Loading...
01-28-1987 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES January 28, 1987 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mr. R. Garlan~ Dodd Mrs. Joan Giron¢ Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir., Econ. Develop. Ms. Susan Craik, Ext. Agent/Prog. Coordinator Mr. Gary Fenton, Chief of Recreation Mr. Bradford S. Hammer, Asst. Co. Admin. Mr. William Howell, Dir., Gen. Services Mr. Thomas Jacobson, Dir. of Planning Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McEl£ish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. William D. Poole, Chief, Dev. Review Mr. Lane Ramsey, Asst. Co. Admin. for Budget and Staffing Mr. Richard Sale, Asst. Co. Ad, in. for Development M~. Jean smith, Dir. of Social Services Mr. DaVid Welchon$, Dir~ of Utilities. Mr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Human Resources Management 1. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Malcolm Hutton, Grove Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. Pastor 6f Oak 2. p¥.Rr~E OF AF.~.~GIANCE TO '£am FLAG OF 'ram UNl'r~u STATF~ OF The Pledge of Allegiance to the America was recited. Flag of the United States of 3. ~PROVALOFMIN~fES O~ motion Of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, approved the minutes of January 14, 1987, as a~ended. Vote: Unanimous the Board 87-32 4. CO~I~Y AI~INIBTI~ATOR*S COMMIe'S Mr. Hedrick expressed appreciation to the departments of General Services, Environmental Engineering, Utilities and Park~ and Recreation for their diligent efforts in the clearing away o£ the recent heavy snowfall. Ms. Susan Craik stated the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation recently received State recognition and awards for Chesterfield County's litter prevention program and was honored at a luncheon with the Governor. she presented the Board with a Distinguished Service Award from Keep Virginia Beautiful, !nc. and the Governor's Award of Excellence from the State Division of Litter Control. She stated, in conjunction with the Governor's Award of Excellence, large road signs recognizing this achievement will be placed at appropriate locations throughout the County and representatives of the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation will be contacting Board members ~or possible locations. The Board congratulated the Keep Chesterfield Clean Corporation for the awards received and ~tated they would be appropriately displayed. Mr. Mayes, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd stated they would forego committee Reports at this time. Mrs. Girone reported members c~ the Virginia Association Count/es (rAce) attempted, but failed, to obtain a moratorium on annexation at the special eormmittee meeting on local government at the General Assembly. she stated, however, there will be bill in the General Asser~bly, submitted by another delegate, to afford a moratorium on annexation until the committee finishes its work, which will be in approximately 18 months. M~s. Gironc stated comments relative to issues discussed at a recent Mental Health/Mental Retardation public hearing addressed a variety of concerns relative to the division and commended those members of staff and the public who were involved. She stated she felt, as a result of the concerns expressed at the public hearing, the Board may need to take a special interest in this Department during the budget process. Mrs. Girone extended an invitation to the Board members to attend her "First Monday" meeting, scheduled at 8:00 p.m. on the first Monday night of each month, which ham been ongoing for eleven years, and is held for the first six months at Ben Air Presbyterian Church, Ben Air and for the second six months at Mt. Pisgah United Methodist Church, Midlothian. ~rs. Girone reported that the YMCA, established in the Manchester area of the county, is currently constructing a new facility in Chester, which facilities serve under the auspices cf the Metro Board. She stated she will begin serving on the Metro Board in February and he, es she will have a positive influence on events occurring ~n the County relative to the YMCA, as well as their entire program. Mr. Daniel stated a public hearing will be held on January 28, at 8:00 p.m., and February 4 at 7:00 p~m., at the ~chool Administration Building, to receive public comment to be considered by the school Board Search Committee in seeking a new superintendent. He added that the Clover Hill/Midlothian Communications Network meeting is scheduled for February 9, 1987, at Midlothian ~iddle School, at which the 1987-88 Budget Boundaries and Future ~ohool Needs will be discussed. Mr. Daniel cormmented the Board recently adopted Robert's Rules of Order, and he outlined specific aspects which he intended to utilize to conduct the meetings. 87-33 REQUESTS TOPOSTTONEACTION~ EMER~ENCYADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN THEOP~ERO~PP~S~TATION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred Item 7.B., Resolution Recognizing Mr. O. C. Graves, Jr. as an Outstanding Citizen, until February 11, 1987; added Item ll.J., Executive Session, to discuss perzcnnel matters, p~rsuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (11 o~ the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and adopted the agenda, as a~ended. Vote: Unanimous 7. ~ESOL%FfIONS OF S~CIAL~ECOf~ITION 7.A, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY E~IPLOYEE-OF-THE~YEAR FOR 1985 Mr. Willis stated that Mr. Melvin Burnett, ~pon his retirement as County Administrator in 1976, established a fund for the purpose of recognizing outstanding per£orma~ee el ~ervice by County employees. Be outlined the criteria and method of selection of the ~mplcyee-of-the-Year. He stated this was the tenth ar~liversary of this award and he recognized the following past recipients, who were in attendance: 1976, Mrs. Mary Arline McSuire; 1977, Chief Dennis E. Turlington; 1978, Ms. Frances B. Goode; 1981, MS. Judy S. Beach; 1982, Chief F. Wesley Dolezal; 1983, Mr. Fred $. Balarz. It was noted that Mrs. Eloise Thweatt, the 1985' honoree, was not in attendance. He then proceeded to introduce the 19B6 nominees for the Employee-of-the-Year award, who were as ~ollows: Mr. Bruce Dove Mr. Lance Elwood M~. Vickie Foutz Ms. Dori~ Eancock ~ajor J. W. Mutispaugh Mr. Roy D. Patrick Ms. Lens Roach Ms. Ann B. Shepherd Ms. Ta~my Talley Mr. Robert A. Talmage, III Ms. Janet M. Tiernan Parkz and Recreation M~/MR Services Police Treasurer Sheriff Fire Budget Nursing Home Accounting Utilities Library Mr. Hedrick congratulated all those nominated and announced Ms. Lena Roach as the 1986 Employee-of-the-Year, to. whom Mr. Daniel presented a framed resolution, a silver engraved Revere Bowl, a $50 savings bond and the reserved parking space at the entrance o~ the Adminiztration Building. On ~otion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Lane A. Roach has been nominated by the Department of Budget and Management as a person possessing those qualities of superior performance and dedication to excellence in public service required of a recipient of this coveted award; and WHEREAS, during almost eighteen years o~ County service, her contributions to the County's nationally recognized ~inancial planning proce~ have been i~%easurable a~ zhe has displayed remarkable initiative in meeting the challenges faced by the Department since its formation in 1977; and WHEP~EAS, her consistently outstanding and meritorious performance reflect her ability to manage huge volumes of detail without errors, maintain a courteous and efficient manner in stressful situations, and further develop her skills and education to ~eet the challenges of chunking times and technology; and WHeReAS, her con=ributions to County, cormmunity and church 87-34 activities have exhibited the same dedication to excellence and service which have marked her profesmional career. NOW, TI~EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes the loyalty, superior performance and dedication of LANA A. ROACH by naming her as the Chester- field County Employee of the Year, 1986. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel cor~aended all those nominated for this honor, and congratulated Ms. Roach her on the honor bestowed upon her by her peers. Mrs. McGuire, as a for~cr recipient of the award, expressed her appreciation for the program and stated she felt it was rewarding. 7.C. MS, ROSE SCUDDER~ OUTSTANDING VOLUI~TEER SERVICE Ms. Jean Smith stated Ms. Rose Scudder is an individual who gives of her time and talent in i~easurable ways and is considered an asset to the Co~/%ty, to the Social Services Department and the Christmas Mother Program. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WBEREAS, MS. Rose scudder for more than fifteen years has served the County of Chesterfield and Department of social Services by serving as a volunteer on the Chesterfield~colonial Heights Christmas Committee; and WHEREAS, through the years Ms. Scudder has faith£ully and unselfishly given herself to the positions of Christmas Secretary; Chairman, Christmas Mother and Christmas Center Chairman; and W~EREAS, MS. Scudder has exhibited her dedication to helping those in cur ~oK~unity who are in need at Christmas time and throughout the year. NOW, TBEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County recognizes and honors Ms. Rose Scudder for her service to mankind and to this County. Vote: Unanimous Ms. Smith stated the resolution would be presented by Mr. Mayes at the Social Services Board meeting on February 10, 1987. Mrs. Girone commented that Ms. Scudder is a very concerned and involved citizen in coK~nity affairs and is a valuable asset to the community. 7.D. SOUTH RICHMOND/CHESTERFIELD Y~CA FOR PROVIDING AQUATIC FACILITY FOR COUNTY'S "ADAPTIVE AQUATICS" PROGRAM Mr. Gary Fenton stated for several years the South Richmond/Chesterfield YMCA has generously provided facilities in which to host the "Adaptive Aquatics" Program for disabled adults and youth of the County. Be recognized the organization and its Director, Mr. Keith Johnson, for their cooperation and gene~0sity. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the Special Populations Section of the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department functions to provide therapeutic programs for the disabled of Chesterfield County; and 87-35 WHEREAS, the South Richmond/Chesterfield YMCA has generously donated both time and facilities to assist the Parks and Recreation Department in its e~forts to serve these localities; and WHEREAS, the development of the Department's adaptive aquatics program would have been impossible without this YMCA support. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board cf Supervisors does hereby recognize the South Richmond/Chesterfield Y~CA for its generous contribution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board oi Supervisors does hereby express its sincere appreciation and gratitude to the South Richmond/Chesterfield YMCA for its goodwill toward and community concern for the disabled citizens o£ Chesterfield County. vote: Unanimous ~r. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Mr. Keith Johnson and expressed appreciation on behalf of the County. 7.E. "CLEAN BUSII~E$$ OF THE M0~fi~{" FOR PORTION OF 1985 AIqD 1986 ~s. Susan Craik explained that the Keep chesterfield Clean Corporation initiated a prograra called "The Clean Business of the Month", which cited a County business each month exemplary appearance and practices in regards to litter control and prevention. She explained the criteria by which businesses were chosen for this award and stated they were presented with wooden plaque and a large metal outdoor sign during the month they were selected. She introduced those business representatives who were in attendance: Mr. Herndon smith, representing Central Fidelity Bank, Ettrick Branch; Mr. David Dance, representing Cloverhill Tire and Auto; and Dr. R. Sowers, representing Commonwealth Emergicenter. The following businesses were recognized as "Clean Business of the Month": December 1985 January 1986 February 1986 March 1986 April 1986 May 1986 July 1986 August 1986 September 1986 October 1986 November 1986 December 1986 Poppell Toyota-Mazda Sycamore Square Ukrops, ~exmuda Square Hancock's Meadewbrook Shell Station Central Fidelity Bank, Ettriok Branch Lucky's of Brandermill Burger King, Courthouse Western $izzlin, Beaufont Mall Cloverhill Tire and Auto Enon Child Development Center Commonwealth Emergicenter Ironbridge Animal Hospital Ms. Carolyn Lohr presente~ Mr. Daniel with thc wooden plaque recognizing the Clean Businesses of the Month for 1985 and 1986. Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation ~or the e~orts o~ local businesses for their contributions toward a clean environment and improvements to the quality of life within the County. 8. HF2%P/NGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSC~UT.~n ~A'l-r~S OR CLAII4S o CLAIM FOR WATER DAMAGES BY JOYMER AND COMPANY REALTORS Mr. Micas explained that Mr. M. Richard Bower, Jr. of Joyner and Company Realtors submitted a claim, in the amount of $2,743.66, for water damages which occurred in a house located at 2531 Dorel Lane, which he claims resulted due to negligence of County Utilities employees. He stated staff has reviewed the matter in detail, has determined there is no evidence indicating that the 87-36 County was responsible for the water damages and, therefore, recommended denial of the rec/~est. He added that Mr. Bowers had contacted the County Attorney's office and amked for a deferral, as he did not feel he had had sufficient time to prepare an adequate response. He stated staff had no objection to a deferral if the Board were so inclined. Mr. Dodd stated he did not feel there wa~ sufficient cause to warrant paying this claim. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board denied the claim by Joyner and Company Realtors, in the amount of $2,743.66, for water damages which occurred in a house located at 2531 Dorsl Lane. vote: Unanimous 9. DEFERRED ITEM~ 9.A. APPOIN~4BNT TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEMBER TO PLANNING CO5~4I~$ION AI~D ITS RELATIONSHIP TO RESOLUTION CONCEP~NING THE PROPER INVOLVEMEATT OF BOARD MEMBERS IN ZONING PROCESS Mr. Dodd stated he had originated discussion of appointing a Board meRlber to the Planning Commission at the Board's organizational meeting in a response to a ~equest by Planning Commission members for a representative of the Board to serve on the Commission. He stated he felt having this representation would provide a very valuable tool for communication and education in the zoning process. He stated he had suggested that Mr. Applegate serve as the ~oard's representative to the Commission; however, subsequent discussions indicate a consensus that the Vice Chairman of the Board would be the most appropriate person to serve in this capacity and the individual could decided whether or not he or she chooses to vote. Mr. Dodd ~omi~ated Mr. Mayes for appointment as the Board of Supervisor's representative to the Planning Commission, with the decision of voting or not voting left to his discretion, which formal appointment will be made at the February 11, 1987 meeting. Mr. Mayes stated, although he was appreciative of the nomina- tion, he did not feel it fair to other members of the Board that one member be appointed £ro~ the Boar~ to ~erve' on the Planning Commission. He stated to have a Board member serving during the process in which the Cor~ission forms a recommendation on zoning requests is a violation of fundamental management procedures and volc~d his opposition. Mr. Applegate stated, although approval of this action could possibly be in violation of the zoning Policy, the Planning commission members requested that a member of the Board be appointed ae a liaison to provide guidance and a sense of direction. He seconded Mr. ~odd's motion. ~e ~tated if appointment is ~ade it may ~e necessaxy to suspend the ~ules to readcpt the dHtie~ and responsibilities of the Vice Chairman and to amend the Resolution Concerning the Proper Involvement of the Board Members in the Zoning Process. Mrs. Qixone requested that the Williamsburg Accord be brought back for consideration as it may address the Board members' relationships toward each other, the way in which the Board may wish to conduct itself when one of its members is not in agreement with the other members, etc. Mr. Micas stated that State law requires that the appointment be that Of an individual~ said appointment must be for the remainder of the term coextensive with the Board's term and an unfettered appointment regardless of the voting determination. 87-37 Mr. Hayes stated he felt Board members should abide by the majority and~ even though he disagreed with the proposed action, if he were to be appointed he would abide by the majority decision. Mrs. Girone stated she felt it is difficult, when Mr. Hayes has a problem with the process, to impose such an appointment on him and expect him to carry out the responuibilities. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mr. Applegate. Nays: Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to review the Williar~sb~rg Accord as she previously indicated and requested the information be provided to the Board at its next meeting. Mr. Applegate stated the proposed action should also include adopting the 1984 Resolution Concerning the Proper Involvement of Board Members in the Zoning Process. Mr. Micas stated, in order to make the policy consistent with the action of appointment, the Board should adopt the Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Board Concerning the Proper Involvement of Board members in the Zoning Process, as submitted or appropriately amended. On motion of Mr. Dodd, $eoon~e~ by Mr. Applega~e, the Board de~erred consideration of the Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Board Concerning the Proper Involvement of Board Members in the Zoning Process and further review of.the Williamsburg Accord until February 11, 1987, to resolve concerns expressed by Board members. Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mr. ADplegate and Mrs. Girone. Nays: Mr. Mayes. 9.B. MEDe CONTRIBUTION Mr. Hedrick stated at the November 26, 1986, meeting the Board considered a request by the Metropolitan Beono~io Development Council ~er approval of additional M~DC funding in the amount of $33,824. He stated the ~oard paper reflected there was ~o be an appropriation made from the General Fund and the minutes of that meeting re~lected such action. He stated,' however, at the time, he had indicate~ an appropriation from the General Fund was not necessary and the funding would b~ absorbed in the Economic Development Budget. Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone stated their intentions were that the funding be absorbed by the Economic Development Department budget, not appropriated from the General Fund. Mr. Dodd stated he felt funding oi PS,DC is appropriate and juetified as the County benefits substantially from its contribution. Mr. Daniel stated the question before the Board is whether or not the minutes of November 26, 1986, should be amended or stand as written. Mr. Hedrick, in response to a question by Mrs. Girone, stated he had originally understood the funding to ~EDC could be absorbed in the Economic Development DepartMent's budget; however, subsequent to the Board'z action and after further investigation of ~he department's funding balances, it has been determined the amount cannot be absorbed. Mr. Applegate moved that the minutes of November 26, 1986, page 86-898, Item 9.D., Cheeterfield's Contribution to Metropolitan Economic Development Council (MEDC), be amended to reflect that 87-38 the appropriation of $33,824 ~rom the General Fund was net the intent of the Board and should read as follows: "On motion o~ Mr. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved ~ additional $33,824 to the Metropolitan Economic Development Council (MEDC), which funds are to absorbed in the Economic Development budget, and authorized the County Administrato~ to take ~he necessary action to make Chesterfield County's contribution. Vote: Unanimous" Mr. Daniel stated that, since the Board has been informed that there are no funds available in the ~oonomic Development Department's budget to absorb the additional co~tributio~ to MEDC, it would be appropriate to address the issue of whether or not to fund the addition of $33,S24 from the General Fund Balance. Mr. Applegate stated if the money were to be taken from the General Fund Balance, such action would decrease the percentage a~ount required to maintain the County's bond rating. He suggested the funding be transferred from the Airport Industrial Park Fund to the Economic Development Department's budget to fund the additional contribution. There was discussion as to the balance of the Airport Industrial Park Fund, the appropriateness of ~his transfer, etc. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the transfer of $33,824 from the Airport Industrial Park Fund to the Economic Development Department Account to fund an~ ad~itlonal amount to the Metropolitan Economic Development Council (MEDC) and authorized the County Administrator to take the necessary action to make Chesterfield County's contribution. Vote: Unanimous 9.C. APPOINTMENTS 9.C.1. DRUG ABUSE TASK FORCE Ms. Daniel a%a~ed he would forego Dale District nominations for the Drug Abuse Task Force at this time. CONTOUR On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appointed Mr. Robert E. Brittle to serve on the Board of Directors of the Metropolita~ Richmond Convention and Visitors Bureau, whose term is effective i~mediately and will expire June 30, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings scheduled. NEW BUSINESS ll.A. CHESTBR LANDFILL GEOTEC~/~ICAL STUDY Mr. Howell stated proposals were solicited, received and evaluated for conducting a study of the ground water in the vicinity of the Chester Landfill which was closed in September, 1985. He stated staff reco~ends Sehnabel Engineering Associates o~ Riob2nond as the best qualified firm to conduct the 87-39 study, for a fee of $35,000 which was previously appropriated by the Beard on October 22, 1986. There was discussion regarding expansion of the contrast to include studies of other landfills, the diaparity between the bids, qualifications of the companies, etc. Mr. Mayas q~estio~ed the scope of the study. Mr. Howell stated tha scope will include a review of all pertinent staff data and knowledge surrounding the situation, an electromagnetic study of the area to provide some indication as to the extent of the contamination, installation of monitoring wells and ladd analysis, testing ei certain compounds that will provide an indication as to the extent of the problem and whether it is necessary to conduct the entire spectrum of tests, testing for methane gae~ migration off-site, air samples, eta. He stated the cost of the study does not include any follow on or engineering design work and, i~ necessary, that will have to be negotiated as to the scope and fee. Mr. Mayas questioned if the ~inal analysis of the study would provide the Board with a basis upon which to determine whether or not the water is potable. Mr. Howell stated it would. Mr. Dodd stated ~e and Mr. Mayas met with staff regarding concerns about the Chester Landfill and they were informed there may De other landfill problems in the County, not only in Chester area but also at the Ben Air Landfill. Be stated he felt there should be some very preliminary investigations of old landfills and that the Board, as well as the public, should be aware that this issue ought to be properly addressed and not neglected. Mr. Daniel pointed out Landfill Management is one of the items on the work session agenda which will be addressed by the Board in the near future. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded ly~ Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to enter into a contract with Sehnabel Engineering Associates of Richmond to conduct a ground water study at the Chester Landfill, for a fee of $35,000, plus $5,000 for contingencies$ and approved the selection of Schnabel Engineering Associates of Richmond for any follow on engineering design work which may be necessary at a fee to be negotiated. Vote; Unanimous Mrs. Girone stated she was unaware of any problems r~lative to the Ben Air Landfill and would like to have any pertinent information that is available. ll.B. CONFIR/V!ATION OF PREVIOUS APPROPRIATION TO COUNTY MUSEUM Mr. Hammer stated the Board is being requested to approve and reapprcpriate $33,333 to permit the Chesterfield County Museum Committee to complete a book on the history o~ Chesterfield County under the leadership of Dr. Louis Manarin, the State archivist and i~inent historian in Virginia. ~ briefly explained that the author w~o began the p~ject was unable to complete it and the project has remained incomplete until this time. Mr. Mayas stated the Board funded this project in 1982 and, although the money reverted to the General Fund in 1983, he felt a moral commitment had been made and the ~unds should be approved. Mr. App!egate s~ated approval cf this request would further deplete the General Fund Balance and suggested the issue be considered during budget deliberations. Mr. Hedrick stated the 87-40 contribution for this project was made to the virginia Museum Cer~ittee, however, only a portion of the money was actually paid out and the balance of that money was not onc~I~bered. Mr. Mayes stated the Museum committee has moved forward with ~his issue based on the availability of funding and are planning accordingly; however, denying this request, at this time, would interrupt the schedule by which it is planned to complete the book. Mrs. Girone stated the Beard's intent was to accomplish a book and agreed with Col. Mayes in that continuity in momentum on this project should be maintained. ~r. Applegate questioned hew long has staff known about the problem. Mr. Ha~mmer stated the Museum sta£~ recently inquired if the appropriation was encumbered, found it was not, and it became necessary to request the Board to reappropriate the money. Mr. Applegate reiterated his concern that the only source of ~unding for this project would be the General Fund and the fact that the deduction from this particular fund would decrease the balaRce even further than the limit set by the Board. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the Board did commit to the Historical Society~ however, he suggested that the issue be delayed for two weeks. Mr. Daniel requested that the County Administr&tor investigate and inform the Board if there are any more similar situations of this nature. On motion of MJC. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and reappropriated $33,333 from the General Fund to the Museum Con~ittee~s Donation Account for expenses associated with the completion of a history book for Chesterfield County, under the leadership of Dr. Louis Manarin. Mr. Applegate stated he would not support the motion, as he felt delaying the project, so that it could be included in the budget process, would not adversely affect it. Me stated there is a policy on not going below the 5% in the General Fund which must be adhered to. Mr. Dodd made a substitute motion to defer the issue until February ll, 1987. Mr. Applegate seconded the motion. A vote on the substitute motion was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mr. ADple~ate and Mrs. Girone. Nays: Mr. Mayes. ll,C. SBT PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE PERMITTING LOCAL ENFORCE~iE~T OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODE AS POR- TION OF UNIFOI~M STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE On motion of Mr- Applegato, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date o~ February 25, 19~7, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance permitting local enforcement of a buildin~ maintenance code as a portion of the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Vote: Unanimous ll,D, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.D.1. 1986-87 RURAL ADDITION PROJECTS Mr. McCracken stated staff is recommending that the Board advise the Virginia Department of Transportation IVDOT) that no rural 87-41 addition project is requested for FY87 and that the funds currently designated for rural additions be transferred to other projects in %rDOT's Six Year Plan or carried forward to FY88. Ee stated that, although th~ $150,000 VDOT allocation seems insignificant, ove~ a six year period a significant amount of funds is provided. He also stated the County has not budgeted funds for rural additions. Mr. Dodd questioned if this action would affect Oaklawn Road. Mr. McCracken stated it would not. Mrs. Girone questioned the status of Towerlight Road. Hr. Hecrackon stated Tcwerlight Road did not qualify, as VDOT criteria dictates that right-cf-way be dedicated or the road open to the public prior to July 1, 1977. He stated the road might qllalify if the ~esiden~s of Towerlight Road could produce evidence that the road wes open to the public prior to that time. Hr. Applegate stated VDOT only provides a small amount of funding and the County should continue to address the necessary rural addition needs. Hrs. 6irene questioned what would happen to these roads if the Board were to approve sta~'s recommendation. Hr. H¢Cracken stated unless additional information could be provided to show that the roads VDOT determined to be ineligible actually met VDOT's criteria, the roads would not be eligible for VDOT funds. He stated that all roads would remain in their current status with no VDOT or County maintenance. Mrs. Girone stated it may be wise to work away at these projects and attempt to get them improved. She stated it may be necessary that the County would have to allocate funds for these rural addition requests. Mr. Daniel stated the Budget Committee will be addressing the issue in the very near future. Mrs. Girone stated if the Board needs the 1977 date changed, then such action should be included on the list for the General Assembly and request that they move the date up. She questioned if the Board were to approve Alternative 2 would it be for one year or one six year plan period. Mr. HcCracken stated such action would be effective for one year, with the Board having t~e opportunity of addressing the issue on a yearly baei~. On motion of Mr- Mayes, Seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved Alternative II and instructed ~taff to review Nestor Road and Treely Road, develoR more detail cost estimates.for the Board's consideration and bring the issue back to the Board before iormally submitting a recommendation to the Virginia Department of Transportation. ll.D.2. REQUEST FOR REDUCED SPEED LIMIT OH RUFFIN HILL ROAD On motion of Mr. ~odd, seconded by ~Lr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors cf Chesterfield County has received requests from citizens to reduce the speed limit on Ruffin Mill Road from Interstate 95 to B~on church Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Boa~d requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to reduce the speed limit along that portion of Ruffin Mill Road. Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone indicated she would be attending a Highway Commission meeting relative to subdivision and site plan design issues and requested that Mr. McCracken accompany her. 87-42 ll.E. CONSENT ITEMS ll.E.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Water Willow Drive, Reed Grass Lane, Wood Sage Wes~ and Wood Sage East in Sachems Read, Phase One, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Water Willow Drive, Reed Grass Lane, Wood Sage West and Wood Sage East in Sachems Mead, Phase one, clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. A~d be i~ further resolved, that the Virginia Department cf Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take in~o Secondary System, Water Willow Drive, beginning at the intersection with Lucks Lane, State Route 720, and going southerly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Reed Grass Lane, then continuing southwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Wood Sage wes~ and Wood Sage East, then continuing southeasterly 0.11 mile to tie into proposed Water Willow Drive, Sachems Mead, Phase Two; Reed Grass Lane, beginning at the intersection with Water Willow Drive and going ~asterly 0.13 mile to a cul-de-sac; Wood Sage West, beginning at the intersection with Water Willow Drive and going northwesterly 0.09 mile to a cul-de-sac; and Wood Sage East, beginning at the intersection with Water Willow Drive and going southeasterly 0.07 mile to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 52 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 40' right-of-way for all of these roads except Water Willow Drive which has a 60' right-of-way. This section of Sachems Head is recorded as follows: Phase One. Plat Book 46, Pages 21 & 22, J~e 21, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hie examination of Grinell Drive in Whltes~one, Section 3, Clover Rill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Grinell Drive in Whitestone, Section 3, Clover Hill District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Departm~ent of Transportation, be and i~ hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, ~rinell Drive, beginning where State Main=chance ends, Grinell Drive, State Route 3337, and going northeasterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Traneportation drainage easements. This road serves 14 lots. 87-43 And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department c~ Transportation a 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of Whitestone is recorded as follows: Section 3. Plat Book 53, Page 86, July 29, 1986. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Chinaberry Boulevard, Boulder Springs Road, Boulder Springs Drive and Boulder Lake Drive, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Chinaberry Boulevard, Boulder Springs Road, Boulder Springs Drive and Boulder Lake Drive, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and i~ hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Chinaberry Boulevard, beginning at the intersection with Midlothian Turnpike, State Route 60, and going northerly 0.24 mile to the intersection with Boulder Springs Road, then continuing northerly 0.30 mile to the intersection with Boulder Springs Drive, then continuing northeasterly 0.28 mile to the intersection with Boulder Lake Drive, then continuing northwesterly 0.22 mile to tie into proposed Chinaberry Boulevard; Boulder Springs Road, beginning at the intersection with Chinaberry Boulevard and going westerly 0.03 mile' to the intersection with Chinaberry Drive, an existing privately maintained road; Boulder Springs Drive, beginning at the intersection with Chinaberry Boulevard and going northwesterly 0.15 mile to a dead end; and Boulder Lake Drive, beginning at the intersection with Chinaberry Boulevard and going westerly 0.07 mile to a dead end. This roques~ is inclusive cf the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Tranmportation drainage easements. These roads serve The Boulders Commer0ial Park, Ches~erfleld Village Apartments and Boulder Springs Apartments. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a variable 90' to 138' right-o£~way for Chinaberry Boulevard, a 50' right-of-way ~or Boulder Springe Road and Boulder Lake Drive, a/~d a 60' right-of-way ~or Boulder Springs Drive. These roads are recorded as follows: Plat Book 23, Page 74, February 7, 1975. Plat Book 45, Page 28, May 21, 1984. Plat Book 45, Page 29, May 21, 1984. Deed Book 1698, Page 1108, May 26, 1985. Vote: U~a~imo~s This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Village Mill Drive in Midlothian Village, Phase One and Phase Two, Midl~thian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Village Mill Drive in 87-44 Midlothian Village, Phase One and Phase Two, Midlothian District, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is reguested to take into the Secondary System, Village Mill Drive, beginning at the intersection with Midlothian Turnpike, State Route 60, and going southwesterly 0.24 mile to a temporary turnaround. This request is inclusive o4 the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia .Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves as access ~o Midlothian Village Office Park. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantee~ to the Virginia Department of Transportation a variable 50' to 60' right-of-way ~or this road. Midlothian Village is recorded as follows: Phase One. Plat Book 47, Page $$, November 16, 1984. Phase Two. Plat Book 53, Page 94, August 1, 1986. Vote: Unanimous ll.E.2. CHANGE IN AUTHORIZED AMOUNT AND CUSTODIAN OF SCHOOL BOAPJ)'S PETTY CASH FUND On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the change o4 the custodian of the School Board Petty Cash Fund from Mr. Robert Lux, Business Manager, to Mrs. Betty Lord, Food Service Supervisor, a~d the amount from $1700 to $2000, with the additional $300 authorization to be used when needed to ~$tablish chang~ funds in new facilities. Vote: Unanimous ll.F. UTILITIE~ ITEMS ll.F.1. REQUEST PROM HOMEOWi~ERS ON JEAN Dt~IVE FOR ESTABLISH- NENT OF REDUCED SEWER CONNECTION FEE Mr. Welchons explained staff has recently completed a sewer extension to residents along Friend Avenue, Ray,et Road and Jean Drive and the residents have requested a reduced sewer connection fee from $2500 to $1700. He stated staff is recommending denial of the request because the Board has consistently adhered to a policy to uniformly impos~ ~he applicable connection fee at the time application for connection is made and any deviation from that approach would severely compromise the County's ability to collect uniform connection fees while at the same time Jeopardize compliance with bond covenants. Mr. Dodd questioned if Reverend Edwards had been notified thi~ issue was to be discussed at this meeting. Mr. Welchons stated there was no separate notification apar~ f~om the information provided to him at a previous meeting regarding thi~ i~ue. Mr, Dodd stated he did no% feel this issue should be discussed without Reverend Edwards present. On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred consideration of the request by residents on Jean Drive te reduce the sewer connection fee from $2500 to $1700 until February 11, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 87-45 ll.F.2. CONSIDER CONDEMNATION PROCEBDINGS FOR W~T~R ~A~HENT FOR BUFORD ROAD WATER LI~= PROJECT ll.F.2.a. MS. MARTHA K. N~AT~ Mr. Applegate inquired if the new water line would affect the residents on the west side of Buford Road. Mr. Welchons stated the new line will affect the water service, but not the property, on both sides of Buford Road. Mrs, Girone expressed concern that Mrs. Neate is extremely disturbed by this action and requested aesurance that staff would disouee the situation with Mrs. Neate. She stated residents south of Mrs. Heate's property have also expressed concern that once the easement is obtained a sewer line will be installed in the same easement. Mr. Welehons stated the easement is for a water line only and, therefore, a sewer line cannot be installed in it. Mrs. Girone stated the residents would also like to know if sewer can be installed on a small piece of property on Buford Road that does not have sewer and asked i£ staff would notify the Board of the situation. Mr. Applegate advised the Board that hi~ mother lives directly across the street from this site, however, pursuant to advice from the County Attorney, he has been advised there is no conflict of interest. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owner if the amount set opposite her name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by registered mail on January 29, 1987, of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which ie to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action i~ on an emergency basis and the County i~tends ~o exercise immediate :ight cf entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Martha K. Neate Water Easement Buford Read $370.00 Vote: Unanimous ll.F.2.b. M~. ~EGG¥ M. HILL On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized ~he County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owner if the amount ~et opposite her name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner by registered mail on January 29, 1987, of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which ie to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency ha~is and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Peggy M. Hill Water Easement Buford Road £220.00 Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3. CONSENT ITEMS ll.F.~.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR WOODLAKE TRUNK SEWER~ PHASE V On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, ~esonded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary docaments for the following sewer contract: 87-46 Sewer Contract Number S87-9CD/7(8) 709M, Woodlake Trunk Sewer, Phase V: Developer: Investors Woodlake Development Corporation Contraotor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc. Total Contract Cost; $140,746.00 Total Estimated County Cost: $ 13,328.06 (Refund through Connection Fees) Estimated Developer Cost: $127,417.94 Number of Connections: Extension provides for future connections Code: 5N-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR VICTORIAN S~UARE SHOPPING C~FfER, ROUTE 360 On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: Sewer Contract Number S87-6CD/7(8) 706M, Norner's Run Trunk Developer: Victorian Square Partnership Ltd. Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Total Contract Cost: $109,799.80 Total Estimated County Cost: $ 64 899.45 (Refund through Connection Fees) Estimated Developer Cost: $ 44,900.35 Nua~ber of Connections: Extension provides for future connections Code: 5N-2511-997 ll.F.3.c. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG COURTHOUSE ROAD FROM TRUSTEES OF TME FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHRISTIAN CHURC~ On motion of Mr. Appl~gate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 20' strip of land along Courthouse Road from the Trustees of the First Congregational Christian Church, United Church of Christ. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.d. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG WARBRO ROAD FROM MR. AND MRS. RANDOLPH K. SHIVELY On motion of Mr, Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to exeeuts a deed of dedication accepting, on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 5' strip of land along Warbro Road from Randolph Kelly Shively and Carol D. Shively. Vote: Unanimous ll.F.4. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a report on the developer water and sewer co~traets executed by the County Administrator. 87-47 ll.G. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with status reports on the Youth Services Co, leGion's 1987 Public Forum, the General Fund Balance, General Fund Contingency Account, Road Reserve Funds, Schedule of Lease Purchases, Schedule o~ School Literary Loans, District Road and Street Light Funds. Mr. Applegate questioned the $7,500 appropriation, listed under General Fund Contingency, to renovate the terminal building at the Airport and Mr. ~edrick explained stated there was a grant application and an appropriation from the Industrial Park Fund to match that grant. Discussion ensued relative to the Schedule of Work ~essions and it was generally agreed to schedule the following dates and times on the following subject matters: 2/11/87 2-5:00 p.m. 2/18/87 2-5:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. - 2/25/87 12-2:00 p.m. 3/05/87 6:00 p.m. - 3/11/87 2-5:00 p.m. 3/18/87 5:00 p.m. - 3/25/87 12-2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. - 4/01/87 7:00 p.m. - 4/08/87 2-5:00 p.m. 5/13/87 2-5:00 p.m. Budget Work Session Special Budget Work Session Departments and School Board Museum Committee volunteer Fire Chiefs Budget Work Session (Review County Administrator's Proposed Budget; and Consider and Approv~ Advertising of Tax Rates) Community Services Board League of Women Voters (Luncheon) Social Services Board (Dinner) Public Hearing On Budget ~ Taxes Airport Industrial Park Community Development Items Street Light Policy capital Improvement Program Employee Relations Issues It was generally agreed ~ha~ s~aff would schedule appropriate work sessions on Co,unity Development Items as these items are forwarded by the Planning Co~mission to the Board for action. Mr. Hedrick stated other work sessions are recommended during the remainder of the year and topics are as follows: Long range health care requirements and issues; Human Services - trends in service, future direction, etc.; Economic Development trends; Demographics - trends and changes in the County's demographic makeup; Public Safety - trends and issues related to public safety; Growth Management - long range growth issues; Utilities Master Plans ~ update on progress on master plans; Legislative Program 1988; MEDC and CONTOUR; Results of Planning and Utilities Management ~tudies; and Landfill Management. It was agreed that a recommendation for action on the Utilities Department Management Study will be forwarded to the Board i~ approximately six months and a work session on the issue will be scheduled at that time. It was guncrally agreed that as many o~ these meetings as possible would be scheduled at Magnolia Grange. Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Mayes, as well as the remainder of the Board, would be able to review a philosophy on Mo~el for 87-48 Equitable Distribution of Resources at the February ll, 1987 meeting. ll.J. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, aa amended. Vote: Unanimous LUNCH The Board recessed at 12:30 ~.m. to travel to the Airport Crcsswinds Restaurant for lunch. Reeonvening: Mr. Daniel called the meeting to Order at the Courthouse at 2:05 ll.H. REQUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PERMIT 86S171 In Bermuda Magisterial District, MARION K. BIBB requested a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property fronting the west line Of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 150 feet north of Galena Avenue, and better known as 9518 Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 81-12 (3) Quail Oaks, Section 2, Block 5, Lot 3 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant has advised staff that he sold the subject site and is requesting withdrawal o~ the request. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board accepted withdrawal of this request. Vote; Unanimous ii.I. REQUESTS FOR I{EZONING In Midlothian Magisterial District, CHESTEP~FIELD COUNTY requested amendment to previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 82S031) in a Residential District on a parcel ~ronting the east line of Robious Crossing Drive at its intersection with Ambergate Drive, and located in the vicinity of Robious Middle School. Tax ~ap 8-12 (1) Part of Parcel 3 and Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission deferred this request for thirty (30) days pending the Board Of Zoning Appeals decision on the request for a Special Exception to permit a fire station on this site. He stated the Board should also defer consideration of this request for thirty (30) days. There was no Opposition to the request for a deferral. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred consideration of the request until February 25, 1987. 87-49 Vote: Unanimous 86S141 In Clover ~ill Magisterial District, KAREN ABSE AND GUY SPILLER requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.8 acr~ parcel fronting approximately 238 fast on the east line of Ruthers Road, approximately 20 feet north cf Provincetown Drive. Tax Map 28-4 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recemmended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Ron Worley accepted the recommended conditions. In response to a question by Mr. Applegate, ~r. Jacobsen stated this request is in compliance with the ~urne~ Road Plan. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. ~he ~ollewing conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Worley Associates, Architects, dated August ll, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. IP) 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri- an traffic. (BE) 3. Prior to release Of a building permit, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way, m~$~red from the centerline of Ruthers Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 4. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be provided along Ruthers Read, as deemed necessary by the Transporta- tion Department and VDH&T. (T) 5. A single access shall be permitted to Ruthers Road. This access shall be designed and constructed to allow shared use with the adjacent property to th~ north at Such time it is developed for a non-reeidsntial use, The Planning Co, lesion may modify this condition at the time of sche- matic pla~ review. (T&CPC) 6. Parking requirements shall be based on the following ratios: Office Area 6 spaces for the ~irst 1,000 square feet of gross ~lo0r area, plus one (1) space for each addi- tional 300 square feet Of gross floor area Studio Area 5 spaces per studio Remaining Area - 1 for each employee, exclusive of office and studio employees 7. The proposed structures shall ca, ploy mas0~ry, wood siding and/or glass materials along the facades which ar~ visible to Ruthers Road. All other facades shall employ s~bdued colors, compatible with the Ruthers Road facade. There shall 5e no corrugated metal facades unless approved by the Planning Co~t~issio~ at the time of schematic plan review. The architecture shall be such that it provides a suitable transition between existing and iuture office/commercial 87-50 development to the north and single family residential development to the south. Elevations/renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P) 8. A single freestanding business sign, not to excee~ an aggregate area of fifty (50) square feet and a height of thirteen (13) feet, shall be permitted. Ail other signs shall be as regulated by the Office Business (o) District for Special Sign Districts. All signs may be externally illuminated, but may only be internally illuminated if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. (Note: Prior to erection of any signs, sign permits must be obtained.) 9. The parking area shall be landscaped so as to divide and break up thc eXpanse of pavement. Parking areas shall have at least twenty (20) square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet and ~hall have a minimum dimension of at least ten (10) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material. The total number of trees shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up the expanse cf paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. Also, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted along RuShers Road so as to minimize the view of parking areas from Ruthers Road. 10. The limits of the Pocosham floodplain along the southern property line shall be maintained as a buffer unless amended by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. Landscaping and/or fencing shall be provided so as to screen the driveways and parking areas from the adjacent property to the south. Detailed plans depicting this requiremen~ shall be submitted.to, the Planning Depart- ment for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 11. The above conditions notwithstanding, all bulk requirements of the Office Business (o) District shall apply with the exception of the following: A. The proposed building may be set back fifteen (15} feet from the northern property line. B. The proposed carpentry shop may be set back fifteen (15) feet from the northern and eastern property line. (P) (Note: Prior to obtaining final site plan or building permit approval, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) In Bermuda Magisterial District, THOMAS F. BECK requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 86S057 and 86S094) relative to buffer requirements in a General 87-51 Business (B-3) District on a 3.55 acre parcel fronting approxi- mately 280 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 365 feet on the south line of Drewrys Bluff Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of the inter- section of these roads. Tax Map 67-3 (1) Parcel 51 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Board, at its December 10 meeting, deferred this request, at the request of the applicant's representative, for thirty (30) days to allow time to install the required solid board fence along the southern property line of the request site. He s~a~ed a site inspection revealed that the board fence is being installed along the southern property line, however, the fence does net meet the original conditions cf zoning, nor is the required landscaping installed at this time. Me stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of this ~equest. Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant, stated the current request is for reduction in the fifteen (15) and fifty (50) foot buffers along the northern and western boundaries to five (5) feet to acco~cdate vehicular circulation on site. He stated the southern bonndary buffer requirement, as originally imposed, is net affected by this req%lest; however, efforts have been made to install a fence and screening along the southern property line, as requested by adjacent property owners. Hr. Daniel s~ated at the December 10 meeting, the applicant's agent committed to certain agreements and questioned if those agreements had been met. Mr. Jacobsen stated the request was deferred to allow time for the applicant to install a fence on the southern property line; however, the fence is not completed and the portion of the fence that has been installed does not comply with the conditions of zoning. Mr. Dodd stated he had a problem granting approval of the request until the solid board fence is installed properly. Mr. Jacobsen stated the fence being installed is not complete, the fence has approximately one (1) inch gaps between the boards and there are larger gaps at the fence supports. Mr. John Hoseley presented the Board with a photograph of the subject property and the fence, which indicated the applicant has not complied with the conditions of zoning. He stated he does not feel the weather has been a factor in delaying the installation of the fence, and there has been no landscaping installed, no plans submitted, no bond posted and nc dedication of ingress/egress for the County. He stated the difficulties with this request have required that he make frequent trips to the Courthouse, everyone is thoroughly disgusted with the entire situation. Hr. Daniel sta~ed he had understood there was agreement at the last meeting relative to this problem; however, it appears those agreements have not been complied with. Mr. Applegate inquired about the legal case. Mr. Moseley stated the case was deferred on the basis cf Mr. Sounders' legislative deferral rights. Mr. Daniel stated that Hr. Sounders* pledged in the name of his client that certain commitments would be met; however, it appears those commitments have not been met by the client. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the requirement to install a solid board fence should be enforced; and there should be no relief from the buffer requirements. He stated continuing to defer this case would only cause more inconvenience to the Moseley family; however, a denial of the case would not alleviate the situation relative to the installation of the fence. When q~estioned, Mr. Micas stated the normal course of action is to proceed in District Court and this case is currently pending before that court; however, there is nothing that can be done 87-52 until the General Asser~bly adjourns its current session. Mrs. Girone stated she would not support relief of the buffer requirements. Mr. Mayes stated the Moseley family, which has been before the Beard many times regardinq this particular case, only wants to live undisturbed from the noise and view of the subject site. He stated he did net feel the Board should telerate the disrsgard of h%tman values that have been exhibited by the applicant in this case. Mr. Daniel questioned if the zoning that is currently in place requires that a solid board fence be installed along the perimeter of the Moseley property. Mr. Jacobsen stated yes and the zoning also requires cedar plantings. Mr. Daniel stated he did not feel there should be any discussion relative to reducing buffers until the fence and plantings installations are completed. Mr. Applegate asked, if the court case has been deferrsd until March, was there any action the County could take te shut down the applicant's operation until these matters are resolved. Mr. Micas the County is presently involved in litigation with the applicant for violation of the original conditions ef zoning and there is nothing more that can be done at this time. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board denied this request. Vote: Unanimous 865144 In Matoaca Magisterial District, SOVRAN BANK, ~.A., ~RUST~E FOR WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPAiPY, N.A. requested rezoni~g from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-9) to Light Industrial (M-i) with Conditienal Use Planned Development to permit u~e and bulk exceptions on a 152.08 acre parcel fronting approximately 580 ~eet on the south line of Hull Street Road, also fronting en the northeast and southwest lines e~ Tomahawk Drive. Tax Map 62-6 (1) Parcels 8, 9, and 12; Tax Map 62-10 (1) Parcels 4, 10, 1i, and 15; and Tax Map 62-11 (1) Parcels 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 20 (Sheet 20). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the Planning Commission reco~ended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Dave Redmond accepted the reco~nended conditions and stated this project will be a high pre~ile, quality project which will be known as "commonwealth Center". ~e stat~ ~he applicant has proffered significant road improvement~ as part of this particular application which will insure that an adequate access system is provided to accommodate this development's traffic. There was no opposition preuent. Mr. Applegate questioned to what extent the shallow rock, referred to in the Request Analysis, may Lnpede the extension of public sewer and if the subject site will be capable ef accommodating future "local" traffic as well as the development's traffic. Mr. Peele stated the mubjeot site will be served by public sewer and, at this point, the impact of the rock is unknown. He explained that the co~nent was included in the Analysis te alert the applicant to a potential difficulty. Mr. MoCraeken stated that additional widening of Route 360 and imprevements to the Route 288/Route 360 interchange would be necessary to address future traffic in the area. He stated the applicant's proffered conditions for roa~ imprev~men=s will insure that an adequate access ~ystsm ie provided to accommodate this development's tra~iic. 87-53 Mrs. Girone asked Mr- Redmond to explain the character of the retail center. Mr. Redmond stated the project is conditioned for landscaping, there will be an architectural control committee and there will be schematic review through the planning process; however, there is no specific design for the center planned at this time. Mr. Clower stated the site is planned toward a specialty type center; however, the architectural style and treatment have not been decided upon at this time. Mr. Jacobsen stated the project will be approxLmately 1/3 the size of Cloverleaf Mall. On motion of Mr. M~yes, seconded by Mr. D0dd, the Board approved this request, subject to the iellowing conditions: 1. The Textual Statement contained in the letter dated Novem- ber 18, 1986, with Schedule A and Exhibits A (Master Plan) dated October 21, 1985, last revised November 18, 1986, and Exhibit B (the Wilbur Smith and Associates Traffic A~alysis) with supplemental report dated October 1, ~986, shall be considered the Master Plan, 2. The developer shall provide an accurate account cf the drainage situation for each drainage 0utfall showing existing drainage and the impact thi~ project will have on the site and the surrounding area. The developer shall submit a construction plan to Environmental Engineering and VDOT providing for on-site and off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved by the Environmental Engineering Department and VDOT, and all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any vegetative disturbance. The approved off-site plan may have ~c be implemented prior to clearing. Phasing of drainage facility construction is allowable after approval of the overall drainage plan for each drainage outfall. (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement Section 21-185 Conditions, C. Utilities and Environmental Engineering, 5.) 3. if storm water retention or detention is use~, then prior to the release of any building permits or dedioatio~ Of right of way, the ownership and maintenance of the re- tention or detention facility shall be established as the responsibility of private entities. An indemnification agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental Engi- neering Department to save the County harmless of vectors, maintenance, and replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon completion of the construction of the retention or de- tention facility, the design engineer shall certiiy to the Environmental Engineering Department that the lakes or ponds have been installed in accordance with the approved plan. Maximum permissible release rates on the retention or detention facility, which outflow onto adjacent prop- erties and do flow directly i~to Swift Creek or Nuttree, shall be such that the capacity of the drainage system on the adjacen~ property shall not be exceeded and the re- corded 100 year backwater and/or floodplain on such adja- cent property shall not be increased. (Note: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, Section 21-185 Conditions, C. Utilities and Environmental Bngineering, 6.) Vote: Unanimous 86S155 in Midlothian Magisterial District, WILLIAM R. BRADLEY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a mortuary service business in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 87-54 0.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Buford Road, approximately 330 feet south of North Providence Road. Tax Map 18-16 (1) Parcel 43 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission reco~nended approval o~ this request, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Bradley accepted the recommended conditions. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone asked if Mr. Bradley would briefly explain his intention for use of this site. Mr. Bradley stated he is requezting to permit a mortuary service business in this area which involves the embalming of deceased htuaal% beings a~d transporting the remains to funeral homes. He stated there would be no cremation on the site and, other than viewing of the deceased by immediate family~ no funeral or ~e~orial services will be conducted on the premises. Me stated he intends to utilize the existing structure, in the Convenience Business (B-l) District and there are no alterations to the existing structure or new construction planned to accommodate the proposed use. Mrs. Girone expressed concern that the proposed use is inappropriate for thiz particular area as the subject site is adjacent to a restaurant, an office complex and a townhcuse complex. Mr. Bradley stated the site will be landscaped and his business would be neat, clean, dignified and quiet. Mrs. Girone expressed cencern that the front entrance of the structure, a former 7-11 convenience store, is the only access ~y which the applicant intends to enter or exit with cadaver~ and stated she felt such activity should be confined to the rear of the building, as is the practice of other larger funeral homes, and not exposed to the neighborhood and the general public. She stated that the site is too small for the proposed uss and permitting the proposed use at this site would only add to the congestion and activity at an already busy intersection. She stated she is concerned for the health, safety and welfare of area citizens and the general public in that this site has a poor drainage history and she expressed concern that the use of a septic tank zyztem will be inadequate to accommodate the proposed use. Mr. Bradley stated he understood that other funeral homes in the area, that utilize embalming rooms, dispose waste products directly into the County sewer system and, in this particular instance, the waste would be treated in the septic tank before it is disbursed. Mrs. Gircne reiterated her concerns relative to the appropriateness of the site for suck an activity and, ii it were d~termined that the site is appropriate for the use, she would ~eflnitely recommend that it be connected to County sewer. Mr. Dodd supported Mrc. Girone's reco~ne~dation for the site to be connected to County sewer. Mr. Applegate stated he concurred with Mrs. ~irone and Mr. Dodd regarding the connection to County sewer and expressed concern relative tc the problems that could develop ii the septic tank system were to fail. Re stated embalming fluid is toxic and the distribution of such a substance, as well as other waste products, onto a site where there are existing drainage problems could possibly have far-reachin~ effects. He stated he also felt the ~ubject site was inappropriate for the proposed use. Mr. Daniel stated, in his judgment, the propose~ use is inappropriate and he does not concider approval of the request in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of citizens. Mr. Bra~ley state~ that all waste products distributed into the zeptic tank would be treated. 87-55 On motion of Mrs. Giro~e, denied this request. Vote: Unanimous seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board 86S157 In Matoaca Magisterial District, PARKER OIL COMPANY requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in Residential (R-7) and Convenience Business (B-i} Districts on a 1.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 358 feet on the east line of Herrowgate Road, also fronting approximately 125 feet on the eouth line of Tarris Lane, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these reads. Tax Map 132-16 (2) Locust Grove, Section A, Lots 1, 38, and 39 (Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recon%mended approval of the request, eubject to certain conditions. Mr. Dave Warriner accepted the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant desired to have the record reflect that he may wish, in the future, to expand the uae cf the site into Lots 38 and 39 through the normal rez0ning and Conditional Use process if economic conditions and such warrant it. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegete, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated Septe~ber 2, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Concrete curb and g~tter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri- an access. (EE) 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sixty (60) feet of right of way, measured £rom the centerllne of the existing right of way of Harrowgate Road, and twenty-five (25) feet of right of way, measnre~rom the oenterline of Tetris Lane, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T&CPC) 4. Additional pavement, curb and gutter shall be constructed along Harrowgate Road, as deemed necessary by the Transpor- tation Department. (T&C~C) A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line adjacent to Lot 2 of Locust Grove Subdivision, Section A. With the exception of the parking and driveways shown on Lot 39 of the Master Plan, Lots 38 and 39 of Locust Grove Subdivision, Section A shall be maintained as a buffer. With the exception of utilities, which run generally perpendicular through the buffers, and a fence, there shall be no other facilities or other improvements permitted within these buffer areas. Further, the dumpster shall be screened from view of adjacent ree- idential development. A solid board fence, of sufficient height to screen the driveways and parking areas from adjacent residential propertiem, shall be installed along the western edge of the fifteen (15) foot buffers. There shall be no clearing or grading within any of the buffers. Existing vegetation within buffers shall be supplemented with landscaping to minimize the view of the fence, as well as the building, driveways and parking areas. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be 87-56 submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. Within thirty (30) day~ of rough clearing and grading, a detailed plan depicting this requirement shall he submitted to the Planning Depart- ment for approval. (CPC) 6. Exterior lighting shall be arranged and installed so that the direct, or reflected, illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background, measured at the lot line of any adjoining residential parcel or public right of way. Lighting shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet and 18.5 feet ~or canopy lighting, and shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view. A detailed lighting plan ~epicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Plat/ling Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. 7. Signs shall comply with the Special Sign District require- ments for Convenience Business (B-l) Districts. (P) 8. Mechanical equipment, including roof-mounted mechanical equipment, shall not be visible from adjacent residences or public rights of way. (P) 9. The structure, upon renovation, shall be generally as depicted in the pictures submitted with the application. 10. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) 86S159 In Midlothian Magisterial District, DWIGHT M. MYERS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business (B-i) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit hulk exceptions on a 0.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 103 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 650 feet east of Johnston Willis Drive. Tax Map 17-6 (1) Parcel 6 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Covmnisslo~ reconmmended approval of this request, eubject to certain conditions. Mr. Clarence Hubbard accepted the recommended conditions. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated the proposed site, adjacent to Johnston-Willis Hospital, is very important to the County and expressed concern as to whether or not the applicant could live up to the conditions and regulations set forth in the Request Analysis as he has previously operated businesses which were in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Daniel s~ated he did not feel it appropriate for the Board to question whether or not the applicant would or would not live up to the conditions of zoning as stated in the Request Analysis. Mrs. Girone stated she felt condition 9 should be amended to include that the loading areas shall not be visible ~rom Route 60 or any adjacent property and ~ha~ a plan depicting requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for schematic plan approval. Mrs. Girone requested that Mr. Hubbard convey her concerns regarding this request to Mr. Myers. 87-57 On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Tire, ohs and Associates, P.C., and dated April 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri- an access. (EE) 3. Access shall be limited to a single entrance/exit located towards the western property line. This entrance/exit shall be designed and constructed to allow shared uso with adjacent property to the west at such time it is developed for commercial use. The exact design and location of this entrance/exit shall be approved by the Transportation Department at the time of site plan review. (T) 4. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be con- structed along Route 60 for the entire property frontage. (T) 5. Upon request by the County, the 0Whet/developer shall grant an east/west access easement to adjacent properties. (T) 6. A fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained along Route 60. Other than signs, and utilities, there shall be no facilities permitted in this setback. This setback shall be landscaped with trees and shrubs of sufficient height and density to minimize the visibility of parking areas from Route 60. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with site plan review. (P) 7. Parking areas shall have at least ten (10) ~quare feet of interior landscaping per parking space. Each required landscaped area shall contain a minim%~ of 100 square feet and shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. At least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at lsast five (5) feet, shall be provided for each 200 square feet of required interior landscaped area. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover. Such landscaped areas shall be located to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required setbacks or buffers shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. Prior to rough clearing and grading, a conceptual landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. A detailed landscap- ing plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. 8. All utility lines such as electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be installed underground. All junction and access boxes shall be screened with appropri- ate landscaping. All utility pad fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc., shall be recognized and integrated with the architectural elements of the site plan. (P) 9. Leading area~ shall not be visible from Route 60 or any adjacent property. A plan depicting this requirement ~hall be submitted to the Planning Commission ~or schematic plan approval. (P&BS) 10. Architectural treatment of building facades (whether front, side, or rear) shall not consist of architectural materials of inferior quality, appearance, or detail to any other facade oi the same building. The intent of this requirement 87-58 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. is not to preclude the use of different materials on different b~ilding facades (which would be acceptable if representative of good architectural design) but rather, to preclude the use cf inferior materials on sides which face adjoining property and thus, might adversely impact existing or future development causing a substantial depreciation of property values. NC portion of a building constructed of unadorned cinder block or corrugated and/or sheet metal shall be visible from any adjoining property ur Route 60. Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level er rooftop, shall be shielded and screened from public view and designed to be perceived as an integral part of the building. Elevations depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (~) Exterior lighting shall be arranged and installed so that the direct or reflected illu/~ination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at the lot line adjoining Route 60. Lighting standards shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view, A lighting plan depictinq these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department in con- junction with site plan review. (P) Ohs {1) freestanding sign shall be permitted along Route 60 to identify the use. The freestanding sign and all other signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for Convenience Business (E-l) Districts. Public water and sewer shall be used. (u) In conjunction with the approval of this request, an exception to the twenty (20) foot side yard setback re- quirement shall be granted. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Commission shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions stated herein. (P) (Note: Condition 9 will require further schematic plan approval from the Planning Commission.) Unanimous 86S162 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DEWEY L. HURLEY, SR. requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on one (1) parcel of land. his request lies in an Agricultural (A) District on a 13.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east line of Nswbya Bridge Road, approximately 1,150 feet south of Burnett Drive. Tax Map 64 (1) Parcels 44 and 122 (Sheet 21). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. No one was present to represent the request. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate stated he was not aware of any reason why the applicant was not present. He stated he had several questions he would like to have addressed by the applicant and would request the Board defer the ca~e for thirty days. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred consideration o~ this request until February 25, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 87-59 Mr. Daniel requested that staff contact the applicant to inform him of the action taken on %he case. 86s165 In Matcaca Magisterial District, MAGNOLIA INVESTM/LNT ASSOCIATE~ requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S178) relative to paving and sign requirements. This request lies in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 2.7 acre parcel frontinq approximately 230 feet On the south line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 360 feet east of Beach Road. Tax Map 95-8 (1) Parcels 40 and 42 and Part of Parcel 46 (Sheet 31). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Con~nission recommended approval of this request, subject to a single condition. Mr. Malachi Mills accepted the recommended condition. There was ne opposition present. Mr. Mayee questioned i~ the request to a~end the sign requirement has been withdrawn. Mr. Daniel stated it had. On motion of Mr. Mayer, ~econded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following condition: All driveways and parking areas shall be paved with asphalt paving similar in design to that used throughout the Court- house Ccmmcn~ Office and Commercial Complex. (P) (Nots: This Condition supersedes Condition 5 of Case 84S178.) vote: Unanimous 86S166 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JAMES R. SRUBBS, JR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (Al and Residential (R-7) to Residential (R-15) on an 80.0 acre parcel lying at the southern termini of Briarwick Drive and Ambleside Drive. Tax Map 50-13 (1) Part cf Parcel 3 (Sheet 14). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request. Mr. J. R. Grubbs, Jr. stated the recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate expreased concerns as to why the Request Analysis designates the 'Midto~hian Fire Station to serve this particular site as opposed to the Manchester Fire Station and how the increase in school enrollments will be accommodated by Manchester Bigh School when this residential subdivision is completed. Mrs. Sirone stated the Midlothian Fire Station does provide coverage for this area. Mr. Micas stated the means by which to accommodate any increase in school enrollments in this area, precipitated by the completion of this subdivision, will have to be determined by the County. On motion o~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 86St67 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROPER BROTHERS, INC. 87-60 requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3,4 acre parcel fronting approximately 320 feet on the south line of Genito Road, also fronting approximately 500 feet on Warbro Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection cf these reads. Tax Map 48-3 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 13). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission reec~mended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. He stated the Utilities Department has indicated that, given proposed major developments in the area which will be extending public water to the vicinity of the site, it would be appropriate to amend condition 2 to require that the applicants connect to public water at such time the line is within 500 feet of the property. Mr. Rick Biz, President of Roper Brothers, Inc., accepted thc re¢or~ended conditions, including the amendment to Condition 2 in the Addendura. Mr. Jacobsen stated, after much discussion, it was generally agreed to amend condition 2 to require that at such time as public water is within 500 feet of the property line, public water shall be extended to serve the entire development and connection shall be made, with the understanding the County shall be Under no obligation to extend water to this development. He stated public water to serve this site will most likely come from Brandermill. Mr. Applegate expressed concern that the proposed use could present a significant fire safety hazard. Me stated there is not a fire hydrant near the propose site and requested the issue be addressed by the Fire Department. Mr. Diz stated the building will not be sprinkled but rather will be separated by fire walls in accordance with the BOCA Code. Mr. Applegats questioned why inGress/egress to this site ls from Genito Road and not Warbro Road. Mr. McCracken stated Genito Road is considered as one of the major arterials in the County and staff is attempting to control access in the area. He stated if access were to be permitted on Genitc Road, road improvements would be necessary. Mr. Diz stated the applicant's intention is that the access from Genito Road b~ limited to a single entrance with the flow of traffic exiting on Warbro Road. Mr. Applegate inquired as to the applicant's intended hours of operation. Mr. Biz stated he did not anticipate the operation to be open in the evenings but, at the same time, he would like the flexibility to be able to respond to business needs if customer demands, dictate it. Mr. Applegate stated none of the businesses currently operating in the area are open in the evenings and he did not want this business to infringe on the residential environment. Mr. Biz stated he would not like to be restricted from operating his business in the evenings at some point in the indefinite ~uture. Mr. Daniel stated that if the Board were to impose such condition, at some time in the ~uture, the Board could review the request and consider amending the condition, based upon the merits of the case. Fire Marshal Turlingtcn stated the need for fire hydra,ts would be assessed during the site and construction plans review process. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated October 31, i986, shall be considered the Master Plan- 2. Public water shall be used, if deemed necessary by Fire Prevention and/or the Utilities Departraents. Normal County policy regarding rebates shall apply. (CPC) 3. At such time that public sewer is extended to within 200 feet of the structure(s), the owner/developer shall extend public sewer to serve the site. (U) 87-61 4. With the exception of the graveled ~torage area shown on the Master Plan, all driveway~, loading and parking areas shall be paved. The storage urea may be paved er may be graveled with a minim~ of six (6) inches of %21 or #2lA stone, With the exception of the paved area to the south of the proposed structure, concrete curb and g~tter shall be installed around the perimeter of all paved driveways and parking areas. (EE&P) 5. Prior to release of any building permits, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Genito Road and thirty-five (35) feet of right of way measured from the eentsrlins of Warbro Road, shall be dedicated %o and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 6. Prior to the release of any occupancy permit, additional pavement shall be constructed along the entire property frontage abutting Genito Road. Also, a deceleration lane shall be installed along Warbro Road, subject to approval by the Transportation Department. (T&CPC) 7. A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along Warbro Road. A ~i~ty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Genito Road. With the exception of access, signs, util- ities, landmcaping, and the two (2) parking spaces shown on the Master Plan, there shall be no facilities permitted within these buffers. Buffers shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. O~tside storage areas shall bo screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights of way by either landscaping or fencing. A detailed plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P) (Note: Outdoor storage areas cannot encroach into required buffers.) 8. Uses permitted shall be limited to building material storage and ~ales and a storage yard. There shall be no other co~erciat or industrial activity permitted on the 0its. 9. Signs shall comply with the Special Sign District require- ments for Convenience Business (B-l) Districts. (P) 10. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk require- ments of the Convenience ~usiness (B-i) District shall apply. 11. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Commissien shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan. 12. Hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (BS) Vote: Unanimeus 86S168 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MARCO INVESTMENT, INC. requested rezoning from Residential (R-15] to Residential (R-9) on a 1.04 acre parcel lying approximately 290 feet off the south- west line of Sunfield Drive, measured from the point at its intersection with Stigall Drive. Tax Map 63-5 {1) Parcel 7 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request. 87-62 MS. Terry Delany stated the recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone questioned how the subject parcel would be accessed. Me. Delany stated the subject parcel will be part of lots in Bailey Ridge Estates and would be accessed through that subdivision. On mo=ion oi Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. vote: Unanimous 87S004 In Midlothian Magisterial District, LONDONBERRY CORPORATION requested resoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions on a 3.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on the east line of Huguenot Road, approximately 110 feet north of Featherstone Drive. Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 12 (sheets 2 and 7). Fir. Jaccbson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. Fir. Bob Puryear accepted the recommended conditions with the exception of condition 16 which he requested to be amended to permit use of 25% of the gross floor area for display of goods and articles. He stated the original application requested use cf 30% of the gross fleer area for display, however, staff recommended only 20% of the floor space for this use, of which the Planning commission recommended approval. He stated the applicant's subsequent discussions with area residents, including M~. Sue Casey and Mr. Joe Boisineau, satisfied concerns regarding this project and indicated the residents would be comfortable with a use of 25% gross floor space being used for displaying goods and articles. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by ~lr. Dcdd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Bcdie, Taylor, and Puryear, Inc., dated October 2, 1986, and the Textual Statement submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U) 3. Drainage shall be designed to flow into the existing paved ditch, east of the rear property line. 4. Unless an alternative drainage approach, utilizing the existing 16 foot drainage easemen~ along the rear of Huguenot Comr0ercial Park is devised, curb and gutter along the northern property line adjacent to Huguenot Commercial Park shall be constructed at elevations which are below existing grade. (EE) 5. Concrete c~rh and g~tter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas, as well as along the entire northern property line. Drainage shall be designed ~o as no~ to interfere with pedestrian access. 6. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement, curb and gutter shall be constructed along Huguenot Road to accommodate a right turn lane. (T) 87-63 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sixty (60) feet of right of way measured from the oenterline of Huguenot Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) (Note: Basad upon the ultimate right c~ way o~ Huguenot Road and the Zoning Ordinance requirements that all drive- way~ and parking areas be set back a minimum of iiity (50) feet from the ultimate right o~ way, the Master Plan may have to be revised to conform to the setback :equirements. However, if the existing parking area tO the north of the site is closer than the required fifty (50) feet, it may be possible to average setbacks, thereby allowing the driveway and parking areas to be closer than fifty (50) feet.) 8. Access for this development shall be approved by the Transportation Department at the time of schematic plan review. (T) 9. Within the required fifty {50) foot setback along Huguenot Road, trees and shrubs of sufficient height and density shall be planted to minimize the visibility of parking areas from Huguenot Road. All loading areas shall be screened from view of Huguenot Road and the adjacent properties. A conceptual plan depicting this requirement shall be subr~itte~ to the Planning Department in conjunc* ticn with final site plan review. A detailed plan depict- ing this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ~hir%y (30) days of rough clearing and grading. (P) 10. A thirty {30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line. With the exception of utilities, which run generally perpendicular through the buffer, and a fence, located along the western edge of the buiier, there shall be no other facilities or other improvements permitted within this buffer. Existing vegetation within the buffer shall be supplemented with landscaping and/or a solid board ~ence so as to minimize the view of drivewaws and parking areas. A ooncep:ual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearing and grading. (P) (Note: At the time of schematic plan review, gtaff will recon~mend that some of the driveways between freestanding buildings be eliminated to provide for additional land- soaped areas sc as to minimize the amount of building and pavement coverage.) 11. The parking area(s) shall have a~ least twenty (20) square ~eet of interior landscaping for each space. Each required landscaped area shall contain a minimum o~ 100 sc/uare ~eet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten feet. The primary landscaping material used in parking areas shall be trees which provide shade or are capable of providing shade at maturity. Each required landscaped area shall include at least one small tree. The total number of trees shall not be less than one for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and Other vegetative material to compliment the tree land- soaping. Landscaped areas shall be reasonably dispersed throughout, located sc as to divide and break up the expanse o~ paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning De- 87-64 partment for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 12. Ail utility lin~s such as electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be installed underground. Ail junction and access boxes shall be screened with appropri- ate landscaping. All utility pad ~ixtures and meters shall be shown on the site plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc., shall be recognized and integrated with the architectural elements of the site plan. (P) 13. The structures shall be similar to those depicted in the renderings submitted with the application. Architectural treatment of building facades (whether front, side, or rear) shall not consist of architectural materials of inferior quality, appearance, or detail to any other facade of the same building. The intent of this requirement is not to preclude the use of different materials on different building facades (which would be acceptable if representative of good architectural design) but rather, to preclude the use of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining property and thus, might adversely impact existing or ~uture development causing a substantial depreciation of property values. No portion of a building constructed of unadorned cinder block Or corrugated and/or sheet metal shall he visible from any adjoining property or Huguenot Road, Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be shielded a~d screened from public view and designed to be perceived as an integral part of the building. Elevations depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site pla/1 review. 14. Exterior lighting shall be arranqed and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination hoes not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured at the lot line adjoining Huguenot Road and the adjacent property to the east. Lighting shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view. A lighting plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 15. Signs shall be regulated by the requirements of the Special Sign District for shopping centers or similar group of buildings in Office Business (O) Districts. Landscaping shell be provided around the base of the freestanding sign. 16. The uses permitted shall be limited to office/warehouses plus a maximum of 25% of the gross floor area may be used for display of goods and articles for sale in conjunction with office/warehouse use. (P&CPC) [Motes: a. The Zoning Ordinance will require that parking be based on a combination of office/warehouse and retail uses. b. Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission.) 87S006 In Bermuda Magisterial District, W.O. GRUBB requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Seneral Business (B-3) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 1.1 acre parcel frontin( approximately 245 feet On the nc~th line of Goolsby Avenue, approximately 90 feet east of Collindale Road. Tax Map 53-3 (2) Falling Creek, Part of Lot 7 (Sheet 16). 87-65 Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Con~ieeion recommended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions: Mr. Matcher Johnson, attorney for the applicant, accepted the recommended conditions with the exception of condition 6 which he requested be amended to require a five (5) foot Duffer along the western boundary of the property. He stated the existing buffer has pre~iousl¥ been used as a dttmping ground and was infested with rodents. He stated the applicant is willing to clean out the existing drainage ditch and install a six (6) foot brick and concrete wall and landscaping. Mr. Dodd stated that the subject property is located behind an aperient complex and concurred with Mr. Hatchet's comments that the buffer is unsightly and littered. ~e stated he did not feel the situation would improve with the retention cf the twenty (20) foot buffer as it would continue to be used as a dumping ground. On motion of Hr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Beard approved the request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Keith Construction Management, Inc., dated October 21, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri~ an access. 3. The developer shall be responsible for improving the existing drainage channel along the western property line in accordance with Environmental Engineering requirements. Ail necessary drainage easements shall be obtained prior to the issuance cf a building permit. (Er) 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline Goolsby Avenue, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. IT) 5. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement, curb and gutter shall be constructed along Goolsby Avenue for the entire property frontage. This shall include a standard drainag= inlet at the low point. 6. A five (5) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western boundary of the property. This buffer width shall be exclusive of any utility easements. The bu£!er shall consist o~ a brick and concrete wall with a minimum height of six (6) feet. Landscaping may also be installed within the buffer. Other than utilities, which run generally perpendicular through the buffer, there shall be nc facilities located in the buffer area. A detailed plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) (Note: Outdoor storage areas cannot encroach into the required buffer area.) 7. Landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of the request parcel adjacent to Goolsby Avenue. The required landscaping shall consist of a mixture of ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Detailed plans depicting thia requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 8. Signs shall comply with the Special Sign District reguire- 87-66 ments for Convenience Business (B-l) Districts. Landscap- ing shall be provided around the base of the freestanding sign. A plan depicting this requirement shall be to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with sign permit application. {P) 9. Exterior lighting shall be arranged and installed so that the direct or reflec=ed illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background lighting, measured at the lot line of any adjoining residential parcel er public right of way. Lighting shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department ~or approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 10. In conjunction with approval oM this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master PLan. 875002 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DICK STRAUSS SUZUki, INC. requests rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) to Light Industrial (M-l) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exception~ on a 1.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 148 feet on the ~outh line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 400 feet east of Johnston Willis Drive. Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission reccmmended approval of this request, subject to certain conditions. Mr. John Henson accepted the recommended conditions. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., revised January 1987, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. All driveways and parking areas shall be paved. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be de- signed so as not to interfere with pedestrian access. (EE) 3. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along Midlothian Turnpike ~or the entire property frontage. (T) 4. A twenty-five (25) foot setback shall be maintained along Route 60. Other than mignm, access, and utilities, there shall be nc facilities permitted in this setback. This setback shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this re- quirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P) 5. All utilities shall be provided with underground dis- tribution. 6. The proposed building shall be as depicted in the ele- vations prepared by Ba~s Steel Buildings Corporation, dated December 8, 1986. (P) 7. Exterior lighting shall not exceed a height of forty (40) feet. Lighting ~hall be positioned ~e as not to project 87-67 into adjacent properties or Route 60. A lighting plan depicting these requirements shall be submitted to the ~lanning Depart~ent in conjunction with site plan review. (P) 8. One (1) freestanding business sign shall be permitted along Route 60 to identify the use. This sign shall not exceed an area of 119 square feet and a height of thirty (30) feet. This sign may be illuminated, but shall only be luminous if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. All other signs shall be as regulated by the zoning Ordinance for Light Industrial (M-l) Districts. Ail signs shall be similar in color, design, and lighting. Prior to erection of any signs, a package showing typical signs shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) 9. In conjunction with the approval of this request, an exception to the twenty-five (25) foot side yard setback requirement shall be granted. (P) 10. In conjunction with final site plan submission, an overall site landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The landscaping shall be located so as to break up the expanse of pavement between the proposed building and Route 60. (P) 11. tn conjunction with the approval of this request~ the Commission shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan, subject to the conditions stated herein. (P) Vote: Unanimoua The BOard inquired if Mrs. Girone was votlnq? She replied yes, as Mr. Strauss' contribution to her senate campaign was fully disclosed to the State ~oard of ~lections, as required by law, pursuant to section 2.1-602 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adjourned at 3:30 p.m. until 2;00 p.m. on February 11, 1987. Vote: Unanimous County Administrator Chairman 87-68