The URL can be used to link to this page

01-22-1986 MinutesBOA~D OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES January 22, 1986 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir., Econ. Develop. Chief Robert ~anes, Fire Department Mr, Phil ~ester, Dir. of Parks & Rec. Mr. William Howell, Dir. of Gen. Services Mrs. Mary L. Lyle, Internal Auditor ~r. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Ad,in. for Euman Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of ~nv. Eng. Mr. E. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffrey M~zzy, Asst. Co. Admin. for Development Mr. Lan~ Ra~sey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Ms. Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick W. Willis, Dir. of ~uman Resource Management Mr. James zook, ~ir. of Planning Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:10 a.m. (EST). 1. INVOCATION Mr, Hedri~k introduced Reverend A. J. Simon, P~tor of Buford Road Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC~E TO THE FLAG OF THE [~ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. $. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board 86-034 approved the minutes of January 8, 1986, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COmPlAiNTS Mr. Hedrick orated there were no County AdministratortS comments this date. 5. HOARD CO~ITTEEREPORTS Mrs. Girone stated the Audit Committee met with the auditors thi~ week and reviewed the year-end totals and the scope of the audit~ She stated it was a very good report with minimum suggestions the management letter indicating staff has tightened up on all procedures and suggestions from previous yeara. She stated the ~ report is a little later than usual but staff has had an unusualI work load with the bond proposals, the revampinq of the Department, etc. she stated the written report would be presented to the Board later in the day. Mrs. Girone stated the Virginia Association of Counties had a called meeting of the Executive Board as there is great concern across the Co~uonwealth about the 10% mandate for teachers' salaries and there is a compromise coming from the School Board Association. She stated the purpose of the meeting was to obtaiu a sense of the Exec~tlve Board and the direction for the staff a~ there are all kinds of speculation about the impacts, the ramifications of such a mandate and just the total idea of a mandate from the General Assembly telling local governments how much to pay their teachers. She stated this is a big issue in the General Assembly and there is ~ report due and a tot of people feel that no one should take a position or advance any solutions until the report is reviewed which should be ~hortly. Mr. Mayes inquired if they had also mandated the funds for teachers' salar~e~. Mrs. Girone stated that was the heart of th~ matter--the State has mandated the standards of quality all thes~ years and never fully funded them and the concern is that the mandate may come without the money and if they ~tart mandating teachers' salaries, what next. Mrs. Girone stated there have been a seriem of breakfast meeting: in the region with Contour and they met last Thursday and would be meeting again tomorrow. Mrs. Girone ~tated she went to the Economic Forecast luncheon yesterday at the Cham~er of Commerce and the Governor spoke enthusiastically about his road proposal which he is promoting. She stated a committee will be appointed by the end of this month, the bill went through the Senate Committee yesterday that, would create a committee f0 make a report to the General Assembl~ in the fall on funding transportation in the Commonwealth and wei will be following that since it is our major issue. 6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITiONSOR CHANGES IN THE 0~DE~ OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board added Item 11.D.6., Set a Public ~earing Date to Consider Supporting Tax Exemption for the Old Dominion Chapter of Nationa~ Railway Historical Society; added Item ll.I.a, Donation to the Virginia Chamber of Commerce for Building Fund; added Item ll.I.b. Consider Salaries for Firefighters in Mateaca District; added Item 9.B.2., Appointments; deleted Item ll.E.3,a.4., Condemnation for sewer Easements for Falling Creek FOrCe 86-035 Main across property of Bruce L. and Eliza G. McFadden; and adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated all of the additional items would come up together prior to the Utilities report on the regularly scheduled agenda. Mr. Applegate inquired if the request from the General District Court had been handled regarding the hiring of a secretary, Mr. Hedriok stated that would be handled administratively. Mr. Applegate requested that staff advise the judges. 7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION 7.A. CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT COMMISSION ON 10TH ANNIVERSARY On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Richmond Tnternational Airport hes provided a vital link to the world since its creation, as Richard E. Byrd Flying Field, in 1927; and WHEREAS, Phenominal growth has occurred at the Airport ~ince the £ermation of the Capital Region Airport Commission in 1976; and WHEREAS, Major improvements during the past ten years have included new aircraft and air cargo taxiwaye, a new Airport I Safety Suilding, reconstruction of ramps and runways, expansion ~ of public parking and air cargo facilities, construction of a new air cargo apron, installation of the first Microwave Landing ~ System, and, in 1985, initiation of a major $35 million capital ~ improvement program for expansion; and WHEREAS, It has been proven that the economic impact of th~ Airport on the community has been a major factor in the continuing prosperity of the region. THEREBY, HE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby commend the Capital Region Airport Commission on its accomplishments during the past decade, and extends sincere best wishes for additional growth and continued fiscal achievements during the coming decade. Vote: Unanimou~ Mr. Dodd stated the executed resolution would be presented at th~ 10th ~2nniversary celebration of the Capital Region Airport Co~ission by Mr. Applegate. 7.H. APPRECIATION TO VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY Mr. Zook stated at the last meeting staff informed the Board that the County had received $700,000 in the form of a block grant fo: improvements to the Bellwood/Sensley area of the County. He stated Virginia State University played a major role in preparin~ the application and having it successfully funded. Ee introduce( Dr. Greenfield, Dr. McClenney, Ms. Kittie Winston and Mr. Horus Alkebu-lan who were present from the University. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ?~EREAS, On December 30, 1985, the County received a $700,000 Community Development Block Grant for the revitalisatio~ in the northeastern section of the County; and WHEREAS, This block grant will provide needed services and assistance for County residents; and 86-036 W~EREAS, Uirginia State University, Department of Public Administration, was instrumental in the County's successful receipt of this grant award. NOW, T~FOPd~, Sm IT R~S0LV=D that the Board c£ Supcrvisor~ docs hereby recognize Virginia State University for their assistance in obtaining this grant. AND, FURTEBR BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby express its sincere appreciation to Virginia State University for their assistance in the successful State co~ununit development grant application process. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd presented Dr. Greenfield with the executed resolution. Dr. Greenfield Stated it was a pleasure to accept thi~ resolution. ~e stated they feel this is a great step forward to bridge the gap between the University and the community, they have been assisting the County for the past three years and they are proRd that the County has submitted a successful program. stated the University also received a grant for the third consecutive year. Dr. MeClenny stated they would be happy to volunteer assistance to the C0nnty again this year. ~e stated the staff of both the County and University did thc work and the were happy to have been of some assistance. He stated appreciation for the County's internship program as well. Dr. Greenfield stated appreciation for Mr. Dodd's attendance at the Unlvcrsity celebrating "Martin Luther King Day" as well as "Chesterfield County Day" which was the first of an annual affair. 7.C. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY EMPLOYEE-OF-THE-YEAR FOR 1985 Mr. Rick Willis stated approximately 10 years ago, retiring County Administrator M. W. Burnett, established a program to recognize the County employee who exemplified the best, as a model for dedicated, effective and beyond the call of duty performance of their job. He introduced the nominees: ! Investigator D. W. "Smiley" Davis, Police Department; Ms. Caroly~ E. Dunaway, Library Services; Ms. Evelyn Price, Treasurer's Office; Ms. Lane Roach, Budget and Management; Ms. Beverly F. Rogers, Planninq Department; M~. E1oise B. Thweatt, General Services; Ms. Melissa Walters, Mental Health/Mental Retardation Services; Ms. Teresa Wilburn, Environmental Engineering; and Sgt~ Raymond R. Willis, Jr., Fire Department. ~e stated that Mr. David D. Wundcr, Parks and Recreation, was also nominated but ha~ died shortly after Christmas. ~e stated Mr. Hedrick would conve~ thc County's respect and sense of loss to Mr. Wunder's family an~ the Parks and Recreation Department will dedicate a shelter in Rockwood Park as a memorial to Mr. Wunder. ~e stated the County mourns his death and appreciates the service he gave to the County and to the connnnnity. Mr. Hedrick congratulated all the nominees for their performance and for being fine examples of productive, dedicated and innovative County employees and for being recognized by their peers as such. Mr. Dodd announced that MS. Eloise Thweatt was the employee selected. On motion of the Board, the following re~olution wa~ adopted: W~/I~AS, Eloise B. Thweatt hae been nominated by her fellc employees as a person possessing the~e qualities of superior performance and dedication to public service to meet the high standards set forth for the recipient of this coveted award; and WI{EREAS, By treating each person as an individual with unique talents and needs ehe has supervised thirty-three full an. 86-037 part-time employee~ with understanding and kindness and has instilled in them the desire to excel as evidenced by the work unit's consistently superior serviue ratings; and WaHRF, AS, Her caring and enthusiastic manner displayed in her professional life also carries over and enriches the life of the larger community though her personal commitments to her family, church, voluntary organizations, the handicapped and the homeless. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisor~ hereby recognizes the loyalty, superior performance and the dedication of Eloise B. Thwsatt hy naming her the Chesterfield County Employee-of-the-Year for 1985. vote: Unanimous Mr. Bedrick presented Ms. Thweatt with the executed resolution, the revere bowl, a $50 savings bond and the parking space. ~s. Thweatt expressed appreciation to the Board and County employees for this recognition. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims for this meeting. 9. DEFERRED ITEMS 9.A. REQUEST FOR ~OARD OB SUPERVISORS TO INITIATE REZONING PROCESS FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS TAX MAP 135-5(1) PARCEL 1 IN THE EASTERN AREA FROM M-1 TO R-12 Mr. Hedrick stated there is a request before the Board to initiate a rezoning process for property involved with the Eastern Area Plan. Mr. Dodd stated he would like this request deferred until February 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. because Mr. Jefferson, the property owner involved, did not realize this would be a day meeting and had a conflict. There was no opposition present to this request for a deferral. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferre( consideration of the initiation of a rezoning process for property known as Tax ~ap 135-5(1), Parcel 1 in the Eastern Area from M-1 to R-12 until February 12, 1986 at 7:00 Vote: Unanimous 9.B. APPOINT~NTS 9.B.1. COF~4UNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Board appointed Mr. Gary F. Johnson and ~rs. Sandra L. Starkey as members of the Community Corrections Resources Board whose appointments are effective immediately and will expire on December 31, 1987 and appointed Mr. Duane Watson as an alternate whose term is also as indicated above. Vote: Unanimous 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled this meeting. 11, NEW BUSINESS ~ ~NUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Mrs. Mary L. Lyle, Internal Auditor, distributed copies of the 86-038 1984-85 Annual Pinancial Plan to the Board. She stated the report has been accepted by the Auditor of Public Accounts. ~he stated staf£ met with the Audit Committee to review and discuss the financial report in detail. Mr. Bedrick stated the staff would be pleased to give the Board a presentation on the report at a later date, if desired. Mr. Daniel inquired how much extra money will he available at end of the year. Mrs. Lyle stated the report indicates the Undesignated Fund Balance at $8,800,000 as of June 30, 1985 whic~ has sinca been reduced. Mr. Applegate stated the Audit Committee determined that the fund balance was just under 5% and 5% has been established as the goal of the Board. He also noted the Airport showed a net profit of $11,000 this year. Mrs, Girone stated that she felt a biennial budget might be appropriate for the County and the auditors seemed interested in this concept. She stated the budget is such an enormous task and involves so much work for at least 2-3 months and it is a concept the Board might want to consider. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes agreed this concept should be considered. Mr. Daniel stated the School System would also have to agree to participate in thi~ two year process if approved. He stated the budgets would have to be fixed for that period of time, barring any unforeseen circumstances, and that it does provide a mechanism for sound planning. He stated this is especially true in a growth County , such as Chesterfield where debt financing of projects will take more and more of our financing. He stated the County Administrator should look into this process and advise the ~oard~ as to how to proceed. Mr. Mayes stated he felt this idea of a tw9 year budget would focus on the importance of the County becoming~ fully automated and would enhance that effort. Mr. Dodd requested that Mr. ~edrick take these comments under advisement.~ ll.B. APPOINTMENTS ll.B.1. CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION Mr. ~edrick stated there arc three appointments to the Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC) and it is suggested that two be Board members and the third is at the discretion of the Board of Supervisor~. Mr. Daniel suggested that the third appointment be a citizen representative as is done at the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). He stated he realizes there is a time when technical support is important and they can be present but he felt citizen input would outweight a staff appointment. Mr. Mayes agreed with this suggestion because not to allow citizens to be involved in development sometimes causes problems that extended over long period~ of time. Mrs. Girone stated she felt a staff member should be assigned to follow the issues at the CPDC as is done at the RRPDC. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board nominated Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd aS the Board members and Willie J. Bradley as a citizen member with Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy designated as an alternate, if allowed by the CPDC bylaws, which~ formal appointments will be made at the February 12, 1986 meetin~ and that compensation would be comparable to that of the RRPDC. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.2. YOUTH SERVICES APPOINTMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board nominated MS. Amy Goodman to the Youth Services commission 86-039 rspresentating Dale District whose appointment would be formally considered at the February 12, 1986 meeting. Vote: Unanimous ll.B.3. KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN CORPORATION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board nominated the following people to the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation which appointments would be formally considered at the February 12, 1986 meetinq: Mr. Warren Dieterich, Midlobhian District Mrs. Marilyn Kim, Eermuda District Mr. William Harris, Matoaoe District Mrs. Alma Smith, Dale District Mrs. Ann Belsha, Clover Hill District Vote: Unanimous Mr. Maye~ commended the Corporation on a £ine job. Mr. Hedrick indicated there was no one present to represent this item as the are present at a luncheon where Mrs. Baliles i~ presenting a first place award to the Corporation for their efforts over the past year. ll.C. CONSENT ITEMS ll.C.1 STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writinq upon his ¢~amieati0~ of Towohester Drive, Moreho~se Terrace, Little Ridge Lane and Little Ridge Court in Creekwood, Sections F-I, F-2, and a portion of Section E, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Towchester Drive, Morehouse Terrace, Little Ridge Lane and Little Ridge Court in Creekwocd, Sections F-l, F-2, and a portion of Section E, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And he it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, TowoheEter Drive, beginning at the intersection with Litchfield Drive, State Route 3170, and going 0.07 mile northwesterly to the intersection with Morehouse Terrace, th~n continuing 0.08 mile westerly to %he intersection with Little Ridge Lane and then continuing 0.01 mile westerly to tie into proposed Towchester Drive, Creekwood, Section F-3; Morehouse Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Towchester Drive and going 0.09 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. Again, Morehouse Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Towchester Drive and going 0.08 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; Little Ridg~ Lane, beginning at the intersection with Towohegter Drive and going 0.0S mile southwesterly to the intersection with Little Ridge Court, then continuing 0.14 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; and Little Ridge COUrt, beginning at the intersection with Littl~ Ridge Lane and going 0.08 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easements. These roads serve 51 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of ~ighways a 50' 86-040 right-of-way for all of these roads except Towchester Drive whichl has a 60~ right-of-way. These sections of Creekwood are recorded as follows: Section F-1. Plat Book 44, Page 17, September 30, 1983. Section ~-2. Plat Book 46, Pages 80 and 81, July 25, 1984. Section E. Plat Book 37, Pages 24 and 25, September 19, 1980. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Prince William Drive, Shirlington Road, Kingmcross Road, Paigewood Road and Kingscross Road in Queensmill, Section E-l, Midlcthian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Prince William Drive, Shirlington Road, Kingscross Road, Paigewood Road and ~ingscross Road in Quoensmill, Section E-1 , Midlothian District be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is recfuested to take into the Secondary System, Prince William Drive, beginning at the intersection with Coalfield Road, State Route 754, and going 0.10 mile easterly to the intersection with Shirlington Road and Kingscross Road, then continuing 0.20 mile northeastert' to the intersection with Paigewood Road; Shirlington Road, beginning at the intersection with Prince William Drive and going 0.02 mile northerly to tie into proposed Shirlington Road in Queen=mill, Section E-2; Ringscroes Road, beginning at the intersection with Prince William Drive and going 0.02 mile southerly to tie into proposed Kingecros$ Road in Queensmill, Section G; Paigewood Road, beginning at the intersection with Prince William Drive and going 0.05 mile eastorly to the intersection with Kingscross Road; and Kingecross Road, beginning at the intersection with Palgewood Road and going 0.11 mile to tie into existing Kingscross Road, State Route 1358. Again, Kingscross Road, beginning at the intersection with Paigewood Road and going 0.02 mile southerly to tie into proposed Kingscross Road in Queen,mill, Section G. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department of Highways drainage easements. These roads serve 39 lots. And be it !urther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Queensmill is recorded as follows: Section E-1. Plat Book 45, Page 1, January 6, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his oxamlnation of Stone River Road and Ferncreek Place in Stonemill Section C and a portion of Section B, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Stone River Road and Perncreek Place in Stonemill, Section C and a portion of 86-041 Section B, Clover Hill Disbriot, be and they hereby ar~ established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~partm~nt ef Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the S~sondary SyStem, Stone River Road, beginning at the intersection with Stone River Court, State Route 2700, and going 0.09 mile southerly to the intersection with Ferncreek Place, then continuing 0.02 mile southwesterly to a dead end; and Ferncreek Place, beginning at the intersection with Stone River Road and going 0.10 mile southeasterly to a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, site distance and designated Virginia Department cf Highways drainage easements. These roads serve 18 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Stonemill are recorded as fellows: Section C. Plat Book 43, Page 23, June 3, 1983. Section B. Plat Book 38, Page 24, February 12, 1981. Vote: Unanimous 11.C.2. REQUEST TO RENUMBER SUNKIST AVENUE, ROUTE 895 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, A new connection between the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike in Chesterfield County and Interstate 295 in Henrico County is proposed; and WHEREAS, The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has designated this connection for administrative purposes as State Primary Route 895; and WHEREAS, Sunkist Avenue in Chesterfield County is currentl~ designated as Secondary Route $95; and W~ERRAS, In order to avoid confusion that could result in duplicate route numbering in Chesterfield County, a renumbering of Sunkist Avenue has been reco~ended by VDH&T. NOW, ~EREFOPdE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervlsor~ concurs with VDM&T's r~eommendation to renumber Sunkist Avenue t$ Route 930. Vote: Unanimous 11.C.3. REQUESTS P0R BINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by M~. Applegate, th~ Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for the Chester Civitan Club and A. M. Davis Athletic Association t/a Pocoshock Valley Youth Soccer League for calendar year 1986. Vote: Unanimous 11.C.4. PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONVEY LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT GOYNE PARK TO OPERATE FOOD CONCESSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of March 12, 1986 for a public hearing to consider 86-042 the conveyance of a lease of real property at Goyne Park to operate a ~ood concession by the Chester Sports Boosters. Vote: Unanimous ll,D.1. STREET LIGHT INST~-LLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the following street light installation costs with fund~ to cover the cost from accounts as indicated: ! 1. N. Enon Church Road and Saffron Lane - $106, Bermuda Distric~ Street Light Funds 2. 6110 Hokie Court - $822, Bermuda District Street Ligkt Funds 3. 3716 Luckylee Crescent - $1,042, Bermuda District Street Light Funds 4. Mistwood Forest Drive and Barkwocd Court, - $834.60, Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds 5. ~istwood Forest Court and Mistwood Forest Drive - $997.00, Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds 6. Greenbriar Drive and Windward Drive - $926, Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds 7. River Road and Trojan Drive - $504, Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds Vote: Unanimous (It is noted that Mr. Dodd recommended approval of two of the four installation costs whichever were most necessary located in Meadowdale Subdivision and Numbers 2 and 3 are the ones which were selected by the Civic ASsociation representative.) Mr. Mayes noted that the cost of street lights in Matoaoa District appears to be the same as the installation coats in other districts, as the district has not always been that way. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the Board should consider the cost of street light installations as part of a developer's responsibility in the future on new subdivisions, co, lo×es, as it is costly to the taxpayers. ll.D.2. PARHAM/CHIPPEN~AM CONNECTOR STATEMENT OF SUPPORT Mr. Hedrick ~tated there would be a hearing On January 30, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. On the Parham/Chippenham connector at Huguenot High, School and the Board is requested to adopt a statement. Mr. Daniel inquired what would happen to Chippenham/taburn~nn as it iS nut addressed in the proposed statement. He indicated the Count~ is still very much concerned about that and should reinforce its' position that it be kept in the forefront. He stated the Parham/Chippenham is just one bridge in a series of bridges that are needed to connect the entire region. Mr. Applegate inquired about Route 288. Mrs. Girone suggested amending the statement t( include... "the final design for the project must provide for th~ long term needs of the region so that future traffic will be adequately serwed. We trust that this matter will be resolved through the final design process and through consideration of future westwardly crossing of Route 288." Mr. Daniel inquired the Route 288 was still indicated on the maps. Mrs. Girone indicated that was correct. She stated we are in th~ pr0ce~s o£ moving it farther west. Mr. Daniel stated he saw something in the newspaper several weeks ago whereby the Goochland Board of Supervisors had a meeting with a representative of Henrico who spoke against supporting Chesterfield in anyway On moving or relocating Route 288. He stated if the County has a problem in this area, someone should be discussing this matter in detail. Mrs. Girone stated the County is in the process of sending the proposal for 86-043 ratification for moving Route 288 west to the ~0 for consideration whereby Goochland, ~owhatan, Henrico and Chesterfield would meet and diecuss the matter. Mr. Daniel inquired when it was decided to be sent to the MPC. Mrs. Girone stated that we want the Highway Commission to move the corridor and in that process the MPC m~st approve the plan and that is where th~ four localities will sit and decide where the corridor will be. she stated she met informally with Gcoehland and Powhatan representatives but the M~O process is where they will formally interact. Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate expressed his concern that the old route is still on the maps. Mrs. Girone stated the old route must stay on the state maps until the Highway Commission removes it. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Board should collectively decide and draw a line as to what the County is going to request and that be the County's position to be discussed with the elected representatives from neighboring localities. Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone indicated this was done when the Northern Area Land Use Transportation Plan was approved. Mr. McCraeken stated the plan recommends a western aliqnment of Route 288 and .staff will also, at the next Board meeting, bring a presentation to the Board requesting that this matter be referred to the MW0. Mrs. Girone stated the Highway Commission has to move the route and the only way they will do that is to go through a process by having the new plan ratified by the community and the MP0, then the Highway Commission will refer it to their staff who holds public hearings and then the staff makes a recommendation to the Highway Commission who will decide. She stated in response to Mr. Daniel's comments about Goochland and Henrico, some of the staff in Henrico and Goochlan( have a problem with the corridor, the corridor has not been determined--we are just talking in approximations and generalities. ~Lr. Daniel stated he felt we should find out what the concerns are by Goochland and Henrico before we try to obtai~ Highway Commission approval. He stated he felt it was important] to have informal Support £rom the elected representatives from surrounding jurisdictions, especially when it impactm them. He stated he would also like to see what the steps of approval are as well. Mrs. Girone stated the County has talked with the ethe9 jurisdictions and their concerns are noted. She stated that is the purpose of planning through the regional FiFO to work out problems which she felt could be accomplished. Mr. Mayas stated he had a problem with the same planners who planned Route 60 and Route 360 to repeat the same old process. Mr. Applegate stated the next MPC meeting would be February 13, 1986 and the Board meeting will be held on February 12, 1986 and the County must have adequate information. Mr. Daniel stated he felt insecure when something is put on an MPC agenda before this Board has officially voted on its position, Mrs. Girone stated the Hoard will be doing that at the next meeting and it will tak~ months before it appears on the M~O agenda for a vote and we wil~ have time to obtain accord between Chesterfield, Goochland, Fowhatan and Henrlco and then the vote will be taken. Mrs. Girone stated the other jurisdictions have not taken an official position at this time and a process has been established which works. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the easterly crossing of Laburnum/Chippenham should be included in the statement. Mr. Applegate stated that had been taken care of. Mr. Daniel stated he felt it ~hould be reiterated. Mr. Mayas inquired about the fine design process for Parham/Chippenham. Mrs. Girone stated that there has been a public hearing and they identified the corridor and the Highway Department has identified exactly where that road would be, hc~ much land they are taking, etc. Mr. Mayas inquired if this includes involvement by the people who will be impacted. Mrs. Girone stated they have had a lot of public hearings and a week before thi~ hearing there will be a meeting at the ~igh School with the people, the civic associations, etc. She stated the affected property Owners have had meetings, all of which have been in Henrico and the City 86-044 as none of it is in Chesterfield. Mr. Dodd stated that the priority item was Laburnum/Chlppenham and in the early 1980's Henrico changed their position from the Laburnum/Chippenham to Parham/Chippenham and everything has swung around that way. He stated now Laburnum/Chippenham is not mentioned and although he understands the necessity of Parham/Chippenham, he also feels th~ Laburnum/Chippenham is vital to the industrial growth of our County. Mr. MnCracken stated the Laburnum/Chippenham project is included in the Six Year ~lan of the Highway Department with the date of 1990 Or 1991 for actual construction. Mr. Dodd inquired how far ahead is Parham/Chippenham. Mr. ~cCracken stated the Parham/Chippenham project will be advertised about the end of this year. Mrs. Girone suggested a further amendment to say "and Laburnum/Chippenham to the east." Mr. Daniel stated that this identifies the project as one the County suppurts and we do not want to loose site of the fact that it is only one small part of the overall transportation network from Route 288 on the western side to th~ eastern side of Laburnum/Chippenham. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Fir. Daniel, the Board adopted th~ following statement: The cooperative effort at the local, state and national levels t¢ provide funding for the Parham/Chippenham Connector, Route 288, the Leigh Street Extenslon~ and Temple Avenue clearly emphasises the priority which the region has placed on these projects. Whe~ they are complete, our transportation network will be vastly improved. The Parham/Chippenham Connector will improve interjurisdictional travel by providing another link in th~ inner-circumferential network. It will also provide another James River crossing whick will relieve congestion on many of our local highways. The final design for the project must provide for the long term needs of the region so that future traffic will he adequately served. We trust that this matter will be resolved through the final designi process and through consideration of the future westwardly crossing of Route 288 and Laburnum/Chippenham to the east. The Chesterfield County Board fully Supports the construction of the Parham/Chippenham Connector and looks forward to its early completion. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.3. SECONDARY ROAD SIX Y~AR PLAN UPDATE On m~Dtion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs, Girone, seconded by the Board set the date of February 26, 1986 at 9:00 a,m. for a public hearing on the Secondary Road Six Year Plan Update and February 12, 1986 at 2:00 p.m. for a work session on the same subject. Vote: Unanimous Mr. McCra0ken stated he would provide the Board with the propose( plan this date. ll.D.4. SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICTS Mr. Zook stated recently Mrs. Girone brought to Staff's attentio~ the possible violation of the zoning ordinance relating to the special sign district. He stated they found the height of the sign was in accord with the special sign district but in discussing the matter with Mrs. Girone she felt the Board had intended to enact a lower sign height in the special sign districts. He stated Mrs. Girone felt the signs in the special 86-045 sign districts had been restricted to 10 ft. when in actuality the ordinance permitted them to be 25 ft. high. He stated Mrs. Girone has requested that the zoning ordinance be amended to restrict the maximum height of the signs in the special sign district~ to 10 ft. rather than 25 ft. He stated that it is staff's recommendation that since this particular ordinance will be reviewed in its entirety later this spring, that this change, as well as ~everal other issues, be delayed until that time since so many other groups are involved in changes of this nature. Daniel inquired when it would come to the Board. Mr. Zook statec the Board would be presented with an assessment of the situation in July, and if the Board felt the need to revise the ordinance, then staff would proceed with the revision process. Mrs. Girone stated that there are a lot of people upset in thc Village of Midlothian. She stated the original intent was to reduce the height of signs to 10 ft. and the ordinance does that in a shopping cente~ but on individual lots it can be 25 ft. She stated those that are existing now cannot be changed unless the owners volunteer to do so. She stated she did not feel this portion of the ordinance should be delayed as there is a lot of development going on. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the area of Hopkins Road from the City limits to Centralla should also be included. Mr. Applegate inquired about the total size of the sign being allowed and he stated his concern that if it is 10 ft. standard signs could cause blind spots at corners and he is not certain he can support it. Mrs. Girone stated that the standard, signs are not going to be put in the district, they will be madel in proportion to the height and the placement will also be regulated. She stated there could be problems with a 25 ft. as well as a 10 ft. sign depending on the placement, etc. Mr. Applegate referred to existing signs which were not within these requirements. Mrs. Girone stated that there are some existing but this change would be for the new signs and would not affect the existing signs but if and when they are replaced, they would have to conform. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board directed staff to forward to the Planning Commission for consideration at the earliest possible date and that the ordinance be double advertised regarding the height restriction amendment to the special sign district and the expansion of the Special sign district to encompass Route 60 as well as Road from the City limits to Centralia. Mr. Zook noted that the expansion of the special sign district would have to be a matter of ordinance considered at a similar time as the height restriction change; the expansion of the district will utilize additional staff resources; and staff has not fully evaluated the height changes. He stated he felt 60 days would be reasonable which would put consideration into Marc] or April. Mrs. Girone inquired ii there were any way to limit the size of signs, etc. prior to the Board hearing the issue. Mr. Micas stated that could not he done. Mrs. Girone requested that this be accomplished within 30 days within the procedures el the County. Mr. Zook stated that if involvement of the sign industry is not mandated prior to the public hearing, staff coul~ expedite the matter. Mrs. Girone stated the sign industry could be notified of the public hearing. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board directed staff ~o forward to the Planning CommiDnion for consideration at the earliest possible date {within 30 days) and that the ordinance be double advertised for the height restriction amendment to the special sign district to be heard b, the Board of Supervisors and the expansion of the special sign district to encompass Hopkins Road from the City limits to Centralia will be handled ct the earliest possible date. Vote: Unanimous ' 86-046 tl.D.5. ADJUSTmeNT OF FUNDING FOR HUMAN SERVICES, DATA PROCESSING AND COURTS BUILDINGS On motion of Nr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the County Administrator to increase the basic s~rvicas portion of the contract for services from $192,000 to $231,805 and adjusted the scope of services accordingly for the Human Services Building; that the allocation for additional services be increased from $15,000 to $35,000 to cover additional costs for the Data Processing Building; and that the basic services portion of the design contract for the Court~ Building be increased from $325,985 to $721,505. It is noted additional funds ars available within the current appropriation for the projects. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Mayas ~tated he felt it was wise that the adjustments were made at this time so that later services would not be hampered. ll.D.6. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER TAX FX~MPTION FOR OLD DOMINION CHAPTER OF NATIONAL RAILWAY H~STQRICAL SOCIETY On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of February 26, 1986 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider a tax exemption for the Old Dominion Chapter of the National Railway Eistorical Society. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel inquired if the February date would hamper these efforts for this year. Mr. Hedrick stated according to state law this cannot be expedited at this point but he did not feel it would hamper these efforts. Mr. Daniel inquired if this could b~ adopted on an emergency basis. Mr. Micas stated it could not. Mr. ~edrick requested that a letter be written to the Railway Society explaining the process. ll.I.a. DONATION TO CM~ER OF COMMERCE FOR BUILDING FUND On motion of MX. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Bea~d approved a donation of $131.25 to the Virqinia Chamber of Commerce for its Building Fund as permitted by Section 15.1-25 the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, with the funds to be expended from the General Fund Contingency. Vote: Unanimous ll.I.b. SALARIED FIREFIG~TERS FOR MATOACA FIRE STATION Mr. Hadrick stated Mr. Mayas had requested that the Board consider salaried firefighters for the Matoaca Fire Station on a 24 hour basis. Mr. Dodd inquired about response time, number of volunteers~ etc. Chief Eanes stated the ~atoaca Fire response area in 1985 had 104 calls but the ~atoaca Volunteer Fire Department responded to 158 calls by also assisting the ccntmunities of Ettrick, Chester and Phillips. ~e stated this is a low run company, the volunteer rate has been reduced because the people have moved from the area and because of the accident which occured which put a different aspect On the drivers, and college and military have reduced the volunteer fo~ce. He stated a f~w calls were missed only by Matoaca Station but answered by ~djoining fire stations Over the past several months, out of 86-047 the calls last year 18 wara structural fires with a value of $650,000 and a fire 10ss of $86,800. Ee reviewed approximately nine fire instances when the company did not leave quarters whic~ were mostly during the day, that 66% of the calls are occurring | between 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. He listed the deficiencies existing in the company, stated 8-67% of the calls were substandard during the year which means they were longer than 4 minutes for the first unit leaving, having less than two men responding, etc. Be assured the Board that with the volunteers at Phillips a/id the salaried men and volunteers at the Bttrick Fire Station and the interjurisdictional response from Petersburg, all calls were responded to in a timely manner. Mrs. Girone stated she felt other fire companies had a time when thei~ station might be deficient and were covered in another manner. Chief Banes stated there ara only three fire stations in the County not having the contingent of salaried men--EriCh, Phillips and Matoaca. He stated Enon missed two calls in 1985 to which they did not respond and Phillips made all of their calls. Be stated Matoaca missed two calls in 1994, five calls in 1985 and one so far this year and they were 30-40% substandard in their monthly calls. Mrs. Girone reiterated all calls were covered. Mr. Mayas stated if there were an emergency in Matoaoa, and they had to depend on Ettrick and Petersburg for assistance, railroad~ have to be crossed in both instances. He stated this is an emergency situation in Matoaca. Mr. Daniel inquired about various alternative measures to cover the Matoaca area with salaried men during the day, for five days a week which was indicated would cost approximately $85,060 versus $165,000 for full 24-h0ur coverage for the remaining six months of this fisca~ year. There was discussion regarding the timing for hiring, | training and placing the men in the station. Mr. Daniel inquired about the Dale Fire Station and any deficiencies that might exist. Chief Banes stated he did not bring detailed information on the Dale Fire Station but there were three paid men at all, time on duty. Mr. Applegate stated he understood Chief Eanes to say that with all the deficiencies, all calls were responded to and the fire loss was minimal. Be inquired further if this werel a life/death situation and if this were an emergency. Chief Banes stated they are having a higher than normal amount of deficiencies and missed responses from the ~atoaca Fire Department that are not occurring in other fire stations having ~ contingent of salaried firefighters, guaranteeing an immediate response except for the other two which have been successful in attracting volunteers. He stated he felt it was a serious situation when fire apparatus does not respond immediately to a call. Mr. Applegate inquired why there are more firefighters in Phillips than Matoaca when it is less populated. Chief ~anes stated that there are othe~ activities taking the time of the people who use to volunteer. Be stated there were 550 volunteer firefighters in the County in 1966 and there are less than 200 today. Mr. Applegate stated that the Board indicated they did not want any surprises during the year a~d this was discussed. Be stated he is as concerned about the safety of Matoaca residents as anywhere else but now it is indicated as an emergency and there are no funds in the budget to fund the request as the County has already dropped below the 5% in the general fund balance and he felt it should be addressed during the budget. Mr. Mayas stated this item was presented and debated and the reason it was not included was because there were no funds available. He stated the promise was made that if the surplus was adequate this would be accommodated. He stated the surplus was far below that anticipated but that is no excuse for this situation to exist. He stated the calls cannot be met and there ' exists the possibility that those assisting departments cannot get past the railroad tracks and the Board should not allow thisi sit,etlon in the ~ateaca area. ~e stated he did not feel the ' Board should wait until someone is killed or until an enormous amount of property is lost before filling this request. ~e stated the facts are plain that this is necessary now to cover the public safety needs. Mrs. Girone inquired if all the supplementary assistance crosses railroad tracks. Chief Eanes stated Phillips would not cross an railroad tracks but they, too, are an all volunteer organization and are located several miles westerly. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board was in the posture of deficit spending and the requires the Board to balance its budget and it has been the Board's practice to keep a 5% reserve and anything funded from this point on goes into that reserve and it will show up with th~ tax rate. She stated overspending this year could cause the need to raise taxes because the Board will have overspent in the existing year to the point that you must raise taxes in order to present a balanced budget in the new year. She stated she felt the fire situations are covered by three supplementary units that have a track record of having met the situations when the Matoac~ Station was deficient; two may come from areas that cross the railroad tracks but the third does not; and that it seems the needs of the community are being met and this should be a priority for the upcoming budget. She stated unless the Board wants to recognlse that they are going to raise taxes and go int¢ a deficit situation, it should not spend additional funds. She stated she did not want to make this determination for next year's budget until she sees what all the needs are for the County and all the fire stations and if taxes are needed to be increased, she will decide after having full consideration of every department in the Courthouse. Mr. Mayes stated it was obvious there is an emergency in the Matoaca area and the coverage is not average. ~e stated it was the Board's responsibility to see that public safety is provided throughout the County and the evidence has been presented that is not adequate in Matoaca. He stated it was this Board's responsibility to deal with it and not whether or not taxes should be raised. Mr. Applegate stated that Chief Eanes could not say if it were or were not a life/death situation, but that it was serious. Mr. Mayes stated he felt Phillips Fire Station was too far away to cover this area in a timely manner. Mr. Eedrick stated that there is a problem but there is coverage. H~ stated there i~ a potential for a problem and this may not be an emergency situation but it is up to the Board to decide what should be done and how it affects the alloeatlon of tax dollars. NLr. Maye~ stated the Board this date approved an additional $700,000 for the construction of three buildings and there was hardly any discussion. Mrs. Girone stated the money for the buildings was budgeted and is in the allocation for the building~ and no new money was approved. Mr. A~plegate stated the Board had also committed to consider the Dale District firefighters issue. Mr. Daniel suggested that the Board review ~11 the fire eltuation~ and there may be some alternatives. Me stated that if there is additional revenue needed for fire protection across the County then the Budget Committee should discuss this with the Administrator during the budget process. Be stated if within the next month it becomes more critical, then the issue can be discussed further. stated he preferred to wait a couple of weeks to obtain additional information. Mr. Mayes stated he could not see waiting when public safety is in jeopardy. He stated "coverage delayed is coverage denied". Mr. Applegat~ inquired if there were a surplus in the Fire Department's budget as there appeared to be some uhspent money i the audit for the past year. Chief ~anes stated he was not awar of any. Mr. ~edrick stated that the audit indicated that there may be $200,000 unspent and there was some question it might be equipment on order, etc. and he felt the funds were probably 86-049 committed. Chief Eanee stated he could not comment as he was not familiar with the report that had been alluded to. Mr. Daniel | inquired if a forecast hae been made as to unspent money in the 1985-86 budget. ~r. Bedrick stated they are assuming $1,000,000 will be retuxned from department~ but those funds are already programmed into next year's budget. Mr. Dodd inquired if the Fire Depar~ent's budget could cover th~ day time coverage only ~or $85,000. Chief Eanes stated that would not be possible since the Fair Labors Standards Act affected the rate o£ pay. Mr. Mayes moved that $165,000 be appropriated from the General Fund Fund Balance for salaried ~irefigthers at the Matoaca Fire Department. When asked Mr. Hedriok crated staff did not feel last year at budget time that this was a critical situation and it was put on the add back list. He stated staff now ~eels that the condition has deteriorated but they do not feel this is an emergency ~ituation and he suggested that it should be considered in the 1986-87 budget. Mr. Mayes stated~ in his opinion, it is a critical situation. Mr. Mayes' motion died for a lack of a second. Mr. Mayes inquired if five positions during the day would be adequate. Chief ~anes stated it would offset the deficiencies that are occurring during the day. Mr. Daniel inquired if this $85,000 could be found in this year's budget. Mr. Hedrick state~ his recommendation would be that it would include that the money would be absorbed within the Fire Department with the nnderstandinq that it would be dealt with by the Board if it cannot be done. Ne stated every effort wo~ld be made to find funds but the Board may have to deal with it during the year-end ~und balances, appropriation and surpluses. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, thc Board appropriated $85,000 for five men for approximately 12 hours a day for five days a week for the Matoaca Fire Department which will be absorbed by the 1985-86 existing County budget. Mms. Girone inquired if this meant the funds would come from the Fire Department's budget. Mr. Daniel stated he did not indicate from where. ~r. ~ayes indicated that it would be absorbed and the area was not specified. Mr. 5edrick reminded the Board that if this motion passes, this becomes $170,000 in next year's budget. Mr. Applegate stated the County Administrator recommended that this be dealt with in the 1986-87 budget and n~ we are encumbering $170,000 in the 1986-87 budget. ~rs. ~irone stated the Board is spending next year's money before looking at] the needs of the entire County or the tax levy and it is deficitI spending. Mr. Daniel stated he could not believe the Fire Department would not be obtaining additional personnel ne×t year~ Mrs. Girone stated she could support thi~ if the ~unds can be absorbed in the existing Fire Department budget. Mr. Daniel stated that was the technicalities of the motion as it said that| it would be absorbed within the budget as the County Administrator cannot transfer any large su~s of money on his own so technically it has to be absorbed by only one group which is within this year's Fire Department's budget. Mrs. Girone inquired if the motion meant no new money and no money from any other department. Mr. Daniel stated the Fire Department would b~ absorbing the bulk of that $85,000 and if the Administrator can transfer from one or two or three areas, that is the way it happen. Mrs. Girone Stated the Board is putting the Chief on th~ spot as he has an allocation and the Board in the seventh month of the year is making a major decision involving personnel and the deletion of something else and she felt thi~ a lot to expect 86-050 Chief Fanes stated the funds were not available in his existing budget. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Mr, Dodd, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Mr. Applegate stated his vote wa~ predicated on the recommendation of Mr. Hedrick who had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Chief Fanes. Chief Fanes assured the Board that without those resources and even after those resources are received, that the Fire Department will offer the citizens the best fire protection available. Mr. Daniel reminded the County Administrator that this motion did not include bringing this matter back to the Board at the end of the year. Mrs. Girone requested a clarification of the motion. Mr. Dcdd stated the motion was that the money would come from the 1985-86 budget. He stated that the County Administrator indicated he would have to come back possibly for u transfer and Mr, Daniel indicated that wa~ not part Of the motion nor the second. Mr. Dodd stated the County Administrator has indicated that is a problem, Mr. Daniel stated that the motion was a clean out motion which did not address coming back to the Board. Mr. Hayes stated the issu~ had been voted on and requested that the Board proceed with the agenda. 9.B.2. APPOINTMENTS 9.B.2.a. CAPITAL I~EGION AIRPORT COMMISSION Mr. Dodd stated his intention to resign immediately from the Capital Region Airport Commission and suggested the appointment of Mr. Daniel to succeed him. Mr. Applegate stated that since the Board became involved in the spring of the year, the Commlission has requested that the appoint~nents be made to expire on January 1, 1988. He stated they have also requested staggered terms for continuity so that all terms do not expire at the same time. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board nominated Mr. Harry G. Daniel to the Capital Region Airport Commission whose term would expire on January 1, 1988. It is noted this appointment will fill the vacancy created by Mr. Dodd who has indicated his intention to resign from the Commission. Vote: Unanimous 9.B.2.b. BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Mr. Dodd stated Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone currently serve on the Audit Con~ittee and he would like to reactivate the Budget portion of that Committee. He stated although Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone would not be responsible for the budget, that they b~ involved in the process. ll.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITE~L~ ll.E.1. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF WADSWORTH DRIVE Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the abandonment of a portion of Wadsworth Drive, state Route 887. Mr. Welchons stated that althouqh the Highway Department has given verbal approval they have not submitted approval in writing and staff requests that 86-051 this public hearing be continued to February 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board continued the public hearing regarding the abandonment of a portion of Wadsworth Drive until 7:00 p.m. on February 12, 1986. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.2. REQUEST FROM COLONIAL HEIGHTS TO CONNECT TO COUNTY'S OLD TOWN CR~N TRUNK SEWER On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the request from the City of Colonial Heights to connect to the County's Old Town Creek trunk sewer and authorized the County Adminiztrator to execute any necessary documents. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITF24S ll.E.3.a. CONDEMNATION FROC~DI~GH FOR FALLING CI~EEK FORCE MAIN ll.E.3.a.1. STANLEY V. AND DEBORAE B. FOUNTAIN Mr. Daniel inquired if the property owners had been contacted, i~ they had formally refused end if they realized a vote for condemnation would be taken today. Mr. Welchons stated that as bezt as the staff 0an determine, they have not accepted the offal but he did not f~l they had been notified that this action is before the Board at this ti~e. M_r. Nedrick stated the County still continues negotiations and some of the cases are settled. Mr. Daniel stated in the future he would like the Department to make every effort within reason to be sure, that no one discover~ that their property was voted on for condemnation at a Board meeting after the fact, that they he properly notified that the negotiations have been carried as far as the staff can and that the next step is for condemnation. He stated it can be done in ~ any manner as determined by staff. Mr. Kedrick stated this would be a change in existing policy. Mr. Daniel stated peepls are I notifying him that they are not aware of the proceedings, Ne requested that the County Administrator be instructed to change I the policies. Mr. Hedriek stated he would like the opportunity to review this request and bring alternatives back to ths Board as there are many factors involved. Mr. Daniel stated he felt there is enough latitude given with the words "within reason". Mr. Hedrick stated he would like to be able to bring all alternatives to the Board for conzideration before implementing the change. F~. Daniel requested that a letter be prepared for his signature which would be mailed to those people in Dale District prior to the Board meeting when such action is anticipated. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners ii the amount aS set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on January 23, 1986 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which i~ to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant t0 Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Stanley V. and Deborah B, Fountain $657.00 Vote: Unanimous 86-052 ll.E.3.a.2. MARY M. STOCKWELL On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board authorized %he County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount am ~et opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County A~uinistrator notify said property owners by registered mail On January 23, 1986 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedingz. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Vinginia. Mary M. Stockwell $50.00 Vote: Unanimous 11.~.3.a.3. JAMES E. AND MINOR F. HENDERSON On motion of Fir. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property ewnerz if the amounts as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on January 23, 1986 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action iz on an emergency basis and the County intendz to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. James E. Henderson Lot 38 $631.00 James ~. and Minor F. Bende~son Lots 39 and 40 $752.00 Vote: Unanimous ll.E.3.b. ASSIST DRV~LOg~R OF D~R RUN SUBDIVISION IN OBTAINING OFF-SITE SEWER EASEMENT Mr. Mayez inquired if the landowners involved in this process ha( been notified of this action. Mr. Dodd stated this type of action has been done for many years and he did not know of anyone's land which is being seized. Mr. Hedrick reminded the ~oard that the condemnation procedures have specific OppOrtunities for the citizen to be heard. He stated negotiations are entered into, if there is no agreement, then citizen has right to be heard by his peers. Mr. Mayes inquired if the citizen understood the entire process and when negotiations have ended. Mrs. Girone suggested that the Board contact the citizen. Mr. Daniel stated he would like staff to handle the situations prior to it being heard by the Board. Mr. Applegate stated even though condemnation iz authorized, negotiations can continue. Mr. Daniel stated he felt a lot of problems would be resolved if property owners are treated with a little extra effort to make them aware of what is going on. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the citizens had a right to understand the procedures and process. Mi-. Dodd stated that was correct but people have redress. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the same as Mr. Daniel in this regard. Mr. Mayes inquired further about this particular procedure in assisting the developer and Mr. Welchons explained that staff would neqotiate with the property owners and if this failed, condemnation would be brought back te the Board for further action. On motion o£ Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the. Board approved and authorized the Right of Way Manager to aid William B. DuVal and Gene B. DuVal, the developers of Deer Run Subdivision, in acquiring an offsite sewer easement across 86-053 the property of Dr. and M~$. Charles W. Eenry with the agreeing to pay for al~ costs. vote: Unanimous ll.E.4. SET PUBLIC ~ARING DATES ll.E.4.a. SALE OF 5.32 ACRES TO VDK&T FOR ROUTS 288 On motion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by Mrs. Girene, the Board set the date of February 26, 1986 at 9:0Q a.m. to consider the ~ale of ~.~2 acres of land and a drainaqe easemoa{ to the Virginia Department of Eighways and Transportation for Route 28S. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.4.b. S~-LE OF EU~LUS PROPERTX AI~E~ IRO~RZDGZ ROAD Mr. Hedrick stated on August 14, 1985, ~he ~oard authorized to advertise thc ~ale and receive bids for the sale cf a surplus' parcel Of land located along Ironbr~dge Road which was originall5 a portion of the police pension fund. He stated healed bids in the amecnt o~ $79,00~.0Q and $67,75~.~ were received on ~epte~er 27, 1985, from Charles M. ~een, Jr. ~nd Richard williams respectively. Be stated since the Assessor~ Office has valued the property at b~tween $2,~00,00 and $3,000.00 per acrs, staff felt that a minimum of $87,472.00 Shoul~ be an acceptable hid and on October ~3, i~$~, both ~ids w~re rejected ~y the Board. He stated further as re~uestedb~ the Board, both bidder~ land and the follcwinq offers were made: Charles ~. Keen, Jr. $93,75~.00 Richard C. Williams He sta~ed %ha~ staff sees no compelling reason to sell or retain the property. Mr. Applegate inquired if there were water and sewer available to the property. Mr. Welchons stated it was not. Mr. Daniel inquired what the market value will be of the propert when ad, scent property is developed. ~e stated it dce~ no~ cost the County to retain the property and it m~y be more valuable at a later dat~. Mr. ~ayes state~ he did not feel it appropriate to sell the land at the current time. On motion of Mr+ Mayas, ~econd~d b~ ~ir. Daniel, the rejected the bids ~rom ~r. Charle~ M. Keen, Jr, and ~. Richard and Chalkley Road. VO~e: ll.E.4.C. BE~R AND WATER ORDIN~CE ~D~NTS date of February 26, !986 a= 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to con~ide~ a~n~entm to the water and sewer ordinance~ work session be scheduled for 2:00 n.m. on Fmbruary 12, 1986 at which tim~ a work m~ssion is scheduled for the Six Year ~lan. ll.E.5. .CONSENT ITEMS II.E.5.a. A/4E~DMENT TO SEWER CONTRACT FOR ROBINDALE SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Nit. Daniel, the Board approved and amended Sewer Contract Number S~5-14CD/7(8)514M for 86-054 Robindale Subdivision, on$ite and offsite seweTs to include the provieion that the developer be refnnded from the sewer oonneo%ion fees collected from the existing homes s~rved by this offsit~ sewer ~xt~nsion no% to exceed SB,000,OO. ll.E.5.b. RELOCATION OF WATER LINES FOR MUP~RAY OLDSMOBILE On Motion Of Mr. Apptegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents ~er the fellcwing water contract~ Water Centract Number W86~33CD, Relocation of Water Lines for ~ur~ay 01dsmobils Develope~: Murray Oldsmobile, Tncurporated Contractor: Central Builders, Incorporated Total Contract Cost: $~3,637.57 To~al Eatimate~ County Ces~: 14,328.00 (cash Refund) Estimate~ D~veloper Co~t: $ 9~309.57 Number of Connections: 0 And further the Board appropriate~ $1~,800.00 from surplus to 5~-5724-6339. This appropriation include~ a 10% Contingency. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.~.c. DEED OP DEDICATION ~RON ~IONE=R FINANCIAL CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard approved and authorized the Ceunty Administrator to ex,cute any neoessary ~ocuments accepting on behalf of the County a 20' wide ~trip of land along Centralia Road from Pioneer Financial Corporation. Vote= Unanimous li.E.5.d. D~=D 0~ DEDICATION ALONG ~ORRISETT ROAD On motion of 14r. Apple,s=e, seeonde~ by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard approved and authorized the County Administrator to ex=cute any necessary ~o¢~en~ a==epting on behalf of the Count~ a lO' stri of land along Merrisett Road from M. Dean Whittington and Nonie ~. whittington. Vote: Unanimous lt.~.~.e. S~W~R ~A~F~4E~T ACROSS ~ARCEL RDJAC~T TO ROUT~ 60 On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~esoud~d by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved and authorized the Chairmen of the Boazd and the County Admlnistra~or to e~ecute the quitolalm deed vacating a 16' sewer easement acro~ a parcel of lan~ adjacent to ~oute Vote: Unanimou~ lI.E.8. REPORTS Mr. welchons presen%ed =he ~oard with a list of develupe= water and sewer contracts executed b~ the County A~nistr~to~. II.F. REPORTS ~r. He,flak stated the 5osrd had been 2ormally notified tha~ the 86-055 following addition had besn officially accepted into the State Secondary System as of January 6, 1986~ Addition: ~ength Warbro Roan, from ~.06 mile west of Route 360 to Route 604 0.46 m~. Mr. ~edrick presented the ~oard with a list of the status o~ Board projects ac well a~ status reports on the General Fund The Board recessed %0 travel to Room 502, Admini~tratio~ Suilding. Contour, who gave the Board e brief presentation on the or~anization and it8 ~oals and objectives. M~r. Dodd requested all private video camera eguipment be removed from the Board Room which is consistent with previous Board policy. The Board recessed for ~ive minutes Reuonvenlng: Mr. Bodd stated that he is in the mobile home b~ines~ although not directly related to sales end requested that anyone purchasing a mobile home from his company to pleas~ advise him s~ that he could abstain end prevent any conflict. ll,G. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE NOME PERMITS In Bermuda Magisterial District, Carl D. Adenauer requested a · - - ~ . Mobzle Home Permit to park a mobmle home on ~roperty _romt~ng th9 west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 600 feet south of Forest Lake Road, and better known as 13900 Jefferson Davis Eighway, Ta~ Ma9 t33-7 (2) ~id City Farms, Block A, Lot 12 (Sheet 41). Mr, Adenau~r was present add stated he needed additional time to remove the mobile home from the property. Mr. Pocle stated the Roard heard the case two months ago, another mobile home exists on the property which is illegal and the applicant i~ working to remove that mobile home which involved eviction notices which take ~ome time to handle. Mr. Dodd stat%d he felt 60 day~ is usually ample time to make some move on this and the County is trying to work with the applicant regarding the legal mobile home. ~e stated he felt an additional 60 days would be excessive. Mr. Adena~er stated he had ~cfved the uviction noti¢~ after.having tried =o have =he tenants move out ca their own which did not work. Mr. Dcdd stated going through eviction process dues take time and in that iastance he would recommend approval cf the 60 day deferral. There was no opposition 86-056 Qn motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, tko Board deferred this request until M~ch 26, 1986. In Bermuda Magisterial District, Donald Gene Miller, Jr. requested a Mobile Home Permit On property fronting the northwes! Tax ~h%p 8i-12 {3) Quail Oaks, S~ction 2, Block 4, Lot S (Sheet 23). Mr. Miller was present and s~a%ed the home has existed in this location for many year~. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approve( this request for a period cf five ye~$ subject to the following standard conditions: 1. T~e applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the 2. ~o lot or parcel may be rented or leased ~or use as a mobile property. Only on~ {1) mobile home shall be permitted to parked on an individual lot or 3. The minimum lot siz~ yard sei~ac~s, required front yard~ and o%her zoning req~i:e~nts of =he applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home~ shall be located closer than 20 feet to any 4. Ne additional per~anent-typ~ living space may b~ added onto a mobile hems. A11 mobil~ homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or ~ewer are available, tke~ shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shalJ then obtain the necessary permits from the 0ffioe of the Building Offioial. This shall be done pMio~ to the installation er relocation cf the mobile home. Any viola=ion of ~he above conditions shall ~o grounds for rev00ation of the Mobile 5o~e Permit. Vote: In Midlothlan Magisterial District, Dominion Aszociates requeste¢ renewal of a Mobile Home Permit on property fronting the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, apprcaimately 930 feet west o~ Paramonnt Drive, and better known as 8610 ~idloghian Turnpike. I As. Barbara Fraley was present representing the applicant. Ther~ was no opposition present. I On motion of Mrs. Giroae, seconded by ~lr. Applegate, the Board approved this request for a period Of five years subject to the . following standard conditions= 1. The applicant shall be %he owner and occupant of the mob±la home. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leaaed for use as a he~e site~ nor shall any mobile home be use~ for rental property. 0nly one [1) mobile ho~e shall be p~rmi%ted to parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum let nf~e, yard ~e~baeks, required front yard, and other zoninq requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that nc mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homeg ~hall be skizfied but ~hall no__t be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, the shall be u~ed. 5. Upon being granted a ~obile Nome Permit, the applicant shal~ then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation er relocation of the mobile home. 7. ~%y violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of ~he Mobile Home Permit. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Gir~ne and Mr. Mayes. Abstention: 5tr. Dodd because his company did sell this mobile home. S6SR0~2 In Mateaca Magiaterial Di~t~iot, GIa~ys ~. Cbildrsss renewal of a Mobile Home Permit on p%operty frontinq the southeast line of Tipton ~treet, approxla~tely 90 feet cf Hill Street, and better known as 29~3 Tipton street. Tax Map 149-14 (12) ~ilhorn, Block C, Lot 4 (Sheet 4!). Ms. Tiptcn was present. There was ne opposition present. On mO~ion of Mr. ~L~ye$, &ecended by Fare. Qirone, the Board aDproved this request for a period of five years subject tO the 1. Tko applican~ shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. ~o lot or parcel may be rented or leased f~r use as a mobil home site, nor shall any mobile home be n~ed for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home ~hall be p~r~itt~d ~e Dark~ on an individual 10t or paroel. 3. The mlni~um lot size, yard setbacks, re,ired front yard~ and oth~r soning requirement~ of the applicabl~ ~onin~ shall b~ located closer than 20 ~eet to any exi~%in~ I NO additional pe~nent-t~e living seac~ may b~ added onto a mobile h~e. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall 5. ~ura p~lic (County] water and/or m~$r are available, they ~hall be 6. Upon bmlng g~anted a ~ubile 5om~ Permit, the applicant shat~ then obtain th~ necessary pe~it~ from the Office of %he Bu~l~ng Official. This shall be done prier fie th~ installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7, ~y violation of th~ abov~ conditions shall be grounds for revocation o~ the ~bile Home Permit, Mr. Conway was present from ~atoaca District and stated he had been informed that he should be present for consideration cf a renewal o~ e mobile home permit this date. Mr. Conway was informed that he was not on the agenda. Mr. Peele stated since it was a renewal, Mr. Conway would not be requested to move. NLr. Mayas inquired if 30 days wcul~ inconvenience Mr. Conway. Mr. Conway stated that would be acceptable. Mr. Mayas apologized to FAr. Conway for the misunderstanding. It was on motion of ~r. de£erred until February 26, 1986 since information is not II.H. i~EQUESTB FOR REZONI~G 855059: (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, PAULA A. MULFORD requested CoDditicual Use to permi~ e private nursery school in a P~sidential (R-9) District on a 0,407 sore parcel fronting approximately 36 fe~t on the northeast line of Tevis Lane approximately 360 feat north of D~aine D~iv=. Tax Map 49-6 ~8~ Willia~n ~s~at~s, Sec=ion C, ~lo=k F, ~ot 8 (sheet 14). ~r. Hudson ~u!ford was Rresent and stated hu would like to request a d~ferral of this request for 3~ days. ~e stated recen~ dev~lop~nt~ have led him ~o obtain an attorney, the attorney has raised some legal questions which he has not b~n able to ~nve~t~gat~ thorough]I, ~d he ~y ~ven consider an amen~ent case from the Dec--er meeting to investigate allegations regarding other businesses in the neig~orhood. He stated he felt th~ e~ had bgeD d~ferr~d long enough and race,ended the case be heard. ~. ~ulford began to explain his Teason~ for deferral, a request for an ~endment, etc. Mr. Micas stated if the case i~ to be h~ard, these ~hould be presented then. Mulford stated he would like to amend the r~=u~ uo have six children rather then ~ive just to babysit. Mr. Mica~ seated the apDlicant could withdraw and resubmit or fo~ard i= back %o the Planning Co, lesion for an ~ended application. Mr. Pools stated if this is an inst~ctlonal activity, only one child in addition to your own would require zoning approval oP if it iba babysit=lpg $grvice you can keep five children at any one time wi~ho~% a ~e~mit. Mi. ~yus 9tated he felt perhaps the thing to dc would be to allow the applicant =o a~nd his r~ue~t and submit it to the Planning Co~ission. Mr. Appl~gate stated the cas~ hms bean be~or~ th~ ~oard since May of last year, a deferral was granted at the DecaYer meeting and h~ kn~s of no reamon why he wo~l~ reco~en~ mix a~ opposed to f~ve children, ~ ~%ate~ he would pr~fer tO h~r th~ O~$e. ~. ~ica~ ~ta~d i~ ~s on the agenda and ~he Board must hear the case unless you action othe~i~, ~ Mulford stated this case started in February, t9~5 and on deferral of the Planning Co~iBsion or the Board, it has taken this long. He stated %hey would tik~ %o amend the request so tkat they can babysit six children under a Conditional Use Pe~it. I% was generally agreed the Board would 5ear the case under its normal schedulinq. ~. Daniel th~ effects of a withdrawal and an 85S160 In Clever Hill F~agisteri~l Bistrict~ THE C~ESTERFI~LD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION requested reconsideration o~ a previously 86-059 granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 76S130) in a Residential (RMV5) Diskrict on ~ 55.38 acre parsel fronting approximately 600 ~eet on the we~t line of Libra fronting approximately 700 feet on the west line of Lookhart Road, and qenarally located in the western quadrant of the inter~ ~e~tioA cf these roads. Tax bLap 39711 {1) Paroel g2 and Part of~ Parcel 5~ 39-tl (7) Bexley Cosmopolztan Phase V, Block 25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; 39-15 politan Phase V, Block B, Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, a~d 3~; and common open ~paoe ow~ed by vi~glnia First Savings and Loan Asso- the a~eoted property owners, the Supervimor of the district and %he Couuty and it is hie understaadiag ~hat there is a reques~ that the application be deferred for 30 days. stated khis is a ~lanning Com~ission request to reconsider a previously granted Conditional Use Planned DevelOpment. Be stated he has talked with representatives of the Bank, th~ Civic Association and the Attorney who is representing ~ne of the property owners and they have explained that thuy ar~ trying to come to an agreement but they need u vote of association which will be =akun next On motion o~ ~. Applega~e, a~on~md by ~. Daniel~ the Board granted a ~eferral of this re,est until February l~, 1986 with 1700 and 1800 squar~ foci provisio~s that are in effect. property o~ers have agreed to that condition. stated ~ha~ was his ~derstanding, There was no opposition pre~nt. 85~059 (Amended) In Clover Kill ~agisterial District, PAULA A. M~3LFORD requested Conditional Use to permit a private nursery school in a Residential (B-9) District on a 0.407 ao~e parcel fronting approximately 36 iuat on the northeast line of Tevi~ approximately 360 feet north of uumaine Drive. Tax Map 49-6 (8) WillismGwyn Zstabes, Section C, Block F, ~ot ~ (Sheet ~. Paola stated the ?lanning Co~ission had reco~nded denial of thi~ request. Mr. Mulford requested that he be given the oppor:uni~y ~o amend this r~est to allow six children rather th~ five for babysitting services and eliminatu the school re~e~= all ~og~ther. ~e s~ate~ he felt if his original were inappropriate, the Planning Depa~tmun% uhould kava advised them. ~. Dodd stated people have th~ right ~c ask flor anything they feei appropriate, but %he Board has the responsibility of deciding if i: is stated this case has been on the docket for almost a year and residents have been present at meetings numerous ~imes. ~e sba%ed %he original application would provid~ play a~ip~nt learning mat=rials b~ a ~raine~ teacher and now they are five children which are all,ed for a fa~ly day care center. requested the Doard to hear the ease today and to davy Mr, ADDlegate ~ated he deferred /hi~ ma%ee~ f~om th~ D~ce~r meeting to ascertain how ~ny people were doing business on Tevi~ resident was doing buBiness 5y selling sampl= furnitur= from ~6-0{0 accessory building on hi~ property ~nd staff has discussed this matter with F~r~ R~iney and he felt this situation will cease. stated he did nob feel the request for an amendment from five to six children would change his poslt~on because it weuld ~e~ a dangerous precedent County-wide. Me stated he wrote the Mu!ferd~ a latter and indicated he fe~t they should go with the babysittiing service and comply with the ordinance as presently enacted. He stated their request i~ not compatible with the neighborhood. On motion of ~ir. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Gire~e, the hoard denied this request. In Dale Magisterial District, C~RLES C. AND RESMIE J, L~C~ requested rezoning from Residential (R~7] to Office Business with Conditional Use Planned Development to p~it us~ ~nd bulk ~xceptions on a 4.9 acre parcel fronting approximately 320 feet southwest quadrant of the intersection of the~e roa~. Tax 66-1 {2) ~pthill Gm:~en~, Section 1, Lot~ 64-68 ~Sheet 22). Mr. Peele stated th~ Planing Co~i~$ion had race, ended subject 5o certain conditions. Mr. Ashley Williams, the applicant, stated the conditions were acceptable. building wiI1 be going on omo Road, stated they wer~ concerned approval of this development. She o~tlined safety concerns and hazardou~ ~i~uation~ wh~oh ~xlmt at her residence and serious problems. She stated she did not object %o the building but tO the traffic sitnatiou. Mr. Peele explained in detail th~ turning situation which was expressed by ~s. R~erq. ~, D~ni~l inquired abo~t accident rate in this area which info~ation staff did not have available. ~. Pa~llett~, a resident of ~o Road, stated that h9 r~prese~te~ the residents of uhe oo~unity, He stated he i~ the adjacent an Route 10 will increase dramatically, large amount~ of wate~ will~ have to be remove0 beoause of :he pavin~ of this large area, no hydraulic analysiu has been pur~o~ud to dutermin= the impact =his development on the surrounding areas as the xesid~nts have ' well~ and septic tanks and they are concerned ~out the general furnishing public water and sewsr if thslr systems are damaged b Kingsforest Subdlv~sion have si~e~ a petlt~on and they are not opposed to the zoning of ~he land but to the building o~ Pha~ I pr~or to the construction cf tbs relocated Omo head. ~e stated their concerns arel 1. A private drive ~rom Ironbridg~ ~ad into the development would be 1~0-20O ft. from the pre~nt Omo Road which woul0 still be used. Currently ~o Road carries 643 vehicles Der day and Phase I would generate 1936 dai!~ trips. 2. Th~ :ime fr~e necessary to construct the p=o~osed ~o Road sines i% has been 25 years since right of way has been obtained to widen ~u=~ 10 and has yet Co be done. I~ i$ now n~arly i~0s~ible to ~urn onto Ir0~ridge Road from ~ Road during the day b=caus~ of ~he two driveways o 86-061 drives coming from tho eastern side within 48~ ft. and it is located on a curve +-here will be numerous accidents. 4. The proposed design makes it harder for those people making a loft hand turn onto Irorlbridqe and most of the people leaving Omo ROad need to turn left. ~e appealed to the ~oard to develop Ironbr~dge ROad safely. ~r. Williams stated in the ultimate plan~ Phase II~ ~o Road is being relocated to intersect with Route 10 at Irongat9 Drive and hopefully ~s. Rumberg's problem would be reduced. He state~ with regard to Mr. Pautlette's concerns about runoff they are ewers of them and should be able to handle that and minimize the effect on adjacent property. ~e stated tha~ they dc not antlclpa=e extending water and s~wer to the property owners but inquired who weald be Yesponsible for the relocation of Omo Road. ~r. Williams stated he felt it was the responsibility of the county o~ State as they have reserved the right of way as req~/eeted by County staff. There was no one else present to address this matter. ~ir. Daniel stated that since thi~ wa~ a mmall tract, staff felt they could net demand the construction sf the ~o~d. ~e ~tated opposition to the intent but to the particulars with r~gard to the heal=k, safety and welfare of :he public. ~e stated the Central Area Plan which is moving through the prccemm addresses many of these issues empeciatly the limited aooess along Route with a community thoroughfare where large tracts can be tied together without having to burden Route 10. Me mtat=d he felt th~ entire application should be returne~ to the Planning commissiea for review in view of several concerns that he hat. ~ ~tated the current tim~ there is ne commercial operation on this side ROute 10 in thi~ area, the Irongat¢ Shopping Center on the opposite side of Route lO was zoned years a~o and they develope~ the office park, the ~hopping center and the residential development. He stated on this side of the road, the neighborhoods axe already there. He stated the high quality office is probably proper as it would serve as a transition and buffe~ for ROute 10 to p~etect the homeowners in the qeneral area. ~e stated another consideration that the Planninq Commission ghould d~al with is mo~ing the ingress and egress this property off cf Route 10 i~ possible so that the i~sueB ~elt access should he moved to Omo Road as far away from Route Mrs. Girone inquired if ~r. Daniel were recommending the relocation of Omo Road. blt. DanioI Stated he was not committing to that as it could b~ covered within =he overall cos= of ~oute 10, if and when Saute 10 is widened. He stated if the applicant agree~ to th~ high quality office transition, =he saard probably would require acsess away from Romte 10 and reserve the right of w~y to relocate Omo Road and, since it is a very small tract, conjunction with the widening of Rou~e 10. Mrs. Girene the Board that Old Buckingham was relocated and realigned with walton Park and the developer was responsible for this. Mr. traffic then the applicant mhould bear the cost of the remanded this request back to tho Planning Commission to censide~ a traffic light. 86-062 ~ir. Pool~ stated staff will have to work with the applicant on the modification to the plan and then go baok %o the Planning Commission. Fir. Daniel stated he understood there was no immediate decision needed this date, Mr. Williams Stated that the construe=ion plans have not yet been made. ~Lr, Daniel state( that Mr. Willi~mu Should work with utaif as to his timing of the development, etc, ~5Sll~z (~mended} In Bermuda Magisterial Dis%flor, GRE~N~!LL, A CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural IA) to convenience susinese (B-l) of 2.05 acres and from community Buuineus {B-2) to COnvenience Businous (B-l) of 1.0 acres plus Conditional Use Planned Development ac permit use and bulk captions on a 3.05 acre parcel ~ronting approximately 520 feet the south line Of West Hundred Road, also £ronting ap~roxlmatel~ 900 feet on Old Bermuda 5undred Road, and located in the we~t quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map (3) Midway Farmm, Parcel I (Sheet 33). Mr. goole stated the Planning Commission had recommended apprevaJ of this request subject to certain conditions, He stated subsequent to Planning Co~mi~sion approval, the applioanb has modified his Master Plan slightly and ~ubmitted a plan that increase the size of building "B" from 2800 sq. it, to ~600 ~q, ft. He presented an addendum which addresses this request. Mr. Jeff Collins was present representing the applicant. ~e stated the squa~ footage was increased ~cause ~r. David Sauers with the Enon Civic Association indicated it might not be appropriate for a day care facility for building "s". ae seated with that in mind the applicant has now secured some doc%ors who will move into the building if they can obtain appropriate square footage which i~ in the ~6~0 Sq. ft. ~an~u. H~ stated building will be brick and frame, single s~ory and the nelghboru across the street are not opposed te the proposal. ~r. Collins indicated the applicant is in accord with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. There wa~ no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated he had concerns about the increased footage but if h~ has spoken with adjacent property owners and they have no problem it would be a~ceptable. ~r. Collins they are aware of the plans but he did not know if they were aware of the square footage change. Mr. Dodd stated there were two nice homes in the area. Another gentlemen representing the | applicant indicated they had been approaehe~ ~bout purchasing homes for some type of development in the future. Mr. Collins sqnare footage issue was not mentioned. On motion of Mr. Dodd~ ~econded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following cenditfons~ 1. The following conditions, notwithstanding the plan prepared by Charles C. TOWhee and Associate~, dated January 16, shall be considered the ~ster Plan. (P) 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installe~ around the perimeter of all drlv~ways and parking areaz. Drainage shall be designed eo as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. 4, The only ~ge~ permitted in Building "B" Shall b~ ~ day care center or office. ~6-063 5. In conjunction with the appreval ef this request, an excmptlan tQ the required nur~er of parking spaces for day care eeDter use shall bm granted, sp0eifioally, a minimum of ~i× (6) parking spaces plus one (1) for each employee shall be provided. In addition, an a:ma fo~ drop-off and piok-up shall be provided. This area shall be connected to the ~ain building by a sidewalk and designed to preclude 6. Prior tc release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured ~rom the centerline of Old Bermud~ Hundred Roadr shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 7. Additional pavement and ourb end gutter 0halt be ConStructe¢ along West ~undr~d Read fort he entire ~roperty frontage along Old ~ermud0 Hundred Road from Route l0 to the entranc~ onto 0!d ~ermuda ~undrmd Road, as deemed aeeessary by the Transportation D~partment and VD~&T. (CPC) 8. Access to West Hundred Road shall be limited to One entrance/exit located along thm western ~roperty line and designed a~d co~str~0ted to allow shared use with the adjacent proper~y to ~he west. An additional exit enly shall be permitted to Route I0, the ~xact loc~tiOn of which shall be appreved at she time of sshematio plan review. AcceSs to ~ermuda Hundred Road shall be limited to one entrance/exit. (CPC) 9. Lighting shall be low level and positioned ~n as not to project into adjacent properti~. In conjuRe=ion wi~h the approval of this request, a twenty [20) foot exception to the fifty (50} foot setback quirement fa: parking shall be granted along West Hundred Road. Within this setbaok plus between Wust Hundred Road aa~ the driveway serving ~he gas pumps, ornamental trees an shrubs shall be planted. A conceptual landscaping plan Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan r~view. A detailed landscaping plan de- picting this requirement shall b~ submitted to the Planning D~pa=tment fur approval in conjunction with final site plan review. [Note: Driveways for the gasoline p%lmps, ~S ~how~ o~ the ~astmr Plan, arm permitted by the zoning ordinance without the granting of an exception.} ll. In conjunction with the approval of thi~ re~st, a {20] foot e~ceDtion to the fifty (50) foot building setback requirement shall be granted along Old B~zmuda ~undred ~or Building "B" only. A thirty (30) foot buffer~ exclusive of utility easm~e~=s, shall be maintained slang 01d ~ermuda Hundred Road. With th~ exception Of ~ single access to Old ~ermuda Hundred Head, there shall be no facilities wi=hi~ this buffer. This buffer shall be land~caped with evergreens and ornamental shrubs and trams of sufficient density tn minimize the view of the use~ from Old ~rmuda Sundrad Read and th~ adjacent r~identlal uses to the east. A oonceptual landscaping plan depicting this require~-nt shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan ~epicting this requirement shall be submitted to ~he Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 12. Ail sides of ~uildings "A" and "S" shall have decorative features giving the appearance o f residential structures. Also~ perches having a residential appearance shall be iDst~lled along the Old Bermuda E~ndred Road f~cades. Renderings and/or elevation~ depicting thi~ requirement 86-064 shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematle plan review. ~rior to obtaining a building per,it, easements shall be dedicated to the County of Chesterfield, free and stricted, to accummodate improvements necessary for impI~ mentation of the Johnson Creek Drainage District Plan. 14. Until sUCh t~me as the Johnson Creek Drainage s~striot Plan is i~plemented~ improvements within the limits of the 100 year floodplain shall be limited to either a playground ara~ or a gravel parking area with a minimum of six {6) znehes %21 ur 92%A stone and delineated with timber curb. To buffer fh~s use from future development to =he sou~h, a!l existing vegetation within ~he lim/ts of the floodplain | shall be maintained with the exception o~ any area necessar~ for construction of the playground and/or parking area. If! ~ gravel parking area is ¢onstruete~ within the limits of the 100 year floodplain, it shall be paved, curbed and District plan through the property. At such time as the Johnson Creek Drainage District ~lan is implemented through the subject property, the area within the 100 year floodplain may be use~ fo~ either a playground er parking area; suitable landscaping shall be installed tu minimize ~he view of =his area from the adjacent property to south if that area has not bean developed for commercial or indus%rial use. 15. signs ~hall comply with the regulraments of special Sign Districts for shopping centers in a Convenience Business 16. The development shaI1 he limited to tho~e uses pernitted in a ConveDience Business (B-l) Dis~rict plus a printing shop. Vote: Unanimous 855129 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, BRECK AND JEANNE CAINE requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use {e~pansinn of retail sale of gcod~ not propagated on fha property, and outside s=orage) and bulk (setbacks) exceptions in an Agricultural (Al District on a 5.~ acr~ parcel fronting approximately 203 feet on the east line of Branchway Road, ap- prox~J~utely 82~ feet south of ~idlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcel 10 ($hee~ M~. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approvai of this request subject to certain conditions. ~Lr. Breck Caine was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There wa~ no opposition present. Mr, Applegat~ inquired about the nine foot setback and why it was not 15 ft. along the p~o~erty line. ~r. ~uele explained that the setback is ~uire~ by the crdinan¢ because the existing parcel is zoned agricultural and if it were zoned commercial, there would be no setback. Mr. Applegate inquired if the applicant could accept a 15 ft. setback. Caine sta~ed ~hat their plans could not ac~o~odate a 1~ ft. setback because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Peele explained further that the Planning Commission do~s ha~e the re~ponsibili~ to ~eview the plans for the arehlteetural style, screening, buffering, ets. but the ~oard can aisc modify the conditions at On motion of ~r. Applcgatu~ s=conde~ by ~rs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: =he following ¢ondi=ions nocwiths=anding, the plan titled Plan "E" shall be considered the Master Plan. (P&CPC) Parking and driveway areas shall be curbed and guttered except in those areas waived by the Planning Department and Environmental Engineering. (P,EE&CPC) (~0TE= THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES TFL~T ~LL DRIVEWAYS PARKING AREAS B~ ~AVE~.) ! Other than plants, trees, shrubs and other ty~es of yeas-! ration outside storage shall be confided ~o the area shown on the .M~ster Plan. There shall be no outside storage of items which are nut packaged or bagged. This a/es shall be screened from view Of the adjacent properties via buildings, landscaping, fencing or a c0mbi~tion ~hereof. A plan depicting this requirement shall be Submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed plan depicting thi~ requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final ~its plan review. (P) (NOTE~ ITEMS CA~I~OT BE STORED IN /k~QUIR=D DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. ) In conjunction wi~h the approval of this r~q~St, a nine (9] foot exception to the fifteen (15) foot interior side yard setback re~uir~nt shall be granted along the southern property llne for the proposed retail building and ~hed shown on the Master Plan. In conjunction with scher~atic plan rmview, elevations shall be submitted for an~ new buildings. (P&CPC) The existing freestanding si~n may remain. ~f i~ is removed, a single freestanding sign ~hal! be identifying tbs use. The new sign may be externally lighted, but may be internally lighted only if the signfiel~ i~ opaqu~ with tranmlucent letterm. This sign, plus any building-mounted signs, shall comply with the of the Convenience Dusiness (B-l} District. (P) 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from ~he senterline of Branchway Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and Bnr~strieted. Additional pavemsnt and cur~ and gutter shall be installed along Branchway Road~ as deemed necessary by the Transpor- tatlen Department and VDH&T. 8. ~he fence which is planned to be erected along the northern and southern property lines shall be ornamental (i.e., no chain link fence shall be permitted). The fence design shall b~ approved Dy ~hs Planning Commission at the ~ime of schematic plan review. 9. The previous conditions notwithst=nding, all Convenience Business (B-l) bulk requiremenfs shall apply. (NOTI: PRIOR TO O~TAiNING A ~UILDING PERMIT, SCHEMATIC PLANS MUST BE kP~ROVED BY TEE PLANNING COMMISSION.} Unanimous In ~idlothian Kagisterial District, COURSE-WILDE requested rezoning from Co~unity Business (B-2) to Office Business (0) with Conditional Use Planned Devetot3ment tO ~ermit u~e and bulk exceptions on a 2.24 acre parcel fronting app~oxi~%ately 260 feet On the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 480 feet west of Mt. ~isg~h Driv9. Ts× ~4ap 15-12 (1) Parcel ~7 (Sheet 7) mr. Pools stated the ~lanning ¢orm~i~eion recommended approval oX the requm~f subject tO Certain conditions. MX. Jim Eayes was present representing the applicant and staled the conditions wer~ acceptable as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. John Smith stated he did not Oppose the request but brought to the attention of the Board, that Chesmid Park Corporation has ~-2 zoning on the east an~ west sides of this parcel which is no! considered which he 4id net think had ~een done. He stated he did not see any advantage to this zoning other than applying disturbed him that this ca~e could cause him to lose a perimeter around his property. Mr, ~oote explained the buffer conditions. ~r. ~ayes clarified further that the property is zoned ~-2 and is a commercial use and everything proposed can be done as is but th~ reason £Or the r~que~t is tha~ the e~aff initially had indicated there is an existing right of way along Route 60 and their master plan called for a widening of the righ~ of way. He stated the Eighway Department and the Transportation Department indicated there are a number of utilities in ground, a sidewalk an~ in fact ft w~lI never be widened in that direction. ~e ~tated that the only way to gain relief from setbacks ~rom the ultimate right of way tine was to apply for a Conditional Use Planned Development. ~c ~tated the staff still wants right of way for widening and they are willing to grant it, have a drive-in facility through the H-2 zoninq which is not allowed. ~e stated as far as the buffets go, staff had reoom~ende~ a 30 ft. r~ar buffer to the residential zoning and a 20 ft. buffer on the east and the~ are requirements of ordinance as setbacks and they are not asking for relief to that. He stated staff referred to it as a buffer rather than a setback an( the applicant has asked that the Planning Co~isi~on took at the landscaping plan and if they propose something appropriate such as fencing, landscaping, etc. that the 30 ft+ buffer can he ~e~uced hut not the setback which would remain the sa~. He stated they are planning a fenc~ as well as lan~seaplng along alt the residential zoning. Mr. Smith ~tated he has no objection to whatever the applicant does within the perimeter but changing from Z-2 to Office denies him the use of 30 feet of his property because you ara ad~eininql an offloe zoning rather than a commercial zoning ca either ~ide. NEt. Pools stated that in B-2 districts, all buildings shall observe a side yard of 20 ft. if %k~y are adjacent to residsntiai or agricultural districts and Mr. Smith will not los~ or gain anything on his property by the coning action un fhis parcel. Smith stated that under that condition, he would not Mr. Applegate inquired why a 45 ft. right of way raeasured from the csnterline of ~id!othian Turnpike was being required as he thought th~ building would be in the setback. Mr. McCracken stated that any improvements to Midlothian Turnpike will probabl~ occur on the south side because of the sidewalks~ ~tititie$, which are on the north side. Me stated the intersections.c~uld Mr. ApDlepate inquired about preserving trees on the land and if that were part of zoning. ~z. Poole s~ated that the Planning Commission reviewed the plans for the sit~ and the magnolia tree will be pre~erved, etc. He stated this has been done in uther to maintain the character and quality for adjacent properties and communities. ~irs. Girone stated this is in the Special sign district end ther$ is no reference but they will have to comply to tho~e regulations. ~he stated ~he felt the approval of the main sign should be subject to approval of the Planning Com~isi~on h~cau~ei the Board is looking at that and is goln~ to consider this at public hearing to reduce sign heights to 1.O Mr. Hayes stated that would b~ acceptable. On motioD of Farm. Girone, seconded by Mr, Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the pla~ by J.~, TiI~mons and Associatea, P.C. and the textual statement submitted with the application, as amended, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P} (Note: The Master Plan does not provide adequate parking t comply with the requireme~t~ of the Zoning Ordinance andm must be revised accordingly. The applicant did not request~ nor would Staff support, an ex0eptlon to the required numbe~ of parking SpaCeS.) 2. Prior to any clearing, grubbing or grading, a drainage plan shall ~e n~pruvad by Environmental Engineering and all necessary easements shall be obtained. 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the peri,tar of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as no= to interfere with pedestrian traffic. 4. The architectural style an~ quality Of buildings shall be similar to that exemplified in the ~levati©ns submitted the application, with the exception o~ the drive-in restaurant, which shall be compatible with the other buildings. Renderings ~hall be submitted to the Planning Commission for ~ppreval in conjunction with suhematlc plan review. {CPC) A thirty {30) foot buffer shall b~ ~aintained along the northern property line and a twen=y {20~ foot buffer shall be ~aintainud alung the eastern property line adjacent to /esiden%ially soned p~0per~y. The twenty (20} ~oot buffer may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schemati: plan review upon submission and approval of a landscaping and/o~ screening plan. Prior to any clearing grading, these buffers shal~ be fla~ged and the Planning Department shall be contacted to inspect the bu££ers. If existing vegetation is not suf~icfent to ~ereen the use, additional landscaping shall b~ required. (CPC) 6. ~erking ~reas shall have at least five (5) ~quar= £ee= of interior landscaping per parking space. Each required landscaped area ~hall contain a minimum1 of one h~ndred square feet and shall be at least ten (IO) feet tenet one (1) tr~, having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, shall be provided fe~ each 200 square f~t of iu~erlor landscape~ area. The remaining area shall be land,caped with Shrubs os ground cover, not to exceed three (3) feet in height. Such landscaped area ~hall be lo0ated to dlvi~e and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks or buffers shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. A lands~aplng plan ~epicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Stair for approval in ~onj~netlcn with site plan 7. Ail exterior lighting shall be concealed source lighting, not to exceed a height of ~iitean (15} feet, and pesi=ioned me as not to project light into adjacent p~Ope~ties. Only lighting required for security purposes shall be allowed afte~ business hours. In conjunction with site plan review a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval. (P) 8. Sidewalks shall be provided and constructed of a combinatioz cf brick, cobblestone or exposed aggregate concrete. A 86-068 sidewalk plan shall De submitted to the Planning Staff for approval in cenjunction with site plan review. 9. The northernmost building~ which is located adj~oent to residentially zoned property, shall be limited to uses perr0itted in th= Office Business {O) District. All other buildings shall be limited to uses permitted in the Office Business (O) Disfricf plus the use e×c~ptlons specified in the Tax,ual Statement except that towar~ shall not be pelunitted. 10. Access shall be limited t~ a ~ing~ entrance/e~it to 60, as depicted On the ~aSt=r Plan. The access shall be designed such that internal turniag movemen=s are s~fficient distance from t{oute 60 to minimize traffic oonge~tlon on Route 60. Drive-in travel lanes shall provld( a minimum of five (5) vehicle ~tacklng spaces for each drive-in windnw. ~hsse sDaces shall be located so aB not block r~quired pa~ki~g SpaCes, or impede on-site vehicle movements, when in uss. R~quired parking spaces shall be calculat~ on the ba~i~ of each us~. (P) of right of way, measured ~rom the existing centerline Midlothian Turnpike, shall b~ dedicateO to and ~or the County of ch~t~rfieI~, ~ree an~ unrestricted. All buildings shall be set back a minlm~ of fifty {50) feet from the new right of way and all parkinq shall be set back a mlnim~m of twenty (20) f~t from the Dew right of way. Landscaping, which may include beams shall be installed t0 thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading, detailed landscaping plans shall be s~mitted to the Planning Departs=ut ic~ approval. (Not~: Parking setback may be determined by averaging the required fifty (50) foot setback with the existing setback on the adjacent property to %he east.) 12. The two (2] large ~pla trees, if possible, and the magnoli~ tree, designatmd on th~ apDlicant's ~ster Plan, shall be preserved and protected ~uri~ and after construction. Prior %o rough clearin~ ~ grading, e plan for protection ~r approval. The approved plan shall be implemented conjunctiom with rough clearing and grading. (P~CPC) 13. U~s p~rmit~ed shall b~ limited tO those re~e&t~d Textual Statement, excep~ that onl~ one (1) use shall have ~riv~-in facilities. (~) (Not~: P~io= to obtaining agy building permi=s, schematic plans must be approve~ by the Planning Co--lesion and site plans must be approved by th~ County freest~ding si~s ~xcep~ for directional signs. %he Zoning Ordinance; however, the Co~ismion may require ~hort~r s~gns. (Note~ ~is parcel li~s within the Route 60 $pesial Vote: Unanimous It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: In Midlohhian Magisterial District, S!~A C.J. Ag$0CIAT~$, ASSOCIATE~, LTD. AND SI~WA D~V~L0~M~T, INC. requested to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Ca,es 8~75, 85S09! and ~4s203) to permit phasing o~ re~uire~ read improvements and amendment Of other conditions in Offlce Business (O) an4 Residential (R-7) Districts on a 155.0 ac~e parcel fronting approximately 4,300 feet on the west lin~ ef Chippenham Parkway, also fronting approximately ~O feet on Jahnke Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the inter~ction of these roads. Tax Map 19-1 (1) ~arcsl 16~ Tax Map 1~-5 ~1) Pa~ee] 5; and Tax Map 19-10 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheets ~ and subject to th~ imposition of certain cond~tion~ and the were present representing the applicant. ~. Willey slated the thrust of the application i$ to permit an additional 150,0~ f~. of office an~ related development to proceed as the contract~ for the Powhite Parkway are being proce~ed. He stated when the were b~fore ~h~ Board on the first application~ the Powhi~ ~arkway wa~ aDti¢ipated but they had no assurance that it would ~tated their buildinq and mark, ting has proceeded in such a way that they havm built out th~ 250,000 sq. ft. and are asking agreed to so that as alt oi tbs area op~n~ up, they will be needed office ~pace in this area, He stated if =hey s~art the building as they ~uld like it could be finished thi~ y~ar and i improvem~n~ w~re completed. ~ stated all of the improvements wilt have been completed and they will be in c~plianc~ with all of the conditions through this da~e. He Planning Co~issicn. ~. Applegate inquired abou~ the schedule for road improvements ior Conditions ~2 und %3. Mr. Willey stated the i~pr0vement~ will be completed as soon as the Eighway Dopar~en~ approves the that are done with P~hite will ~e completed as Powhite i~ co, isLed. Ke ~%ated, for ex~ple, Jahnke Road, will be a part and parcel o~ and their partic~pati0n in that as well as the He stated their ~ch~dul~ will dovetail with =he Powhite i~rovemen~s. ~e state~ they oould occupy the buildings ~ute 60 i$ only 4% but they do not kn~ if i% will ba ~ha= much II. b~. Clark~ Plaxco, representing H~, asked for clarification to ~r. Po01e stated Condition 11 indicates that prior %o receiving any building pu~it~ in excess of 400,00~ sq. fL. of oi~ice all let. ~, M¢Cr~ckeD state~ the uo~ition~ resSri~t the the completion of those i~rovements i~ tied =~ ~hm comple~ion o occur above the 400,000 sq. ft. Mr. ~cCrackeu s~at~d the building permits would not be releaseO until the ~prove~nts ma~e. ~. ~laxco state4 construction vehicles are already out a tho site since the completion of ~owhite is two years from now unless they plan to saek an additional amandment a~ soon as they pave that road to acces~ Jahnke Road which is a concern of HMK. Fe stated h~ felt there would be a 40% increase of traffic at Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive at peak hours rather than 4%. He stated they are concerned that there are no requirements for a minimum level of service &~ iD the original zoalng there was specific condition that there would be no lessening of the level~ of s~rvice, ~e stated the conditions that are being replaced by the conditions in this amendment eliminate that requirement. stated further %here was a staff report which required a level o~ servie~ "D" at Chlnaberr~ and Jahnke Road and that is no longer there. ~e stated there is n? level o~ service required to be maintained at this intersection by thls developer. ~e sta~ed is being requlrs~ =o maintain a service level of "D" at that interseotio~ and it seemed awkward to permit this developer to dq what he wants resulting in service level "F" and the developer a~ros~ the street has to correct the problems before he begins development. He stated he felt there should be a condition to require e level of service "D~. ge stated they are also concerned with the traffic conditions at Jahnke/Chippenham b~cause of the imp~o¥~ments being proposed by this develope~. ~v. Dexter Williams, representing HMK, stated they ~ook a look a some different scenarios based on the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation 2005 local forecast wi=hoot any HMK or similar developments and then added different components to see how it would function. He reviewed the existing Ja~ke-Chippemhum arua~ the l~vet of s~rvices with and without development which necessitates improvements, what is required Sigma and how it would affect the traffic services levels, how all proposed development would affect the traffic and various full c/overleaf and a folded diamond which he explained. He stated th~ folded diamond is the only pattern which will prevent a traffic mervice failure. ~e mtated RMK feels the County may approve a design which may fail, MrE. GiroPe inquired about the folded diamond. Mr. Williams stated the Highway Department indicates ther~ are three fold~d diamonds in the state, two work space and if properl~ designed does very well. Mr. Plaxeo stated they feel it is pre-mature to endorse the may bo ct_her al=ernatives and missing gaps in terms of service there will be more of an impact than indicated in the staff report on ~idlothian. He inquired if there were a way to approv~ this and come back and look at the other traffic alternatives, Mr. McCracken clarified that Condition ~11 meanm that prier to release of building permits in excess ef 400,000 sq. ft. Decessarily constructed, building permits could be obtained for communiqy and Crestwcod Farms am outlined by the ~lannlng approved this request subject to the followln9 conditfsns~ The overall density for Boulders I and II (i.e., 1~220,0Q0 square feet of office space, 285 multifamily amirs, and 300 hotel rooms) shall be the same as permitted in previous footage (i.e., 220,000 for sou!dore II and trOOQ~OOO for Boulders II. (P) 2. The d0valeper shall be responsible for the following road improvements~ a. LOOp and ra~p in the southeast quadrant of the Jahnke Road/Chlppenham Parkway interchange; b. Pavement widening on ex,sting loop in the southwest quadrant of Jahnke Road/Chippenham Parkway; e. T~afflc signal at the intersection of ~ahnke Road and Road/Chippenha~ Parkway interchange; d. Additional lane of pavement on Jahnke Road between Jaknkm Road/Chippenham ~ar~way interchange and the Jahnke Road/Powhit~ Parkway interchange; T~affie ~ignal at the Chinaberry Roulovard/Jahnka intersection; f, Loop in the southwest quadrant of the Jahnke Road/Powhite P~rkw~y g. Tern lades on Buford and Jahnke Roads at ~heir inter- h. ~reka Drive extension to Ohinaberr~ Boulevard and cul-de-sac at the northern terminus of Aldwe11 Drive. 3. Prior to any further schematic plan approval [i.e., more than 250;000 square feut of ofiice space or more than 200 hotel rooms), the sketch pla~$ for the foll0~ing shall be submitted to~ and approved by, the Transportation D~part- Road/chippenham Parkway interchange~ quadrant of Jahnke Road/Chippenham Parkway; c. Traffic siqnal at the inter~ection of Jahnke Road and Road/chi~penham Parkway interchange; d. A~ditional lane of pavement on Jahnke Road between the Jahnke Ruad/C~ippenham Parkway interchange and tho Jahnke f{oad/Pewhite ParkWay interchange; e. Traffic signal at the Chinaberry Boeleverd/~ahnke Road intersection; Road/Pewhite Perk-~ay interchange; g. Turn lanes on Buford and Jahnke ROa~ at intersection; h. Access (easements and/or right of way)~ which aliqns with the proposed crossover in Chinaberry Boulevard be serve the property in the southeast quadrant of Chinaberry Boutevard/Jaknke Road. Prior to release of any additional building permits hotel rooms), the sketch plans specified above ~hall be approved by VDH&~. In conjunction with the construction of Powkite Parkn~ay extension, ~he developer shall be responsiblo for con- stsueting Eureka Drive to Chinaberry ~oulevard in accordanc. with State standards, an~ Al~well ~rive shall be constructe 86-~7~ _J conjunction with, the openi~ o£ 9owhite Parkway extension. 5. Withi~ thirty (30} days Of the approval of thi~ surety for the road imprevement~ ~pe¢ified in Conditio~ 2 shall be provided to the Count~ and VDH&T+ {Note: During review and approval of construction plans, modifications to the surety amount may be required by the · ransportation Department. Th~ applicant has provided surety for the extension of Chinaberry BOulevard t~ 6. Building permits for an additional IS0,000 squ~r~ fret of office space (i.e., this would bring the total development permitted with sole access via Chinaberry ~eulevar~ to Rout~ 60, to ~85 multifamily, and 400,008 square feet cf office space and 200 hot~i rooms) may be released with sole access provided via Chinaberry Boulevard to Midlothian Turnpike. 7. There shall be no ac=ess to Jahnke Road other than con- struction traffic. Construction traffic via Jahnke shall be confined to between the hours o~ 9;30 a.m. and p,m~ Fu~th~r~ore~ if it bxcomes necessary, due to complaints from area citizens, thes~ hours shall be medifie¢ at the request of the Planning ~taff. Access to Jahnke Roa~ via Chinaberry Road shall he provided at such time that the road improvements specified in ConditiO~ 9 are ¢o~le== wit~ the exception of 2h. Plans for street lights on Chinabef~ Boul=vurd and traffic signals a= Chinaberry Boulevard/Jahnke Road and Jahnke Road/Ohippenham Parkway shall be approved by Transportation Department. The lights shall be ins%ailed prior to opening of chinaberry Boulevard to traffic b~tween Midlothian Turnpike and Jahnke Read, if deemed n~¢emsary by the Transportation Department. {T} 8. No schematic plan approval shall be granted for auy site that conflicts with proposed roads incorporated in an adopted County plan. A plan showing the ~x%pnsion Of carnation Drive shall he submitted to the Transportation Department for approval. R~gh~ Of way for the Carnation Drive extension shall be reserved and, upon request cf Chesterfield County, shall be dedicated. {Mote: The above stated conditions super~ed~ %he following: 83S078 - Conditions 6a, 6b, 7, 8, and 10; 83S091 - Con- ditions 6a, 6b, 8, 9, and 10; ~20~ - Conditions 2 an~ ~.) 9. Upon request by the County or VDt&T, right of way and/or ease~ent~ shall be granted fo~ the accuse which is to align with the proposed crossover iN chinaberry Boulevard to serv~ the property in the southeast quadrant of Chinaberry Beutevard/Jahnke Read. 10. Upon request by the County sod/or VDS&T, r~ght of way for th~ length of the s%~bj~et properhy abutting Jahnke Road, as shown on cuarent VDH&T Powhite Parkway extension plans, shall b~ d~dicated %o and for %he Co~ty ei Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, (T) 11. Prior to release of an~ building permits in excess of 4O0,800 gross square feet of office space, 100 hotel rooms and 285 multifamily unite~ contracts for the road improve- m~nts ~pecified ~n Condition ~ ~hall be l~t. 86-073 And further the Board a~eepted the following profferred conditions: 1. The applicant hereby proffer~ that within thirty days of approval of its request for au additional 150,8~8 square feet of office spa0et it will provide a letter of credit the ~esign and construction of deceleration lane (south bound), loop (southwest quadrant} and bridqs widening for the Jahnke ~oad/~owhite Part-way interchange. 2. The letters of credit to serve es s~r~t~ in this case and Case 84S2§3 shall be from a bank approved by the County and in form approved by the County. Mr. Daniel stated he fait the Board should be consistent with levels of service. ~trs. ~irone stated this application does not change the density and it ~uld not be fair to impo~ new conditions. ~ir. ~ay~s inquired if th6re had been any change in the level of ServiCe. Mr. McCracken stated that Route ~O ia a "F" level now and with improvements %he level of service should be "D" which will be an improvement. A~e$: ~r. Dodd~ ~r. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. 85S147 ASSOCIATES, INC, requested rezoning from Agsicuttural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 1~.96 acr~ parcel fronting on the south line of Elkhardt Road ~n two places for a total of approximaSety ?00 feet, opposiue Flynn Bead. Tax ~ap 29-11 (2} Providence Farms~ Lots 17~ 18~ and 1PA (Sheet 9). Ni~. Peele stated the Planning Commission had reco~nended approve Of %bls request. Mr. Ch~f£1n was present representing the applicant. There was ne opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, s~uonded by Firs. Girona, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 85S 154 (Amended} INC. In Dale Magisterial District, ~UiLDER'$ SUPPLY OF HOPEWELL, requested amendments to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Cases 84S162 and 85~067) in a GeneEal Basine$$ (B-3) District o~ an ~.96 a=re parcel fronting approximately 720 fe~t on fha eaEt line of Iron Bridge Road~ approximately 600 feet south of ~eulah Bead. Tax Ma~ 79-4 (1; Pare=l 4 and past of Parcel 5 (Sheet 22). Mr. Pool~ stated the Planning C©m~i~sion had reconumended approva~ subject to certain ccndi=ions. F~. Dean Hawkinm was present representing ~he applicant and stated they were purchasing the land to serve their property an~ will remove the billboard. Be stated this would reduce the entrances on Ro~t~ ~0 and uhou!d a private rca~. He stated they had concerns with regard to the setback, the six foot solid board fence and the facades of the Mrs. Betty Taylor, adjacent property 0wner~ stated that she was homer referred to the low area where water currently stands, the need far trees and buffer, the past requirements for a along the southern and eastern property lines which ehe would Mr. Hawkins stated that if for whatever reason their well is S5-074 harmed, they will connect her to public water. Mrs. Taylor stated they wer~ really not interested in public Mr. Appleqate inquired if a soils analysis had been dona for the site. Mr. Hawkins stated they had a soil analysis done an~ there is room enough for thc drainfields as welt am a reserve drainfield and they have obtained e llst of trees that ca~ be planted in the buffer and will not disturb the dralnfield. Ha Stated there is e condition d~aling with the Bouth and east ~or the fence and their intent to delete the facades o~ the barns at! the rear is not to get away with anything but just a matter cf scheduling the expansion later and not to build them to be torn down later. H% stated.all barns have ne access to =he exterior ann the Taylcr's will not see their Operation. Mr. Daniel regnested that a condition be added that should the Teylor's well fail, the applicant will install public water, Micas stated that ie an inappropriate zoning condition as it is ~ personal liability. ~r. Daniel stated he is including that as al condition for using the land. He inquired ~bout Condition ~7 relating to =he fence on the south side. Mr. Poole stated that staff's recom~ndatlon with th~ vegetation and land~oaping but i~ this causes a problem after it is built, we could require a f~n=~ with regar~ to the barn~ the construction would r~main as originally outlined e~ceDt tha~ the~ can pu~ in a deoorative fence in tko back in case %hey e~pand later. ~. Daniel inquire( ~f the Pri~ property had been obtained. ~. Hawkins atuted the deed has not been executed ye%. Mr. Daniel stated ~hat he felt the pr~viou~l~ agreed to ingress/egf~s scheme should be the road situation can be considered to decide which ts more appropriate taking into consideration the i~sues %ha~ are b~ing addressed ~n the C~ntral ~ea Plan from limited acc~ along Rout~ 10 with sha~d access for large tracks. 0n motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by ~r~. Girone, %ho Board approved thi~ request Bubject to th= following conditions: 1. ExCept where stated her~in, all toad%finns o~ Conditional Use Planed Deve!oDments (Cases 84S162 and 85s067) 8hall re, in applicable and shall also apply to development on part of Tax ~ap 79-4 (1) Parcel 5, a~ sho~ on the Mas~er Plan. Prior %o release of a building pe~it, the appllcan=~ shall either purcha~ that portion of ~e ~r~ pr0pert~ o~ which parking is located or obtain a 1ong-~ lease from the o~r 0f the Pri~ property =o be approved by the county, by Dean E. Hawkins, revi~ed Nove~er 19, 1985, shall be considered the Master P!a~. 3. Prior ~o the issuance of any building permit, an acces~ ease~nt shall be ~rant~d to the B-3 property to the north to ~rcvide accesa across this parcel to the future public road along the southe~ property line. {T) 4. A five (5) ~oot strip~ north cf the eMisting fifty (D0} wide access ~ase~nt along th~ southern property line, plus~ any add~ti0n~l right of way required to ali~ the access angle, shall be reserved and dedicated, fr~e and unrestricted, upon requage by the COunty of Chesterfield. 86-075 (~o~e~ ¢ond±~ion D ~up~r~edes ~n~itioa 1 of Case 5. The structures to be erected on the site shall have an architectural ~tyle as depicted in the ren~ering~ submitted with the application. All structures shall employ subdued colors. The outsi~e storage area shall be ¢=¢i=sed and screened from view of adjacent properties to the north, south and west by storage barns having offsets with decorative f~¢adc$. The outside storuga area shall be enclosed and screened from view of adjacent properties to tho east by a t%~elve (12) foot high wooden fence having expanded, the fence shall be replaced with storage bal~S. submitted to tho Planning Commission depicting the storage barns and/or fenc~ for approval in conjunction with sche- matic plan review. (P&CPC) (Note: Condition 6 supersedes Condition 2 of Case 84S162.} lines to break the visual monotony of the building facades this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to ~he Planning Department for approval in conjunction wi~_h (Not~: Condition 6 supersedes Condition 3 of Case 84S162.) eastern property line. ~here shall be no f&oilities or utilitie~ pe~itted i~ thi~ buffer, with the s~ception of primary and reserve drainfields. This buffer shall be landsc~ppd in acoordanoe w&th th~ "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers"; however, maple and willow tree species shall De prohibited. A conceptual landscaping plan ~lanninq Co,lesion for approval in co,junction with pioting this requirement shall b~ suhmi==ed ~o the Planning Departmen~ for approval in conjunction with final plan revisw. {Note~ Condition 8 supersedes condition 4 o~ Case 845162.) advertising sign located on the Prinu~ property {Tax Map (1) Parcel 5) shall b~ remove4. {P) 9. Should this development result in the contamination of the Taylor well (Tax Map 79-4 {I) Parael ~(, ~he 4evetoper Votes Unanimous It was noted that by d~lating condition 3, a~ ~ecomm~n~ed ~y the addressed because Conditions 1 an~ 2 of Conditional Use S6-076 85S158 In Clover Fill Magisterial District, JOSEP~ W. AND NORMAJ. TAYLOR requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling a Residential (R-40) District on a 10,5 acre parcel f~unting approximately 210 feet on the west line of 0tterburn Read, approximately 1,020 feet south of Genito Romd. Tax Map 46-10 (3)I Otterhurn, Lot 2 (~h~et Mr. ~oole stated the Planning Commission had recont~nded approva~ was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions stated he was concerned with the covenants and restrictions whi~ considered in reference to the covenants but independently as to whether it i~ a good land use based on health, safety and should be the con~ideration, ~r. Dodd Stated the Doard constantly turns down similar requests for elderly parents but questioned ~he policy for approving ~ guest house. ~r. should run with the land and not with the owners, It was kpplegate stated the neighbors are concerned because it was Bryan~ ~tate~ he thought ~he problems with adjacent property good that they will. Mr. Applegate stated this was for the £or the principal ol the issue. Mr. ~ryant mtated th~ would stated ther~ was a major problem in another area with the same issue. He stated he would move approval but he had a problem with the principal and felt someone shonld look at thi~. Daniel stated he felt ~on$i~ten~y was also important. ~ ~tion of ~ Appleseed, seconded by ~. Dodd, ~e Board approved this re.est subject to the following conditions~ occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be exclusively, =o ques~s and/or family ~ers of tho ~nur. At nO time shall the unit be rented. 2. Prior %o issuance of a building pe~it, the applic~ts shall~ Condition 1. (9) 3. This use shall run with the land. (P) Ayes: ~r. Dodd and ~. Applegate. need Nays: ~r. Daniel, Mrs. Girone ~d Mr. Mayas because of the It is noted the motion failed. ~5s161 tn Bale ~gistorfal District, ~LVI~ L. CoRse roquosgod rezonin~[ from Agricultural (A) to Residential {R-15) on a 2.20 acre parce~ fronting approximately 623 fee= on the sou~h line of ~onza Drive (1) Part of Parcel 3 (sheet ~6-077 Mr. Peele stated the Plannlnq COnm~ssion had recommended approva~ of this request. Mr. Coxso was present and a~zeed with the conditions and stated the house~ built will be consistent with those in Meadowbrook. There was no opposition pre~ent. On Motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Hoard approved this request. Vote: Unalmous In Bermuda Masistexlal District, PRINC~ GEORGE SERVICE CORPORATION requested Conditional Uae Planned Development to permit use (car radio ~ales and installation) and bulk (parking and d~iveway setback) eK~aptions in a Communit~ Business District on a 0.50 acre parcel fronting approximately ~3 feet o~ the south line of West Hundred Ruad, also fronting approximatelyi 324 fact on th~ north lin~ of Old Hundred Road, a~ locate~ in the eastern q~adrant Of the intersection of the~e roads. Ta~ Map 115-6 {1) Parcel 14 (Sheet 32). ~r. ~QQl~ stated the ~l~nning Cormmi~sicn had reco~en~ed appruvat of this request sub,eot to certain conditions. Mr. Ernest Harrison~ representing the applicant, stated this station has sign approval. He presented the Board with a new sign configure=ion which he described. Mr. Dodd sta~edNr. Harxison got caught in a technicality in the zoning ordinance in that installation of audio equipment in automobile is a more intense use than a Service station. He requested that staff look into this matter to see if this can be upgraded £or future cases. He stated that Mr. Harrison will be eteanin~ up a~ eye-sore and service ~tatio~ for yea~ and did net comply with various zoning setbacks, parking, etc. He stated.that as long as it remained ii operation, it could continue and the us~ could contin~ as 1On~ as the use did not cease for more than 2 years, He orated the applicant obtained the property after the business was closed more than two years and there wure difficulties with the zoning ordinanc~ r~q~irements. He stated installation o~ audio equipment does fall into installation and repair cf vehicles which would include a larger type operations. Mr. Dodd requested On ~etion of M~. Dedd, seconded by M~. Daniel~ the Board approved =his request subject to ~he following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan identified as ~Conm%ission's Alternate Plan1' shall be 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the peri~eter of all dri~eway~ and parking ar~a$, or the perkins areas shall be defined with permanent materials (i.e., timber curbs, etc.}. (CPC} Fifteen (15) feet of right of way for %he entire l=ngth of the property abutting ~eat Hundred Road shall b~ tu and for the County of Chesterfield, fr~= and unrestristed. (T&CPC) 4. Acces~ for this site shall be limited to a single entrance/exit on old Hundred Road end two (2) eh- to Wast Hundred Road shall be closed at such time that 10 is widened and planting shall be required between the right of way and tho driveway and parking area. (cPcI 5. In conjunction with the approval of this requeet, an ¢~eeptign to the requirement that Old Hundred Road have a 86-078 minimu~ right of way of sixty (60} feet ~ball be granted. In addition, a thirty-eight (~) Ioot exception to the fifty (50) foot setback requirement along W~t ~undred Road, and a fifteen {15) foot exception to the ~ifteen (15) foot setback requirement along Old Hundred Road (i.e., measured £rom the existing right of way) shall be granted. Small O~numental trees and shrubs shall be planted within the twelve foot setback along West Hundred Road. Required landscaping may be located in decorative pla~ter$ placed On the existing pavement. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the eastern terminus of the parking area and between the existing building and Old Hundred P~Dad. Landscaping ~halt distance and which precludes parking within required setbacks. Detailed plans depicting th~ requirement shall ba submiteed to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with f~nal s~te plan review. 6. A single freestanding sign, as shown on a plan ~or Audio by Moore Sign Corp., dat~ 1~/~7/8~, ~hall be permitted~ not to oxseed ~ifty (50) square feet in area. The freestanding sign ~y b~ ~ternally illuminated, but ma only ha internally illuminated if the signfield, except for the ist~rchangeable reader boerd~ is opaque with translucanl letters, on this property. Building-mounted signs to identify the proposed business shall conform ~o ~he require- ments of the Special Sign District for th= 0ffice ~usiness (0) Dis=riot. All signs sbalI be of a uniform design employing subdued colors. Prior to the erection of any sign, colore~ renderings of proposed signs shai1 be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (CPC&SSI 7. In conjunction with th~ approval of this request, the ~lanning Commission shall grant schema=ic plan approval of the Master Plan tifled: "Commission's Alternativ~ Plan." (CPC). Vets: Unanimous 855165 In Clover Rill Magisterial District, DICK STRAUSS FORD - ISUZU requested amendments to Conditional Use Planned Development (Cas~ 835024}, relative to required road im~rovempnts and signs in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on an 11,0 acre parcel fronting approximately 780 fe~t on the south line of ~i~lothian Turnpike, directly across fro~ Johnston Willis Drive. Tax ~up 17-10 (1) Baroel~ 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 (SheeU ~). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commissian had recommended approve of the request subject %o certain conditions. Mr. John was presen~ representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion Of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by N~r. ~aye~, the approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The plan prepared by J.K. Ti~m~ons and Associates~ dated 7/26/~5, shall be considered the Mas~ax Plan. 2. Prier to the issuance of an occupancy p=rmi~ for Dick Strauss Ford-Isuzu~ Johnston Willis Drive shall ba dedicat~ and bonded from Roues 60 to tko southern property line of the John~fon-Willie Cente~ p~ope~ty. (T) 3. Prior tO the iSSuanC~ of any occupancy permits other than Dick Strauss Ford-IsUZU, Joh~sto~ Willis Drive, from ~oute 6~ to the southern property line of Johnston-Willis Canter shall be completed, as ~etermined b~ the Transportation Department. 86-079 4. Two (2) frseetandin~ signs shall be p~zmitted east of JOhnston Wilti~ Drive to identify that development. Specifically, one {1] sign shall not exceed aD area of si~ty-four {64) ~quare feet and a height of eighteen {I8) feet and the second sign shall not exceed an area of 119 square feet a~d a heiqht of thirty (30) feet. (CPC) 5. One (1} directional sign shall be perr~itted in excess of th~ ten (10) square feet in area limitation. This ~iraotional sign shall not exceed an area of 17.11 square feet and shal~ be located as show~ on the plan submitted with the application. (CPC} ' 855166 In Bermuda Magisterial District, B. FO~ACE HILL requested Condl= tioaai Use to parfait an outdoor recreational facility in a Residential (R-2~] Dis=ric~ on a 5.3 acre parcel lying approxi/nately 2,400 feet off the east line of Woods Edge Road, approximately 5,~00 feet south of Lawiag D~ivs. Tax Ma~ 134-10 (2) Radtke Valley Farms, Part of Parcel 12; 134-13 (2} Radtke Valley Fa~ms, Part of Parcel 8; 134-14 (2) Ra~tke Valley Farms, Part of Parcel 11 (Sheet 42). Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commisison had race--ended approval subject to certain oenditien~. Mr. Jeff Collins was present r~presenting the applicant, There wa~ no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seuended by ~r. ~ayes, the ~oard approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Stile~ L. ~artley and Associates, Architects, dated 11/27~$5, shall be considered the plan of development. 2. 5ours of operation shall ha limited to between 8:00 a.m. an~ 8:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; ~etween ~00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Friday through Saturday. Vehicular driveways shall be barricaded with a locked gate between 8:~ p.m. an~ 8:00 a,m., Sunday through Thursday; and between ll:0O p.m. and 8:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. (P) 3. All driveways and parking areas ~hall be curbed and gui- tared. (~) 4. Parking shall be provided on the hasis of One (1) spae~ for! each ninety (90) squar~ f~et of combined swimming and wadin~ pool ar~a~, and four {4) Spaces for each zennis court. . ! (Note. The zouing Ordinance requires that all driveways and parkinq areas for si~ {6) or more vehicles be paved. Al~o, the BOCA Code reguires two-way driv~way~ to ~e a minimum cf tw%nty-four (24) feet in width unless local agencies grant exceptions. On a routine basis, driveways serving parking lots containing up to fifteen (15) parking epace~ to be twenty (20) feet in width are permitted; and driveways serving parking lots of ~ixt~en (16) tO thirty (3~] parking spaces to be twenty-two (22) feet in width.) 5. There shall be no outside public address system or speakers~ 6. All outdoor lighting shall be no higher than fifteen (15) feet and shall be designed so as not to project light into adjacent properties. All outdoor lighting shall be timed net to permit illumination after 11=00 p.m. {P) 86-080 10. One [1) sign to be located at the entrance shall be per- mitted. This sign shall not exceed three (3~ square ~eet area and shall not be IUani~Ous nor illuminated. A renderin~ of this sign shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to erection. A fifty (50) foot building setback line and buffer strip shall be maintained along each property llne of this site. No recreatioeal facilities shall bs built within this buffe~ area, and it shall remain in ifs natural state with no ~lng or access permitted, with the e~oeptiOn of the one~ hermzng, plantzn~z, and Ornamental fencing may be r~cfuired fo su~plemen~ this bui~er, as deemed necessary ~y the Plann/ng Department at the time of landscaping plan approva~ submitted under Condition 9. In COnjunction with final site plan ravlaw, an~ prior to th~ release of a building per, it, a d~tailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Plaanlng Department for approval. (p) Transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility for not take place priu~ to the issuance o~ ocou~ancy permit~ for =he recreation fa0ilities, or prior to a bond being p0st~d providing for ~08% surety of the co,pie%ion of all improvements to be made. The propes~d entrance driveway in~o this faoility shall be relocated to align with %~e cor~con proper~y li~e ~etwesn proposed 10ts 2 and 3, Block D. In Clover ~ili Magls~arial District, C~ESTERFIELD COM~RCE CENTER, LTD. requested amendments to Conditional Use Planned Devalopmenf ICase 85S017), relative to uses fronting Branchway Road and provision of public roads i~ a Light Industrial District on a 22 acre parcel fronting the east line of B~anehway Road in two places for a ~o~al e£ approximately $$0 fee~, approxi~tely 350 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-9 (1) Parcel~ 7 and ~1 (Sheet Mr. Apptegate disclosed to the Board that his company did sell this property, declared a possible conflict of inter~st add excused himself from the m~eting. ~r. ~ayes excused himsel~ from =he meeting to attend e crater Planning District Commission meeting. ~ir. Peele stated the ~lannlng Commission had recommended approve subject to certain conditions. He Stated subsequent to that, th. applicant has sv~mitted a revised plan eliminating the storm water retention area in ~rcnt of the building and to replace the- area wi~h pa~king adjacent to ~ranchway Road. ~e sta~ed staff feels %his is inconsistent with other development alonq Branchw~ ~oad and recormmends that the parking not he pe~itted along the road. ~r. John Henson wa~ p~e~ent and requested approval subject %o ~h~ cQ~di=ions by the PlaP-ning commission with the inclumion of new site plan. He stated parking in th~ front was never prohibited and they did put the building b~ck because of the retention proposal and now they want to put the parking there. ~e stated ~t does llne up with other parking in the area tO the south. He stated the poteutlal owxxe~ will be providing subtantlal landscaping and it will go before the Planning 86-081 Commieeion for schematic review. There wam no opposition present. On motion Of Mr. Da~iel~ seconded by Mrs, Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. An indoor recreational facility shall be permitted fronting Branchway Road and located a minimum of 103 feet from the centerline of Branehway Road. (CPC) 2. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated 1/6/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. (Note: The plan was incorrectly dated; correct date is 1/6/86.) 3. The proposed private road shall be relocated to the south such that development can be accommodated on the north side of the private road. This condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review if a buffer plan is submitted which screens the development north of this site. (P&CPC) 4. Development along the private road shall conform to setback requirements as though it were a public ~oad, except right of way shall not be considered to be sixty (60) feet. (P) (Note: Ail other conditions of Conditional Use Planned Development 85S017 remain applicable.) Ayes; Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel au Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayes. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 85S169 In Midlothian Magisterial District, RALPH C. FIELDS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 0.7 acre parcel lying at the southern terminus of Vollie Road, approximately 290 feet south of Bondurant Drive. Tax Map 27-5 (1) Part of Parcel 8 (Sheet Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approva of this request. Mr. Sherwood Strum, representing Mr. Fields an, the adjacent subdivision which he is developing, stated the conditions were acceptable. There was was no opposition present On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this reguest. Ayes: ~r. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 85S170 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORGE B. SOWERS, JR. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 0.75 acre parcel fronting approximately 370 feet on the south line of West Providence Road, approximately 920 feet southwest of Ramsgate Lane. Tax Map 39-5 (1) Parcel 421 (Sheet 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of %his request. Mr. Jamie Chaffin was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition preseni. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Fir. Daniel, the ~oard approved this request. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr, Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 86-082 86S003 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~CHMOND C~LLULAg TELEPHONE COMPANY requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (public utilities facility) and bulk (tower height) exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 0.5 acre parcel lying approximately 1,200 feet off the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, measured from a point approximately 3,860 feet north of Indian Hill Road. Tax M~p 133-15 (1) Part of Parcel 10 (Sheet 41). Nkr. Peele stated the ~lanning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Steve Pearson was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegabe, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions; 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Ports and Minter, dated 10/7/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. A ~ecurity type fence, having a minimu~ height of eight (8) feet, shall be installed around the proposed tower and building. This fence shall be designed to prevent unauthorised persons from entering the site. 3. Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation of PAA approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 4. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. ~irone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 86s004 In Clove~ Hill Magisterial District, RICHMOND CELLULAR TELEP~0NE COMPANY requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit uae (public utilities facility) and bulk (tower height) exceptions in a General Business (B-3) District on a 0.5 acre parcel lying approximately 1,500 feet off the north line of ~enito Road, measured from a point approximately 2,600 feet east of Coalfield Road. Fax Map 37 (1) Part of Parcel 35 (Sheet 13). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had reco~ended approva of ~his request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Steve Pearso~ was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan preparedl by Ports and Minter, dated 10/7/85, shall be considered Master Plan. (~) 2. A security type fence, having a minimum height of eight (8) feet, ~hall be inmtalle~ to enclose the tower and building. This fence ~hall be designed to prevent unauthorized person: ~rom entering the site. (P) 3. Prior to obtaining a building permit, documentation of FAA approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. (P 4. Clearing of the site shall be limited to that necessary to construct the t~wer and equipment building and to provide for ingress and egress. (P) 86-083 In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Ma~t~r Plan. (P) Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate an Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. 12. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegake, the Board adjourned at 5~30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on February 12, 1986. Ayes: Mr. Dodd, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. Absent: Mr. Mayes. Richar~ L. Hedrlck County Administrator R. Garland Do~----~ Chairman 86-084