Loading...
02-24-1988 MinutesBO~RD OF S~mU~I$ORS MINUTES Mr. G. H. Apptegate, chairman Mr. M, B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry s. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Lane B. Ramsey County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Ms. Joan DolezaI, clerk to the Hoard Chief Rober~ Eanes, Fire Department Mr. William M. Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thoma~ E. Jacobsen, Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Leu L¥1e, Dir+ of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deput~ Co. Ac]min., Human Serviee~ Mr. R. J. ~cCracke~, TransD. Director Mr. Richard Me~!fish, Dir. o~ Env. Eng. ~r. Jeffrey Mincks, Sr- Co~ AttorneF Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Col. Joseph Pittman, Chief Of ~olice Mr. Richard Sale~ Deput~ CC. Ad, in., Development Mr. Davi~ Weichons, Dir. of Utilities Mr. Frederick Willi~, Dir. of Human Resource ~anag~ment Apptcgatu called th~ meetinq to order at the Courthouse a~ a.m. I~T). 1. INVOCATION Mr. Appl~ga~ in~ro~uce~ Reverend Ray Jack~on, Heritage Bsptiet Church, who gave the invocation. 2. ~-~GE O1· ALLm~IAN~ TO ~ FLAG OF 'xn~ UNIT~U STATES OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United ~erica was 3.k. FEBRU~Y 10, On motion Of ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Mayes~ the approved the minutes of Februa~ 10, 1988, as su~itted. Vote: Unan~ou~ eta=es of Beard 88-89 3.B. FEBRUARY 11, 1988 On motion cf Mr. Mayer, ~eeonded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the minutes of February 11, 1988, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 4. COtFRTYAI~INISTRATOR'S CO~ENTS Mr. Ramsey reported that the retreat held in Charlottesville at the University o~ virginia had been very productive. Mr. Daniel reported several Board members had also attended a regional government seminar in Charlottesville sponsored by the Metro Chamber at which numerous regional issues were discussed, as well as key aspects relative to maximizing financial investments within the educational system, a regional jail concept, etc. Mr. Mayas concurred that the retreat had been beneficial and that Chesterfield County should take a look at itself to see that poverty,ant is trimmed, refined and efficient before future tax increases are sought. Mr. Cu~rin stated he felt the retreat had been very educational and informative, and the Board had learned much about each oth~r individually which would be positive fez thc County. Mr. Sullivan concurred with comments regarding the retreat; reported ha attended the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting at which concerns were expressed relative to public transportation, particularly the funding cf Route 895; and attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission meeting at which legislative issues impacting the region, most particularly tho~e issues applicable to schools, were discussed. Mr. Applegat~ reported on the increasing enplanements and cargo activities a~ the Richmond International Airport and stated the report of the Long-Range Planning Committee indicated several recommendations for future improvements at the Airport; stated he felt the School Board's action on Tuesday was positive in that an attempt was made ~o comply with the Board's request to conform within g~idelines for economizing their budget; and concurred that the Board's retreat had been Successful and beneficial. 6. RE~,UESTS TO POSTPONEACTION, E~4ERGENCYADDITIONS OR C~5~NGES IN TH~ ORDER OF PRES]~TATION On mot~on of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board added Item 9.c., Consideration of Adoption of Principles Governing Internal Board Relations and Relation~ with the County Administrator ("Charlottesville Accords"); added Item ll.B.8., Resolution Supporting the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act; added Item ll.J., School Management Study to follow Item 11.C.7.; added Item ll.K., Resolution Opposing Alar~o Legislation to follow Item ll.K.; and adopted the agenda, as amended. vote: Unanimous 88-90 7.A. MS. J~SIE W. ~ ~N R~IR~ FRO~ ACC~TIN~ DEP~TM~T On motion of the Board, the followinG re~olution was adopted: WHE~AS~ M~. Je~ie W. Mann will retire from A~ounting Department on Februa~ 2g, 1988; and WHEREAS, Ms. Mann has provided a~omt 15 years of quality WHgR~AS, Ms. Mann has consistently demonstrated colleen= to the Accounts Payable Section's objective to pay the County's ~ despite the challenges rapid ~rowth has placed on the Section; W~RE~, Through h~r ~iGation, conscientious attitude and dependability, tk~ County enjoys favorable wi~ vendors an~ individuals doin~ business with tko County and tkese same qualities kayo gained her the rempeG% a~d of the employe~ ~he ~up~rvime~ and ~f County manag~mnt. NOW, THE~FOR~ BE IT RESOLED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors p~blicly ~ecognizes Ms. Jessie Mann and extends on behalf of itm me~er~ and the citizan~ of ~D, BE 5T FURTHER ~SOLVED, that a copy cf this rmsolution be pre~ented ~o ~. Mann and that this resolution Supervisors Qf chesterfield County, Virginia. co~ended her for her dedicated and loyal service to ~he County a~d recognize~ hmr daughter who was also 7.B. ~987 CHESTERFIELD CO~ E~LOYEE$ UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN Chief Eanms and Chief ~ittman reported that County employees exceeded the 1987 United Way contribution goal by approximately 22% eve~ the previous y~ar~s goal and commended the outstanding efforts of all employees. He r~coqni~ed and premented plaques to the following oa~palg~ managers/departments for tkei~ Lieutenant Davis, Lieutenant Maddra, LieUtenant Ward, Captain MoDonald~ and 8heita Mos~y and Mr. Witli~ Janet CalLahan Janioe Re,hake Mr. Dig~ Police P~pa:t~ent - largest monetary increase fr<m 1986's $1,2G0 to 1987's Community Diversion Incentive Program largest peroe~t monetary increase of 538%~ Ruman Resource Management - highest average donation pet ~mploFee $~25.60; and largest department with 100% partieipatioa. of 88~91 8. HF2~N~S OF CITI~.~S O~ ~NSCB~DULED wu~.~-~-~_~ OR CLAINS There Were no hearings of citizens on u~seheduled matters or claims. 9. DEFE~I~ED 9.A.1. BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Currln, the Board appointed the following people to serve on the Building Code Appeals Board, whose terms are effective immediately and will expire July 31, 1990: Mr. A. W. Dunbar, Structural Engineer Mr. Michael W. Tart, Builder Mr. G. Warren Vaughan, Architect Vote: Unanimous 9.A.2. LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING C0M~ITTEE On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board appointed Mr. Fred Kirshner, Safety Officer of ICI Americas, to serve on the Local Emergency Planning Committee, whoee term is effective immediately and subject to approval of the Virginia Emergency Response Commission. 9.A.3. KEEP CHESTERFIELD COUNTY CLEAN CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board appointed the following people, representing the district as indicated, to serve on the Corporation, whose terms are expire Januazif 31, 1989: Mr. Warren Dietericb Mrs. Marilyn Kim Mr. william Harris Mrs. Alma Smith Mrs. Ann Belsha Vote: Unanimous Keep Chesterfield County Clean effective immediately and will Midlothian District Bermuda District Matoaca District Dale District Clover Hill District 9.E. ACCEPT CObrv~YANCE OF SCHOOL BOARD PRQPER~ There was discussion relative to the conveyance of and responsibility for property ether than real property, custodial and maintenance responsibility for property other than real property maintained by the School System, future acquisitions, surplus land held in the name of the County School system that could be sold and applied to the School Capital Improvement Program; etc. On motion o~ Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. S~llivan, the Board adopted the following resolutien: W~EREAS, Section 8.2 of the Charter of Chesterfield County provides that title to all real property o~ the mohool system shall be vested in the County; and W~EREAS, certain property of the school system is titled in the School Board; and W~EREA$, by resolution dated February 23, 1988, the School Board has approved the transfer of title to the County. 88~92 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to Suction 15.1-2~6 of %he Cede of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Board accepts title to such real estate and authorizes the County Administrator te execute the necessary documents to complete vot~: Unanimous 9.C. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING INTEP~NAL BOA~D RELATIONS AI{D ~%ELATION$ WITH COUlfl~' ADMINISTRATOR After a brief discussion regarding the Adoption cf Principles Governing Internal Board Relations and Relations with the county Administrator, i~ was generally agreed to de,er the matter until 2:00 p.m. (EST) to permit the Board to review the zubmitted document. 10. Pb'BLIC T0.A. AN OP~DINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 20-1~§ OF TM~ CODE OF THE COU~U~Y OF CHESTERFIELDr 1978r AS A~ENI)ED; TO CONSIDER REDUCING TBS INTEREST PJ~T~ TO BE CHARGED SUBDIVIDERS OR DEVELOPERS IN COtVNECTION WIT~ T~E RUFFIN ~ILL ROAD SUBDIVISION AI~D DEVELOPMENT SEWER DISTRICT II Mr. Sale ~tated thi~ dane and time ha~ been advertised for public hearing to consider an ordinance to Amend Section 2~-iEE of the County Code relating to the reduation of the interest rate to be charged ~ubdiuidors or developers in con~eotion with the Ruffin Mill Road Area subdivision and Development sewer District II. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he iS affiliated with an iadividual who has an interest in the subject property~ however, ~pon advisement of the Count~ AttorneF, he did have a conflict of in~eres~ and could vote on the matter. No one came ~orward to s~eak i~ favor of or against the proposed ordinance. On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, soconde~ by ~ir. Appleseed, ~he Board readopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF T~ COUNTY OF CHESTEftFIELD, t978, AS A~E~DED, ~¥ AMENDING SECTION 20-188 RELATING TO FEES ©E CHARGES UPON SUbDIVIDeRS OR DEVELOPERS OF ~ROPERT~f LOTATED IN TEE RUFFIN ~ILL ROAD AREA SUBDIVISION A~ D~VELOPMENT SEWER DISTRICT II BE IT QfLQAINED by the Board o~ Supervisors o~ Chesterfield County: I1) That the Code cf the County of chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended, by ~ending Chapter 2o, Article IX, as fellows: of ProDert~ Located Within t~e District. (a) Tho SUbdiVider or developer o~ proper~y located within ~he District shall, before or at the time of imsuanee of a building permit for th~ construction of any building or structure to bo located on hi~ property which is to b~ the subject of development or subdivision, pay or provide for the payment cf a share of the cost of con~truetion cf the Sewer Facilities. The share of a suk~ivlder or dove!eper with respect to property ~ithin the District which is to be tho mubject of development or subdivision shall he in the sAme 8~-99 p~oportion to 25% of the total cost of the improvements constructed within the DistrAct, pursuant to Section 20-187 as ~he acreage located in his subdivision or development bears to the total acreage in Area C of the District. (b) In any case where a pa~men~ hy the subdivider or developer is required prior to construction of the Sewer Facilities pursuant to Section 20-187, the amount paid by the subdivider or developer shall be held in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the subdivider or developer until expended or, in lie~ Of such pa~q~ent, the Board of Supervisors may provide for the posting of a personal, corporate or property bond, cash escrow or other method of performance guarantee satisfactory to it conditioned on payment at commencement of such construction. (e) Any subdivider Or developer of property located within the District who pays a share of the cost of construction of the Sewer Facilities after January 1, 1989, shall pay such share of the cost of construction of the Sewer Facilities together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance of such share from January 1, 1989 until paid, which interest shall be computed at the rate of 9.1 percent per annum, until January 1, 1999, and at the rate of 12 percent per annt~ after January l, 1999. Vote: Unanimous 10.B. AN ORDINAI~CE TO AMEND EECTION 20-182 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CEESTERFIELD~ 1978, AS AMENDEDr TO CONSIDER REDUCING TM~ INTEREST ~ATE TO BE CHARGED FOR THE INSTALL- MEN~ PAYME~ OF ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MUFFIN MILL ROAD AREA SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT S~WER DISTRICT Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend Section 20-182 of the County code relating to the r~duction of the interest rate to be charged for the installment payment of assessments in connection with the Ruf£in Mill Road Area Special Tax or Assessment Sewer District. No one came forward to speak in favor o~ or against the proposed ordinance. On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board readopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ~BE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 20-182 Pd~LATING TO INSTALLMENT PAYMENT OF ASSETS IN THE RUFFIN MILL ROAD AREA SPECIAL TAX OR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board Of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code cf the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended, by amendin~ Chapter 20, Article VIII, as follows: Section 20-182. Installment payment of assessments. Any person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article VIII has been finally made shall pay the full amount of an assessment provided for in this Article VIII on the due date of the first tax bill on which such assessment is shown. In no event, however, shall any part of the assessment be due prior to the completion of the sewer line and appurtenant facilities constructed pursuant to this Article VIII. As an alternative to payment as provided above, a person against whom an assessment provided for in this Article VIII has been made may pay such assessment in twenty equal semi-annual installments 88-94 over a ~oriod of 10 years, together with simple interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of 9~1 percent pe~ annum. The first cf such installments shall be due on and interest on the unpaid principal balance of tho assessment shall accrue from the date on which the full amount of the assessment w~uld otherwise have been due as provided above. Vote: Unanimous NEW BUSINESS ll.A. RESOLUTION OF LOCAL SUPPORT FOE RIOHMOND/TRI-CITIES AREA SOLID WASTE TASK FORCE Questions, con~ents and concerns ensued relative to development of an independent, local solid waste management system involving resource recovery versus develot~ment of such a system on a regional basis; financial, organizational and managerial oommit~ents~ si~ings for the facility~ environmental, recycling and energy markets; ownership; etc. After further discussion, it was determined that this issue wa~ one of utmost importance an~ priority, and the County should continue its participation i~ t~e study but at the saree %i~e not limit os ne~leet other available options. On ~otion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board adopted the following resolution= W~EREAS, the Richmond Regional ~la~nin~ District Commission and the Crater Planning District Corm~ission established the Riohmond/Tri-Cities Area solid waste Task FOrce to investigate the feasibility of a comprehensive r~gional issues of reqional concern; and WHEREAS, the Richmond/Tri-Cities Area Solid Waste Task preliminary study o~ the economic feasibility cf a regional r~oovery appears to be viable for the Richmond/Tri-Cities of the project will require a commit_~ent by participating cities and counties" and makes specific recommendations on completion of needed detailed studle~ and actions ~o W~REAS, ~he County of Chesterfield recognizes the need to W~P~AS, further studies and actions to address financial, Organizution and management, siting, environmental, reeyolln~ s~gnificant commitment from local goverr~ents in terms of bo~h WHEREAS, the Rich~ond/Tri-Cities Area Task Force and the Crater and Richmond Regional Planning District Commissions have recommended that it is the appropriate time for each of the 13 participating local governments to formally indicate their support or lack of support for continued local participation in a regional resource recovery implementation study prior to further actions and development of an implementation plan by the Solid Waste Task Force; and W~EAS, Landfill space is precious and must be wisely used to ensure adequate space for future generations; to that end, the EPA has already begun supporting legislation which will greatly restrict landfilling except for the ash that is produced through resource recovery; and WHEREAS, chesterfield County is faced with finding an environmentally acceptable solution to the County solid waste problem and it is a decision that cannot be put off; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on January 13, 1988 petitioned the Governor and State Legislature to take immediate action to fund a regional waste-to-energy system so that the solid and hazardous waste problems in Virginia are addressed on a priority basis; and WHEREAS, solid and hazardous waste problems should be addressed on a regional and state-wide basis, and that consideration be given to resource recovery and waste-to-energy NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Chesterfield supports further studies ~or the implementation of BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that by this resolution of support implementation program, the County of Chesterfield expresses its commitment to: implementation studies for the establishment of a b. work cooperatively with other jurisdictions on the Area Solid Waste Task Force ~o develop and implement phase of the regional resource recovery program by no providing the local share of the cost for the next of a detailed implementation work plan and budget to Vote: Unanimous ii.B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.B.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL After a brief discussion, it was On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that consideration of the request for a street light installation cost approval at the end of Tazewetl Avenue, Bermuda Magisterial District, be d~ferred until March 23, 1988. Vote: Unanimous Mr. McElfish stated research informa=ion relative to this reques= would be forwarded to Mr. Currin. 88-96 STREET LIGHT On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. ¢~rrin, the Board approved the installation of street liqhts far the following tocauions, with funds tc be expended from the ~idlothian District Street Light Fund: 1601 Greenfield Drive in the cul-de-sac; Intersection of ~arly Settlers Road and Red Lion and 1787 Homestead Court in the cul-de-sac. tl.B.3. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC BEARING TO GO~SID=g gES~ICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON FOFcDHAM ROAD A~D JACOBS ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Nr. Currin, the ~oard set the date ef April 1~, 1988, at 7:0~ p.m., ~or a public hearing to consider the restriction of through tr~ck traffic on Fordh~m Read and Jacebs Road. ll.B.4, SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARiN~ TO CONSIDER R~TR~CTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON COURT~OUSE ROAD on motion of Mr. Daniel, ~ecendedby ~r. Currin, the Board ~e~ the da~e of April 13, 1958, a~ 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider the restrictien of through truck traffic on Courthouse Road, with the undezstanding ~hat much action would ~ecome effective only with the completion of Route 288 frc~ Route 360 to Rou~e 10. 11.B.5. WAIVER OF CERTAIW ~ROVIS!ON~ OF R~$~CTIVE COVENANTS FOR THB AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARKEOR.RRO~RTY CONV~YED To $CA~CE~TER VIRGINIA, On motion of Mr. ~=llivan, seconded by ~r. Currin, the Board waived the provisions Of Subparagraph~ 2-4 of Paragraph the Protective Covenants, Condl=ions and Restrictions for the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Pa~k for property ¢o~veyed to scancenuer Virginia, Inc., in favor ef the provision~ of the De~d and Real ~SUate Contract between the County and Virginia, Inc,, relating to repurchase by the County of the subject proper~y~ ll.B.6. AUTHORIgATION TO ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND REAL ESTAT~ CONV~yA~C~ A~R~%~T WITH $CA~CFi~TZR VIRBI~IA~ INC. On marion of ~r. Coffin, ~econded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board se~ the da=e of March 9, 195~, a~ 7:OQ p.m., for a pttblic hearing to censider the amendment of a real es%at~ conveyance agreement with Scancenter virginia, Inc. Vo~e: Unanimous 88-97 ll.B.7. APPLICATION FOR VIRGINIA COF~JNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT On motion of Mr. C~rrin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to sign and submit any ~ecessary documents applying for a Virginia CoK~unity Development Block Grant in the amount of $700,000 for the Bellwood/Ben~ley area, which neighborhood is adjacent to Route 1/301, for the purpose of homeowner and rental housing rehabilitation as well as a drainage project to alleviate flooding in the vicinity of Park Lee Apartments. Vote: Unanimous ll.B,8. R~EOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT There was discussion relative to a resolution endorsing the goals and intent of Senate Bill %304 regarding The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the ramifications/impact of said resolution if it were approved in its present form whereby the removal of the responsibility from local governments for reviewing and approving individual development proposals and land use plans would transpire, etc. It was generally agreed the resolution supporting the Preservation Ao~ needed additional clarification and/or refinement, and further consideration would be deferred until 2:00 p.m. ll.C. CONSENT ITEMS ll.C.1. TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN PARK PROJECTS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the transfer of funds between park bond projects as follows: 1. Bermuda District: $11,285 from Henrious Park to Bensley Park Bond Account for completion of Phase I development at Bensley Park to include playground equipment and trails resurfacing; 2. Dale District: $2,375 from Ironbridge Park to Bird Complex Bond Account for construction costs for the Bird Complex restroom/concesslon building, as these costs were hiqher than anticipated; and 3. Matoaca District: $8,000 from Matoaca Park to Ettrick Park Bond Account for purchase of bleachers and materials for bleacher pads, as construction costs for the softball fields were higher than anticipated. Vote: Unanimous 11.c.2. APPROVAL OF REQUESTS BY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS TO PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY'S PERSONNEL SYSTEM On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board, pursuant to Section 6.4 of the County Charter, authorized the County Administrator to approve requests from constitutional officers to participate in the County's personnel system conditioned upon their agreement to comply with the County's personnel system. vote: Unanimous 11.C.3. ADOPTION OF STANDARD HOLIDAY SCHEDULE FOR COUNTy EMPLOYEES On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, approved the following Standard Holiday Schedule the Board for County oonsistinq of twelve kolldays with specific rules for Washington's Birthday La, or Day Columbus Day Thanksgiving Day Day After Thanksgiving Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Water Willow Drive and Spring Cress Court in Sachom's Head Phase TWO, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof~ and on motion of ~r. Sullivan, and Sprin~ Cre~s Court in Saehem~s Head Phase Two, Clov~r Hill District, be and they here~y are established as pu~li~ roads. And ho it further ~esolved, ~hat the Virginia Department of Transportation, be end it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, wa~ez Willow Drive~ b~ginning at existing Water Willow Drive, Stats Route 3750, and goin~ southerly 0.02 milo to ~h9 intersection with Spring Crass Court~ th~n c~ntinuin~ southerly 0.01 mile to end at beginninq st the intersection with water Willow Drive and This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance a~d d~signate~ Virginia Department of And be it further resolved, that the Roard o£ Supervisors ~uarantees %0 the Virginia Department of Transportation a variable width 50' to 60' right-of-way Ic~ Water Willow Drive and a ~0' right-of-way for Spring Cress Court. 15~c.5. ACCEPTANCE 0P LOCAL GOVE~NMEN~ CEALLENGE GRANT 1988-89~ VIRGINIA CO~ISSION FOR THE ARTS O~ motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Maye$, the Beard authorized the County Administrator to apply for and accept, if proposed ~y the virqin±a ccr~issicn for the Arts, in the amount cf $5,000, which funds, i~ approved, will ~e used to help cover the cost of County contributions to orqanizations such as the Richmond and P~termburg $!a~phoni~s. IIt is neted :hi~ request will not require any additional County matching fu~d~.) Vote: Unanimous 8~-99 11.C.6. APPROPRIATION OF SCHOOL BOARD GRANTS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board increased the Special Projects Fund budget by $16,930 for receipts a~d expenditures which will cover a "Success Through Alternative Training (STAT) grant from the Virginia Department Of Education; increased the Special Projects Fund budget by $7,000 for receipts and expenditures which will cover a "Job Placement and Career Counseling" grant from the Virginia Department of Education~ increased the Special Projects Fund budget by $10,062 for receipts and expenditures which will cover a grant from the Federal Government for the Title II Comprehensive School Math Program; and increased the School Grant budget by $15,000 for receipts and expenditures which will cover a grant from the Virginia Department Of Education to train students for occupational employment in production and management services. (It is noted no County funds ar~ involved in these transactions.) 11.C.7. REQUESTS FOR BINOO/P~FFLE PERMITS On motion Of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a request for a raffle permit for the Chesterfield Jaycees, Inc. for calendar year 1988. Vote: Unanimous ll.J. SCHOOL MANAGEMENT STUDY After a brief discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved to defer consideration of the request for a School Management Study in detail until March 9, 1988, to allow staff the opportunity to draft the scope of the study for the Board's review. Vote: Unanimous i1.K. RESOLUTION OPPOSING ALAMO LEGISLATION There was discussion relative to the Capital Region Airport Commission's resolution opposing House Bill 3764 and Senate Bill 1834 (collectively, the "Alamo Legislation") which was felt to have an adverse impact on the Richmond Internation Airport. After further discussion it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. ceftin, resolved that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS, the County of Chesterfield is a member of the Capital Region Airport Commission (the "Co~ission"), which is the owner and Operator of Richmond International Airport (the "Airport"); and WHER/~AS, the Airport is a significant factor in the economic development of the entire Richmond Metropolitan area, which is comprised of the County of Chesterfield and the Commission's other member jurisdictions; and W~ER~A$, because of it~ economic interest in the development of the Airport, the County of Chesterfield, together with the other member jursidietions of the Commission, have entered into a moral obligation agreement pursuant to which the County of Chesterfield and such other member jurisdictions have provided credit enhancment for the Commission's Airport Revenue Bonds and Notes, the proceeds from 88-100 the sale o~ such Bonds and Notes havimg b~en used to fund majo~ capital improvements at the Airport; and W~ER~AS, it is the mandate of the Commission, which itself is a political subdivision cf the Coau~on%~ealsh of virginia, to operate a finaacially self-sustalni~g a~rport facility, with the Com~icaion and each of the various transportation entities providing services thereat being required to pay thei~ respective fair shares of the capital and opera=ing costs cf the Airport~ and Wt~EREAS, Alamo Rent-A-Car has introduced legislation in ~hC United States congress, being House Dill 3764 and senate Dill 1834 (collectively, the "Alamo Legislation"), ~hat could have the ~ffect of depriving the Con, hi,sion of much needed r~venues and p~ovidi~q o~f-airDort oDeratozs which derive sub~ta~tial income from service dir~ctty tied to the existence Cf the Airport with the benefits provided ~y =h~ Airport without paten= u~ ~heir fair sharp of the costs thereof; and WKEREAS, the Ai~O Legislatio~ co~ld have th~ effect impeding the Co~is~iun and other airport sponsors from exerciaing soun~ dlsc~etion in the ~egulation of local gover~n%al affair~ and o~ increasing the financial of the co~ission and i=s m~mbez jursidlctiuns. NOW, TH~EFO~, BE IT ~=S0L~D, ~hat the County chesterfield h~r~by registers its strong opposition to the Alamo Legislation on the grounds of it~ uafai~ness to airport sponsors and th~ municipalities which support them and of Xmpai~e~t it may create in th~ exercise of local gover~ental functions; and BE IT F~TH~R RESOLED, that a copy of this resolution be ~orwarded to the appropriate Federal l~i~lators as a statemen= of opposition by the County of Chesterfield to the Al~o Legislation. ~r. Curxi~ excused himself from the ll.D. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ll.D.1. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR sEWERE~SEMENTS, GREGORY'S ll.D.I.R. MS. ELI=A~gTH ~. ~RSON On motion of Mr. Ap~lu~aUe, seconded by Xr. Sullivan, th~ Do~rd proceedln~s fez a sewer easumcn~ across the following property if the ~mou~t as set oppo~ite the o%~er'~ n~e is not accepted. ~lizabe~h B. ~erson S87-25M $612.00 Ay~: ~r. App[ega~e, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayes. tl.D.l.b. DROAD ~OC~ CLU~, INC. On mc~lc~ o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r, sullivan, the Board authorized the Cuu~t~ Attox~ey to institute condemnation proceedings fer a sewer ~acement across the following property if the amount as set oppomite the property owner*s name is not Broad Reck club, Inc. s87-25~ $1874.00 Ayes: Mr~ Applegat~ Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. 88-101 ll.D.2. CONSENT ITEMS ll.D.2.a. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT TO VEPCO AT T~ DUTCE GAP FIRE STATION SITE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Virginia Electric and Power Company to install a guy pole onto the Dutch Gap Fire Department property located on Route 10 at Route 1. (A copy of the plat is ~iled with the papers cf thim Board.] Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Currin. ll.D.2.b. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINE EXTENSION TO SERVE STAFFORD PLACE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents awarding Contract Number W87-51C for the construction of a water line along Woodpecker Road, Bixb¥ Lane and Sandy Ford Road to the lowest bidder, William M- Harman, in the amount of $162,983.52. (It is noted funds for the project were included in the FY 1986-87 Capital Improvement Budget.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. A~sent: Mr. Currin. ll.D.2.c. CONTRACT PeR NkTER LINE EXTENSION TO SERVE BkILEY RIDGE ESTATESt SECTION C On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Adminimtrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: Bailey Ridge Estates, Section C - Off-Site Water Line, W88-19CD Developer: Charles M. Marchetti and Louis D. Marchetti, Jr. Co~traotcz: J. Steven Chafin, Inc. Total Contract Cost: To~al Estimated County Cost: (Ref~d through connection ~ees) Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: Code: $23,096.00 $10,400.00 $12,696.00 Future 5B-2511-997 Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Abment: Mr. Currin. ll.D.2.d. CONTRACT FOR SEWER LINE ~XT~NSION TO SERVE GREENBRIAR On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, t~e Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary doeumentm for the following sewer contract: Greenbriar Off-site Sewer Line - S88-27CD: Developer: Greenbriar Section V Association Contractor: Richard L. Crowder Construction Co~pany Total Contract Cost: $79,045.30 Total Zs~imated County Comt: $47,521.73 (Refund through connection f~es) Estimated Developer COSt: $31,523.57 Number of Conne~tio~: ~uture Code: 5N-2511-997 Ayes; Mr. Applegate, Nr, Sutlivan~ Hr. Daniel a~ Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Currin. ll.D,2.e. CO~TRACT FOR $~W~R LIN~ F-XTENSION TO SRR~E ALLIED CORPORATION TECHNICAL CENTEK On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Muyus, the Board approved and authorized tho county Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer ~ontraGt: Allied Corporation Technical Center - Off-Site Sewer Extension - S$8-30CD: Developer: Allied Corporation Technical Center Contractor~ Richard L. Crowder Construction Company Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost~ (~ofund through connection fees) Estimated Developer Cost: Number si Connections: Code: $109,320.00 $ 45,469.98 $ 63,850.02 1 5N-2511-997 Ayes: Mr. ApDleqate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: ~. Coffin. Mr. Currin returned to the m~oting. ll.D.3. REPORTS Mr. sale presented t~e Board with a report on the developer water and sawer contract~ ~xeeuted by the county Administrator. ll.E. REPORTS M~. Ra~sey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency ACCOUnt, General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Fund$, Lease Purchases, s=hool ~i=erary Loans an~ school Board Agenda. Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has ~ormally notified the County of the acceptance of the following reads i~to the State Secondary system: ADDITIONS LENGTH MINEOLA - SECTION C Route 3536 (Chsgford Drive) - From 0.03 milo east of Route 32S0 to Route 3530 0,30 Route 3539 (East Chaqferd Terrace) - From Route 3~39 {West Chagf~r~ Tarraee) - From Route 3536 to 0.03 mile southwest of RoUte 3536 0.06 APAMATICA - SECTION 1 Route 3930 (Apamatica Lane) - From Routs 631 to a north cul-de-sac 0.2O M~. Route 3931 (Berkley Davis Drivo) - From 0.16 mils northeas~ oi Route 3930 to 0.14 mile southwest o~ Route 3930 0.30 Mi. SHeNAnDOAH ~I~$ - SECTION C-1 Route 2892 [Natural Bridge to an east cul-de-sac - From Route 2890 0.16 Mi, 88-i03 ADDITIONS LENGTH PROVIDENCE COURT - SECTIONS 1 & 2 Route 1339 (clovertree Court) - From Route 678 to 0.14 mile east of Route 2128 Route 2128 (Newstead Drive) - From Route 1339 to 0.06 mile south of Route 2127 ECRO RIDGE Route 3860 Route 3862 Route 3861 to a north ~ SECTION A (Echo Ridge Drive) - From Route 652 to (Echo Ridge Court) - From Route 3860 cul-de-sac Route 3862 (Echo Ridge Place) - From 0.95 mile north of Route 3860 to 0.08 mile south of Route 3860 PLUM CREEK - SECTION 2 Route 3590 (South Ridge Drive) - From 0.01 mile north of Route 3591 to 0.06 mile southwest of Route 3561 Route 3599 (South Ridge Circle) - From Route 3590 to a northwest cul-de-sac FAIRPINES - SECTION 3 Route 2301 (South Jessup Road) - From Route 3165 to 0.03 mile south of Rou~e 3169 Route 3151 (Meterie Court) - From Route 2301 to a northeast cul-de-sac Route 3152 (~erryridge Terrace) - From Route 3169 to 0.01 mile north of Route 3169 Route 3169 (Brambleton Road) - From Route 2301 to 0.01 mile west of Route 3152 BEXLEY COSMOPOLITAN - PHASE II Route 2349 (Wicklow Loop) - From Route 2682 to an east loop BEXLEY COSMOPOLITAN - PHASE III & IV Route 3820 (Birkdale Lane) - From Rou~e 3156 to a south cul-de-sac Route 3821 (Rams Court) - From Route 3156 to a south cul-de-sac Route 3822 (Ram~ Circle) - From Route 3821 to a west cul-de-sac BF~XLEY COSMOPOLITAN - PHASE V & VI Route 3823 (Eagle Run Lane) - From Route 3156 to south cul-de-sac Route 3823 (Llama Lane) - From Route 3156 to 0.01 mile north o~ Route 3825 Route 3824 (Eagle Run Court) - From Route 3823 to an east cul-de-sac Route 3825 (Ewes Court) - From Rou~e 3823 to a west cul-de-sac 88-104 0.32 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.13 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.13 Mi. 0.24 Mi. 0.O3 Mi. 0.25 Mi. 0.04 Mi. 0.01 Mi. 0.09 Mi. 0.19 Mi. 0.08 Mi. 0.08 Mi. 0.03 Mi. 0.09 Mi. 0.05 Mi. 0.06 Mi. 0.10 Mi. ADDITIONS CHESTERFIELD MEADOWS Route 929 (Chesterfield Kea4ows Drive) - From Route 10 to 0.14 mile east of Route 10 0.14 Mi. CRESCE/~T PARK Route 960 (Oak Lawn ~tr~t) - From Route 1624 to a south cul-de-sac 0.31 Mi. RIr~rA~/~EADE - SECTIONS Route 1815 (Princess Margaret Place) - From Route 1816 to a northeast cul-de-sac Route 3309 (Celia Crescent) - From Route 3310 to 0.07 milo south of Route 3314 Route 3314 (Lakent Lane) - From 8.17 mile southwest of Route 3313 to Route 3309 0.15 Mi. 0.21 Mi. 0.06 ~i. SYCAMORE MEWS Route i098 (Sycamore Square Drive) - From Route 100~ to 0,27 mile northeast of Route 1002 0.27 Mi. SALISBURY - SECTIONS C&Dr LAKEVIEW - SECTION I Route 1345 (Cranborne Road) - From Route 101~ to a south cul-de-sac o.15 Mi. FIELDSTONE - SECTION 1 ROUte 3900 (Fieldstone Road) - From Route 632 to a sou=hwesg cul-de-sac Route 3901 (Berrystone Road] - From Route 3900 to D.0I mile west of Route 3900 0.43 Mi. 0.01 Mi. GAY FA~/~S - SECTION 6 Rout9 ~10 (ParkeI Lane) - Fr~m 0.30 mile seu~h of Route 156X to 0.41 mile south of Route COURTHOUSE COMMONS Route 903 (Krause Road) - From Route 10 to Route 655 0.11 Mi. 0.26 Mi, CRESTERFIELD AIRPORT INDUSTRI~ PARK Route 980 (Virginia Pine Court) - From Route 701 t~ a southwest cul-de-sac 0.21 BRADY ACRES - SECTION 1 Route 1562 (Blithe Road) - Fro~ 0.05 mile east of Route 1655 to an east cul-de-sac 0.13 Route 3569 (Lively Street) - F~om Route 1562 to a SOU~h cul-de-sac 0.12 !l.F. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded b~ Mr. curri~, the Board we~ into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters pursuant to Section 2.1-]44 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, vote: Unanimous 88~105 ll.G. L~CI-I The Board recessed at 11:55 a.m. (EST) to travel to the Crosswind Restaurant at the County Airport for lunch with Mr. Melvin Burnett and members of the Airport Advisory Board. DEDICATION OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING The Board attended the dedication ceremony/reception at the Chesterfield County Airport Terminal Building honoring Mr. Melvin Burnett by naming said building in his honor. Reconvening: Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. (EST). 9.C. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF PRINCIPLES GOVERNING INTEP~NAL BOARD RELATIONS AND RELATIONS WITH COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Currin the Board adopted the Principles Governing Internal Board Relations and Relations with the County Administrator ("Charlottesville Accords") as submittsd. (A copy of said documents are filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.B.8.' RESOLUTION OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER- VISORS sLrpPORTING T~E CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ACT On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolution: WMEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is co~itted to preservation of environmental quality as a~ element of effective urban development; and WHEREAS, the preservation of environmental quality is a regional as well as local issue; and W~EREAS, Senate Bill ~304 {The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act) addresses a regional environmental quality issue through local participation; and WHEPd~AS, Chesterfield County has the capacity to implement a program for the preservation of environmental quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board o~ Supervisors supports the preservation of environmental quality on the local and regional levels with the understanding that the Board objects to the inclusion of any provision in The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act whereby any aspeot of the review and approval of individual development responsibility of local gcvernment~. ll,I. REQUESTS FOR REEONING 87S173 I~ Matoaca Magisterial District, PIEKOE CONSTRUCTION COMRAN¥, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 16.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 620 feet on the south line of Branders Bridge Road, across from Weldon Street. Tax MaD 175-10 (1) Parcels t~ 2, and 3 (Sheet 49). Mr. Jacobsen stated the apRlioant has requested an additional thirty [30) day deferral of this ca~e for further verification and exhumation of remaining graves at the site. There wan no opposition present to the request for deferral. On motion of Mr. NaTes, seconded by Mr. £urrin, the Board deferred consideration of Cas9 87S173 until Mas~h 23, 1988. Vote; Unanimous 87S157 In Bermuda Magisterial District, JA~ES W. BLACEBURN requested rezoning from con~munity Business {B-2) to ~eneral Busines~ (B-3] on a 3~1 acre parcel ~Eenting approximately 475 feet on the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also f~onting eppreximRtely 178 ~e~t on the north line o~ Arcadia Ave~e a~d approximately 400 ~et on ~ke east line of Elokomin Avenue, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Jefferson Davis ~ighway and Arcadia Avenue. Tax MaD 98-10 I2) Normandale Terrace, Block 12, Lots 9 through ~4 and Tax Map ~8-L4 (3) Ncrmandale Terraes, Block 12, Lots 15 through 24 and Lots 47 through 65 (Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated %he applicant ~equ~,~t~ ~ thirty (30) day deferral so that he could discuss it further with staff and Mr. Currin. There was no opposition presen~ ~c Lhe request for the deferral. defm~red consideration of Cane 87S157 until ~arch 23, 1988. 87~097 In Dale Magisterial District, RICHARD ~. ALLEN requested rezcning from Agricultural (A) to COE~unity Business (B-2) w~th ConditiOnal Use Blanncd Development. A sho~i~q center is planned. This rec/~lest lies on a 3.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 4S5 £ee~ on the north line of Centralia Read, approximately 250 feet east of Iron Bridge Road. Tax Map 96-9 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet $1). Mr. Jacobsen s=ated the PlanninG commimsion recommended denial of Community Business (B-2) zonin9 an~ approval of Office Business (O) zoning with Conditional Use Planned Development, ~ubject to certain conditions because the proposed B-~ use does net conform to the Central Area Land U~e a~d Transports%ioN 88-107 'Plan which designates the subject property for office use, the zoning/land uses are incompatible with existing residential land uses to the north and east of the subject si~e and office business zoning, with limited retail uses and appropriate buffers, would represen~ a reasonable land use transition between commercial land uses to the south, office land uses to the west and residential land uses to the north and east. Mr. Richard Allen stated he felt %he concerns of adjacent property owners had been adequately resolved regarding drainage, access, etc., and outlined certain B-1 uses which he requested for the proposed shopping center. When asked, Mr. Jacobsen indicated most of the uses requested by the applicant are not considered appropriate for a project located within such close proximity of adjacent residential properties. Mr. John Dodson stated he was probably not in opposition to the proposed request; however, he has a contract on property to the west of the subject site and expressed concerns that the proposed development not adversely impact his property with respect to drainage, architectural design, ere. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. Mayes, to deny rezoning to Community Business (B-2) and approve rezoning to Office Business (O) with Conditional Use Planned Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern and eastern property lines. With the exception of utilities, which run generally perpendicular through these buffers, and a fence, if desired, located along the southern and western edges of these buffers, there shall be nc other facilities Or improvements permitted within these buffers. Existing vegetation within these buffers shall be supplemented with at least Perimeter Landscaping C, per the Corridor OVerlay District standards, so as to minimize ~he view of the development from residential property to the north and east. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning commission ~or approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan de- picting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading. (P) 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. Prior to release of any building per~its, a utility easement shall be dedicat- ed to and for the County of Chesterfield. The easement shall accommodate the ability to extend public sewer to the property west of the request sire. The exact location of this easement shall be approved by the Utilities De- partment in conjunction with site plan review. (U) 3. The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the impact this project will have on the site and surround- ing area. The developer shall submit a storm water management and site construction plan to Environmental Engineering and %rDOT providing for on- and off-site drainage facilities in accordance with the conditions herein. The plans shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and VDOT, and all necessary easements shall be obtained, prior to any vegetative disturbance. One of the following shall be adhered to: 88-108 54 The exi~tin9 culvert capacity under Route 10, et the in%ersection of Con,relic ~oad, shall not be increased to acco~odate the development of this project. Through a routing procedure, it shall be shown that the storage volume on the upstream side of this culvert i~ adequate or can be acquired to the extent ~hat Route 10 will not be topped by storm water from the 25 year storm. If property other than that owned by the applicant is a part of the required storage volume, easement~ or other £s~ms of permission acceptable to the Environmental Rngi~eeri~ Improvements on the downstream side of the existing 15 inch pipe shall be as required by the ~-DOT. The existing 15 inch culvert under Route 10 s~all be enlarged to achieve minimum County and VDOT drainage criteria. From the dow~stream side of the enlarged culvert under Route 10, drainage improvements and off-site drainage easements shall be implemented to a point of adequate natural watercourse as defiged by Gc-7. spillway improvement~, as deemed necessary by a hudraulie studu of the "Tyler Pond," shall be performed assuming there is cooperation with the owner o~ the pond. Prior to the release of any building permits, ownership and maintenance of detention areas shall be established as the responsibility of private entities. An indemnifica- tion agreement shall be submitted to =he gnviror~ental Engineering Department to ~ave the County harmless of vectors, maintenance, and replacement responsibilities. Uses permitted shall be limited to those allowed in the Any permitted use as regulated in the R-40 District an~ espies ~uslnesa District except dwellings. b. Antique ~hop. Art school~ gallery or museum. d. Artist material and supply~tare. e. ~ank. f. Barbershop. h. Book or stationery store. i. ~rokurage. Camera store. k. Catering establishment. 1. Cleaning, pick-up and ~rop-off only. m. clothes store. C~ric or gift shop. O. Delicatessen. p. Dress shop. g. Florist sho~ greenhouse, nursery. r. Governmental offices. s. Jewelry store. t. Lock--itt. u. ~edical facility or clinic. v, ~essenq~r or ~elegraph service. w. Musical instrument sales. Newspaper or magazine sales. y. Offices, business and professional. office supply store. aa. Optometrists sales and services. bb. Paint and wallpaper sales. cc. Photography studio. ~%adlu and ~elevision broadcasting studies and effiee~ exclusive of towers. 88-109 ce. Restaurants, not including drive-in establishments. ff. Savings and loan associations. gg. Sewing machine sales, instruction, and service. hh. Specialty shops. ii. Sporting goods sales. jj. Shoe repair shop. kk. Tailoring and dressmaking shops. 11. Telephone exchanges. mm. Travel arranging and transportation ticket services. The Planning commission, through schematic plan approval, may permit other B-1 uses. Retail uses shall be located within the Ease structure as office uses and shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross squar~ footage of each structure. (BOS) Architectural treatment. Buildings shall have a colonial architectural style similar to that exemplified by Chesterfield Meadows or Courthouse Commons, shall have a residential scale, and shall not exceed a height of two (2) stories. (Note: This condition is in addition to the Corridor Overlay District standards.) (Notes: a. Prior to obtaining a building permit or final site plan approval, schematic plans must be ~ubmitted to the Planning Department for approval. b. The request parcel lies with the limits Of the Corridor Overlay District and development must comply with those standards.) After further discussion, Mr. Sullivan suggested an amendment to Condition 5 was which was accepted by Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes with respect to increasing from 25% to 50% the percentage of the gross equate footage of each structure for retail uses. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayea, the Board denied rezoning to Community Business (~-2) and approved rezoning to Office Business (o) with Conditional Use Planned Development, SUbject to the following conditions: 1. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern and eastern property lines. With the exception of utilities, which run generally perpendicular through these buffers, and a fence, if desired, located along the southern and western edges of these buffera, there shall be no other facilities or improvements permitted within these buffers. Existing vegetation within these buffers shall be supplemented with at leaat Perimeter Landscaping C, per the Corridor Overlay District standards, so as to minimize the view of the development from residential property to the north and east. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan de- picting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading. 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. Prior to release of any building permits, a u~ility easement shall be dedicat- ed to and for the County of Chesterfield. The easement shall accommodate the ability to extend public sewer to the property west of the request site. The exact location 88-110 of this easement shall be approved by the Utilities De- partment in conjunction with site plan review. 3. The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situationr skewing existing drainage and impact this project will have on the site and surround- management and site oonstructien plan to Environmental Engineering and VDOT providing for on- and off-site drainage ~aeilitie~ in accordance with the conditions herein. The plans shall ~e approved ~y Znvironmental Engineering and VDOT~ and all necessary easements shall ~e o~taiaed, prior to any vege%ative One of the following shall ~e adhered to: The existing oulvert capacity under Route 10, at the intersectien of Centralia Road, sha~l ~o~ be increased to accommodate the development cf th±~ project. Through a routing procedure, it shall be skowl% that the storage volume on the upstream s~de of this culvert is adecuat~ or can be acquired to the extent tha~ Route 10 will not be topped by storm water fro~ the 25 year ~term. If property other than that owned by the applicant is a part of the re~ui~ed storage volume, easements er ether forms of permission acceptable to ~he tnvlronmental Engineering Depart~ent shall be required from affected landowners. Improvements on the downstream side of the eximtinq 15 inch pipe shall be as r~quired by the VDOT, The existing 15 inch oulver~ under Route lQ shall be enlarged to achieve minimum County and VDOT drainage criteria. From the downstream side of ~he enlarged culvert under Route 10, drainage improvements and off-site drainage easements shall be i~plumen~ed to a point of adequate natural wateroours~ as defined bM hydraulic study ef the "Tyler Pond," shall be performed assul~ing there is cooperation wi~h ~he owner of the pond, 4, Prior to the release of any building permits, o~ership and maintenance cf ~eten=ian areas~,~hm~l, be establ±sh~d as the responsibility of private entities. An indemnifica- tion agreement shall be ~ubmitted to the Enviror~uental Engineering Department to save %he Cou~=~ harmless of vectors, maintenance, and replacement responsibilities. (EE) 5. Uses permXtted shall b~ limited to those allowed in the office Business (0) District, plu~ the follewing retail a. Any permitted use as regulated in the R-40 District and Office Business District excep~ dwellings. b. Antique shop. o. Art ~OhQQ~ gallery or mu~e%~. Artist material and supply $~ore. e. Bank. f. Barbershop. g. Beauty shoD. h. Book or sta~io~ry s=ore. i. Brokerage. j- Camera stor~. k. Caterinq establishment. 1, Cleaning, pick-up and drop-off only. m. Clothes store. n. Curio or g~ft shoD. o. Delicatessen. 88-111 Florist shop, greenhouse, nursery. r. Goverr~ental offices. s. Jewelry store. t. Locksmith. Medical facility or clinic. Musical instrument sales. y. Offices, business and professional. z. Office supply store. bb. Paint and wallpaper sales, cc. Photography studio. dd. Radio and television broadcasting studios and ff. Savings and loan associations. hh. Specialty shops. ii. Sporting goods sales. jj. Shoe repair shop. kk. Tailoring and dressmaking shops. 11. Telephone exchanges. The Planning Commission, through schematic plan approval, may permit other B-1 uses. office uses and shall OCCUpy no more than fifty (50) (BOS) Architectural treatment. Buildings shall have a colonial architeotural style similar to that exemplified by a residential scale, and shall not exceed a height of two (2) stories. (P) (Note: This condition is in addition to the Corridor Overlay District standards.) (Notes: a. Prior to obtaining a building permit or final site plan approval, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. b. The request parcel liee with the limits of the Corridor Overlay District and standards.) Vote: Unanimous 87S150 In Matoaca Magisterial District, EARLE SPENCER, JR. requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a convenience store with gasoline sales and hulk (setback) exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.7 acre parcel fronting ap- proximately 345 feet on the northeast line of Genite Road, also fronting approximately 450 feet on the west line of Courthouse Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 63-3 (1) Parcels 13 and 50 (sheet 21). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission and staff recommended denial of this request based on the fact that none of the plans sUbmitted by the applicant conformed to the minimum desi~ criteria for development of this site under the Overlay District standards, appruval of commercial land uses in this area could ~stablisk a precedent for further expansion of similar uses from Route 360 along Courthouse and Genito Roads, and would be inconsistent with previous actions regarding cemmeroial uses at this intersection. He stated should the Doard see fit to approve this request staff has recommended certain conditions be imposed; however, it should he noted that outlined previously. Ke further noted staff has received petition containing ninety (90) signatures of area property owners in favor of the development and 123 signatures in Mr. Currin disclosed te the Board that, although he has no financial interest in the subject property~ one of his associates is involved ix this Venture, and he has been advised by the County Attorney that he did not have a cunflict of interest and could vote on this Mr, Dean Hawkins, representinq the applicant, explained the evolution of this pro3ect, the changes the applicant has made in an attempt to compl~ with zoning requirements, meetings he has attended with adjacent propertF owners and the impact this project would have on area roads. Ms. Lois May Allard, who resides with h~r mother on the property, stated out-through traffic necessitates many unnecessary repairs and expenses to maintain tho site and indicated her mother would like to sell the property. Mr. Boyd Alli~nn voiced opposition to the proposed request, statin~ area residents kad sufficient businesses within cluse proximity of their homes and they did not want development in the area that would further impede traffic at the intersection o9 Courthouse Road and Genito Road. Mr. Rusty Wrenn, Chairman of the Beard of Directors for Great oaks Homeowners Association, voiced opposition =o the proposed request; expressed concerns relative to the design criteria for ~evelopment o£ ~he subjeo~ site, the establi~b_~ent of a precedent for further expansion of similar uses fro~ Rou~e along Courthouse and Genito Reads, eomDatibilit~ traffic congestion, sa~ty hazards at the intersection, ingress/egress to the proposed site, etc.; and submirted~addirional petitions containing signatures of area residents in opposition to this request. He suggested that another type commercial use on th~ property ~ay be more appropriate. voiced opposition to the request as it would impact traffic, generate safe~y hazards and non be a benefit to ~he neighborhood. When a~ked, approximately twelve (1~) members =he church's congregation stood in opDosltlon to the request. Mr, Daniel stated he felt this situation was very Unusual and h~ sympathized with the property o%~ler; however, he did feel the proposed use was compatible with the site and could not support the request. Mr. Currin stated he could not support the request as he felt there was insufficient acreage for development of the site, and other options ~hould be considered/evaluated. Mr, Sullivan s~ated he felt ~here was insufficient property for d~velepment of the site, the proposed use would represent the introduction of business into a residential neighborhood, a~reed that other uses may be appropriate for the supported the recor~mendatione for denial based On t~u reasons a~ outlined in the Request Analysis an~ s~atad he could not support the request, Mr. Applegate stated he felt consideration should be given to the property owners who were in =hls area prior to the developmon= of Great Oaks and other area subdivisions as they were being adversely impacted by surrounding development and that precautions should be taken to insure that such impacts do not occur in the future. Mr. Mayes stated he could not support the data provided. On motion of Fir. Mayes, seconded by Mr. denied Case 87S150. Vote: Unanimous request based the Daniel, the Board 88S014 In Dale Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-7) to Light Industrial (M-l) with Conditional Use Planned Development. An industrial complex is planned. This request lies on a 182 acre parcel fronting approximately 2,400 feet on the south line of Belmont Road, approximately 1,800 feet west of Licking Creek Drive. Tax Map 64 (1) Parcel 109 and Tax Map 78 (1) Parcel 25 (Sheets 21 and 22). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval cf this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Blankenship was present representing the request. There was no oppo$1~icn present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Case $8S014, subject to the following conditione: NO building exterior (whether front, side, Or rear) shall consist of architectural materials inferior in quality, appearance, or detail to any other exterior of ~ho same building. Nothing in this condition shall preclude the use of different materials on different building exteriors of the same building (which would be acceptable if rep- resentative of good architectural design), but rather, shall preclude the use of inferior materiats~n sides which fate property outside the industrial park or face internal/external public rights of way. No portion of a b~ilding constructed of unadorned cinder block or corru- gated and/or sheet metal shall be visible from any adjoin- ing Residential, Residential-Townhouse, or Residential- Multifamily Districts; Office District; areas currently zoned Agricultural (A) and depicted on the County's Com- prehensive Plan for office or residential uses; or pttblic rights of way. 2. Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be screened from view of any adjoining Residential, Residential-Tewnhouse, or Residential-Multifamily Dis- tricts; Office District; areas currently zoned Agricul- tural (A) and depicted on the County's Comprehensive Plan for office or residential uses; or public rights of way. Screening shall ensure that any heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment located on rooftops are screened and/or incorporated into the building design. 3. Sites shall be designed and buildings shall be oriented so that loading/unloading areas and storag~ yards for company owned and operated vehicles, with the exception of passen- ger vehicles, are screened from view of any adjoining Residential, Residential-Townhouse, or Residential- Multifamily Districts; Office District; areas currently 88-114 zoned Agricultural (A) and depicted on the County's Com- prehensive Plan for office cr residential u~es; Or whi~apine Road Extended. (P) 4. All public and private roads, driveways, loading areas, and parking area8 shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or other similar material. ~urfa~e treated parking areas and drive~ shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and gut%er shall be installed around the perimeter all paved ureas. Drainage shall be designed se as not to interfere with p~destrian traffic. (P) 5. A lQ0 foot buffer shall be maintained along the north and west property boundaries. Other than public roads, and utilities that run generally perpendicular through this buffer, there shall be no facilities located in the fer. Public roads and/er utilities which dc not run approval by the Planning and/o~ Transportation Depart- ments. Signs and fences may also b~ permitted within the buffer upon approval cf the ~lanning Department. Thi~ buffer may consist o~ existing vegetation, landscaping, fencing, berming, topographical condltion~, and/or a combinatien ef the~e elements which will provide year~ round screening of the development from a4jaoen~ property to the north and west, At the time ef schematic plan review ~or each individual parcel or let which abuts the buffer, a conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval. The conceptual landscaping plan shall include the general location of existing vegetation to re~ained and th~ lccatlcn of proposed vegeua:ien and/or other ~creenin~ ferm~, k detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the ~lan~ing Department for review and approval within ninety (90) days of rough clearing grading of each site. In cases where substantial eem- pletien of faugh grading is not complete at the end of ninety (90) days, an appropriate extenslen may bs ~ranted by the Planning Department. This condition may be mod- ified by the Planning Depar~ent if adjacent property to the north and west has been zoned for a similar use. 6. sign~ identifying the overall development and all ~ther signs, except these identifying individual sites, shall comply with the requirements of._~e,. Corridor Overlay District standards for office parks or similar groups of buildings, signs identifying each individual site shall comply with ~he ~equirements of the Corridor Overlay District standards for individual parc~l~ or 7. Public water and sewer ~hall ba used. 8. Ail utility lines such as electric, telephone, CATV, ether similar iinus shall he installed underground. This requirement shall apply to lines serving individual sites a~ w~tl as tc utility lines necessary within the project. Ail junction and acoe~ bc~s shall l>e screened with appropriat~ landscaping. AIl utility pad f~xt~re$ me=era shall be show~ on the site plan, T~e necessity for utility connection~, ~eter boxes, e~c., sheuld be recognized and integrated with the architectural elements of the site plan. All exterior lights shall be arranged and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at th~ lot line of any adjoining Residential, Residential-Tow~house~ or Residentlal-Multifa~ily Districts, Office District~ area~ currently zoned Agricultural (A) and depicted on the County'~ comprehensive Plan for office or residential O= public right~ of way. Lighting ~tandards shall be of a 88-115 directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view from any adjoining Residential, Residential-Townhouse, or Residential-~ltlfamily Dis~ triers; Office District; areas currently zoned Ag- ricultural (A) and depicted on the County's Comprehen- sive Plan for office or residential use; or public rights of way. 10. The minimum front and corner side yard building setback along whitepine Road Extended shall be fifty (50) feet. Within this setback, landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with Corridor Overlay District require- merits Der Landscaping C. All other building setbacks shall conform to the requirements Of the Light Indus- trial (M-l) District as outlined in the Zoning Ordi- nance except that any General Industrial (M-2) use shall conform to the setback requirements of that District unless modified at the time of sehematio plan review. A fifty (50) foot parking setback shall be maintained alon~ Whitepine Road Extended. Within this setback, landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with Corridor Overlay District requirements per Landscaping C. A twenty-five (25) foot parking setback shall be maintained along any other public and private roads which connect to Belmont Road. A fifteen (15) foot parking setback shall be maintained along all other public and private roads, Within the twenty-five (25) and fifteen (15) foot setbacks, landscaping shall be accomplished in accordance with Corridor Overlay Dis- trict requirements per Landscaping A. (P) 12. Parking areas, except those occupied by non-passenger company owned and operated vehicles, shall be landscaped in accordance with Corridor Overlay District requirements. With the provision of this landscaping, parking spaces, with the exception of "handicapped" spaces, may be red,ced to 9.5 by eighteen (18) feet. (P) 13. At the time of schematic plan review for each individual parcel or lot, a conceptual landscaping plan, depicting the requirements outlined in Conditions 10, 11, and 12, shall be submitted for approval. The conceptual land- scaping plan shall include the general locatimn af exist- ing vegetation to be retained and the location of proposed vegetation and berms. (P) 14. Schematic plans which conform to the conditions of zoning may be approved by the Planning Department. The decisions cf the Director of Planning, relative to schematic plan review, may he appealed to the Planning Commission. (p) 15. The following uses shall be permitted: a. All Light Industrial (M-l) uses, exclusive of mobile homes. b. The following General Industrial (M-2) uses provided they are not located on any lot which abuts required buffers; however, at the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may allow the following M-2 uses on lots adjacent to the buffers provided it is determined that such uses would not adversely affect adjacent properties. (1) Electric transforming stations (not public utility). (2) Electrical transmission and distribution equipment, household appliances, electrical ind~strlal apparatus~ and other electrical machinery equipment, and supplies-- manufacturing. (3) Furniture and fixt~res--~an~factu~i~g. Ice--manufacturing. ~acaroni, spaghetti, vermicelli, and dies--manufacturing. (6) Other food preparations and kindred prod- ucts--manufacturing. (7) Packing, orating, shipping, hauling, or moving goods ur chattels for others; (8) Laundry, cleaninq, pressing, or dying establishment~ (9) erbar fabricated metal Droduefs manufactur- ing not otherwise listed in this condition. c. The following B-l, B-2, and B-~ uses when restricted to internal lsts~ lots not adjacent to buffers, and ~igned and oriented so as serve primarily the Industrial Park; (1) The following Convenience Business ~B-1) (a) Banks. {b) Barbershops. (C) ~eauty shops. [d) Delicatessens. Governmental offices. [f) Medical facilities or [g) Messenger or telegraph servioe~. Nursery schools, child or day care (j}Post office~. ~harmacies. (1) Radio and television broadcasting studios an~....o~ff_d~cs exclusive of (m) Sa~ings and loan associations. (n) Telephone booths. (o) Telephone exchanges. (p) Laundry, clea~ing, pressing, or dying establishment. (2) The following community Business (B-2) (a) Con~rac~crs' offices and displa~ (b) a~alth clubs. (3) The following General Busines~ (B-3) uses= [a) Cocktail lounges, dining hall~, ni~ht- clubs provided ~hey are located within (b) (c) Recreational establishments, indoor. (d) Restaurants, to include drive-in. d. Public and private utility usez, so long as they electric, gas, con~unlcations, and natural gas, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and petroleum 88-117 products transmission facilities; in addition, natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, and petro- leum products transmission facilities above- and below-ground. (P) e. A maximum of 30% of the gross floor area OCcupied by permitted industrial use may be utilized for the display of goods and arti- cles for sale and the servicing of goods and articles, provided such goods and articles are associated with the permitted use. f. Outside storage shall be permitted on lots which are not adjacent to buffers in conjunction with any permitted use subject to the area being screened in accordance with the Corridor Overlay District standards. ~owever, the Planning Commission, at the time of schematic plan review, may permit outside storage on lots adjacent to the buffers if it is determined that such use would not adversely effect adjacent properties and is screened in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards. g, All Office Business (O) use~. (P&CPC) 16, The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact this project will have on the site and surround- ing area, down through Belmont Road. The developer shall submit an overall storm water management plan to Engineering and VDOT providing for on- and off-site drainage facilities. The plan shall be approved by the Environmental Engineering Department prior to any schematic plan approval and shall be approved by VDOT prior to any vegetative disturbance. All necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any vegetative disturbance. The plan shall provide for an overall storm water management program to the degree that all off-site concerns have been addressed and resolved prior to road or drainage plan approval. The approved plan may have to be implemented prior to clearing. Environmental Engineering may impose conditions over and beyond the requirements of applicable Ordinances. Whitepine Road =x~ended may, however, be designed and constructed prior to~,submission or approval of the overall plan provided that the road is not over-topped by a 100 year storm. The developer shall be responsible for notifying the owners of Lots 5, 6, and 7 on Tax Map 64-t2 (3) of the submission of plans to Environmental Engineering. (BE) 17. Prior to any schematic plan approval, a traffic impact analysis and overall access plan, as outlined in Section 21-67.20 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department. (T) 18. A plan for straightening Belmont Road shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department. This plan shall establish the centerline of Belmont Road. To the extent possible, the County shall require that all right of way needed to accommodate this project be acquired south of the existing centerline of Belmont Road. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the approved centerline of Belmont Road, shall be dedicated to and for Chesterfield County, £ree and unrestricted. (T&CPC) 19. Direct access to Belmont Road from this property shall be limited to a single public road. Prior to the Transporta- tion Department's approval of road and drainage plans for the road, the developer shall be responsible for notifying 88-11~ all owners of property ~ronting Belmont Road between the eastern proDer~y tine and the Five Forks interchange. 20. In addition to su~miseion of read construction plans for publicly dedicated roads to 1rOOT and Environmental Engi- neering, tko plans shall also be submitted to, and ap- preyed by, the Transportation Department. (NOTE: Prior to obtaining £ina~ site plan approval or any building permits~ s~hematic plans must be submit- Vote: Unanimous 87~155 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial Dimtrlc~, MLHB PLANNING PARTNERSHIP requested resorting from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-121 on 47.9 acres, Residential (R-15) on g5.5 Reaidential-TowrLheuse (R-TH) On 39.3 acres, Residential- ~ultifamily (R-F~) un 37.4 acres, and Community Business (~-2) on 23.4 acre~, with Conditiosal use Planned Development on the entire 173.6 acre tract, ~lus proffered conditions on an adjacent 132 acr~ tract zoned Residential (R-7). A mixed use development with residential a~d eo~ercial usus is planned. Thi~ request lies on 3~6 acres fronting approximately 950 ~eet on the east line of NewbFs Bridge Road, approximately 1,050 feet north of Barnett Drive, also fronting in the three (~) places for a total of approximately 1,600 feet on the west line of Belmont Road, Parcel 66~ Ta~ ~ap 64-3 (1) Part of Parcel 9; and TaX Map 65-1 (1) Pair of Parcel 1 (Sheets 15, 21, and 221. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cammission recommended approval o~ this request, subject ~e certain conditions. stated staff had receive~ two letters of support and one letter o~ opposition relative to this request. Mr. John Cegbill, representing the applicant, presented a brief cvervi=w cf the proposed project explaining that a high ~/ality, uDscalu mixed use development with residential a~d commercial uses, nerved by public wa~cr and sewer, is planned for the subject property. Ee stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. ~ There was no opposition present. Ms. Ann Thompson, developer of Ashley Grove Subdivision, voiced support for the proposed project. There was d~o~smion rcgardin~ the number of school agm children th~ p~eposed d~velo~ment would generate, the impact additional school age children on aras ~ckcels, the applicant'S proffered condition whereby a tract of land would be conveyed to the Ceunt~ which, if additional land were required, could be used for building an elsmentary sohool~ etc. On motion e~ Mr. Appiegats, seconded by Mr. outran, the Board approved Cas~ 87S155, subject to the following coa~itions: 1. The following imposed conditions and proffered conditions notwithstanding, the plan labelled Exhibit 12.4, revised January 25, 1988, and ~he entire Textual Statement la~ belled Conditional Usc Eo~in~ A~pli=ation, revised January 7, 198~, submitted by MLF~ Planning PartnnrshiD, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. Public water shall be used incorporating a looped system be=ween the 16 inch line in Manitoba Road and the 28 inch line along Belmont Road. (U) 88-119 3. Public sewer shall be used by extending the trunk line along Licking Creek to the southern property line of the site. (U) 4. Concrste curb and gutter shall be installed around all driveways and parking areas in the Residential-Townheusc (R-TM), Residential-Multifamily (R-MF), and Community Business (B-2) Districts. In these districts drainage improvements shall be designed not to interfere with pedestrian circulation. (EE) 5. In Tracts 3, 4, and 5, each lot shall have a minimum 1% gradient between the lowest point on the lot and the invert of the drainage outfall adjacent to the lot. (EE) 6. In Tracts 3, 4, and 5, crawl spaces shall be one (1) foot above the original ground, unles~ the County Soil Scien- tist determines that adequate drainage exists for the lot. Lots requiring elevated crawl spaces shall be noted on final check and record plats. 7. The Master Plan (see Condition 1) shall be the Master Road Plan. Approval of the plan by the County does net consti- tute final approval by the County of any particular road alignment or section. (T) 8. The exact right of way width of the proposed internal collector roads shall be determined when the proffered traffic analysis is approved by the Transportation Department. See Proffered Condition 1. (T) 9. The densities of development proposed shall be maximum densities. Actual density of construction may be less as determined when the proffered traffic analysis is approved by the Transpor%a%ion Department. See Proffered Condition 10. A fifty (501 foot building setback and buffer strip, exclusive of easements, shall be established and main- tained along Newbys Bridge Road (Route 649). Prior to recordation of subdivision plats, the developer shall flag each buffer for inspection by the Planning Department. The area within the buffer shall be planted, or left in its natural state if there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening. If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depart~ent for approval and a bond shall be posted to cover the cost of implementing the plan, prior to recordation of subdivision plats. No access shall be permitted through this buffer, except as approved at site plan or tentative subdivision review. The Planning Com- mission may modify this condition at tentative subdivision review. (P&T) 11. A building setback and buffer shall be established and maintained in the 100 year floodplain along Licking Creek in Tracts 6, 7, and 11. Prior to recordation of subdivi~ sion plats, the developer shall flag each buffer for inspection by the Planning Department. The area within the buffer shall be planted, or left in its natural state if there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening. If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval and a bond shall be posted to cover the cost of i~plementing the plan, prior to recordation of subdivision plats. No access shall be permitted through this buffer, except as approved at site plan or tentative subdivision review, The Planning Commission may modify this condition at site plan approval or tentative subdivi- sion review. (P) 88-1~0 52. No signs advertising the shopping center or individual uses therein shall te permit%sd along the Belmont or Newbys Bridge Read frontages. And further, the Board accepted the following condition: Applicant hereby proffers that in the interest of providing a partial site for a Chesterfield County ~ohool, applicant agrees, contingent upon the rezening of the Property described in the Condition use Zoning Application~ dated A~qust 26, 1987, (last revised February 16, 195~), to donate t~ the County of Chesterfield a 5.75 acre parcel o£ land, ira= ~f titl~ ~efect, located on the south side of the collector road in the single family residential area (as described in the Application) ~or as a Chesterfield Coun=y school. Vote: Unanimous 87S~72 In Midlothian Magisterial District, EDWARD W. requested r~zoning from Agricultural IAI to Residential A single ~amily resi~en=ial subdivision is planned. This re~uest lies on a 2.1 acre parcel loseted approximately 1,000 feet off the southwes~ line of Courthouse ~oad, measured from a paint approximately 1,00~ feet south of Edenberry Drive. Ta~ Map 27-1 (I) ~arcel 9 (Sheet M~. Jacotson stated the Plannin~ Commission recommended approval of this request. Mr. Ji~ Hayes, ~epresenting the applicant, stated the recox~endatien was acceptable. There wa~ no opp~sltion present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coffin, the Board approved Case 88S003 in Matoaca ~agisterial District, ~PRI~ ~UN ASSOCI~RS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) tc Residential (R-9} with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk =xceptions. A mixed use development to include residential, recreational, open space, and co~er¢ial uses is plan~ed. This request lies cna 495.1 acre parcel fronting in two I2] plaoes for a total of 2,475 fee~ on the east line o~ Winterpock Read, also fronting approximately 1,975 feet on the east line of Bethia Road, and in uhree (3) places ~or approximately 2,600 feet on the south and we~t lines of North Spring Run Road, and located ~e~weea these roads. Tax Nap 75-10 (1) Parcel 14 and Part of Parsul 17; Tax ~ap 75-14 (1) Parcel 3 a~d Part of Parcels 4 and 5; Tax Map 91~2 (1) Part of Parcel 3~ and Tax Map 91 (1) Parcels 20, 26, and 27 (Skeet~ 20 and 29), ~. Applegat~ disclosed to the Board that he is a part owner cf property &djacsnt to the request site# declared a potential conflict of interest pursuant to =he Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. approval of this request, subject to c~rtain conditicns a~d 88-121 Mr. Clarke Plaxco, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. Ms. Mary Ellen Howe, an adjacent property owner, voice support for the proposed request. When asked, Mr. Plaxco stated a letter o~ intent with respect to dedication of a partial tract for a future school site would be provided to the Board. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. currln, the Board approved Case 88S003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the Textual statement, prepared by the Planning and Design Collabora- tive, Inc., titled "Spring Run: Rezoning Application," and revised November 9, 1987, including the map titled "Exhibit G," shall be the Master Plan. (P) 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 3. The developer shall ex~end the 24 inch water main along Spring Run Road, from Triple Crown Drive to the entrance to this development. Should the Department of Utilities deem it necessary, the developer shall be required at a later date to extend the 24 inch water main and/or dedi- cate an easement from the entrance to this development to the point where the frontage on Spring Run Road termi- nates. (U) 4. The design of the on-site water distribution system shall include a loop between Spring Run Road and Winterpock Road. (U) 5. The developer shall extend the trunk sewer upstream along Spring Run Creek so as to provide the ability to service property south of this development. (U) 6. ~he developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing the existing drainage and impact this development will have on this site and the surrounding area down through North Spring Run Road. The developer shall submit an overall storm water management study and site construction plan to the Environmental Engineering Department and VDOT providing ~ar..on- and off-site drainage facilities in accordance with the dis- cussion section of this report. The plans shall be ap- proved by Environmental Engineering and %~DOT and all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any vegetative disturbance o~ ar~as other than the golf course and spine road. (ES) 7. Concrete curb and gutter shall be used in all areas, except qualifying single family residential roads and collector roads, unless curb and gutter is desired for these roads as well. (EE) 8. Construction plans for the spine road shall be submitted separately from adjacent area development plans to the VDOT and the Environmental Engineering Department. Ap- proval from both agencies and the dedication of the right of way shall be a prerequisite to the release cf any building permits or subdivision plat recordation. (E~) The first spine road plan submitted shall include the overall storm water management lake/retention facility plan which will, or in combination with improvements to the existing culvert under North Spring Run Road, achieve minimum 10 year storm drainage criteria on the performance of the culvert based on future development. (ES) 8g-122 10. Prior to any approvals beyond the initial torching, the approximate size, shape, location, number, and floodplain limits of all lakes shall be established and approved by the Environmental Engineering Department. (RE) 11. Prior to any approvals beyond the zoning of the prDperty, this office must be provided documentation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the development proposal is permitted with respect to wetlands. (ES) 12. Prior to State acceptance of any portion of the spine road, ownership and maintenance of the lakes and detention basins shall be established as the responsibility private entities, A~ indemnification agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Department to replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon completion of these facilities, the structural and hydraulic integrity shall be certified by a professional engineer. To avoid potential algae and siltation probl~m~, depth of the lake shall not be less than three [3) feet within ten (1~) feet of the ~horeline. Unless the lake is to be operated by the golf course, a maintenance and operations manual shall be provldcd to the future owners prior to, or in conjunction with, ~e~ordati~n of any areas draining to the lakes. 14. ~o building shall be located within =he inundation limits of a flood and d~m ~ailure occurring during a 1oo year storm event. Calculations shall bo submitted to the Environmental Engineering Department for documentation end limits must be shown on any affected and recorded 15. An overall, project-wide erosion and sediment control plan which inuludes provisions for the construction of the golf course shall be submitted, approved, and implemented prior tQ any vegetative distnrbance. 16. The name of this planned development shall not be a dupli- cate o~ any existing subdivisions in chesterfield County. (SE) 17. Prior to the issuance of a buildi~gpermit, forty-five (45) ~et of right cf way, measured from the oenterlines of both Wi~terpock and Spring Run Roads, shall be ed to and for the County cf chesterfield, free and unre- 18. Additional pavement shall be provided along Winte=puck and Spzing Run Roads at each approved access location to provide left- and right-turn lanes upon construction of each access. In addition, the ditch line along both roadways sh~ll be relocated and an adec~uate shoulder provided. 19. Thc Master Plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Roa~ Plan. Approval o~ the plan b~ the County does not imply that thc County giVeS iinal approval Of any particular read alignment or section. (T) 20. As few lots as possible shall front the collector road, but lots may front the collector in accordaDoe with Goner- al condition 6 c~ :he Textual Statement. Such lots shall be approved by the Transportation Department at the time of tentative subdivi~io~ or site plan approval. Lots which are approved to front the collector road shall have a fifty-five (55) foot front yard s~tback (that i~, twenty-five (25) feet greater than the standard front yard). (T) 88-123 21. A pedestrian access plan shall be developed for this project which incorporates the golf cart path. This plan shall be approved by the Transportation Department, in conjunction with the first tentative subdivision or site plan submitted. (T) 22. Where bulk requirements on buildings Or lots are not established by the Master Plan, those of the Residential (R-9) District shall prevail. 23. A fifty (50) foot building setback and buffer strip, exclusive of easements, shall be provided adjacent to Winterpock Road, Bethia Road, and Spring RUn Road. The developer shall flag this buffer for inspection prior to approval of any final ~ite plan or recordation of any plat. The area within this buffer shall be plant- ed, bermed, and/or left in its natural state if there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening. If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and a bond posted to cover the cost of implementing the plan, prior to approval of final site plan~ or recordation of ~ubdivision plats. This building setback line and buffer shall be noted on final site plans, and check and record plats and site plans. The Planning Commis- sion may modify this condition at the time of site plan or tentative subdivision review. (P&T) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. A fifty (50) foot building setback and buffer strip, exclusive of easements, but permitting golf cart paths, shall be provided between Tax Map 75-11 (1) Parcel 3, Tax Map 75-14 (1) Parcel 2, Tax Map 91-1 (1) Parcel 1, and Tax Map 91-6 (1) Parcels 6 and 7 and golf course fairways; and a thirty (30) foot building ~etbaek and buffer strip, exclusive of easements, but permitting golf cart paths, shall be provided between Tax Map 75-11.(1) Parcel 3, Tax Map 75~14 (1) Parcel 2, Tax Map 91-1 (1) Parcel 1, and Tax Map 91-6 (1) Parcels 6 and 7 and proposed single family residential development. The developer shall flag these buffers for inspection prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation of any plat. The area within this buffer shall be planted and/or left in its natural state, if there is sufficient vegetation to provide adequate screening. If sufficient vegetation does not exist, a landscape plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and a bond posted to cover the cost of implementing the plan, prior to approval of final site plans or recordation of subdivision plats. This building setback and buffer strip shall be noted on final site plans, and final cheek and record plats. The Planning Commission may modify this condition at the time of site plan or tentative subdivision review. 2. The developer shall dedicate to Chesterfield County five acres of land free of title defects for purposes of a school site. The land i$ located approximately 1250' north on Winterpock Road from the intersection of State Routes 621 and 661 and lying between State Router 661 and 621. Dedication to be made at any time prior to the developer's recordation of a subdivision plat affecting any portion of this development. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Currin, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 87S151 (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, BALMORE LIMITED P/tRTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A} to Residential Office Business (0], and Community Business IB-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development. A mixed uae development with residential~ oon~nercial~ and industrial u~e~ is planned. This zeq~es~ lies on a 78.1 acre paru~l fronting approximately 1,950 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,450 feet east of Otterdale Road, and also lying ut th= eastern terminus of Aldengate Road. Tax Map 15-10 I1) Parsel 11 (sheet Mr. Daniel disclosed'to the Board that his daughter is employed b~ a skating rink firm; however~ this affiliation does not constitute a conflict of interest and he would vot~ on the subjsct requsst. Mr. Jacobsen sta~ed the Planning Commission recommended approval of ate request, subject to the r~con~nended condition~ a~d ac=eptanoo of the proffered conditions. ~_r. William Kurd, represenfing the applicaat, stated h~ felt the Concerns o~ area residents had b~en ~ati~fied and th~ %eeo~ended conditions we=e acceptable ~o the aRRlicant. Zr. Chris Walsh, ~z~sident of the Otterdale Neighborhood area residents did not feel they had much negotiatinq power and could do nothing to prev~t the develommun~. H~ s~ated area ~esidents di~ not want the ekating rink~ h~wever, they preferred it rather than M-i and/or other B-3 uses that could be permitted. Elaine Beard, Mr. Brian Sila$, Ms. Alicia ward, ~. Donald Nelson and Ms. Jean Wh~tne~ voiced opposition to the proposed o~ the County Or the Village of Midlothian, residents were apprehensive of the developer's in,cnn a~ insufficient i~formation had been provided a~ to what ~ther t~es o~ incompatibility of the proposed use with nei~orhoods, and felt the co~ity health, ~afety and welfare were in jeopardy ~9 ~¢ enviru~=ntal thr~ats, hazards, etc. When asked, approximately 50 person~ ~tood to Ther~ wam ~i~cussion relative to the magnitude of th6 issue and the impact of the proposed project on long-term d~velo~nt in ~he area, concerns regarding u~kno~/unidentified usus for the project, compliance with Corridor OVerluy District compatibility of development to ~ha~ o~ existing shopping centers within close proximity of the subject site, etc. After further discussion~ it was generally agreed that there w~re too many ~ce~aintie~ xelative to the proposed project, that it may have a negative impact on the ~urroun~ing area and that a ~e~e~ral would be appropriate so additionul data regarding the request could b~ providpd =o :he Board, On motion of ~r. ~ulliva~, seconded by M~. C~rrin, the Board deferred Case 87S151 until April 27, 198S. Vote: Unanimous 8~-125 On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adjourned at 8:00 p-m. (ES~) until 12:00 p.m. (EST) on March 8, 1988. vote: Unanimous 88-126