage pro,eot in the County and when staff reaches the point when County Iorces cannot proceed with the improvement~ the matter is to be brought back =o the Board. Unanimous On motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded bv Mrs. Giron~, the Buar~ authorized a public hearing ~o be held on August 25, 1982 at 1~:80 a.m. to consider the restricting of truck traffic on osborne and Cexendale ROadS be:ween Route 1 and 1-95. On motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. Dedd, the Round approved the installation of a street iiqhb between 3212 and 3208 sylvania Road wifh fun8~ to be exp~nded from the Street bight ~r. DOO~ requaste~ that otaff resubmit the request for a street light on Coxendale Road at the next meeting. On motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved the installation cost of $1,7~.00 for a ~treet light to he located at the intersection of Belmont Road and Barkbridgs Road with $891 to be ~xpended each from the Clover Hill and Dale District Street Light Funds. Vets: Unanimous g2-319 13 14 14.B_2 14.C.1 14.C.2 I4.D.1 approved a change order and authorized fhe County Administrator tO execute any neCeSsary documents for the additional paved ditc on Sandgate Road Drainage Project to Walter ~. Lancaster, Inc. an amount not to exceed $9~500 which funds are appropriated £rom tbs Route 6Q/147 Drainage District. ~xc~sd $29,~00 and ~urther the Board appropriated said funds fro~ appropriafsd $12,742.94 from 563 Surplus to 38~-1-69071-~393 for Contract W79-TCD~ ~uhhers Road Relocation, which appropriation to be relocated than originally e~i~a~ed on thi~ project. th~ low bid in the amount of $$293~547 for confrac~ number proj~cf funds have been previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous approved and authorized the County Administrator to execut~ any fo 380-1-72211-2142 for ~ngineering and $125,000 fo ~0-1-72211-4393 for construction from ~74 surplus. W~2-63CD/6(812632~ Queen,mill, Section C, Phase II Estimate~ Developer Cost~ $19,331.50 Code: On motion of ~rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved an~ authorized the County Adminigt~ator to execute any n~ce~sary documents for the following sewer contract: S~2-30CD/7{E}2302 - Qu~h~mill, Section C, Phase II, ©vers±xe~ Developer: Queensmill Corporation Total Ce~structio~ Cost: Estimated County Cost: Code: 574-1-117gl-7221 $33,639.00 $ 775.00 - Refund from connection and sewer c©ntract~ executed by the Ceun~ A~minist/etor, Mr. }~edriuk presenta~ the Board with a report on the status of the expansion plans for the Dete~tion Home, the County Fair~ the Taxiwav/Chesterflel~ County Industrial Park, Swift Creek ReServoir, and a revision in ~ke ~er~onne~ Regulations regarding nepotism. ~r. ~edrick stated the Highway Department had formally notified the County that fha reads in tko following subdivisions ha~ been officially ~ccepfed into the State Secondary System effective as indicated; The Woods Arch Hill Drive - Beginning at the and e~ State maintenance on e×i~tiBg Arch ~ill Drive, ~tat~ Route 2250, ~xtending northeas~ 0.82 mile to the intersection of A~ch ~ilI Place, then northeast 0.07 mils to a cul-de-sac. 0.09 mi Arch Hill Plac~ - Beginning at its intersection with Arch ~ill Drive and ~xtending northeast 0~1~ mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.10 mi Arrowbead~ Section 4 {7-19-82) Cadillac Tra~l - seginning at its intersection with existin~ Cadillac Trail, State Route 1490~ and Claybar Trail. extending northeast 0.~7 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.07 mi Claybar Trail - ~eginning at its intersection with Cadillac Trail, State Route 1490, extending northwest 8.09 mile to the intersection of Arrow ~oint Trail, th~n northeast 0.07 mile to the intersection of Warrior Trail, then northea$= 0.10 mile to temMorary turnaround. 0.26 mi Arrow Point Trail - Beginning at its intersection with Claybar Trail ~Dd ezisting /{=row Poin~ Tra~l, State Route 1489, e×t~nding northwest 0.05 mile to a Cul- de-sac. 0.05 mi Warrior Trail - Beginning at its intersection with Claybar Trail, extendin~ southeast 0.05 mile to tie i~to existing Warrior Trail, State Route 1487. 0.05 mi Kings Ferest~ Section 6 Omo Road - B~ginning at ~he ~nd of Sta~ ~naintenanee, State 5cute 739 Iexisting Omo Ro~d) extending southweEt 0.14 mile to the intersection of CyruE Street~ state Route 2S07, and then southwest 0.06 mile to a cut-de- ~ac~ 0.20 mi ir. Williams presented the Board with a report on Puwhlte an~ ROUte 288 which included new residential development distribution in the Richmond Region; new non=residanti~! development in Che~terfield and Henries; the location of ~njer non-residential development in the ~etrc-RLchmund areas and non-residential development needed to pay for 9-C upfrunt costs on Powhlte ~arkway. ~uring the discussion of non-residential development needed far 9-C upfront costs un Powhite Parkway the followinq points were made: Assumin~ $20 million bonded at 11% for years, level annual payments would be $~.{ million; at $G.98 per $100 value, $20 millie~ per year needed over 25 year bon~ period; and $20 million per year equals current rate in Chesterfield and Hanrico. (A copy of the graphs, end information i~ included in the papers of this Board). ~e stated that conclusions from this $~u~y were as fellows: 1. Bowhite and Route 288 are needed for traffic and to existing non-re~identiaI development trend; 2. General Obllgatisn bonding for 9~C upfront costs will require some level of tax increase; 3. The County should CO~ider providing opportunities for d~vetopment to optimize tax base balance; and 4. The County 5he~id pur~ue Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Toll Extension, 9-C Bonding Legislative changes, JLARC Study Results end J~es River Crossing. Mr. Williams stated that the County can expect to continue with it~ residential growth unless something i~ done to slaw it down and commercial development needs to be increased otherwise their will be a major iK~alanoe in the County. Mrs. GifOne stated that this reinforces th~ County,s views, that these roads will help the County manage its growth. Mr. Daniel stated' that he still would like to know what it will cost the County if we do end/or don~t pu% up front money. He stated he eo~ld not support any bond for the roads until he had ~om~ definite figures to rely on. Mr. Bookman inquired if alt Board members were in favor of the two roads being built simultaneously as a single project as there had been rumor~ circulating that the Board was not unanimous in this decision. The Board being pollsd~ all indicated they were in ~evor of the t~¢o roadm being built as a single project. It was generally agreed fha B0a~d should adopt a resolution to thim effect so as to eliminate any misunderstanding. On motion of the Board, the fo]lo%~ing resolution was adopt~d~ Whereas, continuing growth in Ch~terfle!d County dictat~ the necessity for construction of new roads in the County to )r0vide orderly travel in the County and the region; and Whereas, the construction of Powhite Parkway from Chippenham ~arkway to ROut~ ~$8 an~ Route 2~S from Powhite Parkway to 1-95 are ~undameutal to the development of th~ roa~ system in Chesterfield County. ~ow, Therefore, Be It ~esolv~d that the Chesterfield County Board cf Supervisors find~ %h~t the a~or~muntiensd sections Qf Rowhit~ Parkway and Route 288 constitute a critically-needed, first phase for new arterial road construction in Chesterfield County; Further Be I= Resolved that the Chesterfield County Beard of Supervisors ~inds that the aforemen~ion~ sections of Powhite ~arkway and Route 288 must be built as a ~ingle project to ~rovided o~derly development ~D Chesterfield County. It was indicated a copy of this resolution ~hould be sent to the Chesterfield Businessman's Council a~ well as any other appropriate On motion of ~r. Daniel, oecunde~ by Mrs. Girone, the ~osrd went into Exeantive Session to di~eus~ personnel and legal matter~ for the purpose of discussing litigation relating to 1-295 as 82=322 17. ~ermitted by Section 2.1-344 {n)(1) and 16)r respectivmly, C~ the ~2S048 Residential IR-25) District on ~ 1.8 acze parcel ~ronting bett~r known as 11664 Plantation Trace Drivs, Tax Map 109-14 {2) withdrawal of this request. in ~%idloLkian Magisterial District, Midlothian Enterprises requested resorting from Residen%ial Townhoume-Fsr-Sale ~R-TH} of ~6.17 acres; Office Business (O) of oS the Zoning Ordinance on e parcel frOntln~ approximately 3900 Map 8 12 {1) parcels 3 and ~ and Tax Map 9-9 (1) parcels ~, 7 and 8 (Sheet~ 2 an~ Mr. Batder~un stated the afplicant had requested a 30 day Modgin~ requested rezunin9 £rom Residential (R-15) to on Buford Bead and located aopro×imately 450 feet sout~ of its (Sheet Mrs. ~irone state~ the citizens had requested a 60 day deferral of this ~equ~st and the applicant had agreed. There was no one prasenU to ~iscuss this matter, On motion of ~rs. Girone, raquesl until Septer~bsr 22~ I982. of the following cage as his wife works for one of the principals B2=323 glS075 In Berm. uda Magisterial District, The Village Courts requested rescuing from A~ricult~rei (A) to Residential (R-7) plus a Conditional Use to permit ~2 multiple family units on a 10 acre parcel frontin9 approximately 680 feet on the east line of De Lavial Street and locatg~ ~pproximately $70 feet north of its intersection with Lee Street. Tax Map 115-2 (2] W. C. Trueheart Lot 6 and Tax Map 11~-6 (2) W. C. Trueheart, Lots 7 ~ 8 Mr_ Baldefsun stated that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request, He stated further that a study had completed on the traffic and density in fha area. Mr. Dedd stated that ali had seen the traffic study and he did not feel an additional presentation was necessary at this time. ~r. Williams stated the traffic count an De Lavial was 589 vehicles per day in 1980 and the maximum tolerable ~teDderds for the road according to the Highway Department standards is AOO vehicles per day but Denss~o~d Hills has be~n built since that study Wes made. Mr. Jim Parks of Rrem~er, Youngblood and King, was p~esent representing the applicant. He ~tated tha~ ~his property is adjacent to t~mheuse apartments and weald be conducive to this typo of development. ~e stated that Residential (R-7) i~ approximately 1~ units per acre which would not be practical next to the Chester Townhou~e Development as they would he tOO expensive. He explained the road network involving Centre Stree~ and how it we~ld bs helpful to the area. ~e stated the applicants would be agreeable te llmi~ing the purchase of the children. Me stated the trips per day would be 4-5 rather than 8-10 by single family development. He stated they ~ould also a~ree not to buil~ mQre ~han 50 units un~il Centre Street was extended. He stated that the extension of Centre St~t would have to be a joint effort of all property ownere. Ee stated that tbs applicant ~ould lika the recommended fifth and sixth conditions amended. worked ~ith the area residents and the plans have been changed four tim~s. He stated that they plan to have the units fronting the street only One stury with trees, etc. so that it would not be detrimental to adjacent properties_ Ne ~tated the G~neral Plan 2000 calls for this area to be multi£~mily and business. He s%a~ed that they plan to and can restrict this area to elderly residents. Mr. Stev~ Bryant, repr~sentin~ five property owners, stated they were receptive to ~ke report but that they were eot to the fifth and sixth conditions being changed a~ resuee~ed by %h~ applicant. tolerable limit was exceed in t~80 by ~00 vehicles. opposition to this request as apartments would devalue his property. Ee ~tated that it was stated eaxlier that residential are proposing the same effect on his prQperty. He stated that De Lavial Street is very narrow and could net stand th~ additional traffic. ~r. Dodd ¢or~mended the applicant for their patience in trying to %,ork ~ith the neighborhood. ~e stated, however, that he had looked at tko property, tho property to the rear i~ limit%d, De eingle family also, On ~tion of Mr, Dodd~ seconded by Mr. Dauial~ the Board denied the request for rescuing and a Conditional Use permit for multifamity development. /{bsent: Mr. O'Neill. F~. O'Neill returned to the meeting~ S2-324 825011 in Matoaca Hagisterial District, Rickey F. and Tamers L. Ransom requested razoning from Agricultural (A) tO Residential (R-9) of a 114.11 acrs parcel fronting approximately 2400 feet on the southeast line si Bailey Bridge Road and located directly acrsss from its intersection with ~bailwood Read. Tax Map 75 3 [1) part of parcel 22 (Sheet 20). Mr_ Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this refusst subject~t~ Conditions proffered by the applicant. Mr. Sim Mayas of J. K. Ti~ano was ~rssen~ and stated this cass had been deCerred in Qrd~r that the a~pIieant meet with the area re~idents. Ms stated that they would like to make change in their proffers that ail lots adjoining thc adjacent property owner~ between Bailey Bridge Read and the Ransom Tract and a~k lots ~r©ntimg en Bailey Bridge Road meet R-15 minimum minimum of i200 square feet finishing living space and all story hemes have a minimum of 10~0 squar~ feet finished living requirements. Mr. Ralph Thurston of Bailey Bridge Road stated these proffers were less than originally offered. Mr. O'Neill stated he had pictures which the applicant had indicated the ~esign Of homes to be built. Mr_ Thur~ton stated that the applicant planned to build homes whzch looked like that but not the same ~quare footage. He stated the applicant was to have submitted the pictures wi~h the square footage noted on the reverss side which was not accomplished. M~. Micas indicated that the BOard could no~ accept additional proffers at this time bu£ =hap'it could be made part of the r~cord as to what the applicant intended to do. The applicant stated he would agree to conntruoting the home~ in of this matter, it wes on motion of Mr. O'Neill, seconded by Mr. BOokman~ r~solved that ~his zeaueat, be approved subject to the follow~ng proffer by the applicant and wish the understanding that it is the intent of the developers to Construct homes of the same archlteot~ral design as pictures filed with the paper of this Board en the R 15 size lets~ All lots adjoining the adjacent property owners between Bailey Bridge Road and the Ransom Tract and all lets fronting on Bailey Bridge Road meet R-15 minimum requirements and ali. two E~ory homes built on these lots have minimum of 1200 square feet finished living space and all one story ho~e~ have a minimu~ o£ 1000 square feet finished living spase. The balance of the proper~y will 82S023 In Hatoaca Magisterial bis:riot, ROper Development COmpany requested rezoning from A~rieultural {A} to R~id~ntial (K-9} a 120 acre parcel fronting approximately 1500 feet on the northeast line o9 Happy Hill Road and located directly across from its inter~eution with Wellspring Road. Tax Map 133-10 parcsl 2 and Tax Map 133-13 (2) Forest NeighPs, LO~S 17 and 18 {Sheet MP. Balderson stated the Plannin~ Commission had denial of this request. He ~tated that the applicant had changed hie request and submitted a revised plan of Ros±dential R-48 along ~appy Hill Road with two divided entranses, R-25 buffer i~{~edistely contiguous to the 5-40 zoning along Happy Hill Road, R-15 along tko eastern boundary line with the balance of the application being R-12. He also proffered that the square footage of residential dwellings on the R-40 property would be as follows= 92-325 1200 s~uar~ fee~ w~tb a~ach~ ~arage with entrance to garage to be located on the ~ide or in the rear, Tri-Levels - 1092 squarm feet on ~h~ lower 5~,o SCary 96~ squar~ f~t ~n ~he lower level, Senator Fr~d Gray inquire~ if this case could ~e heard by the Board based on these major revisions. Mr. MicAs indicated he was satisfied it could, as the density would he less than originally pro~osed_ Mr. Balder$on staled all previous proffers were null and void with Lbs submission of the new proffers. Mr. Bill Bayliss, representing the applicant, was present. He gave a brief history of the case and indicated that tbs Planning staff had recommended approval of the R-9 request and this less dense. He stated the development would take 7 lO years to complete which would not present overcrowding of the schools or foad~_ Ks referred to the credibility of the applicant and stated tha~ ha wants to construct a g~od comraun±ty. Mr. Fred Gray was ~resent representing the opposition. He ~tated tha~ the~e property owners moved to this location to avoid density and density is what is being proposed. He stated that they are concerned about the trafiic and safety in the area on an already overcrowded road. He stated that developments already approved will also ~dd to the traffic conqestien. He stated the eOhQOl$ will also be overcrowded with the 284 dwellings ~hich are proposed. ~e stated the value of the homes in the area will decrease for the existing wesidents. He stereo when land is zoned a certain district, p~eple e~peot it to remain t~at way and that they are now believing there is no certainty with zoning. He stated th~ Board owed it ~o the existing resldenta to maintain the character of this neighborkood. He stated the applicant had chan~ed his request because Of prohteme and there are still problems with this development. ~e stated the development take 7-10 years to develop but %hess residents have the{r life savings tied up in their hemes. There were approximately ~O people present in opposition =o this request. When e~ked what the residents would accept, Senator ~ray stated he felt they may be willing to accept R-25 in the interior with H-4O on the exterior of the property but ke could not speak ~or all. ~. O'Neill elated he understood Well~ School had capacity for 550 and that only 32O seats ware filled at this time. He stated schools afc built when the need exists, not before. Mr. 0'N~ill stated that if the existing neiqhberhood were to be an exclusive neighborhood, the original developer should hav~ buffers0 it accordingly. Dr. sullins eta:ad that as a resident of Happy Hill Road he~ hoc, was opposed to this development. ~e stated %he students of these ~omes would go to Harrewgate for which there are only 25 extra development of the Fsi-ms property which is heavily zoned. ~e stated that this development will require a substen=lal outlay for schools if all that is planned is done. He slated there also exists safsty probl~m~ On ~appy ~ill Road. He state~ the residents were concerned with the saturation of homes and the quality of homes tO be built. 5e stated ~he new 9ro~ers were better but they were still not in agreement with the proposal. H~ ~uqqeetsd the board defer thl~ ~eque~t in order that the Planning Commission could reconelder the changes or deny the request as presented.. Mrs. Sirens stated that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Cer~munity shall provide when zoning is approved, She stated Board understood the law and even though it is unpleasant, the ~ourts have ruled in favor of development such as this. ~tate~ the northern portion of the County has been dealing with :hese problems for years. Dr. ~ullins reque~ta~ ~ha~ the Board 82-326 be the cutting edge to try to prevent such decisions. ~r. O'Neill stated the school system has never reserved s~ats in schools for developments before to which Dr. Sullins had referred but provide4 schools when needed. ~. Rusty Chain stated this zoning was not comparable to that across the street which was R-4~ along the entire roadway. stated that Timsberry Trace and Bermuda Run in the area are dense. H~ stated that he will have 19 baokyards facing his property if this request is approved. Re stated he felt that which was proposed to be R-15 could be R-25 which would ~liminate some of the backyerds. Mr. Bookman stated the applicant could make th~ yards longer rather than wider and he would still have the same amount of backyards. ~r. Davi~ Cole stated that h~ would be adjacent to three of the districts as proposed with Seven backdoors facinq his property. ~e stated that there were 300 eere~ of undevelo~ed property between this and Hidden Valley and he had heard there were offers pending the outcome of this case. ~e state~ tha~ th~ $40-~0,000 hom~s and the $100,000 homes are selling and ~tated that with development in the County, the $100,000 ehout~ sell jus~ as well. ~n~. Pete Wilson ~tated that h~ was le~a~ed one lot down from the entrance to tbs property and that he was concerned about the quality of homes to be built. Re stated he fought long and hard to build his home and he did not Want "cracker boxes" to b~ built across from his and devalue his proper~y. ~=. Bookman inquired if othere would be allowed to build in this development. Roper stated they would. ~r. Bookman suggested restrictive covenants to be written in order to protect the properly Mr. Courtney Well~ inquired why proffers were removed if the developer w~re to build quality homes. Mr. Bayliss ~tated they had discussed this and density ~eemed to be the problem and that was the reasoning for changing the proffers as indicated. He stated they probably ~ilt meet all the original proffers. Senator Grey s~ated that he felt the two sides are getting closer and requested deferral until all coul~ agree on eo~dltlons, proffers, e~o. ~r. Baylis$ stated that the two parties have reached an impass and deferral would not be acco~pllsh anything. ~rs. Joan Armentrout stated she did not agree with the amount R-40 which was proposed as it should be along the all property lines. Mr. O'Neill stated that the developers have insured the County ~hat they will do a good job. He stated that the County is one of ten jurisdictions nationally studying planning an~ the national trend is towards Smaller housing with more quality. stated that people do not want to heat and cool large homes er maintain large lot~. Re stated tha~ he felt this Was compatible. After further discussion of this matter, ~t was on motion of O'Neill, seconded by Mr, Dodd, ~e~otved that this request be approve~ with ~he changes for zoning to R-40 along ~appy ~ill Read with two divided entrances, an R-25 buffer immediately contiguous to the R-40 along ~aPDy Hill Road; R-15 along the eastern boundary line ~ith the balance of the application being R-12~ as shown On a plat field with =he papers of this Board; subject to the following proffer by the app!ican~: Minimttm Square Footage for the R~40 District, exclusively: Ranchers - 1200 square feet with attached garage with entrance to garage to be located on tbs side or in the rear. Tri-Levels - 1092 square feet on the lower level. Two Story - 960 square ~est on th~ 1QWer level, 82-327 ~ke P%annlng Com~is~i©n had envisioned for the a~ea~ %n aermuda Magisterial Dietrich, Meadow~ille Farm Trust requested rescuing from Agricultural (A) to the ~equlrements of the zoning encompassin~ the entir~ 86.54 acre parcel. This mroperty li~ in three separate tracts. The Iirst tract, con~isting of 25.26 acres, fronts approximately ]700 feet on the south line of Bast Hundred Road and located appro~imatnly 580 feet east of i~s intersection with Kingston Avenue. Tax Map 100 (1) pert of parcel 1 (Sheet 33)_ The second tract, consisting of 19.08 acres lies between East Hundred Road and Bermuda Hundred Road and is located ~ppreximately 580 feet east cf thm intersection of ~ast Hundred Road and Kingston Avenue. Tax Map ]00 (1) part of parcel I {Sheet 33). The third tract, con,is%inS of 42.2 acres, fronts approximately 1,750 f~et on ~he north line of B~rmuda ~undred ROad an~ located approximately 1900 fe~ west of its intersection with N. Enen Church Road. TaX Map 100 (1) part of parcel L {Sheet Mr. Balderson ~tated th~ Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request sub,eot to certain conditions. There wes no ©ppo~ition pre,eat. Mr~ Dodd ~tate~ he had told the applican~ there was no need to be present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seCOnded by ~. Bookman, the Board approved this request subjec~ ~o the following conditions: 1. within the two tracts which front along Route 1O, in addition to the permitted Light Industrial {M-l) uses, all Convenience Business (B-i~ us~s shall b~ permitted. -Any B-1 uses which are located within these tracts shall be oriented toward Route lO and have sole acces~ thereto. Specifically, no Oor.~ercint u~e shall have access ts Bermuda Hundred Road. Commercial use cf the tract which ironts the north line of Bermuda Hundred Road shall ~e Drohibited~ 2. Prior to, Or in conjunction with, the submission of the first schematic plan, ~n overall access plan for ~ernuda Hundred ROad and Route l0 shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Such pl~a shall limit the number of ingress and egress points to Bermuda Hundred R~ad and Route 10~ SO as to minimize congestion and conflicting traffic at intersections. The applicant auG/or developer shall provdd~ ~n accurate account of th~ drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the impact individual tractS, as th~v are developed, will have on the tract ag well es the surrounding area. The developer shell submit plan~ to Environmental Engineering which shall provide for on and off-site drainage control. The plans shall explain th~ methods and facilities ~o be utilized in the hydraulic euginesring o~ the project. These plans shall h~ approved by Environmental Engineerin~ prier to the cleating of any land. It shall be un~erstoed that Environmental Engineering may impose condition~, requirements or measures which ere ~ee~ed necessary to insure ~hat proper drainage COntrol is provided foe and maintained. The approved plans shall be implemented in whatever stsge~ or phases acceptable to end necessary, as dutermiDed by ~nviron~ental Engineering. Per individual tracts as they are developed, the applicant and/or developer shall submit plans for erosion and sediment control tO Environmental Engineering. Such plans ere to be comprised of vegetative and engineering practices to be utilized es erosion and sediment control measure~ far the 82~328 in the Virginia Soil and Water Cons~rvaticn Cc~issicn~s "Erosion and Sediment Control Eandbook, 2nd Edition, 1~80". ~Qwever, it is to be understood ~hat additional requirement~ and measures may be instituted by Environmental Engineering upan review of the plans. The plans shall be Approved by Environmental Engineering prior to any clearing or ~raeiag. The plan's measure~ ~haI1 be imulemen%ed prior to the clearing of any land, cutting o~ any trees, or otherwise ~isturbance of the parcels' natural state. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval of thim application does not guarantee that the developer can build or con~truot facilities in ~he fu~urs in accordance with pre,eat r~gulations, tf future County standards are more or les~ restriOtlv= than thos~ ~stablisheg herein, the Countv may require construe=ion to adhere to the more restrictiv~ standards, Prior to obtaining a building permit, the developers ~hall submit an analysis to the Utilities Department indicating the improvement~ necessary ~o develop the property_ Any necessary improvement cost~ shall be borne b~ the developer. 7. In addition to paving, all driveways and parking areas shall be curbed end q~ttsred (Standard CO-2 and/or S~nndard CG-6). This condition may be modified at time of schematic ~lan 8. NO filling shall be permitted within the Corps of Engineers' established 100 year flood plain limits for Johnsons Creek. 9. The above stated conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Ligh~ Industrial (M-l) District shall be applicable. Unanimous ~n Clover Hill, MidI~thian and ~atoaca Magistmri~t DimtrictS, Th~ County of Chesterfield requested an amen~men~ to two previously granted Conditional Use Planned Devslopm~n~ requests (Cases 8laC60 and 81S084~ to prohibit production of natural ~arth resources (including oil and gas] without obtaining a separate Conditional Use Planned Development for each production site on 21,562 acre~ of land which lie in =he Eich~ond Coal Basin, more specificelly~ a~u shown Qn od,ts of zoning sheets 4, 5/6, 11~ 1~, 13, 18, 19~ 20, 27, 2~ ~9, 35/36 37 and 44?45. Mr. Balderson stated the ~lannin~ Commission had approval of this request subjec~ bo a single condition. Ther~ was nu opposition Dzesent. Mr. Baldsr~on stated ~hat ~errili Natural Resources did not have concern any lenqer. Qn motion of ~. ~ookmae, seconded by Mrs. Girone, ~h~ Dcard agpr©ved this request subject to the following condition; Prior to any material extraction (i~e., production wells~ separate ConditioDal USe approval shall be obtain~d~ A= the time of review, th= Commission and Boar~ may imoase conditions relative to the protection of tbs health, sa%sty an~ welfare of ~rea property owners. vo~e= Unanlmou~ ~!r. O'Neill excused himself from the meeting, in Midloth~an ~agisterial Dietrich, Vernon E. LaP,ads ~equested 82-229 ~ezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office susiDess [o) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a day care and exceptions to the bulk requirements of the Zoning Ordinance ena ~,02 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on the ~outh line of Robious Road and located approximately 43G feet west of its intersection with Cranbeck Road. Tax Map 9-13 parcel 4 (Sheet 3). Mr, Ralderson s~a:ad the Plannin~ Commission had recommended approval of thio request subject to the imposition of certain conditions. ~r. LaPr~de stated the conditions were agrseable. Mrs, Girnne inquired if the roadway were tG be tapered. Mr. LsPrade stated only on this property and not adjacent property as they ~ere not agreeable. He stated this was agreeable with the Highway Department. Mrs. Girone inquired if there would be a fence at the day care center. 5~. Balderscn stated the plan indicated a fenced area. lvw, Joe Muntley reguea%e~ that if this request were approved, that the day care center have residential design. ~e also e×pressed his cens~rn regarding the safety of people trying to ~et in and out of ~he property. ~rs. ~irone inquired if this residential design Gould be accomplished~ I.,k'. LaPrade stated they did not want to change the design of the building as it is standard but the darker brink could be utilized. Mr. Huntley xmqhlred about the traffic problum. Mr. ~icas stated the traffic · s a concern when conzidering zoning, but it must have a direct effect on the health, safety and welfare of the people, Mrs. Girone ~tated that Robieus Road tc Cranbenk would be widened by 19~4. she stated this roadway would then acco~u~odate the traffic of today, traffic generated by the Plantation property plu~ One-third additional traffic. She ~%a%ed that changes is lan~ use will have to be worked into the intersection es far run off i~ concerned. She stated that no one on Robio~s would give right-of-way when there was $9~,000 in Revenue Sharing Funds available to improve the road. Mrs, Margaret Lindsey questioned th~ need for an additional day care facility in the area as ther~ are several. She also e~pressed her COncern r~gerding traffic. Mrs. Ann Anoell also stated h~r concern regarding ~raf~ic and that ~he did not feel this road would be widened as there have been pl~n$ an~ plans and nothing has bean ~one as of this date. Mr. O'Neill rmturned to the ~eeting. Mr. Br~ce Wingo stated h~s oppOalfio~ to thi~ request as this is residential, agricultural and church property which represents acres. Ee stated the building would not be residential in appearance and the lighted s~gn would no~ lend itself to residential appearance. He stated that plans to widen Robious Road could bs deleted; that people would not give easements when they would still have to continue to pay ta~e~ on the property and not have full use; etc. He stated ~he church on Cranbeck has the option ~o use their facility for a day care center and not done so and they have a better si~e. He stated there is no need fez transition in this area, as it is all residential. stated traffic is tremendous, that this is leapfrogging between residential and undeveloped property, eta, H~ stated ~hat ~his development woul~ also create additional traffic on other he w~nte~ his quality of life maintained in this are~ requested denial of the application. Mrs. Girone eCate~ thm funds for the widening have be~n approved and once this has been con~brueted, the traffic can be far as ~he intended to have zoning down ~ebious Road an~ this ~ill be ~he line and that good planning dictates that office zoning is a goo~ buffet between a shopping center and a resi~eutial area. Mr. Wings inquired about the residential appearance of the building. ~rs, Girone stated she weul~ discuss 82-330 this with the applicant. After f~r~her discussionr i~ was i. The uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Office Busines~ (O) District and a day care center. 2. The below stated conditions notwithstanding, ~ke cite plan application and dated 3/30/S2, shall be considered the Twenty-six (26) feet of pavement, measured from th~ building permit. ~O as to minimize internal traffic congestion and conflicting turning movements, the proposed twsnty~four 7. All structures, axc~pt ~he day care uanter, shall have a residential appearance. The day care center shall b~ renderings shall be submitted tQ ~he Planning Co~isaion for not to project light into adjacent properties. In a. For the day care canter, parking shall be provided aa ratio of one (1] space for e~ch twenty (20) children enrolled up %0 a maximum of six (6) space~, plus One {1) for each employee. The parking aras and driveway shall be designed to ~rouide an area for e~barkation ~ha building by sidewalks so as to preclude th~ n~ed for children having to cross any driveways. b. A twenty {20) foot excepklon to the required fifty ($0} foot setback parking along R~bious Reade provided /andecapin~ and/or berming is accomplished so as to minimize the visual impact of %he parking area those traveling along Robieua Road. A plan d~picting Con, mission in conjunction with schematic plan r~vi~w. 9. A ten (10) look buffer shall be maintained mlong th~ supplemented with additional planting. A landacapin~ plan depicting this requirement shall be ~ubmitte~ tQ ~ha 82-331 site pla~ review. Suffers shall be installed in conjunction with the phasing of the development. A single free,tending sign shall be pex~mitt~d identifying no~ only the day c~re c~nter, but any future office luminous, but may be illuminated. The sign shall not exceed a height of eight (8) ~eet and a square footage of fifty (50) feet. The ~tyle of the sign shall be compatible with the residential architectural ~tylc of the strucPure to bo erected on the parcel. Wi~h the exception of the directional signs, no other freestanding ~igns mhall b~ permitted. Buildin9 signs mhall be govmrned by the requirements of the Office Business (O) District. The above stated conditions notwithstanding, all requirements of the Offic~ Business (O) District shall be applicable. In conjunction with the granting of this requ~st~ schema=ia plan ap~rovat shall be granted for the ~ay care c~nte~. (Note~ Prior to obtaining building perz~its for any office development, schematic plans mus= be approved by the Planning Cont~ission.~ No structure shall exceed thre~ (3) stories or forty-five [45) feet in h~ight, the lessor of the two. Abstention: Mr~ O'Neill b~eause he was not present ~uring most of ~he discussion. S25059 In Clov~r ~ill Magisterial District, W. ~. Wright requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to ~eavy Industrial IN-3) o~ 2 acre parcel fronting approximately 50 £emt on tko northeast line of Warbro Road ~d looatmd appro×~m~tely 30~0 feet northwest of its intersection with Hull Street Road. %ax P~p 48 (i) part of Parcel t~ (Sheet 13). Mr. BaldersOn stated the applicant had not b¢~n present at Planning Coat, lesion meeting and the ~lanning Co~aission had recon~nended denial of th~ request. Mr. Bell, representing Mr. Wrlght, stated that 5~. Wright claimed he did not receive a notice of the Planning Conlmi~sion hearing. Mr. Bell stated further that Mr. Wright woul~ prefer =o have a Conditional Use on this parcel rather than straight re±cuing to M-S. ~r. Bookman stated h~ did not feel this par=el would be zoned residential but that he would like to see plan for the total acreage which has not been made at this point. ~r. ~ookman inquired if the Planning Comnission would have to hear th~ amended request {or a Conditional Uso. Mr. Micas indicated they woul~ not. O~ motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Qironm, the Board defer:ad consideration of this requms% until August 25, 1982 at which time the Board would eons%der the request for a Conditional Use for the parcel and not rezonlng to %~ Midlothian Magisterial District, Edward J_ huzza!l, Jr. Inc. ~reviously approved in a Residential Townhouse-Fer Sale D~strict On a 7.4 acre purc=l fronting approximately 150 feet on the north line of Rockaway Read, and located approximately 150 feet west of its interuactfan with Chatsworth AVenUS. Tax MaD 10-13 (11 par~aI 8 (Sheet 2}, Mr, Batderson stated the ~lanning Commission hsd rec0~t~nded approval e~ ~his request subject to certain conditions. There 1. Ail previously imposed cond~hion~ for Case ~1S006 shall be Zoning Ordinance. ~25072 In Bermuda ~agisterial District, Larry L. zehm requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R~7] of a 2.~1 acre parcel fronting approximately 220 f~u= on the north line of Burgess Road. and located approximately 770 fe~t northeast of its intersection with Ea~ aundred Road. Tax Map 136-5 (1} parcel 15 Sheets 43/44). Mr. BaldarOon stated the Planning Commission had recoP~endad appreval of this request. Th~ applicant wes not present. Ther~ WaS ne Opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated %hat since the applicant had net been present at the Planning Commission meeting not at this meeting, he felt deferral was in order. On motion of There was some dlecus$ion of what the Board would like staff tO prepare with regard to the study on roads, spesi~ically Route 288 and Powhite. Mr, Daniel stated he would like fact~ and figures to back up whatever decision the Beard made. Mr. O'Neill stmted he did net ~eel the Board was ready at this time to go to the public with a ben4 issue an~ suggested a suscial meeting of the staff neede~ ~o know the Board's intentions in ord~r tha~ the speed in which to proceed with a ~tudy could be determined, if a study is wkat the Boas~ desires. I~ was generally agreed by the BoArd that after the NOvember election and ~epending on action by the General Assembly, the County might consider goinf to bonds Or whatever funding mechanism necessary and that ~taff Sh©u%d proceed at a slower rate on the study but be gathering i~for~ation au necessary but not in time for action this ~ovember. a third Assistant County Attorney position fur thc County Attorney'S Office with $17,000 for this position appropriated from the Utilitie~ Department. Vo~e: Unanimeus 82-333 )n motion of Mr. Bookman, seconded by Mrs. Gi=one, the Board ~t into Executive S~ssion to discuss ~er~onn~l mutters as permitted by Section 2.1-344{a) (1) of the Code of Virginia. 1950, a~ Vote: Unanimous On motion of 1,lT. Dodd, ~ec0n~ed by Mz. Daniel, the Bo&rd adjourned at 6:25 p.m. until 10~00 a.m_ On August 11, 1982. Vote: Unanimous County Adm±n~$~ratQr Chairm~n