Loading...
04-25-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES April. 25, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel., Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girom~ Mr. Jesse J. Mayes M:r. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. William Correll, Construction Coordin. Mrs. Doris DeHart, Vol. Coordinator Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. Co. Admin. Mr. Robert Masden, Dir. of Human Services Mr. Jeffrey Mincks, Asst. Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Public Info. Officer Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Dir. of Community Develop. Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Accounting Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.~ Exec. Asst. to Co. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Daniel called t-he meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:05 a.m. (EST). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Charles E. Werth, Pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, wb~ qave the invocation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved the minutes of April 4 April 11 and April 17, 1984, as amended. ' Vote: Unanimous 3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMaMENTS Mr. Hedrick introduced and welcomed Ms. Diane Walker, reporter for Channel 12, who was substituting for Ms. Carmen English who was on vacation. Mr. ttedrick presented the Board with a revised copy of the Chesterfield County Service Directory which is available at this time for distribution. REQUESTS FOR ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred indefinitely Item #9.F.3. regarding the Richmond Air Quality Maintenance Plan and deleted Item #9.G.4.a. regarding a water contract for Walmsley Boulevard, Chippenham Mini-Storage and further tile agenda was adopted as amended. 84-208 Vote: Unanimous 5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 5.A. NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER Mr. Hedrick recognized Dr. Warren Weaver, representing the Richmond Area Coordinating Committee for the National Day of Prayer, who explained and requested adoption of the proposed resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The forefathers of our Country founded this great Nation on the belief that all men are created equal in the eyes of an Almighty God; and WHEREAS, This County, State and Nation have grown and prospered on the universal faith in a Divine Providence; and WHEREAS, Ail Americans, without regard to individual denominational preferences, or race, color, economic or financial position or vocation, have steadfastly and continuously adhered to the foregoing principals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY that May 3, 1984 be declared as a "National Day of Prayer" and calls this recognition and the message it suggests to the attention of all citizens of our County. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented Dr. Weaver with the executed resolution. 5.B. FOSTER PARENT MONTH Ms. Jean Smith was present and stated the month of April was child abuse prevention month and that it was only appropriate that the following month be recognized as foster parent month. She explained the efforts of the Department to reduce the number of foster care case loads and introduced Ms. Barbara Bennett, case worker with foster care parents. Ms. Bennett outlined the quality and service given by the foster parents. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, The services of the community by the Department o Social Services include the provision of foster care to children and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors acknowledges the generous contribution of foster families in providing care, guidance, discipline and love to the children placed temporarily in their homes; and WHEREAS, The care provided to children by foster families impacts the quality of life for those children, their families, and future generations; and WHEREAS, The services and efforts of foster families contribute greatly to the well being of the entire community; an WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors wishes to recognize and publicly express appreciation to all foster families. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTEP~IELD COUNTY that the month of May be proclaimed "Foster Parent Month" and that this recognition be called to the attention of all citizens. Vote: Unanimous 84-209 Mr. Daniel prese~-~ed the executed resolution to Ms. Smith and Ms Bennett. 5.C. VOLUNTEER WEEK Mrs. Doris DeHart stated that in the brief time she has been associated with the volunteer services in the County she had most favorably impressed with the caliber of the services and expected them to improve both in quality and quantity in the future. She stated the County volunteers will be honored durin( the entire month of May with various activities. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Each year, many citizens of our state and nation volunteer countless hours of service in order to help others; al WHEREAS, These volunteers work to build strong community organizations, to promote issues in the public interest, and to help their fellow citizens in need; and WHEREAS, Volunteers come from every age group from youth t senior citizens and from all walks of life, volunteers give assistance in countless ways; and WHEREAS, Volunteering plays a vital role in any community with neighbors showing their concern for one another -- both friends and strangers alike; and WHEREAS, It is important for all of us to recognize our responsibilities in these difficult but temporary times and to follow the example of volunteers by giving of ourselves for the betterment of all; and WHEREAS, Those volunteers, who unselfishly give of their time and of themselves in order to improve the quality of life for all, deserve special recognition. NOW, THEREFOPE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY that May 6-12, 1984 be declared "VolunteE Week" in Chesterfield County and invites all citizens to honor and emulate the fine individuals who help their communities by opening up their hearts. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel presented the e×ecuted resolution to Mrs. DeHart. 6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIM~ 'Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no requests by citizens at this time. 7. DEFERRED ITEMS "~.A. ADOPTION OF 1984-85 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION Mr. Dodd indicated his concern that the statement on the general County budget does not mention several needs which he felt the Board should have addressed which are: The retirement program for volunteer firefighters which is cost effective in other jurisdictions and that if it is not addressed this year, that it be consider in the immediate future; The need for County involvement with Spectran when there ar private carriers who could provide the service as well as the quality of service that is provided as he understood it was inadequate; and 84-210 The 3% raise for County employees which is the first time in seven years that the raise was less than inflation and he felt this was not a good practice to start and once the County falls behind the inflation rate there will be problems. He questioned the need for 92 new employees as this is the largest number in seven years and requested that the positions be funded but not filled immediately because the economy may slow down. He stated that he hoped the positions would be reviewed carefully. On motion of the Board, the Board adopted the General County Budget in the amount of $214,307,100 and the School Budget in the amount of $108,553,000 for 1984-85. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Ramsey recommended that the School portion of the appropriations resolution be deferred at this time since the School Board has not had time to respond and forward their amended budget to the County, based on the adopted budget. Mr. Hedrick stated the School's appropriation portion would be brought to the Board after the School has responded. On motion of the Board, it is hereby resolved that the following amounts be appropriated to the designated funds and accounts from the designated estimated revenue sources to operate the County departments, other agencies, and non-departmental accounts for fiscal year 1984-85: General Fund Estimated Revenue: From Local Sources General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Licenses, Permits Fines & Forfeitures Use of Money and Property Service Charges Recovered Costs Miscellaneous From Other Agencies State, Federal & Other Localities Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Office Economic Development General Services Data Processing Accounting and Budget Personnel County Attorney Internal Audit Purchasing Assessment of Property Collection and Disbursement of Taxes Circuit Court & Clerk's Office District Courts Commonwealth's Attorney Police Department Sheriff and Jail $ 62,453,400 17,420,700 2,064,500 508,000 1,726,500 849,930 999,500 221,300 19,339,170 5,190,500 $ 110,773,500 $ 177,400 436,800 412,400 434,400 2,004,600 973,700 266,600 249,000 99,600 290,100 ].,508,400 934,800 634,200 61,600 320,600 8,249,200 2,450,000 84-211 Fire Department Civil Defense Emergency Medical Service Safety Communications Center Animal Control Human Services Administration County Social Service Programs Health Department Mental Health & Mental Retardation Juvenile Detention Home Probation & Community Diversion Community Development Planning Department Building Inspection Environmental Engineering and Drainage Solid Waste Service Extension Service and Agricultural Fair Elections Maintenance of Buildings & Grounds Street Lights Road Improvements Recreation and Parks Library Employee Welfare & Benefits Non-Departmental Capital Projects Debt Service Law Library Transfers Fund Balance Available for Appropriation 6/30/85 Total General Fund Revenue Sharing Fund Estimated Revenue: From the Federal Government Interest on Bank Deposits Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Roads Transfers to Schools Total Revenue Sharing Fund County Grant Fund 220 Estimated Revenue: From the State Total Revenue Appropriations: Community Diversion Total County Grant Fund 220 School CIP Fund 340 Estimated Revenue: Bond Interest Total Revenue Appropriations: Transfer to School Operating Fund Total School CIP Fund 340 6,301,700 6,400 77,200 44,600 443,100 255,900 104,500 2,813,800 691,400 2,781,600 693,500 37,500 124,500 958,600 798,000 899,900 907,200 111,600 237,300 1,542,500 121,300 45,000 1,835,400 2,049,400 433,700 436,900 1,000,000 1,706,000 9,500 59,383,600 4,418,500 $ 110,773,500 $ 2,013,689 50,000 374,911 $ 2,438,600 $ 300,000 2,138~600 $ 2,438,600 $ 171,700 $ 171,700 $ 171,700 $ 171,700 $ 200,000 $ 200~000 $ 200¢000 $,,, 200¢000 84-212 County Vehicle Maintenance Estimated Revenue: Sales Transfer from General Fund (Debt) Total Revenue Appropriations: County Garage Two-Way Radio Total County Vehicle Maintenance County Airport Fund Estimated Revenue: Sales Use of Money and Property Transfer from General Fund Total Revenue Appropriations: Airport Total County Airport Fund County Nursing Home Fund Estimated Revenue: Patient Care Services Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Nursing Home Fund Balance 6/30/85 Total County Nursing Home Fund Water Revenue Fund Estimated Revenue: Sales Total Water Revenue Fund Appropriations: Transfers Total Water Revenue Fund Water Operating Fund Estimated Revenue: Transfer from Water Revenue Interest on Bank Deposits Reimbursement Total Revenue Appropriations: Water Operating Total Water Operating Fund Water Debt Service Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest on Bank Deposits & Investments Transfer from Water Revenue Total Revenue Appropriations: Debt Service Total Water Debt Service Fund $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,387,400 184,500 1,571,900 1,423,700 148,200 1,571,900 628,000 362,800 85,000 1,075,800 1,075,800 1,075,800 3,726,500 800,000 4,526,500 4,206,500 320,000 4,526,500 6,371,900 6,371,900 6,371,900 6,371,900 5,139,500 55,000 17,700 5~212,200 5,212,200 5,212,200 85,000 730,300 815,300 815~300 815~300 84-213 Water Improvement, Replacement & Extension Fund Estimated Revenue: From Use of Money & Property Miscellaneous Revenues & Refunds Transfer from Water Revenue Anticipat~i~ Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: General & Administrative Transfer Capital Projects Fund Balance 6/30/85 Total Water Improvement, Replacement & Extension Fund $ $ $ Water Meter Installation Fund Estimated Revenue: From Use of Money & Property Charges for Current Services Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Meter Installation Fund Balance 6/30/84 Total Water Meter & Construction Fund Water Central Stores Fund Estimated Revenue: Service Charges Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Central Stores Total Water Central Stores Fund $ $ Water Bond Construction Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest on Investments Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: General & Administrative Transfer to CIP Fund 380 Fund Balance 6/30/85 Total Water Bond.Construction Fund $ $ 226,000 60,000 502,100 3,000,000 Sewer Fund Estimated Revenue: Interest Earned Sewer Service Charges Sewer Connection Fees Sale of Revenue Bonds Other Revenue Anticipated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Total Revenue Appropriations: Sewer Operating Sewer Debt Sewer Improvement Sewer Bond Construction Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Balance 6/30/85 Total Sewer Fund 3,788,100 677,200 473,500 2,637,400 3,788,100 155,000 634,500 2,500,000 3,289~500 811,200 2,478,300 3,289,500 388,500 50,000 438,500 438,500 438,500 100,000 2,500,000 2,600,000 4,000 1,356,500 1,239,500 $ 2,600~000 $ 1,050,000 6,500,000 3,600,000 9,500,000 98,000 10,000,000 $ 30,748,000 $ 3,456,100 2,259,000 1,158,900 3,900 10,630,000 13,240,!00 $ 30,748,000 84-214 Utility Capital Projects Estimated Revenue: Transfers: Water Bond Construction Water Improvement Sewer Fund Total Revenue Appropriations. Capital Improvements Total Utility Capital Projects Be it further resolved: 1,356,500 473,500 20,130,000 21.,960,000 $ 21,960,000 $ 21,960,000 That the County Administrator may authorize the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one classification of expenditure to another within the same department or agency. That the County Administrator may transfer up to $5,000 from the unencumbered balance of the appropriation of one department or agency to another department or agency, including the contingency account encompassed in the Non-Departmental appro- priation. No more than one transfer may be made for the same item causing the need for a transfer. That the County Administrator may increase appropriations for the following items of non-budgeted revenue that may occur during the fiscal year. Se be ce Insurance recoveries received for damage to County vehicles or other property for which County funds have been expended to make repairs. Refunds or reimbursements made to the County for which the County has expended funds directly rela~ed to that refund or reimbursement. Any revenue source not to exceed $5,000. That all outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 1984 are reappropriated to the 1984-85 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encum- bered in the previous year. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropri- ations until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or elimi- nates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 1984 and appropriations in the 1984-85 budget. That the approval by the Board of Supervisors of any grant of funds to the County constitutes the appropriation of both the revenue to be received from the grant and the County's expendi- ture required by the terms of the grant, if any. And further that the appropriation of grant funds will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but shall remain appropriated until comple- tion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate resolution, changes or eliminates the appropri- ation. Upon completion of a grant project, staff is authorized to close out the grant and transfer back to the funding source any remaining balances. This applies to appropriations for grants outstanding at June 30, 1984 and appropriations in the 1984-85 budget. At the close of the fiscal year, all unencumbered appropri- ations for budget items other than Capital Projects, grants, and donations restricted to specific purposes shall revert to the Fund Balance Available for Appropriation of the fund in which they are included. 84-215 ~That the County Administrator may appropriate both revenue and expenditure for donations made by citizens or citizen groups in support of County programs and that any remaining unencumbered balance of a restricted dgnation at the end of the fiscal year will be reappropriated into the subsequent fiscal year. That the Treasurer is authorized to make transfers to the various funds for which there are transfers budgeted. She shall transfer funds only as needed up to amounts budgeted, or in accordance with any existing bond resolutions that specify the manner in which transfers are to be made. That the Treasure~ may advance monies to and from the various funds o'f the County to allow maximum cash flow efficiency. The advances must not violate county bond covenants or other legal restrictions that would prohibit an advance. That the County Administrator is authorized to make expenditures from the following Trust & Agency Funds for the specified reasons for which the funds were established. In no case shall the expenditure exceed the available balance in the fund: Nursing Home Patient's Fund M. W. Burnett Employee Award Fund Drainage District Fund Special Welfare Fund T. F. Jeffress Memorial Fund And further the Board deferred adoption of the Appropriations Resolution pertaining to the School Budget until a later date. Vote: Unanimous 7.B. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING RATE INCREASE FROM STORER CABLE Mr. Hodge introduced Ms. Debra Love of CTIC Associates, consultant for the County regarding cable television. Mr. Mayes stated it appeared that the rate increase is based on raising capita] so the Company can offer additional services. Mrs. Love stated it was basically to allow the company to grow with the County into areas of low density and continue construction. Mr. Mayes inquired if the existing fee is comparable to other companies in similar areas. Mrs. Love stated the existing fee compares very favorably around the country and the proposed fee is also comparable and is average for cable rates around the country and regionally. Mr. Mayes stated it appears that the consumer is being asked to bear the burden of adding the additional capital for the company to expand by purchasing equity without ownership. He inquired if the company considered selling stock instead of the rate increase. Mrs. Love stated the selling of stock was not considered and she did not feel it would make any difference in the plan. She stated the local share holders would probably demand a higher rate increase than the company is seeking as stockholders have to depend on the value of the stock and dividend payments. She stated that the company has an accumulative negative loss of $7,000,000 and it would be hard to sell stock, etc. Mr. Mayes suggested additional advertisement might raise additional revenue rather than asking for a rate increase if the service is already adequately priced. Mrs. Love stated that it was unlikely that the company could raise enough capital from the sale of advertising but it is an increasing source of revenue and maybe in the future, increases may be reduced or avoided, by advertising. She stated in an area like this, revenue in advertising is not very large and not a substantial source of revenue. Mr. Mayes stated he had no problem with voting on an increase that the market will bear but he had a problem with placing this burden on the consumer. 84-216 Mrs. Girone stated there were some stockholders that were bought out and inquired if this purchase was from the local company or the parent company and if it had an effect on the rate increase. Mrs. Love stated the purchase came from the parent company and was not factored into the rate base as the funds came from another source. Mr. Dodd inquired about the service area in Bermuda Hundred as he was told that the area would extend to Senator Gray's home. Mrs. Love stated they did not look into t?,e service area for a particular individual but they did look at the original franchise area and by the franchise agreement they are responsible for serving that entire area as far as they have the funding to do it. Mr. Hodge stated outside the initial area there is a formula where they will do other areas but staff feels the company is fulfilling the areas of the franchise agreement. Mr. Daniel inquired if the franchise area includes every home in the area or will they make an effort to service the area. Mr. Hodge stated that they are obligated to service the area but it is similar to the utilities department in that they will service those areas in the agreement first to the extent they have the capital to do it and they will fill in areas as they c~n. He stated the County has some control over that because future increases will come back to the Board for consideration. Mr. Mayes inquired if the discrepancies in the line drop/grounding had been taken care of. Mr. Hodge stated that the previous report did address the inadequacies of grounding, etc. at the homes and they all have been checked and corrected. Mr. Mayes inquired if the staff meets with the company quarterly. Mr. Hodge stated the staff meets with the company more frequently than that and the County does receive its payments quarterly. Mr. Mayes also addressed the costs which were outlined and the high expense for laying the lines in the future. Mr. Hodge stated the additional revenue generated by the increase will pay off the debt from the initial plan, some will go toward the increase cost of installing the cable, the higher cost of cable, underground cable in more and more subdivisions, etc. Mr. Applegate stated that one of the concerns of the Board is not directly related to the increase but to the poor service that has been given to the citizens. He stated he felt this goes hand-in-glove with the need for additional revenues and to fund additional expansions. He stated he felt the Board should go on record that the service has to improve even though it has improved over the last 60 days. He stated he felt there was a great deal that could be accomplished in the days ahead. He stated the report and staff indicate that the increase is justified. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request for rate increases by Storer Cablevision as follows: Basic Service Expanded Basic: With local converter With remote converter Additional Outlet F M Services Note: Current Rate Approved Rate $5.45 $7.45 6.95 9.95 7.95 9.95 4.00 4.95 2.50 3.50 The cost for converters will be discontinued under the above rate structure. Mr. Dodd stated he seconded the motion by faith in Mr. MacNeilly and that he will do a better job. He stated the original pitch was made that they had financial strength to serve the 84-217 area and would not need increases to do it. He stated he does feel that the increase is justified and he hoped his areas would be served, especially those areas which have been waiting for three years with the cable just about three blocks away. Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel the rate was justified on the information presented in the last report. He stated if the purpose of the increase is to reassess the value of the services rendered, he could vote for the increase, but if the increase is to raise capital to expand the company he could not vote for the increase. Mr. Daniel stated l~e felt it was a combination of both. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone. Mr,. Mayes as he felt the consumer should not be responsible to guarantee the operator receives a gain on the investment but is up to the operator and his management. 7.C. TURNER ROAD AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing regarding the Turner Road Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There was no one present to address the Board. Mr. Applegate stated that he was in general agreement with the proposal but it should be pointed out that this is not a blanket zoning as zoning the area would come on an individual basis. He stated he had concerns regarding the parks and open space which met with some opposition and also the commercial special control offices at the intersection of Elkhardt and Turner. He stated the corridor should be maintained residential and he concurs with the recommended zoning district map subject to the removal of the commercial at Elkhardt and Turner and any reference to the parks and open space. Mr. Balderson stated any requests for commercial zoning in the area can be dealt with on a case by case basis and they will look into the zoning ordinance to see what appropriate measures might be taken to offer additional safeguards. He stated the parks and open space proposal was a general guide to utilize areas in the flood plain or utility easements that might otherwise not be used for any particular residential or commercial purpose and might have been better reserved for open space or park land. He stated that this could be addressed at a later time. Mr. Applegate stated that potential developers might desire to use these areas for open space, etc. and could be worked out on an individual basis. He stated it was his intention to incorporate this into the General Plan 2000 to give staff some guidelines for the overall development of the area in the future. He stated if the commercial at Elkhardt and Turner were approved, it could possibly cause tremendous traffic problems in the future. He stated with regard to the parks, it would be left to the developer if he wanted to proceed with parks and open space, but it would protect the integrity of the residential community. Mrs. Girone inquired if this eliminated all of the park lands. Mr. Applegate stated that rather than recommend and incorporate a park program in the area which the people did not want, it would be left to the developers in the future. Mr. Balderson stated the Board still has the benefit of the consultant's study which has noted the park lands as something that may be desirable based on the needs of the people and County for neighborhood park use. He stated the Board could still refer to that in the future but by deleting it from the plan, the Board is indicating that they do not want to designate it in this area for future park use for the entire corridor. 84-218 On motion of Mr. ADplegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, The Chesterfield Board of Supervisors adopted General Plan 2000 on June 22, 1977; and Whereas, Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4 of the Code of Virginia provides for the preparation and review of a comprehensive plan for all Virginia localities, and allows preparation of this Plan in parts; and Whereas, the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors requested that the Chesterfield Planning Commission review the existing Plan for the Turner Road area and to determine if revision to thel General Plan 2000 were needed; and Whereas, the Chesterfield Planning Commission has considered proposed Plan alternatives and has held public hearing on the proposed Plan revision; and Whereas, the Chesterfield Planning Commission has recommended approval of the consultant's recommended Plan with the elimination of commercial zoning at the intersection of Elkhardt and Turner Roads and with the deletion of any reference to open space and park lands in the entire corridor. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors adopts the preferred alternative for the Turner Road Area Land Use and Transportation Plan as an amendment to the Chesterfield General Plan 2000 to guide future development and provision of streets and public facilities in the area. Vote: Unanimous 7.D. ORDINANCE REGARDING OPEN BURNING PERIODS FOR LEAVES Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance relating to open burning periods for leaves. Mr. Daniel stated the official public hearing was closed at the March 14, 1984 meeting and it is for Board considera : f.~.on at this time. He stated the Board had received a considerable amount of mail in support of the ordinance. He stated he received one letter from a president of a company located in Richmond who is considering several properties in the County for its corporate offices but unfortunately the leaf burning situation is detracting from an otherwise desirable location, etc. Mr. Daniel requested the County Administrator to prepare a study with recommendations on how the County can approach the problem of leaf burning and, in particular, those parts of the County which are urban. Mrs. Girone stated that she felt a change will impact the budget and she would like the staff to bring the report to the Board before they begin budget planning, approximately September 1, 1984. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the scope of the study should also include a solution %o the refuse problem if we are going to restrict burning. He stated the rural and urban aren~i: of the County are different and should not have to abide by the same ordinance. He suggested making the refuse problem a part of the utilities department and have the leaves and trash picked up every week. Mr. Dodd stated that the cost would be exorbitant. Mr. Daniel stated the report requested would have to address the solution and the cost to implement the program. He stated if the study is to encompass more than just leaf burning, the price tag will be too great to bear. Mr. Mayes inquired why leaves are allowed to be burned but trash is not allowed. Mr. Applegate 84-219 stated he felt staff should investigate all these problems as to districts in the County, etc. It was generally agreed by the Board that staff be directed to study the problem of leaf burning in the County. Mr. Mayes requested that a study be accomplished by staff for the refuse problem in the County including leaves, trash, etc. Mr. Dodd stated his residents feel the lack of enforcement of the leaf burning ordinance is the main issue. He stated he felt the study should address the districts as he felt his district was divided between heavily populated and less populated areas. Mr. Dodd suggested the Board not reduce the fall burning period. He stated if the I~ard eliminated the 45 day period in the fall, the people will not be able to get rid of the leaves. On motion of Mr. Dodd, it was resolved that the following ordinance be adopted: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 10-22 and 10-23 RELATING TO OPEN BURNING PERIODS FOR LEAVES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That ~§ 10-22 and 10-23 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted as follows: ARTICLE VII. BURNING OF LEAVES Sec. 10-22. When ~rohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31 of any year, and during the period beginning December 15 and ending March 15 of any year. Sec. 10-23. When permitted. (a) It shall be lawful for persons to bUrn leaves from trees on property where they reside during the period beginning November 1 and ending December 15 of any year; provided, however, that during this period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12 o'clock noon on Friday until 8 o'clock A.M. on Monday. (b) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on property where they reside during the period beginning March 16, and ending April 15 of any year; provided, however, that during this period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12 o'clock Noon on Friday until 8 o'clock A.M. on Monday. It is further provided, that during this period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland unless it takes place between the hours of 4 o'clock P.M. and 12 o'clock Midnight. There was no second to the motion. Mrs. Girone stated the intent of the ordinance was to reduce the leaf burning period to one month in the fall and one month in the spring. Mr. Daniel declared the motion, dead for lack of a second. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following ordinance: 84-220 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTeRFiELD, 1978, AS ~ENDED, BY AMEND~[NG SECTIONS 10-22 and 10-23 RELATING TO OPEN BURNING PERIODS FOR LEAVES BE IT ORDAINED by 'the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: That ~§ 10-22 and 10-23 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, J~s amended and reenacted as follows: ARTICLE ~II. BURNING OF LEAVES Sec. 10-22. Wl~en prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to burn leaves in the open during the period beginning April 16 and ending October 31 of any year, and during the period beginning December 2 and ending March 15 of any year. Sec. 10-23. When ~ermitted. (a) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves from trees on property where they reside during the period beginning November 1 and ending December 1 of any year; provided, however, that during this period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12 o'clock noon on Friday until 8 o'clock A.M. on Monday. (b) It shall be lawful for persons to burn leaves on property where they reside during the period beginning March 16, and ending April 15 of any year; provided, however, that during this period, it shall be unlawful to burn leaves from 12 o'clock Noon on Friday until 8 o'clock A.M. on Monday. It is further provided, that during th~s period, it shall be unlawful if burning occurs within three hundred feet of any woodland or brushland unless it takes place between the hours of 4 o'clock P.M. and 12 o'clock Midnight. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Dodd. 9. NEW BUSINESS 9.A. REQUESTS FOR GRANT APPROVALS 9.A.1. SCHOOL BOARD INCENTIVE PROGRAM On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board increased the School operating budget by $18,768.00 for receipts and expenditures which will cover a preschool incentive mini-grant recently received from the State Department of Education. Mr. John Finkler stated that if funds are not received each year, the program would be discontinued. Vote: Unanimous 9.A.2. LITTER CONTROL On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of Chesterfield County; and Whereas, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, for the allocation of 84-221 public funds in the form of Grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and Whereas, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the Application covering administration and use of said funds; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors hereby endorses and supports such a prc~"am for the Chesterfield County as is indicated in the attached Application Form LC-G-1. Now, Therefore, Be It ResolVed that the County Administrator plan, budget, apply for and accept a Grant, which if approved, will be u'sed to fund said Program; and Be It Further Resolved that the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, consider and approve said Application and Program, said Program being in accord with the regulations governing use and expenditure of said funds. Vote: Unanimous It is noted the grant request is in the amount of $11,071. 9.B. REQUEST RMA TO ASSIST FINANCING PARKER FIELD RENOVATION On motion of Mr. Mayes~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Parker Field in its present state is in great need of repair; and Whereas, Section 33-255.44:13 lel) of the Enabling Act (as added by Act of the 1984 General Assembly, effective July 1, 1984) authorizes the Richmond Metropolitan Authority (RMA), with the approval of the Council of the City of Richmond and the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Henrico and Chesterfield to acquire land, construct and own a baseball stadium of sufficient sesting capacity and quality for the playing of baseball at the level immediately below major league baseball and to lease such land, stadium and attendant facilities under such terms and conditions as the Authority may prescribe; and Whereas, An authority or governing board will be formed for the operation of Parker Field wi~h Chesterfield, Richmond, and Henrico sharing equally in membership; and Whereas, Private donations will be sought for a minimum of one-half the cost of the Parker Field renovation; and Whereas, Chesterfield, Richmond and Henrico are to share equally in membership; and Whereas, RMA is empowered to issue bonds for construction of Parker Field and the revenues of the operation of Parker Field are to be used to repay debt services; and Whereas, Chesterfield, Richmond and Henrico are to fund any debt services deficit each year, estimated to be no more than $100,000. Be It Therefore Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the RMA to assist in the financing of the reconstruction of Parker Field. Vote: Unanimous 84-222 9.C. ENTERTAINMENT FESTIVAL FOR I.UPUS FOUNDATION On motion of Mr. App]egate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved an entertainment festival permit for the Central Virginia Chapter of the Lupus Foundation of America, Inc. on June 22, 1984 with two shows at 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the Chesterfield County Fairgrounds which permit is in conformance with the County's Music and Entertainment Festival ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 9 . D . APPOINTMENTS 9.D.1. cAMp BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD Mr. Mayes nominated Mr. Willie R. Thomas for one of the three year appointments representing Matoaca District and Mrs. Girone nominated Mr. C. R. Gibson, Jr. for one of the three year appointments representing Midlothian District. Mr. Dodd mentioned the appointment of Mr. Elwood Elliott but there was a question whether or not he was a member of the Civitans and it was generally agreed Mr. Elliott would not be nominated at this time until his membership with the Civitans was determined. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board nominated Mr. Willie R. Thomas for one of three year appointments representing Matoaca District and Mr. C. R. Gibson, Jr. for one of the three yea~i appointments representing Midlothian District to the Camp Baker Management Board with the official appointments to be made at the May 9, 1984 meeting. Vote: Unanimous 9.D.2. CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT COMMISSION Mr. Hedrick sta~ed the County has three voting members in addition to an ex-officio member and with the proposed changes in legislation that the ex-officio member would become a voting member. It was generally agreed that of the four members, two would be Board members and two would be citizens and that one of the citizens would be the ex-officio member at this time until the full membership is allowed and the ex-officio would become the full member. It was generally agreed the compensation for serving on this Commission would be $2,400 each annually. It was generally agreed that Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate be nominated as the Board representatives for a period of four years. (It is understood the Board members appointed would resign after one year, so that the appointment will be actually for an annual appointment to allow others to participate.) It was generally agreed that the names of Mr. John Mazza, Mr. Bryan Walker, Mr. Mel Shaffer and Mr. David Barrington be nominated for appointment to the Capital Region Airport Commission for a period of four years for the one (1) voting member as well as the one (1) ex-officio member. 9.E. CONSENT ITEMS 9.E.1. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR BUFORD ROAD FIRE STATION On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board transferred the remaining $15,414.98 bond funds from the Dutch Gap Fire Station account and $21,489.74 from the Fire Communications Budget to the Buford Road Fire Station Bond Account to cover remaining expenses which total $36,904.72. Vote: Unanimous 84-223 9.E.2. BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for calendar year 1984 for the Chesterfield and Amelia Counties Special Olympics, the Greenfield Elementary P.ToA., and the Midlothian High School Band Boosters Club. Vote: Unanimous 9.F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 9.F.1. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FEE INCREASES Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned with any fees beinq raised~ Mr. Daniel requested that additional documentation be forwarded to the Board as to what the current fees are versus the proposed fees and what the total impact will be. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of May 23, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider an ordinance increasing building permit fees and rezoning fees. Vote: Unanimous 9.F.2. ROUTE 295/ROUTE 10 INTERCHANGE DESIGN Mr. Dodd stated several people were present who were concerned with the proposed interchange design in the area. He stated it goes beyond property owners as it is one of the most important locations in the County for business development in the future and stated he hoped something could be worked out with the Highway Department. Mr. Daniel stated this is probably one of the last major areas for prime industial development. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to construct an interchange on Meadowville Road (Route 618) as part of the construction for Route 295; and Whereas, the approved plans indicate construction of a bridge on Meadowville Road over Route 295; and Whereas, preliminary review of the proposed 1-295 system through the eastern portion of Chesterfield County has determine~ that the plan does not provide adequate accessibility for anticipated traffic volumes in this area; specifically, the proposed Route 295/Route 10 interchange. Now, Thern~gre, Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDH&T) to defer further action on the proposed Route 295/Route 10 interchange until an extensive review is conducted to provide for an adequate transportation facility reflecting the anticipated traffic volumes; and Further Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the VDH&T to modify the Route 295/Route 10 interchange to include a collector/distributor network extending north to include the Meadowville Road area; and 84-224 Further Be It Resolved, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors ~equests the VDH&T to acquire all necessary right of way and rede~'i~,~ the proposed Route 295/Route 10 interchange to accommodate installation of a future collector/distributor interchange. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel suggested that the letter transmitting the resolution be drafted reemphasizing the importance of this matter. Mr. Porter Vaughan presented the Board with a map showing the route and tentative development in the area. 9.F.4. ORDINANCE ~ELATING TO CHURCHES AND PLACES OF WORSHIP Mrs. Girone stated in several instances churches and other places of worship were permitted in residential areas and it impacted the land use, especially traffic, without any notification to area residents. She stated that this would not prohibit the placing of churches in residential areas but would allow for notification to adjacent property owners and would be a conditional use. Mr. Daniel stated the process should not be so tightly structured to prohibit the use. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board requested the Planning Commission to consider and hold a public hearing on an ordinance amending Sections 21-78 and 21-80 relating to churches in a residential district on May 15, 1984. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone stated this is not to be interpreted as the County is against churches in residential areas, just that they be placed properly with notification of the plans to adjacent property owners. Mr. Apple¢~ate state he felt churches, libraries, schools, etc. are [~laced in ~esidential areas because of the need and he would be opposed to prohibiting such uses. 9.F.5. CONTRACT FOR JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT AND PROBATION BUILDING On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board transferred $40,000 from the Undesignated Capital Improvement Funds to supplement the original appropriation for the contract for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and Probation Buildings and approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Bridgforth Construction Company, Inc., the low bidder, for the base bid and Alternate No. 1 totalling $62,300. It is noted that $30,000 has been budgeted previously for this project. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated the County had received a letter from the State Department of Corrections indicating they will be granting the County $125,000 towards the construction of the Juvenile Detention Home. He stated a lot of work had gone into receiving the funds and stated that the County's legislative delegation, Mrs. Doris DeHart, and others had worked extremely hard on this project. He stated this amount represents 50% of the cost of the expansion. 9.F.6. ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO H & H PROPERTIES On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, on November 30, 1983, the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield (the "Authority") adopted an inducement resolution (the "Inducement Resolution") agreeing 84-225 to assist H & H Properties (the "Company"), in financing the acquisition, construction and equipping of a warehouse and office facility (the "Project") by issuing its revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $400,000; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield adopted a resolution on December 14, 1983 approving the issuance of the bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company; and Whereas, the Authority adop-ted a resolution (the "Bond Resolution") on December 20, 1983, approving the form and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Bond by the officers of the Authority, and the execution and delivery of all such instruments, documents or certificates necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the issuance of the Bonds and the carrying out of the transactions authorized by the Bond Resolution; and Whereas, the Bonds were duly issued on December 30, 1983; and Whereas, the Company has determined that the proposed site as described to %he Authority and the Board is unsuitable for the construction of the Project; and Whereas, the Authority has considered the request of the Company that the Authority approve the relocation of the site for the Project from two acres of land on the right hand side at the end of that unnamed street which is the first left off Pocoshock Boulevard in Pocoshock Square in Chesterfield County, to two acres of land on the southwestern corner of the intersection of U.S. Route 360 aT~d Pocoshock Boulevard in Pocoshock Square in Chesterfield County and has held a public hearing thereon on March 21, 1984; and Whereas, Section 103 (k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; and Whereas, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"); the Project is to be located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; and Whereas, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the relocation of the site of the Project; and Whereas, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the relocation of the site of the Project and a certificate of the public hearing have been filed with the Board. Be It Resolved By The Board Of Supervisors Of The County Of Chesterfield, Virginia: 1. The Board approves the relocation of the site of the Project requested by the Company. 2. The Resolution of the Board adopted on December 14, 1983, is hereby reaffirmed. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 84-226 9.G. UTILITIES ITEMS 9.G.1. REPORTS 9.G.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons pv,~sented the Board with the water and sewer financial ~eports. 9.G.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 9.G.2. 9.G.2.a. PUBLIC HEARINGS VACATE EASEMENT IN HA9BOUR HILL SUBDIVISION Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating 25 feet of a temporary construction easement across Lots 3 through 8, Harbour Hill Subdivision. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to vacate 25 ft. of a temporary construction easement dedicated by agreement recorded January 9, 1976, il the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1182, Page 844 which easement is across Lots 3 through 8, Harbour Hill Subdivision, Clover }{ill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 43, at pages 72 and 73. Whereas, Brandermill, A Virginia General Partners]~ip, has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, to vacate a 25 ft. temporary construction easement dedicated by agreement recorded January 9, 1976, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1].82, Page 844, which easement is across Lots 3 through 8, Harbour Hill Subdivision, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, and shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circui~ Court of said County in Plat Book 43, pages 72 and 73, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated July 25, 1983. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: 25 ft. of a temporary construction easement across Lots 3 through 8, Harbour Hill Subdivision as shown on a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated July 25, 1983, a cop of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of easement sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained By The Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of easement is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use subject to Brandermill, A Virginia General Partnership, establishing an interest bearing escrow account in the amount of $45,000.00 in a form approved by the County. 84-227 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon the establishment of the aforementioned escrow account in accordance with Section 15.1-482 (b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this ordinance, together with the plat attached shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter iD ~he Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County, Virginia. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Brandermill, A Virginia General Partnership or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.2.b. VACATION OF EASEMENT IN SHENANDOAH, SECTION C Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of a 10 ft. drainage easement across Lot !, Block L, Shenandoah, Section C. There was no one present to d~cuss this matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to vacate a portion of a 10' drainage easement across Lot 1, Block L, Shenandoah, Section C, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 15, at pages 36 and 37. Whereas, Moorefield Associates has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a 10' easement across Lot 1, Block L, Shenandoah, Section C, Clover Hill Magisterial D~s~rict, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 15, pages 36 and 37, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated May 25, 1966. The portion of easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of a 10' drainage easement across Lot 1, Block L, Shenandoah, Section C, as shown on a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated February 22, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of easement sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained By The Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of easement is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this ordinance, 84-228 together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days he~'eafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effec~ of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.].-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lot free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Irvin D. Nichols or his successors in title, ss grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.2.c. VACATION OF AVELLA LANE AND EASEMENT Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of Avella Lane and a temporary turnaround easement. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An OrdinaNce to vacate a portion of Avella Lane and temporary turr~around easement within Pocono, Section B, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 16, at Page 61. Whereas, Moorefield Associates has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of Avella Lane and temporary turnaround easemeDt within Pocono, Section B, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 16, page 61, made by F. T. Seargent, dated January 4, 1968. The portion of right of way and easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of Avel]a Lane and temporary turnaround easement within Pocono, Section B, as shown on a plat made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated February 22, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right of way and easement sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained By The Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of right of way and easement is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as hereinafter outlined. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and certified copy of this ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 84-229 The Grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 16' and variable width drainage easement as shown on the attached plat. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 i! to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of said right of way in the property owners of the abutting lots and fee simple title in the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordinqly, this ordinance shall be indexed iii the names of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Clarence W. Hubbard, Barbara B. Hubbard, and Walter F. Ziegler and Margaret A. Ziegler, husban(~ and wife, or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.2.d. VACATING A PORTION OF LAPRADE STREET Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of LaPrade Street. There was no one present to discuss this matter~ On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following ordinance: An Ordinance to vacate a portion of LaPrade Street within Chester, Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 1, page 311. Whereas, Edmund Sean B!ickle and Mary H. Blickle, have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of LaPrade Street within Chester, Bermuda District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 1, at page 311, made by J. C. LaPrade dated April 27, 1878. The portion of the plat petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of LaPrade Street within Chester, as shown outlined in red on a plat made by Raleigh E. Phelps, dated June 23, 1982, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. Whereas, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and Whereas, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of right of way sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen. Now, Therefore, Be It Ordained By The Board Of Supervisors Of Chesterfield County, Virginia: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of LaPrade Street is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as hereinafter outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 30' perpetual water and sewer easement as shown on the attached plat. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this ordinance, 84-230 together with the plat attached hereto, shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of ~hesterfield County, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 o~ the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 i~ to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title to the centerline of the right of way hereby vacated in the property owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any right~ of public use except as state above. Accordingly, this ordinance shall be indexed in the names the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Edmund Sean Blickle and Mary H. Blick]e, husband and wife, and Bettie B. Venable or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.3. CONDEMNATION ACROSS PROPERTY OF PAL ASSOCIATES On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owner if the amount set opposite its name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by certified mail of the intention of the County to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. An emergency existing, this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage. Pal Associates Charter Colony Parkway $600.00 Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4. CONSENT ITEMS 9.G.4.b. WATER C©[4TRACT FOR TURNER CONVENIENCE CE[~ITER On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W84-73CD/6(8)4732, 12 inch water line along Walmsley Boulevard, Turner Convenience Center Developer: Country Farms Convenience Marts Associates Contractor: I.P.K. Excavating Co., Inc. Estimated Project Cost: $4,321.50 Estimated County Cost: 900.90 - Cash refund for oversize mains Estimated Developer Cost: $3,420.60 No. of connections: 1 And further the Board appropriated $990.99 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64732-7212. ' Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4.c. WATER CONTRACT FOR GLEN TARA, SECTION 4-]) On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: 84-231 W84-71CD/6(8)4712, Glen Tara, Section 4-D Developer: Glen Tara Company Contractor: Patterson Excavating Company Estimated Project Cost: Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: No. of Connections: 19 Code: $25,453.00 1,650.00 - through connections 3,524.20 - cash refund $5,174.20 - for oversize mains $20,278.80 559-1-00556-0000 - refund through connections And further the Board appropriated $3~876.00 from 563 Surplus to 380-1-64712-7212. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4.d. WATER CONTRACT FOR SUMMIT POINT On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W84-72CD/6 (8) 4722, Summit Point Developer: Sunm%it Point Corporation Contractor: T & E Construction Co., Inc. Estimated Project Cost: Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Code: 559-1-00556-0000 No. of Connections: 81 $64,608.00 9,410.30 - refund through connections for oversize mains $55,197.70 Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4.e. EXTENSION OF REFUND PROVISIONS FOR GLENWOOD, SEC. C On motion of Mr. M~yes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request of Newby's Bridge Associates for a one year ~ of time on the refund provisions for contract W78-34CD, Glenwood, Section C, which extension would expire April 30, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 9.G.4.f. VACATION OF EASEMENT IN CHARTER WOODS, SECTION 1 On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman and County Administrator to execute any necessary documents vacating a portion of the 16 foot easement within Block D, Charter Woods, Section 1, as shown on a plat filed with the papers of this Board. Vote: Unanimous 9.H. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with reports on the status of general fund contingency account, a balance of the three cent road funds and on volunteerism. Mr. Hedrick stated the County had been formally notified that the roads in the following subdivisions had been officially accepted into the State Secondary System, effective as indicated: 84-232 ~Le__~g th Mathenay Forest Subdivision (4-12-84) Mathenay Drive - Beginning at its intersection with Gill Street, ~oute 1501, and running northwesterly 0.09 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Queensmill North, Sec. A and Walton Park, Sec. G Dawnwood Road - Beginning st intersection with Queensgate Road, Route 1385, and going 0.11 mile southeasterly to ~e into proposed Dawnwood Road, Queensmill North, Section B. mi. 0.09 mi (4-10-84) 0.11 Dawnwood Court - Beginning at intersection with Dawnwood Road and going 0.12 mile northeasterly to a cul-de-sac. 0.12 mi. Solar I, Section 4 (4-9-84) Scottingham Drive - Beginning at the intersection of Partridge Lane, Route 3363, and Scottingham Drive, Route 3360, and extending northerly 0.11 mile to the intersection of McAden Place. 0.11 mi McAden Place - Beginning at its intersection with Scottingham Drive and extending east 0.05 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.05 mi Solar II Subdivision (4-9-84) Condrey Ridge Drive - Beginning where State maintenance ends on Route 2722 and going 0.02 mile northwesterly to a dead end. 0.02 mi Smoketree, Section I (4-9-84) Yarrow Lane - Beginning at its intersection with Smoketree Drive, Route 2770, extending southeast 0.10 mile to the intersection of May-Apple Terrace. 0.10 mi May-Apple Terrace - Beginning at its intersection with Yarrow Lane, extending northeast 0.05 mile to a cul-de- sac and extending southwest 0.06 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.11 mi Smoketree, Sections H-1 and H-2 (4-9-84) Smoketree Circle - Beginning at its intersection with Smoketree Drive extending northeast 0.05 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.05 mi. Smoketree Terrace - Beginning at its intersection with Smoketree Drive extending west 0.06 mile to a cul-de-sac. 0.06 mi. Smoketree Drive - Beginning where State maintenance ends on existing Smoketree Drive, Route 2770, extending northwest 0.26 mile to the intersection with Avebury Drive, Route 2566. 0.26 mi Carriage Pines (4-4-84) Nesbitt Dive - Beginning at its intersection with Starview Lane, State Route 687, extending west 0.18 mile to a dead end. 0.18 mi Dunford Road - Beginning at its intersection with Nesbitt Drive, extending south 0.05 mile to the intersection of Carriage Pines Drive. 0.05 mi 84-233 Carriage Pines Drive - Deginning at its intersection with Starview Lane, State Route 687, extending west 0.17 mile to a dea~ end. 9. I. LUNCH Length 0.17 mi The Board recessed to travel to lrglnla State University, Joy]es Hall, where they had been invited to lunch by Dr. Wilbert Greenfield, President. Reconvening at 2:00 p.m.: Mr. Daniel stated ~-~'.~t ~..~'.. Dodd would be presiding over the afternoon session in accordance with the procedures established by the Board. Mr. Dodd explained the format for the afternoon session involv mobile home and zoning requests. 9.J. MOBILE HOME REQUEST 84SR071 In Midlothian Magisterial District, Gertrude B. Draper requested renewal of a Special Exception to park a mobile home on property which belongs to Charles Burford, brother of the applicant. Tax Map 15-7 (t) Parcel 51 and better known as 1410 Tower Light Road (Sheet 7). Ms. Draper was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. · No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobi home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall, be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available they shall be used. ' Se Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. e Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 84-234 9.K. REQUESTS FOR ~EZONING 8 s o! In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit mot~ vehicle sales, service, and repair in a Community Business (B- District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting appro×imately 610 feet the north line of ~idlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feel west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a deferral of this case for 60 days. There was no opposition present. On motion 0f Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred consideration o~· this request until June 27, 1984 at % request of the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 84S029 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAY ROWE requested rezonin~ from Residential Townhouse for Sale (R-TH) to Residential on an 11.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 770 ieet on the west line of Twilight Lane, approximately 740 feet south of Elkhardt Road. Tax Map 28-15 (1) Part of Parcel I (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral of this matter. Mr. W. A. Knoll stated he was opposed and he would write a letter or call Mr. Applegate prior to next meetinq. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Maye~ the Board deferred consideration of this matter until May 1984 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 83S164 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BELMONT HILLS RECREATION CENTER, INC. requested an amendment to a Conditional Use (Case 75A026) to permit: (1) deletion of the 35 foot buffer along the southern boundary of Parcel 2, Tax Map 40-10 (1); (2) extend the hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on weekends; and a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit: (1) expansion of the recreational facility on Part of Parcel 37A, Tax Map 40-]4 (1); (2) an exception to the requirement that parking areas be paved; and (3) a 15 foot exception to the 30 foot front yard setback for buildings in a ResJ. dential (R-7) District on a 3.0 acre parcel which lies between the eastern and western terminuses of Silliman Road. Tax Map 40-10 (1) Parcel 2 and Tax Map 40-14 (1) Part of Parcel 37A (Sheet 15). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the I.A. and II.A. and II. B. He stated further the Planning Commission recommended denial of request I.B. He state~ the Board had deferred this case from the last meeting to allow the applicant to review his plan and they are requesting the exception to the 15 foot front yard setback for the building be deleted as they will meet ~hose requirements. He stated they have also indicated they will amended their plan to preclude parking along the buffer area and when the schematic plan goes t¢ the Planning Commission, they will provide adequate parking. Mr. Yogi Berger, President of the Belmont Civic Association, was present and stated as indicated by Mr. Balderson, they have withdrawn the two previously stated requests. He stated the only other point of contention may be the extended hours of operation which they would like approved. 84-235 Mr. Ed Spain stated all the residents of Silliman and Melville Drives are opposed to this request. He stated originally there was no entrance proposefl from Silliman Drive and if this is approved it will violate that agreement and he read from the staff report from the original zoning case. He cited problems regarding space and parking. He presented a petition from residents on Silliman Drive, Melville Drive and Old Creek Road who were opposed. He also discussed the screening which has died, the unsightly conditions which exist, and the opposition the extended hours and the traffic problems. Mr. Ed Went stated his opposition to this request because of the noise, the police being called to the site, the cars racing through the area, the hours of operation, the renting of the facility, the litter, the barred access which was recently installed, parking, new home construction adjacent to the entrance to the parking lot, etc. He stated there have been complaints regarding the Center since its inception in 1975-76. Mr. Michael Transinger stated he was concerned about the architecture of the proposed center, the topography of the property which will make it difficult to landscape and screen as the neighbors will be living next to a 30 car parking lot, etc. He presented a picture indicating the topography. He stated the entrance was to be 20 ft. wide originally as it is steep, he was concerned with the parking area, the litter and the noise. Mr. Berger stated they had bad complaints about the sound and have change~ the type of speaker system and are looking to further contain it. He stated they have proffered that the building will be in harmony with surrounding structures, it woul¢ be brick veneer or cedar siding and would have to be approved by the Civic Association prior to going to the Planning Commission. He stated the driveway would have been paved 10 days ago except for the rain and w~ll be concreted this Saturday. Mr. Daniel inquired what percentage of the membership falls between Walmsley, Turner and West Roads. Mr. Berger stated it was about 95%. Mr. Daniel stated this indicated that it is truly a neighborhood facility. Mr. Porter Vaughan stated he developed Belmont Hills a~d part of the land in question is land that Belmont Hills, Inc. is giving to the Recreation Association. He stated that he felt policing the area was the main problem. He stated the existing facility is inadequate at this time and the extension would make it a finer facility for the community in the future. He stated Belmont Hills, Inc. entered ~nto an agreement with the Recreation Association to improve the eAisting p~rking area, to improve ingress and egress from the eastern end of the existing facility from Silliman Road, they are improving the drainage, they will landscape the slope of the hill, etc. and sees nothing but a great improvement to ~he area. Mr. Applegate stated the Association has agreed to pave the driveways, that adequate parking spaces can be provided, they have dropped the request for the variance for the setback and he felt they have made every effort to cooperate with the community. He stated he felt the hours of operation should cease at 11:00 p.m. It was noted for the record the applicant had deleted his requests for deletion of the 35 foot buffer. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board deny the request for the extension of hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. and approve the requests for expansion of the recreational facility on part of Parcel 37A, Tax Map 40-14 (1) and amendment of the buffer required in Case 75A026 subject to the following conditions: 84-236 The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan submitted with the application shall be considered the plan of development. Except as noted herein, all conditions for Case 75A026 sha be applicable to the existing and expanded facility. Until such time as the proposed community center is construe:ted, the parking srea shall be graveled with 6 inches of No. 21 or 2lA stone, placed over a compacted subgrade. Prior to ope~,ing of the pool in 1984, driveways shall be paved between the parking area and Silliman Road. Prior to occupancy of the community center, all parking sreas shall be paved. A 35 foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary of the part of Parcel 37A, Tax Map 40-14 (]) that is being used for expansion. There shall be no grading permitted within the southernmost 20 feet of this buffer area. The remaining 15 feet of the buffer area may be graded to accommodate additional parking area at the toe of the slope. Within the southernmost 20 feet of the buffer, landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." Specifically, one of the following shall be accomplished: TREES TYPE Pinus Strobus (White Pine) used in con- junction with 1 row shrubs listed below Juniperus Virginiana (Virginia Cedar) used in conjunction with 1 row shrubs listed below Ligustrum Lucidum (Ligustrum) can be used without trees SHRUBS Eleagnus Pungens (Eleagnus) can be used without trees Photinia Fraseri (Photinia) can be used without trees HEIGHT INITIAL 5 YEARS SPACING 6-8' 14-16' 15 to 25' o.c. 1 row 10 to 15' o.c. 1 row 85-95% 6-8' ]2-1~' 10 to 15' o.c. 85-95% 1 row 4-5' 7-8' 4 to 6' o.c. 90-100% 2 rows 3-4' 6-7' 3 to 5' o.c. 90-100% 2 rows 4-5' 6-7' 3 to 4' o.c. 90-100~ 2 rows These plantings shall be installed in conjunction with the construction of the additional parking area and/or the proposed community center, whichever is constructed first. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with the sche- matic plan review. The community center shall have a residential appearance and scale. The facades shall employ natural earth tone colors and/or brick veneer. In conjunction with schematic plan review, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. 84-237 e There shall be no music played over the public address system or over the stereo system provided by the pool between 9:00 a.m. Monday and 5:00 p.m. Friday. The parking area shall be secured to prohibit access during non-operating hours. (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) Vote: Unanimous 83S168 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CHARLES L. CHANDLER req a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a motel in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 3.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 50 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike approximately 600 feet southeast of Robious Road. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcels 26 and 33 and Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated the case was deferred from the last meeting to allow the applicant to review his plans further. Mr. Eugene McCall was present representing the applicant and stated that they could not accept approval of the case with the condition regarding the 50 ft. right of way, condition ~4. He stated they have been advised by the national firm to which they will lease the motel and the lending institution that this would not be acceptable if the easement is required. He stated the easement would sever the motel from the parking area and allow for the mobile home residents to traverse this road. He stated there are no plans adopted by the Board for collector streets to tie into the area. He stated the trailer par~ is not landlocked. He stated this would be taking private property for private use and not public use without compensation. He stated the Planning Commission rejected the easement and approved the project. Mr. Daniel stated that at the Planning CommisSion meeting, he declared that the applicant is the owner of an office building which his wife rents. He stated the County Attorney had ruled that this would not have any monetary effect and thus he did not have a conflict of interest and he w~uld participate in the discussion. Mr. Daniel stated he thought the Planning Commission had recommended approval with no easements granted to the back property. Mr. Balderson stated that the Planning Commission did approve the request with the condition of a private easement to serve as emergency access to the rear lots. Mr. Daniel stated he thought it was recommended for safety reasons. Mr. McCall st he recalled that the other property owners had access to Route 60 other than this and they are agreeable to provide access for emergency vehicles by blocking off one or two parking spaces, providing a straight route and chain the access with a key to emergency vehicle agencies. He stated this would be provided without causing problems for the patrons of the motel. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone read condition #4 and stated it meant the easement should be granted and the applicant would only have to pave the part that he needed for his use. She stated the question is not to plan to merely serve the trailer park but to plan for the future to serve all the rear property. Mr. McCall explained the plans for paving and developing the area and that they would the area and grant the easement for emergency vehicles but did not want to grant it for the general use of the trailer park. 84-238 stated the Planning Commission did not feel they should provide access for the trailer park. Mrs. Girone stated that the intention would be to develop a road through the applicant's property and the property behind that in the future, to open the entire back area for development. She stated the immediate need would be for emergency access. Mr. McCall stated that the concept of good planning for highways indicates this is not the place where you would want to bring that traffic out to Route 60 but it should be further to the east. He stated this parcel is three acres and the easement would be close to an acre of that. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel this was a~propriate. Mrs. Girone stated that everyone wants to plan for the future, but when there is an individual case an exception is proposed and the County will plan elsewhere. She stated that this is for the applicant's use now and for access in the future for the back property. She stated he is not being required to pave anything but what he needs now. She stated she felt the applicant's fear of the public using this roadway is not well founded and will be an asset in the future. She proposed realigning the parking area. Mr. Chandler stated he would be losing 130 parking spaces by granting the easement. He referred to curb and gutter which was being required. Mr. Balderson explained that any curb and guttering that would be required would come at the time of schematic plan review by the Planning Commission. He also explained reasoning behind the entire recommendation. He stated that the area could be redesigned as well which would prohibit the severing of the property. He stated they were not asking that a public road be dedicated as it would negate the applicant's ability to build to the full capacity ss they are planning. He stated that even if the easement were not required to be dedicated, the developer would still use the same area for the road for their plan. Mrs. Girone stated that the Board would not be requiring much additional easement over and above what they had planned anyway. Mr. Applegate inquired if another road design could be planned to the back property. Mr. Balderson stated there are alternative designs that are available. Mr. Daniel inquired if the Board were not talking about this case, but if there were another building would the landowner be required to run the road the same way to the back property line. Mr. Balderson indicated they would as it is being done in other areas in the vicinity. Mr. Mayes stated it appeared to be taking one property to serve the desires of another. Mr. Dodd explained the stub road policy which is similar as far as right of way. Mr. Balderson stated this request is for a Conditional Use Planned Development and goes beyond the normal requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to how to condition the approval of the land use. He stated the County is not asking for a public dedication or a public road or the giving up of the real estate but just for to provide a private easement for access and they would retain ownership of the land and would be a general access easement. Mr. Mincks stated this procedure has been used in the past for other access easements. Mrs. Girone moved that this request be approved subject to the conditions outlined as she felt during site plan review this could be worked out for the developer. Mr. Applegate stated tha~ he felt the fourth condition could be amended with regard to the direction of the easement as it might be changed. Mr. Dodd inquired if the applicant would be required to build the road to state standards. Mrs. Girone stated it was not the intent to build the road to state standards and when the developer comes t¢ the Planning Commission for site plan review, they will require whatever is necessary in the design to serve the motel and the balance of that right of way would be reserved as an easement bu' 84-239 they would not be required to build it. Mr. McCall inquired if this were approved and they could not handle the rezoning with the conditions, would it remain B-2. Mr. Mincks stated it would remain B-2 and could develop in that fashion. Mr. Daniel inquired if the easement would be required for development of B-2 in the area. Mrs. Girone stated when site plan review came up before the Planning Commission, they could require the easement for B-2 as they have been doing along Route 60. After fu~lber discussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, resolved that this request be approved subject to the following conditio~ e e Se The following conditions notwithstanding, the preliminary site plan submitted by M.L. Corso and Associates, Ltd. be considered the plan of development. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western and northern property lines adjacent to Mobile Home Park (MH-1) zoning. With the exception of an ingress/egress easement, as described herein, there shall be no facilities permitted in these buffer areas. These buffers shall be left in their natural condition or, if required to provide adequate screening, shall be landscaped in accordance with the Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers. A land- scaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. The existing turn lane, on Route 60 in front of Governor's Square Shopping Center, shall be extended to the fifty (50) foot frontage prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. This extension shall be constructed to VDH&T standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a fifty (50) foot wide ingress/egress easement from Route 60 to the northern property line at the rear, shall be granted for the purpose of facilitating ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. The final design of this easement shall be determined during schematic plan review. It is not intended that this developer have to build this easement to state standards but only what is necessary for his motel project. In the future any further extension of this easement will be paid for by future developers. The fifty (50) foot access easement shall align with the existing crossover on Route 60. This drJ. veway shall be constructed with a minimum twenty-four (24) feet of pavement and with curb and gutter, as deemed appropriate at schema~ plan approval, to the northernmost access point for the motel use. This construction shall be completed prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not to project into adjacent residential properties. A lighting plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. A single freestanding sign, not to exceed an aggregate area of fifty (50) feet shall be permitted. This sign may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around all driveways and parking areas. 84-240 e Prior to release of any bu~.lding permits, an adequate drainage outfall shall be designed. This system shall be installed as deemed necessary by Environmental Engineering (EE) - 10. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirem~:nt~ of the Community Business (B-2) District shall apply. 11. There shall be no temporary or reader board signs permitted on this site. There was no second. Mrs. Girone requested that the question be called. 'Mr. Dodd called the question. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Poole stated the applicant for Case 84S026 had requested that this case be heard at this time as they have some difficulty with transportation. The Board generally agreed to hear this case out of sequence. 84S026 In Dale Magisterial District, HUGH J. AND JoANN CARRAWAY requested a Conditional Use to permit a stock farm (two horses) in a Residential (R-7) District on a 5 acre parcel fronting approximately 430 feet on the north line of Jessup Road, approximately 940 feet east of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 52-6 (2) Henning Heights, Lots 32, 33 and 33B (Sheet 15). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to cer'tain conditions. Ms. Carraway was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Hugh J. and JoAnn Carraway, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed one (1) year from date of approval and may be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstration that the keeping of these animals has not and will not adversely affect adjacent property owners. ® No commercial activity, with respect to the keeping of the animals, shall be permitted. Within ninety (90) days of the approval of this request, the pasture areas shall be reconstructed to be a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from adjacent properties. The pasture and corral area shall be cleaned and made free from manure daily. Manure shall be stored in enclosed containers. Manure shall be disposed of weekly and shall not be disposed of by spreading on fields at this location. In addition, fresh straw and disinfectant shall be applied to eliminate the proliferation of odor and propagation of insects. This Conditional Use shall be limited to the keeping of no more than two (2) horses. Vote: Unanimous 84-241 84S021 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, MAGNOLIA INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 79S079) to permit: (1) amendments to conditions relative to signs, and architectural treatment of the rear of buildings; (2) revise the approved Master Plan; (3) permit schematic plan approval by Staff; (4) permit a drive-in restaurant; and (5) permit a 25 foot exception to the 50 foot parking setback on a 19.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 190 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge ~ioad, approximately 215 feet east of Beach Road; also fronting approximately 340 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road across from Krause Road; and approximately 530 feet on the east line of Beach Road, approxima'tely 290 feet south of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 95-12 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of a portion of the amendments relative to the signs, denial of the request for certain additional signage, denied the request for a drive-in restaurant and the exception to the parking setbacks, denied the modification of the architectural treatment of the rear of the shopping center and approved allowing staff to review schematic pln~s and to amend the Master Plan. He distributed an addendum to the staff report as the applicant has agreed to modify the layout of the fast food as recommended by staff and submitted sketches of the sign for the building. Mr. Porter Vaughan was present representing the applicant. He stated the Planning Conm~i. ssion had recommended denial of the fast food restaurant but they have redesigned the building and reworke the site plan, relocated the facility on the plan and are in compliance with staff recommendations. He stated they have to add 18 ft. to the depth of this lot to make these changes. He stated it is compatible with other buildings in the area and with the complex. He stated the denial of the amendment of Condition %18 has been held up as they are working on a signage program for the entire community. He stated they are trying to acquire Magnolia Grange which has not been finalized but they hope to do so in the near future. He stated %]8 would be best finalized once they determine if they get Magnolia Grange. He stated %19 regarding the rear of the structure has been discussed and he understands the neighbors' concerns. He stated they have asked Mrs. Cogbill and Mrs. Tyler to go with the plans and if they are not satisfied, they will remedy the situation and he outlined the proposed landscaping for the area. Mrs. Girone inquired if there would be truck loading in the rear. Mr. Vaughan stated yes and parking for employees. Mrs. Girone inquired if there would be a buffer in the rear. Mr. Henson stated the buffer would be 25-30 feet. Mr. Poole stated the old conditions for this case indicates a 20 ft. buffer which the developer will have to plant additional if it is inadequate. There was some discussion regarding the elevation of the buildings and the slope of the land to the rear. Mr. Vaughan submitted a petition signed by 343 people who live or work in the Courthouse area who are in favor of this request. Mr. Applegate inquired about the sign being on Krause Road rather than Route 10. Mr. Vaughan stated the staff felt the sign was well conceived but should not be located in front of the facility on Route 10. He requested that condition %2 be amended after sign on the first line to say "as approved by Planning staff and shall be similar in size, shape, color and material" rather than outlining exact size, etc. Mr. Poole stated staff does not want the sign to set a precedent along Route 10 but would like it placed along Krause Road. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel there should be a blank check for signs at this time. Mr. Dodd stated the County is proposing a sign policy for the Route 10 area to Chester. Mr. Daniel stated if there was a need for a specific sign exception that was one thing, but he could not agree to give overall approval. He stated he would not like the sign to run with the land, if approved, but just for Burger King. 84-242 ~Mrs. Dottle Armstrong stated that in 1980 they worked to protec~ the zoning of this property, believing that the land should be designated an historic district which was not granted but the concept of a Courthouse Historic District was approved and has been discarded. She stated that Chesterfield is one of the wealthiest counties in the state, Chesterfield is the 10th fastest growing County in the nation and Chesterfield will soon have a greater population than the City of Richmond but inquired how are we grow~n~ snd what are we doing to prevent the destruction of ou~ heritage in the County. She stated already much of our heritage has been destroyed and this area is a perfect example. She stated she understood the request to downgrade the landscape requirements had been withdrawn. Mr. Poole stated that was correct. Mrs. Armstrong discussed the rea treatment of the shopping center. She stated that she felt Magnolia Grange should be landscaped from the rear and sides as well and would not like any of the landscaping conditions change from the original conditions in order to protect Magnolia Grange as shopping centers come and go. She stated Magnolia Grange and the Courthouse buildings will be here for a long time. She stated the sign limitations are being discussed and she was opposed to lighted signs. She stated that the Courthouse community was against any fast food restaurants and gas stations She stated that she felt the Burger King was tastefully done but it does not change the business within the architecture and questioned the suitability and compatibility of this business in the area. She stated standards must be higher in this area more so than under normal conditions. She stated she is talking about permanence because of the quality of the County Seat, the people's government in the County and historic landmarks in this area. She stated she was sorry the Planing staff agreed to the downgrading of the rear facade. She stated the County must plan for future generations. She stated she did not agree with painting in the back and felt the front and back should be the same or it will be tacky. She stated Magnolia Grange is a plantation house and it needs space and. landscaping and should b~ treated differently. Mrs. Dorothy Tyler stated her concern for the rear facade of the buildings. She stated Mr. Vaughan has agreed to finish building~ G-1 and G-2 as first stated with brick or wood but would like to use another material on the others. She stated thst he indicate( he would remedy the situation if it was not pleasing which may o] may not be and she felt it was up to the Board as to what is approved. She stated the report indicates that the rear facade should not be like Meadowbrook Shopping Center but like Meadowdale Shopping Center but both are painted cinder blocks an( she did not understand the difference and reference and felt it should be taken out of the conditions. She stated she would lik~ a buffer as it was not specified between the shopping center and her property. Mr. Larry LaMore stated that he had talked to a lot signed the petition and they felt it was about time developed in the area. of people wh¢ something wag Mr. Applegate inquired about the distance between the buildings and the property line. Mr. Henson stated the food store is 55 ft. from the property line with loading of trucks taking place on the side of the building. He stated there would be 30 ft. of paving in the rear with 20 ft. for trees and grass and discussed the topography of the adjacent property. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the rear facade of the first three buildings should be finished in a way to maintain the integrity of the area. Mr. Daniel inquired about the signs being luminated but not luminous. Mr. Poole referred to condition #8 regarding the lighting of the signs. Mr. Dodd stated that he felt a lot of time and effort 84-243 went into the original zoning conditions and he did not want to see a reduction on conditions for the buildings and signs but could see a minor change for the restaurant. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the integrity of the area should be maintained and the rear should not look like Meadowdale Shopping Center. He stated with the signage and other precautions~ the Burger King can go and the area be protected and he felt there were enough conditions on the site, that if Burger King operated in an unsightly way, the County could enforce it. 'Mr. Applegate sta' he would like to see brick veneer on the rear of the buildings. Mr. Vaughan state he would agree to brick veneer on G-l, G-2 and the west wall of the food store. He stated he would like to the remainder painted trowelled cement wi. th no signs of the businesses on the buildings at the rear. ~r. Poole referred to the condition re~arding the rear of the buildings. It was generally agreed 'this con(~ition should indicate approval by Planning staff rather than Planning Commission. Mr. Krager explained what he would like approved for the signage. On motion of Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the request for Amendments I (original Conditions 15, 16, 17), II, III, IV and V and denial of Amencb~ent I (original Condition 18). Mr. Daniel moved a substitute motion, seconded by Mr. Mayes, that Amendment I be denied and the original sign conditions sustained. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stated he would amend his motion regarding the signage. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Amendments II, III, IV and V and denial of Amendment I subject to the following conditions: II. 1. The building shall be constructed according to the architectural plans prepared by Charles Shiflett dated 3/9/84. ' 0 Ail four building elevations shall project the architectural style, character and detail shown on the two elevations submitted with this application. The building shall be reoriented on the site according to the Staff recommended plan. The twenty-five (25) foot setback between the parking area and the Route 10 right of way shall be bermed and landscaped as shown on the planting schematic subm: with this application. 5. The previous conditions notwithstanding, the layout plan submitted with this application, prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated March 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan for this site. III. In conjunction with schematic plan review for the shopping center, plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval showing the treatment of the rear facades which shall be brick veneer on buildings G-l, G-2 and the western side of the food store. On other buildings, this treatment may include paint, decorative trim, wood, brick, etc., designed to permit the rear of the shopping center to project a pleasing appearance to Beach Road and the adjacent property to the south. (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 19 of Conditional Use Planned Development 79S079.) IV. Schematic plans which conform to the Master Plan prepared by J.K Timmons and Associates, revised 12/27/83, and conditions of zoning may be approved by the Planning Department. 84-244 The Master Plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, revised 12/27/83 shall be considered the plan of development. (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 14 of Conditional Use Planned Development 79S079.) Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvenimg: Mr. Apple~'lste disclosed, to the Board that he owns property in the immediate area of the next zoning case and excused himself from the meeting because of a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84S022 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BARRY F. WILMOTH requested a Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.37 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the north line of Hull Street ROad, approximately 410 feet east of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 74 (1) Part of Parcel 40 (Sheet 19). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. He stated the Board had deferred consideration of this matter from its previous meeting to allow staff to prepar appropriate conditions should the request be approved. Mr. Wilmoth was present and stated he could not accept the condition that it not be 'transferrable nor run with the land as well as curb and guttering for the entire site. He stated he would have a problem with obtaining funding to construct the facility if the nontransferrable condition is approved. He stated he would not be able to sell the property if desired or if something should happen to him, his wife could not sell the property. The Board explained that the next potential owner could come to the Board for the same zoning request as he is seeking but another use could not be legally operated on the site. Mr. Wilmoth stated he would rather it run with the land and not with him. Mrs. Girone stated the Board does not want to zone the land at this time. She stated that a contract to sell the land would be based on zoning being approved and then he could sell the land if it were approved. Mr. Wilmoth stated he would curb and gutter the entrance way but did not feel it necessary for the entire parcel. Mr. Poole stated the Environmental Engineering Department would review the site when the detailed plan is submitted and if water is directed against the curb, he would have to install concrete curb and gutter but if it is not, timber curbing is allowed. He stated paving is required if there are more than six spaces. Mrs. Stewart Cosby stated her opposition to this request as she is directly across from the property in question. She stated there is no business zoning east or west of this parcel for some miles and all is residential. She stated the area has good potential for high residential development. She stated Mr. and Mrs. Garrett also oppose this request but could not be present the meeting. She stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request as there is enough property in the County zoned for this type of business and she did not feel this should be approved. Mr. Wesley Stigall was present representing the Cosby tract and 84-245 ~stated he would answer questions if necessary. else present to discuss the matter. There was no Mr. Dodd stated he agreed with Mr. Wilmoth and felt it should b approved with the ladd if appropriate conditions are placed on the site. Mr. Daniel stated the use is restricted to the restoration of automobiles and the applicant has put a self-imposed restriction on the use. Mr. Hedrick stated the staff and Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request but because the Board had faith in Mr. Wilmoth and the type of business that he would operate, the Board deferred the matter to have conditions drawn which would be applicable as ~h is virgin territory. He stated that the matter is a Conditiona. Use in an Agricultural zone or otherwise it would be a straight zoning request. After furfber discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, second by Mrs. Girone, resolved that this request be approved subject t the following conditions: This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Barry F. Wilmoth and shall not be transferable, nor run with the land. This Conditional Use shall be for the purpose of operating an automotive restoration business. Other than completed vehicles awaiting pick-up and employee vehicles, all vehicles shall be stored inside the proposed building. There shall be no retail or wholesale sale of automotive parts or supplies. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be curbed and guttered. (Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of three (3) parking spaces plus (two) 2 for each service bay. Also, parking areas for (six) 6 or more vehicles must be paved.) 6. The facades of the proposed structure shall employ subdued colors. Color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with si~e plan review. e (Note: 360.) Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Hull Street Road, all existing trees, four (4) inches or greater in caliper, shall be maintained with the exception of the area necessar~ for construction of the driveway. One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed an area of 24 square feet and a height of ten (10) feet, shall be permitted. The sign shall employ subdued colors and blend with the color of the proposed structures. The sign may be illuminated, but may only be luminous if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Plannin¢ Department for approval. The previous conditions notwithstanding, the revised site plan shall be considered the plan of development. VDH&T may require construction of turn lanes along Route Mr. Dodd stated if the Board agrees to approve this request, you are making a decision on the land and he did not understand what the difference was for the man or the land. He stated it did no~ have to run with the man and the only time you do this is in residential and this is not that case. 84-246 Ayes: Mr. Daniel, M~s. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Abstention: Mr. Dodd. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Stigall inquired when they could request an exception to run with the land. Mr. Poole stated they could submit an application at any time to amend these conditions. Mr. Hedrick stated that staff would recommend against rezoning in this area and that the Board has the ability to do this type of thing with a conditio~,~l use for this individual for this business. He stated that the Board talks about the quality of development~ in a particular corridor when certain uses are allowed. He stated this was the first use granted in the ~rea. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 83S024 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, C.V.H. PARTNERSHIP requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business (B-3) to Light Industrial (M-l) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a 48.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 768 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 900 feet east of Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcels 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions and acceptance of proffered conditions. Mr. Jim Hubbard was present representing the applicant. He stated they had three major concerns: 1. with regard to the access points on Route 60 on the western property line. He submitted and reviewed a revised plan (Condition #7); 2. that the development be restricted to 30 acres until such time as Trade Road is extended which will cause a burden on the developer for the cost of the 48 acres (condition #10), and 3. that they would like to have approval for two signs on each side of the property (condition #20). Mr. Poole stated staff is concerned with the traffic flow on Route 60 with regard to the revised plan. Mrs. Girone stated that the access points on Route 60 cause a conflict with the flow of traffic as people are now using the turn lanes for the flow of traffic. Mr. Poole stated the staff would recommended against the revised plan. Mr. Applegate discussed other areas and how the roads and accesses were developed for the acreage involved, easements granted to the back property lines in various zoning cases, etc. Mr. Poole explained that the purpose of this recommendation is to obtain a loop road to bypass the intersection of Courthouse Road and Route 60. He stated that the developer could develop any 30 acres and prior to any additional development, the roadway will have to be constructed but there is a possibility of another developer becoming involved in the road construction as well. Mr. Applegate inquired about the construction of Trade Road. Mr. Hubbard stated Trade Road was developed in phases. Mr. Hubbard stated he had talked with franchisees and they do want to combine signage and he has not seen any on Route 60. Mr Poole stated the approval was for one sign on the east. Mr. Hubbard stated he wanted two signs on each side. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate stated he had a problem with the loop road. He stated here is a developer who wants to develop 48 acres and would like to build his road all the way to the back but if he develops over 30 acres he will be required to build a portion of the connector road which he does not even own for the benefit of 84-247 another landowne~ which he felt was wrong. Mr. Hedrick stated the issue is how much traffic can the access to Route 60 readily accommodate. He stated staff feels that if he develops 30 acres to the density being suggested, that would be the maximum amount that could be accommodated and for any additional development, another access is necessary. He stated other developments have been approved in phases for the accesses to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Henson stated that the developer has indicated he would build a four lane road and that staff states that this condition is not recommended because of the traffic capacity within the project but because of a concern for the development in the area shou]~ provide an alternative to the Courthouse/Route 60 intersection. He stated this means that staff is trying to keep traffic from going back through Courthouse Road and bring them out to Route 60 which this roadway would relieve an already existing condition and the developer will build that road to get it to the point where the next property owner will p~ck it up. Mr. Hedrick stated that he felt that discussion meant that the traffic generation within the site will not cause problems, but will on Route 60. He stated that the Board has tried to work through this in the meeting but he would request that staff be allowed to review this case rather than make a mistake at this time. Mr. Hubbard stated he did not know if anything would be accomplished with a deferral. He stated there might be an alternative to develop the additional 18 acres and use Trade Road to the east. Mr. Applegate stated he felt staff would like the entire 48 acre parcel zoned at one time. He stated he did not want to place ~ hardship on the developer but he had problems with the loop road ~!,ud the ingress and egress on Route 60 and he felt the issues could be worked out. Mr. Hubbard stated they would accept a 30 day deferral. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that this request be deferred until May 23, 1984. Vote: Unanimous 83S188: (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, H. LOUIS SALOMONSKY requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) of 0.64 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in an Office Business (O) and Community Business (B-2) District on a 3.26 acre parcel fronting approximately 530 feet on the east line of Courthouse Road, approximately 380 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike; also fronting approximately 100 feet on Branchway Road approximately 470 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel 29 and Tax Map 17-9 (2) Avon Estate, Lot 11 and Part of Lot 12 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dexter Williams was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to strike "night clubs" as a use permitted under condition 92.c. Mr. Williams stated that would be acceptable but he did not feel this was a problem as the area is in transition and it is not anticipated that the residential uses will be there very much longer with this project moving along. Mrs. Girone stated the Stonehenge residents were very concerned about the development of this area. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr'. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan repared by Tiffany H. Armstrong and H. Louis Salomonsky, dated January 23, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. The 84-248 Se applicant's textual ~'~<~;atement shall be superseded by the following conditions. ~ Uses permitted in the Communit~y Business (B-2) tract shall be as follows: Ail O, B-1 and E-2 uses Wholesale trade with retail sales as an accessory use Cocktail lounges and dining halls Officeware. ho..]ses, ' Indoor recreational establishments Veterinary hospitals~ excluding outside runs Uses permitted in the ()fi!ice B~]siness (O) 'tract shall be as follows: Se Ail B-1 and B-2 uses Wholesale trade with retail sales as an accessory use Office warehouses The following bul~ exceptions shall be granted: A twenty' (20) foot exception to the twenty (20) foot side yard setback requirement along the northern boundary of Lot 11 and the southern boundary of Lot 12, Avon Estate. This e×ception shall be granted only for the westernmost 300 feet of the property. A twenty-five (25) foot exception 'to the fifty (50) foot driveway, parking and building setback requirement along Courthouse Road. Within the twenty-five (25) foot setback, landscaping and berming shall be installed. In conjunction with schematic plan submJ~ssion for any site abu'tting Courthouse Road, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for a!~proval. Ce A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot rear yard setback requirement along the eastern boundary of Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcel 29. Parking shall be calculated based on 4.4 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. SIGNS One fr'eestanding sign, visible from Courthouse Road, not to exceed 100 square feet in area, shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. One freestanding sign, visible from Branchway Road, not to exceed 50 square feet in area, shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. Ce Individual buildings shall be permitted one freestanding sign each, not to exceed 5 feet in height and an area not to exceed 10 square feet. These signs shall be positioned and located so that they are not visible from Courthouse or Branchway Roads. These signs shall be similar to each. other in size, shape, and material. de Building mounted signs shall be permitted provided they do not project above the roof line and the aggregate area of the building sign, plus the individual building freestanding sign does not exceed 0.5 square feet for each one foot of building frontage· 84-249 ee A site directory sign may be permitted provided it not exceed a height of eight (8) feet, an aggregate area of thirty (30) square feet, is not visible from Courthouse and Branchway Roads and does not create a traffic obstruction. fe he Signs may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters. Direct~.onal signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements. Prior to erection of any signs, a comprehensive sign package to include colors, materials and typical designs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for apFroval. On-site stormwater detention shall be employed and based on a ten (10) year storage with a two (2) year rate. (EE) Fned e Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Prior to the release of a building permit for any site with access to Courthouse Road, a minimum of forty-five (45) of right of way measured from the centerline of Courthouse Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 10. Prior to the release of a building permit for any site with access to Branchway Road, thirty (30) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Branchway Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 11. Prior to any schematic plan approval, a plan for the construction of turn lanes and curb and gutter along Courthouse Road shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the VDH&T for approval. This plan may include phasing for the ultimate improvements necessary to accommodate turning movements. 12. An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed, according to VDH&T specifications, along Branchway Road in conjunction with construction of access Branchway Road. 13. Other than the two (2) access points shown, there shall be no other direct access to either Branchway or Courthouse Roads. (Note: Schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) Vote: Unanimous 84S003 In Bermuda Magisterial District, FEATHERSTON SERVICE STATION, INC. requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 320 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 160 feet on Sherbourne Road and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 53-15 (2) Bensley Village, Part 2, Block C, Lots 1 through 12 (Sheet 16). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. McCall was 84-250 present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to 'the following condition: A solid board fence, having a minimum height of six (6) feet, shall be installed along the eastern property line to screen this use from the adjacent single family residences. A plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning DepartI~ent for approval within thirty (30) days ~ the final action on %his case. The fence shall be installed within thirty (30) days of approval of the plan. 84S016 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, 1100 ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) with Conditional Use Plarlned Development to permit bulk exceptions on a 1.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on the north line of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 650 feet on Genito Road and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-9 (1) Parcel 18 (Sheet 14). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Mac McGinnis was present representing the applicant. He stated that he had a problem with condition #3 regarding the distance from the intersection of Hull Street and Genito Road relocated. He presented a revised plan which would move the entrance to the site further forward than recommended by the Planning Commission~ He stated the Highway Department has indicated he could stack 10 cars on Genito Road and explained the layout of the site. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate inquired about the distance from Genito Road to the access. Mr. Poole stated that the staff is concerned about stacking along Genito Road because 10,000 vehicles use Genito Road daily. Mr. McGinnis explained the flow of traffic which he did not feel would cause a problem. Mrs. Girone stated a similar problem e×ists at the intersection of Route 147 and Route 60 and the cars do stack and it causes a dangerous situation. Mr. Hedrick stated this is a traffic safety issue and perhaps this matter should be deferred for further review. Mr. Applegate stated he could not agree to moving the entrance as far as the applicant would like but he would compromise the difference in distance. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, resolved that this request be approved subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Gary Glueck, dated 1/10/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. Also, the requested setback exceptions reflected on the Master Plan shall be granted for the entire 1.817 acres. 0 A total of ninety (90) feet of right of way along Relocated Genito Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the release of a building permit. There shall be one entrance/exit to Relocated Genito Road. The centerline of which shall be located a minimum of 275 feet from the centerline of Route 360. The internal driveway shall be designed to provide sufficient on-site stacking space to preclude vehicular back-ups onto Relocated Genito Road. Additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Relocated Genito Road in accordance with VDH&T specifications. 84-251 Vote: Unanimous m The Hull Street Road entrance/exit shall be a maximum width of thirty (30) feet. Turn lanes shall be constructed along Hull Street Road in accordance with VDH&T specifications. 5. Ail other access shall be confined to (old) Genito Road. e Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission.) There was no second to the motion. Mr. McGinnis stated he was not happy with the conditions but he would accept them. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the matter should be deferred if the applicant is not happy and the Board is not certain. Mr. Dodd called the question. Ayes: Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd. Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Applegate inquired if the applicant would accept a deferral of this matter to review the plans further. Mr. McGinnis stated a deferral would not be acceptable. Mr. Applegate inquired if applicant would accept the conditions as recommended by staff. Mr. McGinnis stated he would. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Gary Glueck, dated 1/10/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. Also, the requested setback exceptions reflected on the Master Plan shall be granted for the entire 1.817 acres. A total of ninety (90) feet of right of way along Relocated Genito Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to the release of a building permit. There shall be one entrance/exit to Relocated Genito Road. The centerline of which shall be located a minimum of 350 feet from the southern property line. The internal driveway shall be designed to provide sufficient on-site stacking space to preclude vehicular back-ups onto Relocated Genito Road. Additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Relocated Genito Road in accordance with VDH&T specifications. The Hull Street Road entrance/exit shall be a maximum width of thirty (30) feet. Turn lanes shall be constructed along Hull Street Road in accordance with VDH&T specifications. 5. Ail other access shall be confined to (old) Genito Road. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission.) Vote: Unanimous 84S025 In Dale Magisterial District, KINGSLAND ASSOCIATES requested a Conditional Use to permit a borrow pit in an Agricultural (A) District on a 177.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,130 feet on the east line of Conifer Road, approximately 600 feet east of Hopkins Road. Tax Map 67-14 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 23). 84-252 Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Skitch Rudy was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. He stated the applicant had a siltation agreement with the County for this operation and did not know until contacted by the County that zoning was necessary. He stated they planned to use this just until the property is level There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel inquired if the applicant would accept conditions that 1. the grade would not fall below that of the cabinet shop, 2. that there would be no Saturday and Sunday operation and 3. that it shall be good for 7 years and if it is acceptable it could be extended. Mr. Rudy stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Daniel stated if the conditions cause some Droblems, Mr. Rudy could discuss it with him later. He inquired what portion of the 160+ acres is the actual borrow pit. Mr. Rudy stated only 25 acres and indicated the location on the map. Nr. Daniel inquired about the illegal materials. Mr. Rudy stated that it is stumps, concrete, etc. an( explained the elimination of each. Mr. Daniel stated he was reluctant to approve a landfill site. Mr. Rudy stated nothing would be brought into the area. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: e This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Kingsland Associates, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. Prior to any further borrow activity, all illegal fill material (i.e., any material other than dirt, stone, rock) shall be removed from the site w~th the excep~on of trees and stumps, which may be burned in accordance with the regulations and requirements of the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board. A certified soil report shall be submitted to the Planning Department, verifying that the illegal material has been removed. The conditions herein notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Kenneth L. Barton, dated November 27, 19.67, shall be considered the plan of development. The borrow pit activity shall be confined to the 25± acres shown in the northeast corner of the site. No further borrow activity shall be permitted within 200 feet of the northern property line. Limited grading for the purpose of obtaining acceptable ground slope may occur in this area upon submission and approval of plans by Environmental Engineering. These areas shall be stabilized with ground cover acceptable to Environmental Engineering. The site shall be secured with a fence and/or gate to preclude indiscriminate dumping and trespassing. A plan fo~ security measures, to include the unauthorized access from Hopkins Road, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of final approval of this request. These measures shall be installed prior to the continuation of excavation. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No Saturday or Sunday operation shall be permitted. Prior to the continuation of excavation, a plan for the control of dust (i.e., watering and/or oiling) shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. Prior to the continuation of excavation, a reclamation plan to include method of stabilization of denuded areas, shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. 84-253 Vote: 9. Access shall be confined to Dalebrook Drive. 10. All conditions stated herein shall be complied with within thirty (30) da>.s of the approval of this requc~t. 11. This shall be permited for a period of seven years. 12. The site shall not be graded lower than the existing shop to the east. Unanimous 84S027 In Midlothian Magisterial District, BILL'S BARBEQUE, INC. requested a Conditional Use to permit a drive-in restaurant in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 0.872 acre parcel frontin¢ approximately 150 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 500 feet east of Mall Drive. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcel 67 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approva of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Richardson was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by }{ighfill Smith Associates, Inc., dated 1/4/84, shall be considered the plan of development. A single freestanding sign identifying this development shall be permitted. This sign shall not exceed an aggregat~ area of thirty (30) square feet and a height of five (5) feet. The sign shall be constructed of an opaque material with ~"ranslucent letters. Sign colors shall be subdued. All other signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for B-2 shopping center development. (Note: The plan must be revised so that all parking spaces are minimum of 10x20 feet.) Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his company is inw in the sale of the property in the next zoning case and excused himself from the meetin~ because of a possible conflict of interest pursuant to th~ Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84S028 In Midlothian Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 23 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet on the north line of Lucks Lane, approximately 200 feet west of Abingdon Road Tax Map 38-1 (1) Parcels 5, 6 and 7 (Sheet 14). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. John Henson was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. 84-254 Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 84S030 In Bermuda Magistcri. al District, T. NELSON SAUNDERS requested rezoning from Aglicultural (A) to Office Business (0) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a health club and offices on a 7.61 acre parcel fronting approximately 640 feet on the south line of lron Bridge Road, approximately 290 feet east of Branders Bridge Road; also fronting approximately 210 feet on the north line of Branders Bridge Road, approximately 450 feet south of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 114-12 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 31). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Mike Fiore was present representing the applican~. Mr. Sonny Marks, PresideDt of the Chester Fishing Club, stated they were not opposed to the rezoning but are concerned about the environmental effects as this property serves as a water shed for their fishing pond. He stated if these concerns are addressed, they have no objection. Mr. Dodd inquired about the discharge of water. Mr. Poole stated that the treated water from the pool could possibly get into the pond and that the chemicals could possibly be detrimental to the fish. He stated condition #13 was added so that the applicant must submit a plan for discharge from the pool. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request with the understanding that staff will monitor this very closely with regard to discharge and subject the following conditions: e ® The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Resource International Ltd., dated January 18, ].984, shall be considered the Master Plan. Uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Office Business (0) District and a health club. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern property line. Within this buffer a four (4) to five (5) foot high undulating berm sha~.l be installed and planted in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." This buffer may be installed in provided that, for each phase, sufficient screening is accomplished to protect adjacent single family residences the south. In conjunction with schematic plan review, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. In conjunction with submission of schematic plans for the office development, a buffer/screening plan for the eastern property line shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. However, if at the time of schematic plan submission, property to the east has been developed for commercial use, the eastern buffer may not be required. Prior to the release of a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Branders Bridge Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (Note: Branders Bridge Road is incorrectly shown as West Hundred Road on the Master Plan.) Prior to the release of any occupancy permits, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Branders Bridge Road, as deemed necessary by the VDH&T. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a phasing plan for the construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes, and curb and gutter along 84-255 10. 11. Route 10 sbatl be submitted to the Planning Department and the VDH&T for approval. Two (2) entrances/exits shall be permitted to this parcel from Route ]0. One access shall be located at the eastern property line and one at the western property line. These entrances/exits shall be designed to allow shared access with adjacent properties when they are developed for commercial use. In conjunction with schematic plan submission for the (~ffice development, a plan shall be submitted showing construction of a new crossover with turn lanes to be aligned with the eastern entrance/exit. Parkin¢ and driveways shall be designed to facilitate internal vehicular movements between the two (2) entrances/exits. SIGNS so One freestanding sign, not exceeding 100 square feet il area, visible from Route ]0, shall be permitted identifying this development and the tenants therein. Individual buildings shall be permitted one freestanding sign each, not to exceed 5 feet in height and an area not to exceed 10 square feet. These signs shall be positioned and located so that they are not visible from Route 10 or adjacent property to the south. These signs shall be similar to each other in size, shape, and material. Ce Building m~unted signs, positioned so they are not visible to the adjacent residential property to the south, shall be permitted provided they do not project above the roof line. The aggregate area of the building sign plus the individual building freestandin9 sign shall not exceed 0.5 square feet for'each one foo~ of building frontage. A site directory sign may be permitted provided it does not exceed a height of eight (8) square feet, an aggregate area of sixty (60) square feet, is not visible from Route 10 and does not create a traffic obstruction. Signs may be illuminated, but may be luminous only if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters. Directional signs (entrance/exit, etc.) shall be governed by Zoning Ordinance requirements. Prior to erection of any signs, a comprehensive sign package to include colors, materials and typical designs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Within parking areas, there shall be a minimum of five (5) square feet of landscaped area for each parking space. The required landscaped area need not be continuous; however, nc landscaped area shall be smaller than five (5) feet by ten (10) feet. Each area shall contain at least one (1) tree, a minimum of 2" in caliper. A landscaping plan depicting thi~ requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Route 10, ornamental landscaping shall be accomplished. This landscaping shall include one tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet or fraction thereof. The remaining area shall be landscaped with ground cover or shrubs. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission in conjunction with schematic plan review. 84-256 12. The health ~pa may be constructed of metal, but all facades shall employ decorative treatment such as wood siding, split block, brick, etc. No other buildings shall be constructed with metal or cinder block siding. Colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. 13. At the time of schematic plan submission, a plan for the disposal of waste wster from the swimming pool, which sha] protect the septic tank drainfield and adjacent fishing pond, shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and ap~roval. (Note: Prior to obtaiDin~ building permits, schematic plan approval must be obtained f~om the Planning Commission.) Vote: Unanimous 84S031 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WOODLAKE LAND TRUST AND INVESTORS WOODLAKE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 81S086) to relocate a sewage pump station. This request lies in a Residential (R-9) District on a 5 acre parcel in Woodlake at Brandermill approximately 2,850 feet north of the intersection of Hull Street Road and Woodlake Village Parkway. Tax Map 61 (1) Part of Parcel 12 and TaM Map 60 (1) Parcel 21 (Sheet 20). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. John Henson was present representing the applicant. He stated for the record that the pump station was placed in the wrong location on a plan ten years ago and this will officially place it in conpliance. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the property lines which are adjacent to any reside~]~-.lal tracts This buffer shall be maintained in its natural state with n~ clearing or grading permitted. Additional landscaping shall be installed, if necessary, to provide adequate screening. The developer shall contact Staff once clearing and grading is completed. Staff will visit the site and advise if additional landscaping is needed. Vote: Unanimous 84S032 In Midlothian Magisterial District, CROSSROAD ASSOCIATES requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S026) to permit Light Industrial (M-l) uses in a General Business (B-3) District on a 9.81 acre parcel frontinq approximately 360 feet on the west line of Courthouse Road, approximately 680 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Parcels 23A, 25A, 26A, 27A, 46 and 47 (Sheet 7). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to a single condition. Mr. Charlie Pike with J. K. Timmons and Associates was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request subject t( the following condition: 84-257 In addition to the uses permitted by Condition #12 of Conditional Use Planned Development 83S026, all Light Industrial (M-l) uses shall be permitted, subject to applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Vote: Unanimous 84S043 In Bermuda Magisterial District, THOMAS L. HAYNES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2) to Light Industrial (M-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use ~ceptions on a 7.75 acre parcel fronting approximately 130 feet on the south line of East Hundred Road, also fronting 250 feet on Old Bermuda Hundred Road, and located in the southeast quadrant, of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 117-12 (1) Parcels 15 and 59 (Sheet 33). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Haynes was present and requested that the 50 foot buffer adjacent to parcels 17 and 49 be reduced to 20 feet as there are no houses or buildings and there is a flood plain in the area. Mr. Dodd stated he felt 25 ft. would be adeguate. Mr. Haynes stated the other conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, this request was approved subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Harvey L. Parks, Inc., dated February 7, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. Uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Light Industrial (M-l) District plus the following exceptions: a. Retail sales of electrical equipment supplies and fix- tures ' b. Retail sa]es of electronic equipment c. An automotive lubrication business d. A machine shop Outside storage shall be permitted, provided the storage area is screened from view of all public roads and adjacent properties. A screening plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Ail driveway and parking areas shall be paved, curbed and guttered. A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained along the property line adjacent to Parcels 17 and 49, Tax Map 117-12 (1) (the Rasnick and Davenport properties). This buffer shall be landscaped in accordance with the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." In conjunction with schematic plan approval, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Required landscaping may be installed in conjunction with the phasing of the development provided sufficient landscaping is accomplished to screen develo] from adjacent property to the south and west. Thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Old Bermuda Hundred Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This dedication shall be accomplished prior to the release of a building permit. Access to this property shall align with the existing crossover on Route 10 between Old Bermuda Hundred and Inge Roads. Access to Old Bermuda Hundred Road shall be 84-258 permitted, provided profiles and slope and sight distance easements are submitted to VDH&T and the Planning Departmen~ verifying that VDH&T minimum sight distance requirements can be met. Turn lanes and curb and gutter shall be installed along Old Bermuda Hundred Road. If necessary to obtain adequate sight distance, this access may encroach into the required buffer described in Condition #5, provided a screening plan is submitted which buffers the drive from adjacent property to the south. It the necessary slope and sign easements cannot be obtained by the applicant, there shall be no access to Old Bermuda Hundred Road. (Note: This condition will require that additional property or easements be acquired to the norCh.) Public sewer shall be extended to serve this si. re. Sewer and water plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department prior to release of a building permit. All necessary easements shall be acquired by the developer and dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (U) On-site stormwater retention shall be employed based on storing a 50 year post-development storm with a 10 year pre-development release rate. OR Additional culverts shall be installed under Inge Road and related channel improvements performed based on VDH&T criteria for secondary roads. (EE) Vote: Unanimous 10. ADJOURNMENT On motion of the Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on May 9, 1984 at the Airport for a MED-EVAC presentation and possible work session on water and sewer fees. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator }~arry GJ Daniel Chairman 84-259