Loading...
12-11-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES December Il, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. H. Applcgate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Maye$, Vice Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. H. Garland Dedd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedriek County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley Balderson, Dir., Rcon. Develop. Mr. William Diggs, Real Estate Assessor Mr. James Gillentine, Nursing Home Admin. Mr. William Howell, Di~. of Gen. Services Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co, Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard MeElflsh, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. M¢Cracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffrey Mnzzy, ASSt. Co. Admin. for Development Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acct. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., ~xec. Asst., CO. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Htilities Mr. Frederick W. Willis, Dir. of Human Resource Management Mr. James Zook, Dir. of Planning 1. WORK SESSION ON THREE YEAR PROJECTIONS It is noted that the Board cancelled its work session on the three year projections scheduled for this time and date. 2 · LUNCH Mr. Applegate called the me~ting to order a% the Courthouse at 2:05 p.m. (EST), He stated the Board would be considering Case 85S135, HM~, last on the zening agenda. 4. P. EQU~STS FOR R-~ZONINC 85S142 In Matoaca Magisterial Distr~ct, A. CARLETON AND RUSSELL $. SM~LL~ requested a Conditionsl Use P~snned Development to permi~ bulk (parking setback) exception in a General ~usiness (B-3) i District on a 1.41 acre parcel fronting approximately 220 feet on the cast llne of Jefferson Davis Righway, appreximately 170 feet south of Woods Edge Road. Tax Map 149-11 (1) Parcel 15 (Sheet 41). Mr. Peele stated the applicant had requested withdrawal of the request. The~e was no opposition present, On motion of Mr. Mayc$, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted the applicant's request for withdrawal. Vote: Unanimous 85S154 In Dale Magisterial District, BUILDER'S SUPPLY OF HOPEWELL, INC. requested amendments to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Cases 84S162 and 85S067) in a General Business (B-3) District on an 8.96 acre parcel fronting approximately 540 feet on the east line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 880 feet south of Beulah Road. Tax Map 79-4 Parcel 4 (sheet 22). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission will be hearing this case in December and pending their action, the Board should defe] consideration of the case. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferre~ consideration of this request until heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board in the normal manner. Vote: Unanimous 85S155 In Clover Bill Magisterial District, RICHARD E. COLLIER requeste¢ rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Offics Business (O) with a Conditional Use Planned' Development to permit bulk (setback) exceptions on a 4.24 acre parcel fronting approximately 460 feet on the south llne of Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 425 feet os thc west line of Randolp~ Road, and fronting approximately 355 feet on the east line of Lynehester Road. The parcel is located between the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 50-5 (1) Parcels 3, 4, and 5 and (4) Falling Creek Farms, Section C~ Block A, Lots 6 and 6A (Sheet 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission will be hearinq this case in December snd pending thsir action, the Board should def,~ consideration of the case. There was no opposition present, On motion of Mr. Daniel, secondad by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferr~ consideration of this request until heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board in the normal manner. Vote: Unanimous 85S158 In Clover Bill Magisterial District, JOSEPH W. AMD NORMA J. TAYLOR requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling i~ a Residential (R-40) District on a 10.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on the west line of Otterburn Road, approximately 1,020 feet south of ~enito Road. Tax ~ap 46-10 (3) Otterburn, Lot 2 (Sheet 12). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission will be hearing this cass in December and pending their action, the Board should de£e~ consideration of the case. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferre~ consideration of this request x~ntil heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded to fhe Board in the normal manner. 85-912 85S147 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORGE E. SOW~RS, JR. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 16.96 acre parcel fronting On the south line of Elkhardt Road in two places for a total of approximately 700 feet, opposite Flynn Road. Tax Map 29-11 (2) Providence Farms, Lots 17, 18, and 1PA (Sheet 9). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission will be hearing this case in December and pending their action, the Board should defer consideration of the case. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred consideration of this request until heard by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board in the normal manner. Vote: Unanimous 85S157 to' In Clover Hill Magisterial District, TURNER AND ASSOCIATES requested rezoning from Agricultural (A} and Residential (R-7} . Community Business (s-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit Use and bulk exceptions on a 23.93 acre parcel fronting in two (2) places on the southeast line of Hull Street Road for a total of approximately 1,395 feet, also fronting appro×imat~ly 1,420 feet on the north line of Walmsl~y Boulevard, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 39-12 (1) Parcels 1, 19, and 23 (Sheet 14). Mr. Applegate stated he had requested a study of the Eull Street Road corridor as it relates to commercial zoning. ~e stated he felt it appropriate that this case be deferred approximately 120 days to allow the study to he completed. Re stated Mr. Ed Willey, representative for the applicant, was present and had agreed to this deferral. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. ~odd, the Board deferred consideration of this matter until April 23, 1986. Vote= Unanimous 85S160 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION requested reconsideration u£ a previously granted Conditional Usu Planned Development (Case 76S130) in a Residential (R-15} District on a 55.38 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the west line of Libro Loop, also fronting approximately 700 feet on the west line of Lockhart Road, and generally located in the western quadrant of the inter- section of these roads. Tax Map 39-11 (1) Parcel 82 and Part of Parcel 5; 39-11 (7) Bexley Cosmopolitan Phase V, Block B, Lots 25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; 39-15 (8) Bexley Cosmo- politan Phase V, Block B, Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 3], and 32; and common open space owned by Virginia First Savings and Loan Asso- ciation (Sheet 14). Mr. Applegate stated there have been numerous discussions on this case relative to Bexley Cosmopolitan Subdivision. He stated the landownsr has removed some of the covenant~ and restrictions to permit 1300 sq. ft. houses in an area that had called for 1700 or 1800 sq. ft. ~e stated the Planning Commission, in looking at this, has recommended that the developer build the 1700-1800 sq. ft. homes. He stated the developer ha~ indicated he has been unable to reach a compromise with the community and the attorney representing the landowner is s member of the General Assembly / and hae requested a deferral pursuant to the state statute which indicates that a member of the General Assembly automatically qualifies for a deferral should the pending cass come before the governing body 30 days prior to or after the meeting of the General Assembly. ~e stated Mr. Micas has received an opinion from the Attorney General's Office which indicates that statute does not apply to this type of situation. Mr, Micas stated that there are two property owners affected. Mr. Dicks, d~legate for the County, represents one of tho property owners and has requested a deferral of 30 days. He stated that statute only applies to judicial tribunals and would not apply to the Board of Supervisors and would not obligate the Board to defer the matter. He stated he has talked with the Attorney General's Office and they are generally in agreement with that interpretation. He stated staff has talked with Mr. Dicks today and he advises that he told both thc Opposition and his own client that the case would be deferred. Mr. Micas noted that Mr. Dicks is currently in court but he understands the position the County has taken. He stated that Mr. Dicks did wan% the Board to know that he told people the case would be deferred. He stated the statute does not require that the Board defer the matter. Mr. Applegate stated he has a problem with the deferral because the restrictive covenants have been removed and should the Board grant the deferral which could go on as late as May, the developeI could continue to apply for building permits and build under the ~×isting restrictions which would be 1300 sq. ft. and this would defeat the opposition without a hearing. He stated hz could not grant a deferral unless the developer will agree in writing not to request additional building permits until the matter is resolved. Mr. Micas stated if the Board should desire, it could de,er this matter until the end of the agenda and staff would attempt to contact Mr. Dicks prior to that time. It was generally agreed this matter would be discussed at the end of the zoning cases where it appears on the printed agenda. 3. CONSIDER PLANS FOR CHESTERFIELD MALL EX~AN$IO~ Mr. ~oole stated in 1966 a portion of the Chesterfield ~all property was zoned commercial and one of the conditions to that zoning was that the Board must approve plans prior to construction. He stated Chesterfield Mall Associates would like to expand the Mall from 279,397 sq. ft. to 533,917 sq. ~t. · He stated this would accommodate a Hess Department Store as well as an additional expansion of the Mall to the north. He stated staff rec0mme~ds that the request be approved subject to a numbe~ of conditions that speak generally to road and traffic items, site plan approval and internal access. Be stated one of the central i~ues besides the improvements for Route 60 and Route 147 is the continuation of the loop road that would take motorists around the intersection of Routes 60 and 147. Be indicated areas where the roadway is on the ground at the presen~ time, areas where the roadway is committed and being planned through zoning approvals that the Board has previously granted and areas where the road needs to be continued as development proceeds. He stated the conditions speak to the continuation of this roadway network. Mr. Phillip Rome, representing the applicant, stated the developer has mst several times with the staff and with Mrs. Girone concerning the Phase I expansion of Chesterfield Mall. H( stated they had discussed several of staff's concerns regarding their expansion and have recently reviewed the specific conditions that the staff has recommended to the Board. He stated although they are in a position to generally accept the conditions which sta£f has recommended, the developer is not prepared to agree to the conditions as worded ~t this time. He 85-914 stated as indicated in their letter, they are willing to work on an agreement for construction of the loop road and improvements on Roufes 147 and 60 that would be required by their development; however, it is their f~llng that the conditions, as statsd, are somewhat open-ended. He requested that the matter be deferred for thirty (30) days until the applicants have an opportunity to suggest ~evisicns to some of the language of the conditions. Mr. Applegate inquired how that would affect the release of a building permit. Mr. Rome stated they would like to have conceptual approval ~rom the Board of the plans with the idea that specific conditions would be worked out prior to the next Board meeting. Mrs. Girone inquired if they could discuss the problems now and agree on new wording. Mr. Rome stated he felt it is a little more detailed than the Board wants to spend time on now. He Stated he had hoped to be able to come here with the matter resolved completely but since it is not, he would like conceptual approval of the plans with the understanding that the applicants and State will work out details and, if they cannot agree, the applicants would be willing to come back next month before proceeding with the building permit. Mrs. Girone stated the concept has been known to everybody for years and what we need is a firm oon~itment as outlined in the conditions. She stated she met with the applicant, staff met with his staff and if the applicant needs more time, the Board would consider a deferral as the wording is very important. She stated the County is committed to building this new road and we ara committed to having a fair distribution of the coat with all the parties involved. Mr. Applegate stated th~ Board could approve the paper as recommended and if the applicant finds he cannot live with it, he! can seek an amendment. Mrs. Girone seated she felt that would be acceptable. Mr. Rome stated that would be acceptable as long as the Board realizes they have some specific concerns about the language and that they would havs the opportunity to come back next month if the language needs amending. There was some discussion regarding when the applicant would need to have the information to the County for the Board meeting. Mrs. Girone stated the indication by the Board that it will consider an amendment is not a commitment that the Board will agree to amend the conditions. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the plans of Chesterfield Mall Associates to increase the square footage at the Mall from 279,397 to 533,917 square feet and the developer's commitment to participate in the extension of the loop road around the Route 60/147 intersection subject to the following conditions. It is understood the developer has the right to come back and request an amendment to the conditions but there is no commitment that the Board will change it. 1. Prior to release of any building permits, the Transportation Department shall approve a detailed traffic analysis. 2. Prior to release of any building permits, the developer shall enter into an agreement, acceptable to the Trans- portation Department and the County Attorney's Office, r~lative to the location, design, right of way width and timing of construction for the loop road along the developer's northern property line. Right of way for this portion of the loop road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted and surety shall be provided to the County for the construction of thie portion of the loop road prior to issuance of any building permit~. 3. Prior to release of ans, building permits, sixty (60) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Route 147 shall 85-915 be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free andl unrestricted. The developer shall be reepensihle for any road improve- meets, as noted in the approved Traffic Analysis, along Route 147 necessitated by this project Over and above the improvements planned by VDH&T on the approved Route 147 widening plans. The developer shall install an additional lane of pavement along Route 60, as deemed neceseary by the Transportation Department and as noted in the approved Traffic Analysis. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the proposed crossover at the intere~etlon of Route 60 and Mall Drive. Note: The crossover cannot be installad unless and until it is approved by the Transportation Department and VDH&T. 7. Construction of road improvements required herein may be phased as noted in the approved Traffic Analysis. 8. Internal access shall be maintained from the mall parking lot to the outparcel in the southeast corner of the site. 9. The plans prepared by CKA, Architects, Revision Date 12/3/85~ shall be the Master Plan for this expansion. The plan shall be modified, as deemed necessary, during the site plan review process; as long as the spirit and intent of the Master Plan are maintained. Vote= Unanimous Mr. Applegate encouraged Mr. Rome to contact staff as soon as possible regarding the language of the conditions. There was some discussion as to when the issue would come back, if necessary, to the Board. Mr. Peele stated after the applicant presents staff with the information, they will have it to the Board at the next appropriate meeting. 4- REQUESTS FOR RESONING Mr. Applegate stated there was a long agenda for this afternoon and although the ~oard would like everyone to speak for and against each application, he would request that they not be redundant and repetitive. 85S105 In Matoaca Magisterial District, CHARLES E. BAILEY, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-12) On a 25.4 acre parcel fronting approximetely 680 feet on the south line of Centralia Road, approximately 150 feet west of ~ollyberry Drive. Tax Map 96-10 (1} Parcel 4 (sheet 31). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval! of R-12 zoning. Mr. Charles Bailey stated that there is a I problem with the Planning Department's request that he extend Salem Church Road through this property. He stated he has agreed to build approximately 1,300 feet of the road on the property and dedicate the right-of-way for the remainder of the road but after agreeing to this he has had considerable response from adjoining landowner~ who are concerned with this extension. He stated the adjacent property owners are concerned that thi~ road would go through a residential neighborhood. ~e stated he was originally against the extension as well but it was the only way he could obtain a recommendation for approval. 85-916 Mr. Daniel inquired where Salem Church Road fit within the Central Area Plan that is going through the public hearing process. Mr. ~oole stated Salem Church Road intersects with Contrails Road and the extension would go south through the applicant's property and would extend ultimately to a previously approved road network in the Iron Bridge development. He stated this is not a condition of zoning as this is a request for Residential (R-12) zoning and the extension of the roadway is a concern of staff and is being discussed by the Planning Commission through their approval of the subdivision of this site. He explained the internal road network, the dedication and construction of Salem Church Road extended as well as right of way reservation for future dedication~ who would build the remainder of the road extension, how the houses would be situated, etc. Mr. Howard F:eeland, a professional geologist and resident of the neighbomhood, was present. He stated his concern was that his well is 5-10 ft. away from th~ property line and knowing about ground water contamination, he felt this development would affect his property. He stated he forwarded a letter to the Board dated September 5, 1985 stating his concerns. Be stated Mr. McElfish responded to his letter and at the Planning Co~ission he was given a copy of the staff comments which he did not have time to address adequately. He stated he had his original letter, a response from Mr. McElftsh and another from the State Water Control Board which he pruvided to Mr. Mayas and Mr. Hcdrick. He outlined soma of the highlights of the letters regarding his concern with surface runoff; that there will be contamination from the development~ he does have a shallow well but it has always provided him with adequate water; the Health Department will test his well but they only check for chloroform bacteria and he is concerned with insectioides, pesticides, nitrates; the depth and amount of grouting; ground and surface water contamination; siltation and drainage systems; etc. He stated the State Water Control Board responded to his letter with various solutions to some of these problem, s. He requested that the developer 0onnect him to public water at such time as his well goes dry or becomes contaminated. ~e stated he would like County staff and an unbiased individual to visit the site and review the potential problems as it pertains to his property and try to resolve some conclusion before the Board makes its decision. There was some discussion regarding where the publlc water system currently exists. Mr. Micas stated that the ~oad question would be a subdivision matter and the water contamination situation is a civil matter and is unrelated to theI land use q~estions as the County cannot force the developer to conneot him to the system. Mr. Harold Taylor, an adjacent property owner, stated he has concerns about the proposed development as it relates to the extension of Salem Church Road and the zoning is tied in with the proposed extension. He stated this road would have an adverse impact on ~ollyberry Hills as well as what hc intends for his 100+ acres which he planned to develop along the lines of Autumn Oaks and Hollyberry Hills which have R-25 and R-15, respectively. He stated this request is for R-12 which he did not feel was compatible with the area. He stated he felt the road was th~ main problem as its extension would ultimately go to Lewis Road, it would be used for co~erclal traffic and would be detrimental and adversely impact the residential desirability of the area. He stated further time is needed to review the cost of extending the road as it is swampy, etc. and would be terribly expensive and it will adversely impact the devel0pability of his property. ~e stated there are a lot of residents in the area who are opposed to this request. Mr. Mayas stated sufficient issues have been raised to defer thi~ item for at least 60 days to determine the impact of the approval of this request on adjacent pr~perty owners. He stated staff should make an analysis of the impact regarding drainage, water 85-917 quality, roads, as well as other c0noerns from residents in the On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred this request until February 26, 1986. Mr. Daniel stated during this period the Central Area Plan will be working its way through the public hearing process and some of these questions could be answered and worked out i~ the meantime. Mr. Foots stated the Central Area Plan has been deferred by the Planning Commission for 90 days and although there will not be a complete rscommendation, some suggestions ~hould be available. Mr. Daniel requested that the Planning Commission pay special attention to this area as soon as possible, Vote: Unanimous 85S106 In Midlothian Magisterial District, A.L. HENDRICKS requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) and Agricultural (A) to office Business (0) of 1.73 acres and Light Industrial (M-I) of 8.21 acres with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit USe (grocery store with gasoline sales and a bank) exceptions on a 9.94 acre parcel fronting approximately 345 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet east of County Line Road. Tax Map 13 (1) Parcels 29 and 30 (Sheet 5/6). Mr. Pools stated the'Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He stated staff had a concern that the property not be zoned quite as deep as requested by the applicant. Mr. Jim ~ubbard was present and stated the conditions wers acceptable. Mr. A. C. Frame, an adjacent property owner, requested that the Board zone the property to a depth of 500 ft. rather than 1,000 ft. as requested by the applicant as it would encroach onto his property. ~rs. Girone inquired if Mr. Prams were concerned with drainage. Mr. Frame stated that was covered and all other itemsI are acceptable. I Mr. Pools illustrated how the depth difference~ between 500 ft. I and 1,000 ft. would affect the adjacent properties, how it would affect the proposed development on this parcel, that a portion of the property currently zoned B-2 would be zoned Agricultural and that only half of what is recommended be zoned commercial. Mrs. Girone inquired how this would coincide with the zoning process in the area. Mr. Zook stated the Powhite/288 Area Plan addressed this area in particular and recognized the association of some commercial use in that area of the County and connected up the ~mall commercial areas previously zoned. He stated a large portion of the area is subject to problems with septic systems~ large portion between this property and Midlothian Village is zoned Agricultural and staff feels the depth requested by the applicant exceeds the intent o~ the County's comprehensive plan. Be stated to zone the depth as requested at this time may be premature. Mr. Dodd stated he felt it would be better not to strip zone this area as was done on Jefferson Davis ~ighway and to restrict it to 500 feet would be inappropriate. Mr. Frame stated if it is zoned the full d~pth with a 50 ft. buffer the back parking lot will be 115 ft. from the corner of his home. Mr. Applegate stated if this were approved, he felt a proper buffer should be required. Mr. Pools stated the buffers proposed are 50 ft. along the northern, eastern and western property lines. He stated if the full area were to be zoned, staff would recommend a 100 ft. buffer but he is not sure of the extent of existing vegetation. Mr. Hubbard stated he could not agree to additional buffering because this request has been heavily conditioned and they could not agree to more. He stated that they are trying to go with somethin~ other than strip zoning which he feels is wrong for the ar~a. Mr. Zook stated that ther~ 85-918 may be an appropriate time in the future to zone this additional 500 feet but the plan for the area indicates this should be low density residential use. the Village of Midlothian is Agricultural. He stated when mere information is known about the growth Of this area, the Board may consider going further back with the zoning. Mrs° Gir0ne stated she felt the Route 60 corridor should be commercial and that it should be deeper and not strip zoning of 800 or 500 feet. She stated she would rather the Board lead in establishing what it wants rather than follow and she hoped the whole corridor would develop that way. She stated she understands staff's concern about the balance between residential and commercial as well as the topography, but she felt this could be addressed as it develops and she is in favor of the 1,000 feet. Mrs. Girene stated she felt Condition $7 would give Mr. Frame ample protection. Mr. Frame stated that Mr. Hubbard has been most cooperative but he is interested in protecting his property and if it makes more sense to go with thc 1,000 feet then he has no objection. Be stated this is the least objectionable use that could be approved, On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this r.quest subject to the following conditions: 1. The follow~ng conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J. K. ~immons and Associates, dated May 13, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. All driveways and parking areas in the M-1 tract shall be paved. All driveways and parking areas in the M-1 and O tracts shall be curbed and guttered. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. 3. The office/warehouses shall have an architectural Style and materials similar to the Southport Commerce Center, Phase II in Southport Industrial Park. In conjunction with schematic plan review, renderings or elevations and color samples shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The office/warehouses shall be designed so that the service areas are located ~n a courtyard and screened from view of adjacent properties to the east and west by the buildings. 4. Prior to release of any occupancy permits, additional pave- ment and curb and gutter shall be installed along Midlothian Turnpike. (T) 5. Access to Midlothian Turnpike shall be limited to a single entrance/exit, (T) 6. A fifty (50) foot bailer shall be maintained along the northern, eastern, and western boundaries where adjacent to Agricultural (A) zoning. These buffers shall be landscaped to minimize the view of this development from adjacent properties. There shall be no facilities located within these buffers. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Landscaping shall consist of existing vegetation supple- mented with additional v0getation, where necessary, adequately Screen the use. Prior to any clearing or grad- ing, the buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Depart- ment shall be contacted to inspect the buffers. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading, the Planning Department shall be contacted to again inspect the buffers. If additional vegetation is deemed necessary, a detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submit- ted to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of the inspection. 85-919 7. The proposed grocery store and bank shall have a colonial architectural style. In conjunction with ~chematic plan review, renderings or elevations and color samples ~hall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the impact this project will have on the ~ite and the surrounding The site plan shall be approved by the Environmental Bngi- neering Department and VDH&T and all necessary easements obtained prior to any vegetative disturbance. The approved plan may have to be implemented prior to clearing. (EE} 9. The area between Route 60 and the driveways and parking areas shall he landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review~ A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be sub- mitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunc- tion with site plan review. (P} 10. The existing private driveway culvert, located approximately 500 feet downstream, shall be analyzed and, if necessary, r0constructed such that the 100 year storm shall be no greater than six (6) inches above the lowest point Of the driveway, provided that the affected property owner grants permission for the improvements. (EE&CPC) (Note: If the culvert is required to be thirty (30) inches or larger in diameter, or if multiple culverts are required, head walls must be installed. The culvert must be installed prior to the issuance of any bnilding permits.) (Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, schematic plans must be approved by the Planning Commission and site plans must be approved by the Planning Department.) Vote: Unanimous 85S137 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, FRANK POTTS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25} on an 8.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 500 feet on the north line of North Waqstaff Circle, approximately 1,700 feet northeast of Adkins Road. Tax Map 38-4 (2) Wagetaff Circle, Lot 63 (Sheet 14). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approvall of the request. Mr. Frank Pott~ was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 85S141 In Matoaea Magisterial District, STRATEGIC IDENTITIES, INC. requested an amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S150) to increase the size of the menu board sign in a Convenience Business (B-l) District on a 1.39 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the south line of Iron Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 215 feet on the east line of Krause ROad, and located in the southeast quadrant o6 the inter- seotien of these roads. Tax Map 95-12 (1) Parcel 27 (Sheet 31). 85-920 Mr. Peele stated the Planning CommissiOn had recommended appxoval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Philip Martin was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dcdd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The ~ign shall he located as shown on the plan prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated June 25, 1984, submitted with the application dared August 30, 1985. (P) 2. Thc sign shall be designed as depicted in the elevation prepared by Strategic Identities, Inc., dated May 16, 1985. The aggregate area of the sign shall be limited to 28.5 square fe~t and the height shall be limited to 72% inches. Vote: Unanimous 85S144 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WILLIS H. THOMPSON requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use (office) and bulk (paving and number of parking spaces) exceptions in an Agricultural {A) District on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the east line of Courthouse Road, approximately 570 feet north of Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49~8 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 14). Mr. P0ole stated the Planning commission had recommended approval cf the request ~ubject to certain conditions. Mr. Thompson was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted tc and for Willis H. Thompson and ~hall not be transferable hex run with the land. (PI 2. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated 9/6/85, shall be considered the Master Plan. (PI 3. The proposed driveway and parking area shall be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of 921 or %21A stone, Or certification from a licensed engineer, shall be submitted verifying that the existing parking area is adequately constructed for the anticipated traffic volumes. In con- junction with the approval of this request, an exception to the required number of parking spaces shall be granted; specifically, a minimu~ of three (3} parking spaces shall bt provided on the site. (P&CPC) 4. Existing vegetation located to the rear of the structure shall be maintained so as to minimize the view of the drive way and parking area from adjacent property to the east. 5. Thi~ Conditional USe Planned Development shall be granted exclusively for the operation of an insurance office. There shali be no customers permitted on the site. The number of employees, including the applicant, shall not exceed four {4). (P} 6. A single free-standing sign, not to exceed ten (10} square feet in area and five (5) feet in height, shall be permitte~ identifying this use. The sign may be externally lighted, but may only be internally lighted if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. No other signs, with the exception of directional signs and on-site real estate 85-921 signs, as permitted for the Office Business (©) District, shall be permitted. (P) 7. A single access shall be permitted to Courthouse Road. This! access shall be located along the northern property line. (T) (Note: This access may be located along the existing gravel road to the north.) 8. Prior tO the release of any building and/or occupancy per- mit, sixty (60) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Courthouse Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) I 9. Other than normal maintenance, there shall be no additions I use.or alteratlonS{p) to the existing structure to accommodate this 10. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Plan~ nlng Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Manter Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S145 In Dale Magisterial District, PHYLLIS J. CLARK requested a Condl- tional use to permit a s~ock farm (one horse) in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.25 acre portion of a 0.40 acre parcel fronting approximately 55 feet on the mouth line of South Stevens Hollow Drive, approximately 50 feet west of Sexton Drive. Tax Map 40-11 (9) Stevens Hollow, Section l, Block D, Lot 9 (Sheet Mr. Peele stated the Planninq Commission had recommended denial of thin requent. There was no one present to discuss this matter. Mr. Daniel stated he understood other arrangements were made by Mr. O'Connor who offered grazing land for the horse. On motion of Mr. Daniel, neconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board denied this request. Vote: Unanimous 85S146 In Matoaca Magisterial District, S&B DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF VIR- GINIA, INC. requested an amendment to a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S190) to permit bulk (parking, fence height, and setbacks for one-story accessory buildings) exceptions in Residential Townhouse (R-TH) and Residential (R-9~ Districts on a 207 ac~e parcel lying approximately 200 ~eet off the south line of Hull Street Road, approximately 3,200 feet west of Winterpock Road. Tax Map 74 (1) Part of Parcels 26 and 103; Tax Map 74-12 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, $1ock 8, Lots 12-21; Tax Map 74-12 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, Block C, Lots 3-28, Parcels A and C-l; Tax Map 75-5 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, Block A, Lots 2-6 and D; Tax Map 75-9 (2) Ashbrook, Section 1, Block A, Lots 7-14; Block B, Lots 1-11 and B; Block E, Lots 1-11 and C-2; Block C, Lots 1, 2, C and D-2 (Sheets 19 and 20). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approvaii of Requent I subject to certain conditions and denial of Requests II and III. He stated subsequent to the Planning Co~issio~ meeting, discussions have been held between staff and the applicant relative to one of the conditions and the condition been amended per the addendum which he distributed. Mr. Pat Bowe, representing the applicant, stated that they have spent over $2,000,000 on the development, they want a ~irst class 85~922 development, they would like normal driveways to their houses, they would like to be permitted to use limited screening in 0rde~ to enhance parking and entrance ways and that they incorporated architecturally designed storage beildlngs in areas of the front yards. He stated he felt that the staff has misconstrued and misrepresented to the decision making bodies of the County their requests to include 6 ft. high continuous fencing on both sides of the road with garages at the right of way creating a tunnelin~ effect. He stated they were trying to deliver an aesthetically pleasing etreetscape designed by a professional architect. He stated since Requests II and III have been handled in such a manner they would withdraw both at this time. He stated they would like to be granted the right to put in normal driveways to their houses as every other house in the County. He distributed a copy of part of the Master Plan that was submitted with their application for zoning, aa stated when they ~oned the property staff suggested R-TH with large lots rather than R-9 with smalle~ lots which made sense superficially; however, the old and non-existent R-TH required that parking lots for attached units be at least fifteen feet behind the right of way. He stated the~ never intended to do attached units, they thought they would be allowed to put driveways in front of their homes and now find that they ar~ not allowed to do this. He stated staff has recommended that driveways be allowed but conditions indicate that they be paved which they do not feel reasonable. He statef they intend to do so but do not want it to be a condition of I zoning. He stated that the condition requiring them to raise theI level of their emergency spillway has nothing to do with the I request to locate parking spaces adjacent to road rights-of-way. I He stated that in order to be allowed to put in driveways they I must have special footing designs on every house in the development. He stated he did not feel it is necessary to raise the spillway as many of the lake front lots would be covered withl water during periods of excessive rain, the County would be I plagued with calls from those residents, if the spillway is not I raised tho flood plain of the lake would remain as it is today I and lots would not be covered with water. He distributed weatherl statistics involving heavy rainfall and its effect on the spillway which was not used during the recent heavy rains even though the County indicated it should have. He stated additional rainfall occurred on already saturated ground and the spillway still was not used. He stated reality and common sense must be used in this ease rather than theory. He requested that Condition ~4 be eliminated. He distributed information on soil conditions and stated that Condition ~5 has no effect on the driveways. He stated the only justification for this condition is that there had been some chimney and foundation problems with the same types of soils in other areas. ~e stated that this area has the same soil as Brandermill, Charte~ Colony, Deer Run, etc. and this condition was not uniformly imposed on all developments and it will ca,se costly footing designs. He stated they had this work done over a year ago withoua it being a condition of zoning and the information contained was utilized in the design of the development and the common and 9reen areas were designed to fall in these soil areas. He stated they feel they are being treated unfairly. He stated they would like Conditions %4 and #5 to be eliminated and to amend Condition #2 to include crushed brown stone and asphalt as well as other materials listed. Mr. Mayes inguired why Mr. Bowe had objections to having the soil tests made. Mr. Bowe stated if this were a standard condition for this type of soil, he would not have any problem. ~r. Mayes inquired if this were a condition of all zoning. Mr. McElfish stated that staff field checks every building permit that comes to the County on a lot by lot basis. He stated th~s information is then passed on to the ~uilding Inspection Department and has been a normal process for the lest 3-4 years. Mr. Micas stated that if the Board feels it is important to impose conditions relative to the footings and the spillway, staff should readvertise that portion and take the request back to the Planning Commission. 85-923 Mr. Bob R0op stated that there was a lot of testing done for subgrades of the roads in this area and the lab testing indicted that these materials do not appear to be ~ubject to the shrink/swell problems that are associated with the Piedmont Alluvim. ~e stated that does not mean that pocket~ of this soil do not e×iat. He ~tated that they feel that the soil borings in Sections 1 and 2 indicate that there should not be any shrink/swell problems at this point. Mr. Peele explained the request by the applicant as well aa what the Planning Co~kmiseion recommended in detail regarding Condition #2. Mr. Bowe stated he felt Condition #2 was unreasonable as no other developer has had this type of restriction placed on them ior driveways and that it would place an undue burde~ on thee. There was no Opposition present. After furthe~ discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board approve Request I subject to the following conditions and further they remanded Requests II and III plus modifications to the existing ~oning relative to ~ooting and spillway design to the Planning Cc~miaaion for reconsideration: Each lot shall provide two (2) 10'x20' on-site parking spaces. These areas must be located completely off the public road rights of way. (P) 2. Ail parking areas shall be constructed of concrete exposed aggregate, or paving brick, except on lots having a width greater than seventy-five (75) feet at the building line. (P&CPC) 3. Parking areas on adjacent lots shall be separated by land- scaped areas, having a minimum width of five (5) feet, and shall include a combination of grass or mulch and shrubbery. (P&CPC) 4. The exception being requested to Sections 21-113 (m) of the Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to lots fronting A~hlake Parkway and Ashbrook Parkway. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S148 In Midlothian Magisteria% District, JO~N ~AT~S requested an amendment to a Conditional Use (case 79S171) to permit expansion of recreational facilities plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (number of parking spaces) in a Residential (R-40) District on a 1.05 acre portion of a 15.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the south line of Robiou$ Road, approximately 160 feet east of Wiesinger Lane. Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hal Hayes was present representing the applicant and stated the access situation has been resolved verbally but the conditions as ~ecommanded by the Planning Commission should be approved ~inee the agreement has not been executed. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The conditions stated herein notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Worley Associates, dated September 10, 1985, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 85-924 ~o clearing, other than that necessary to construct the new facilities, shall be permitted. (P) The existing parking area shall be resurfaced where neces- sary to cover all exposed subsurface material by May l~ 1986. The parking area shall be properly maintained to insure ease of ingress and egress. (P&CPC) Shared access shall be provided to Roblous Road for property (properties) to the east, as deemed necessary by the Trans- portation Department and VDH&T, subject to a mutually ac- ceptable agreement to both parties. (CPC) Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, forty~five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerli~e of Robious Road shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) 85S151 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOUTHWEST PROPERTIES, LTD., A VA PARTNeRShIP requested rezoning from Office Business (0) to Communify Business (B-2) of 1.60 acres with a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk (setbacks for parking) exceptions on this tract plus a 2.92 acre Community Business (B-2} tract fronting approximately 375 feet on the northeast line of Midlothian TurnpiRe, approximately 2,050 feet northwest of Pinetta Drive. Tax Map 18-13 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hill Hayliss was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved thi~ request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Philip A. Shaw and Associates, P.C. and the Textual Statement submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact this project will have on the site and the surrounding area. The developer shall submit a construction plan to Environ- mental Engineering and VDH&T providing for on- and off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved by the Environmental Engineering Department and V~H&T, and all necessary easements shall be obtained, prior to any land disturbance. The approved off-site drainage plan may have to be implemented prior to clearing. (EE) 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveway~ and parking area~. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (EH) 4. The architectural style and quality of buildings shall be as e×emplified in the Textual Statement and as exhibited in the renderings submitted at the Planning Commission's November 26, 1985, meeting. There shall be no mechanical equipment mounted on the roof~ of buildings, and the architectural treatment of roof facades shall scree~ the view of roof decking from adjacent properties unless approved by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. Renderings depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P&CpC) 85-925 5, A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property line. Twenty (20) foot buffers shall be maintained along the eastern and western property lines. The buffer along the eastern property line may be modified by the Planning Coramission at the time of schematic plan review if adequate screening can be provided in a lesser width. In conjunction with seheraatic plan submission, a conceptual landscaping plan shall he submitted to the Plan- ning Commission for approval. Prior to any clearing or grading, these buffers shall be flagged and the Planning Department shall be contacted to inspect th~ buffers. Within ninety (90) days of rough clearing and grading, the Planning Department shall he contacted to inspect the buf- fers. If existing vegetation and/or topographical features are not sufficient to screen the use, additional screening, to include landscaping and/or solid board fencing or masonry walls, shall be required and detailed plans shall be submit- ted to the Planning Department for approval. (P&CPC) 6. Parking areas shall have at lea~t ten {10) square feet of interior landscaping per parking space. ~ach required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet and shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. At least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet, shall be provided for each 200 square feet of required interior landscaped area. Th~ 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. A conceptual land- scaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted te the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depict- ing this regulrement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of rough clearing or grading. (P&CPC) 7. Ail exterior lighting shall be similar to that depicted on the Master Plan and exemplified in the Textual Statement. Lighting shall not exceed a height of fifteen (15) feet, and shall be positioned so as not to illuminate adjacent prop- eftles. Only lighting required for security purposes shall be allowed after business hours. In conjunction with site plan review, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval. (P) Sidewalks shall be provided and constructed of a eo~ination of brick, cobblestone and/or exposed aggregate concrete unless modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. A ~idewalk plan shall be submitted to the Planning Staff for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P&CPC) 9. With the exception of temporary construction, real estate, and directional signs which shall be governed by the re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance, a single free-standing sign shall be permitted identifying this development. This sign shall conform to the standards set forth in the appli- cant's Textual Statement and Master Plan, relative to size and materials, unless modified by the Planning Co~%mlsslon at terna y ig te , but may only be internally lighted if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters. Lighting shall be such that it does not project into adjacent prop- erties or vehicles on Route 60. Ail other signs shall conform to Soning Ordinance requirement~ for shopping cen- ters in a B-2 District. (P&CPC) 10. Th~s development shall be limited to the one (1) access to Route 60 depicted on the Master Plan. The access shall be designed such that tu~nin~ movements onto internal driveway~ do not occur within 100 feet of Route 60. All internal 85-926 driveways shall be designed to accommodate two-way traffic flow. (P) (Note: At the time of schematic plan review, Staff may recommend that the parallel parking spaces, shown on the Master ~lan, be rearranged to be perpendicular to travel lanes.) 11. In conjunction with the granting of this request, a twenty- five (25) ~oot exception to the fifty (50) foot perking setback requirement along Route 60, shall be approved. Within this twenty-five (25) foot setback, landscaping shalL be accomplished to minimize the visibility of vehicle park- ing areas. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P) 12. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along Route 60, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Trans- portation Department. (T) 13. The loading aree for the building in the southeast corner of the site shall be designed so that it is not visible to traffic on Route 60. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S152 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, J. MARE SOWERS requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) On a 17.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 460 feet on the east line of Courthouse Road, approximately 650 feet north of Kewbridge Court. Tax Map 27-10 (1) Parcels 14, 15, and 16 (Sheet 8). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Co~ission had recommended approval o~ the request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition. Mr. Mark Sowers was present. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to acceptance of the following proffered condition: The average lot size of the lots bordering Section 1 of ~eatheridge shall be no less than 16,810 square feet. The average lot size of the lots bordering Section 2 of ~eatheridge shall be no less than 13,257 square feet. The average lot size of the lots bordering Section 2 of Briar- cliff shall be no less than 10,730 square feet. Vote: Unanimous 85S153 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, IRVING. MORNER requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use exceptions on an 88.6 acre parcel lying approximately 230 feet off the west line of Warbro Road, measured from a point approximately 3,500 feet south of Genito Road. Tax Map 48-14 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheets 13 and 20). Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval[ of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jim Hayes was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 85-927 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J. ~. Tigons and Associates, titled, "Mason Tract" and the textual statement submitted with the application, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Prior to submission of any eohematic plan for any use requiring public utilities, a detailed hydraulic analysis toI' determine the available capacity within Nuttree Creek trunk : sewer llne shall be prepared and submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. (U&CPC) 3. The developer shall be responsible for, and bear the cost of, extending public sewer lines and obtaining any necessary! easements. (U) I 4. Driveways and parking area~ shall be paved, curbed and i guttered. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere, with pedestrian traffic. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement for outside storage and service ar~as in conjunction with schematic plan approval. 5. The east/west loop road shall have a minimum right of way of seventy (70) feet. This road shall be constructed to State Standards and taken into the State system. This road shall b~ constructed with a minimum typical section of fQur lanes with curb and gutter. However, if a traffic analysis is submitted to, and approved by, the ~ransportation Department verifying that traffic can be acc0~0dated in a lesser section, a reduction in this typical section may be granted by the Transporbation Department. (T) The proposed cul-de-sac read shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet. This road ehall have a minimum typical section of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. This road shall be constructed to State Standards and taken into the State system. (T) 7. Outdoor storage shall be permitted, provided that all such areas shall be screened from all public roads, including Route 288, and adjacent property. For the purpose of this condition, outdoor storage shall include the parking of all company owned and operated motor vehicles, with the excep- tion of passenger vehicles. In conjunction with schematic plan submission for any use with outside storage, a concep- tual screening plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Detailed plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) 8. Loading and service, areas shall be located so they are not visible from public streets, including Route 288, and adja- cent property. 9. A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property boundary adjacent to proposed Route 288. Except for selective clearing of underbrush, this buffer shall remain in its natural state. One sign, identifying this development and visible from Route 288, may be permitted within this buffer. The width of this buffer may be reduce~ By the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review if documentation is ~ubmitted verifying that either the use will not be visible £rem Route 288 0~ that the buildings visually exposed to Route 1-288 employ decorative masonry, glass and/or other ornamental architecture treat- mont. (P) 10. All building exposures visible from public streets (in- cluding Route 2S8 if the 100 foot buffer described in CondiJ tion 10 is reduced and that the structures are visible to Route 2881 shall employ decorative masonry, glass and/or other ornamental architectural treatment. In conjunction ~5-928 11. 12. 13. Vote: with schematic plan review, architectural renderings On , elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for! approval. (P) No M-2 and M-3 uses shall he permitted on sites adjacent to Route 288. The Planning Commission may modify this condi- tion through schematic plan approval if the developer pro- vides documentation that adequate screening and other fea- tures such as architectural style insure an aesthetically pleasing view from Route 289. (P) A unified system of signage and graphics shall be designed for the industrial park. Prior to the erection of any signs, with the exception of temporary construction signs, a comprehensive sign package, to include typical colors, styles, lighting, etc. shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs shall comply with require- men~s of the Light Industrial (M-l) District and the Plan- ning Commission may reduce the requirements at the time of schematic plan review. Signs shall be located such that proliferation does not occur along public roads and Route 288. (CPC) The developer shall provide an accurate account of the drainage situation, showing e~isting drainage and the impact this project will have on the site and the surrounding area. The developer shall submit a construction plan to Environ- mental Engineering and VDM&T providing for on- and off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be approved by the ~nvironmental Engineering Department and VDH&T, and all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any vegeta- tive disturbance. The approved off-site plan may have to be implemented prior to clearing. (P) Unanimous 85S156 In Dale Magisterial District, C&P TELEPHONE COMRAN¥ OF VIRGINIA requested an amendment tea previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 04S059) to permit a utility building within a required buffer along Cogbill Road in a Residential (R-9) District on a 0.037 acre parcel f~onting approximately 40 feet on the north line of Cogbill Road, approximately 50 feet east of Old Zion Hill Road. Tax Map 52-9 (1) Part of Parcel 8 (Sheet 15). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Hatcher Johnson was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no apposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Only clearing necessary for the placement of the structure, minimal parking area and an access drive shall be permitted within this buffer area. (P) 2. Upon completion of construction, the Planning Department shall be contacted to inspect the site. If the remaining vegetation is not sufficient to screen the structure and parking area from Cogbill Road and adjacent properties to the north, east, and west, additional landscaping shall be required. If additional landscaping is reqnired, land- scaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department within thirty (30) days of site inspection. Required land- scaping shall be installed during the first planting ~eason after approval of the landscaping plan. (P) 85-929 3. The previous conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be the Master Plan. (2) 4. In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Plan- ning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. Unanimous 05S159 Tn Bermuda Magisterial District, JOHN R. IVEY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a wholesale fish business and an exception to the paving requirement for parking areas ~n an Agricultural (A) District on a 2.7 acre parcel lying approximately 230 feet off the north line o£ Old Bermuda Hundred Road, measured from a point approximately 280 feet wost of Golf Course Road. Tax Map 117-15 (1) Parcel 9B (Sheet 33). Mr, Pools stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Hardaway Marks stated the applicant has obtained an easement 600 ft. in length fronting 60 ft. on Old Bermuda ~undred Road and there should be no oppositlen from anyone in the area. He requested that the applicant hays until May 1st to have the easement operational. Mr. Dodd inguired if the road to the west would be closed. Mr. Marks stated they hoped to be able to do that but there is another parcel of land that the 50 ft. easement on the wast side of this proper~y accesses. He stated .this proposed easement will take all the applicant's traffic from Mr. Rutman'a and Mr. Ivey's property to Old Bermuda Hundred Road. He stated they do accept all the conditions as recommended. Mr. Dodd inquired if the road could be operational before May 1. Mr. Marks stated they would try but winter weather is approaching. Mr. Pools stated the easement to the ~ast would address the concerns made at the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. David Sauers was present repre$enting the Enon Civic Association and ~tated that everyone seems agreeable to this as long as the culvert flows, there is a fence installed and that the road iL completed by May 1. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted to and for John R. Ivey, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) 2. This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be limited to the operation of a wholesale fisL business, exclusively. A maximum of five (5) employees, exclusive of the applicant, shall be engaged in this Operation. (P) 3. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Sunday operation shall be restricted to between 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m. ~or Mr. Ivey and one (1) employee only. (P) 4. with the exception of emergency situations such as severe weather conditions, traffic related delays or other similar events beyond the applicant's control, no deliveries shall be permitted before 9:00 a.m. and after 6:00 p.m. (P} 5. A minimum of six (6) parking spaces shall be provided. Within ninety (90) days of the approval of this request, alll driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with six (6) inches of either ~21 or #2lA stone. (P) 6. No additions or alterations related to thi~ operation shall be permitted. The facilities permitted shall be rsstricted to those shown on the Master Plan. (P} 7. There shall be no retail sale of goods on the premises. (P) 8. All work and operations associated with this business shall be in the area of the existing storags tankc and cinder block building, shown on the Master Plan, (P) 9. The proposed use shall be screened from view of the adjacent property to the south, east, and west. The existing eight (8) foot high solid board fence, west of the existing parking area, shall be retained and extended eastward, parallel to the southern property line of Parcel 9B, to the edge of the new driveway along the eastern property line. Evergreen plantings placed twenty (20) feet apart shall be in,tailed along the south side of the fence. The existing trees located on the eastern side of the property shall be retained except fn the area of the new driveway. These improvements shall be installed within ninety (90) days of the approval of thi~ request. (BS) 10. There shall be no signs permitted. (P) 11. In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) 12. By May 1, 1986, the applicant shall remove his existing access from his western property line and relocate it to an alignment generally along his eastern property line. (BS) Notes: (a) VDH&T may require installation of a standard commercial entrance. Minimum standard~ would require that the entrance be 30 feet wide at the right of way of Old Bermuda Hundred Road. Installation of a turn lane along 01d Bermuda Hundred Road may also be necessary. (b) Prior to commencing the improvements specified herein, plans depicting the improvements must be submitted to . the ~lanning Department for approval. Vote: Unanimous 85S160 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION requested reconsideration of a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 76S130) in a Residential (R-151 District on a 55.38 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the west line of Libro Loop, also fronting approximately 700 feet on %he west line of Lockhart Road, and generally located in the western quadrant of tke inter- section of thece roads. Tax Map 39-11 (1) Parcel 82 and Part of Parcel 5; 39-11 (7) Bexley Cosmopolitan Phase V, Block B, Lots 25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; 39-15 (8) Bexley Cosmo- politan Phase V, Block B, Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32; and common open space owned by Virginia First Savings and Loan Asso- ciation (sheet 14). Mr. Pecle stated the Planning Commission had recommended approvall of this request subject to certain conditions. Be added that ~. Dicks, representing one of the affected property owners, had requested a deferral of the matter. Mr. Micas stated Mr. Dicks has indicated to some of the people that he would request a deferral of thi~ matter and that there is no legal requirement that the Board grant the deferral. He stated Mr. Dicks is in court and staff has been unable to notify him or another attorney. Mr. Applegate stated he would be happy to grant the , deferral if there was e commitment that the developer would agree not to seek any additional building permits until the matter is heard by the Board. He stated he would not leave the meeting 85~931 today without resolving this matter as 1300 sq. ft. is not compatible to the area. He stated he would agree to a deferral should the developer agree that he would not seek additional building permits during that time. After further discussion it was agreed that this matter be de~erred until later in the day when the attorneys are present or have been contacted. It was generally agreed that the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: Mr. Applegate requested that all private cameras be removed from the room prior to the meeting commencing which i~ consistent with previous practice and policy established by the Board. 85S135 In Midlothian Magisterial District, B~LK CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) of 57.7 acres and to Convenience Business (S-l) of 110.4 acres with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exception plus amendment to a previously granted zoning request (Case 85S025) on an additional 12.1 acre parcel fronting approxi- mately 1,800 feet on the north line of Jahnke Road, approximately 200 feet east of Shadycrest Lane, and also fronting 1,050 feet on the south line of Jahnke Road approximately 700 feet cast of Shadycrest Lane. Tax Map 11-5 (1) Parcel 10; 11-9 (1) Parcel 2; 11-13 (1) Parcels 15 and 16; 19-1 (1) Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15; 19-1 (4) Glen Echo Place, Hlock B, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 8A (Sheets 1, 4, and 9). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission held thrc~ public hearings and two work sessions on this application; the Planning Commission spent approximately 12-15 hours reviewing the location of the proposed project, the project size, the specific restrictions in the Textual Statement relative to staff/communltyI concerns, etc. He explained the addendum relative to density and noted the wording did not comm]it the Board to future actions. He explained the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding reduced density, prohibition against access to the north, limitation of retail use south of Jahnke Road and changes in Condition 12A, deletion of Condition 28 and changes in Condition 29. He stated a concern had been expressed that approval of this[ r~quest might set a precedent for future commercialization to the! west along Jahnke Road. He Stated staff had prepared a paper regarding land use policy along Jahnke Road and suggested that it be included in the Northern Area Plan. ~e noted the policy cannot be adopted at this time since it wa~ not advertised..for a public hearing. He stated if the Board desired, staff could be directed to incorporate the paper into the ~orthsrn Area Plan for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consideration. Mr. Dodd inquired if the right of way for Powhite Parkway had been subtracted from the total acreage prior to computing the recommended densities. Mr. Peele stated 25 acres, the approximate amount of acreage to be taken for construction of Powhite Parkway, had been subtracted. Mrs. Girone inquired i~ the residential and the hotel acreage was also subtracted prior to calculating fha recommended office/retail square footages. Mr. Peele stated it was; specifically 30 acres for the 300 residential units in the transition zone and approximately 18 acres for the 900 hotel rooms. Mr. Zook stated that the acreage for the 150 residential units in tho mixed use zone was not deducted. Mr. Peele indicated the sub-areas which would be the addressed and referred to during the discussions. Mr. Clarke Plaxco was present representing the applicant. Be expressed appreciation to the Planning Commission, the Board, staff and residents of Crestwood Farms for their time and effort. He stated that the letter sent to the ~oard earlier contained an error in the square footage of office/retail space. He explained approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of retail south of Jahnk~ Road had 85-932 been inadvertently omitted bring the total to 2.39 million squar~ feet as opposed to 2.37 million square feet noted in his letter. He stated HMK totally endorses staff's suggested land use policy regarding commercial development west of Powhite Parkway along Jahnke Road. He stated this site is a premier location in the metropolitan area--the gateway to Chesterfield County; it has the potential for unexcelled access because of its location with respect to Chippenham and Powhite Parkways; the development will expand the County's tax base; and is located in close proximity to single family neighborhoods. He stated the goals and objectives of developing the Master Plan were to maximize the density so as to produce a sufficient return to support construction of the road access system but at the same time insure land use compatibility with surrounding residential uses and it is a plan which minimized adverse impacts on the neighborhood, insured its integrity and maintained property values in the area. Mr. Plaxco stated with only a ~ew exceptions, the applicant concurs with staff's recommendations, specifically Alternative I, in the "Request Analysis". He reviewed the proposed access system; the existing zoning in the area for ¢ommereial/offiee/retail; how the proposed density was determined, the marketing studies which determined the uses and amount feasible for construction. He stated the development's traffic will not exceed the capacity of the proposed road system; rather the collector/distributor system will actually support greater density than requested. He noted the development is realistic in the market place, and the plan insures land use compatibility. He stated in excess of 80 conditions wilt control and govern the development guaranteeing land use compatibility. He referred to buffers, fencing, and the arrangement of land uses which will decrease existing noise levels in Crestwood Farms Subdivision. He reviewed the Master Plan and the specific items incorporated at the request of the residents of Crestwood Farms. He explained that 30% of S~b-Area I will be in open space with 40% of the overall project maintained as open space; the maximum height of buildings; that the current proposal represents a 15% reduction in retail, 5% in office and 12% in hotel uses and square footages in Sub-Area I, when compared to the proposal two years ago; security; lighting; signage; parking; landscaping; architecture and quality of shops; notification oi Crestwood Farms of schematic plan review as well as many other conditions. He noted that the conditions were negotiated with Crestwood Farms based on 2.4 million square feet of development. He distributed a letter from Mr. James Wood of Crestwood Farms stating the proposed buffer adjacent to Crestwood Farms Elementary School was acceptable. He stated the developer feels the conditions adequately addressed traffic concerns outlined in said letter. He noted that Condition %13 requires s~bmission of a traffic analysis documenting that a level of service "D" can be maintained; if that level cannot be maintained then the density of the project must be reduced. Se further noted that such documentation is required for each phase of the project. He stated they have tailored the uses to fit the site in terms of traffic and the retail components will assist in capturing much of the traffic which might otherwise leave the site to seek those services elsewhere. He stated that Mrs. Girone indicated there were some discrepancies in the trat~ic study submitted with the application when comparisons of square footages are made. He noted the traffic study analyzes square footages in excess of those requested and therefore, the study represents a worse ease scenario. Mr. Plaxco stated that Alternative I as recommended by the staff,! with the recommended conditions assures that acceptable traffic i levels can be maintained upon completion of the proposed road network. He stated Crestwood Farms' concerns have been met and therefore there is no need to reduce density since the densities can be reduced if a level of service "D" cannot be achieved. He stated the opposition has not outlined any specifics relative to how this development would adversely impact their neighborhood. 85-933 I He stated the applicant has demonstrated that the buildings will not be visible and the noise levels will be reduced. He further stated that the opposition has offered no alternatives to the traffic situation. He stated they have compromised with Crestwood Farms and have met their demands. He presented a flyer from Crestw0od Farms indicating some concerns; but noted additional condition~ were added to address the concerns. He stated the developer has agreed to build a $10-15,080,000 road network and to numerous conditions which regulate the development; therefore, a reduction in density would not be appropriate. Me stated it would be inappropriate to compare the density of this project to any Others because they had not been required to prevldc such an extensive road network. He stated they feel the plan adequately addresses all tests necessary to achieve the density requested. ~e requested that the Board approve the densities as recommended by the staff in Alternative I with the following exceptions: with respect to Condition 914 which prohibits extension of the north/south collector across the railroad tracks to the north, they are not opposed; however, VDH&T has indicated the road must be designed to accommodat~ the extension; with respect to Condition 815 requiring dedication cf a right of way to the Thacker property, they would agree to reserve the right of way; and with respect to Condition requiring dedication of a site for a water tank, they would request it be eliminated and they would agree to work with the Utilities Department to find an appropriate site. Mrs. ~irone inquired about permitted intruaions into the buffers. Mr. Plax¢o stated that other than an entrance ramp onto the west bound Powhlte ~arkway, collector/distribution system there are no intrusions permitted. Mrs. Girone inquired about adjacent to the ~chool. ~r. Plaxco indicated no intrusion would be permitted in this area. Mrs. Girone inquired about jogging trails. Mr. Plaxco stated that jogging trails could intrude into any of the buffers. Mrs. Girone inquired about the noise studies and if they could serve as the basis for future evaluations of noise levels. Mr. Plaxco stated the studies had been completed and evaluated the noise levels caused by Chippenham Parkway in Crestwood Fa~m~. Mrs. ~irone inquired about signage. Mr. Plaxco stated there would be four identification signs and noted a complete sign package must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to erection of any ~igns. Mrs. Girone inquired about the letter f=em VDH&T requiring that the north/south road be extended north into the City. Mr. Plaxco stated that VDH&T required that the road be extended. Mrs. Girone inquired if th~ traffic analysis evaluated traffic based on extension of thc ~ead into the City. Mr. Plaxco stated that if the road is extende~, a level of service "D" must still be maintained. He stated they do not de,ire to extend the road and the plans indicate it will be stubbed at the northern property line. Mr. Plaxco stated the extension of the road may involve obtaining the property to the north and he is not certain who owns that land. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. ~laxco was familiar with the RRPDC traffic study of the Parham Road/Chippenham Parkway Connector. Mr. Plaxco stated he had seen references to the report but had not seen the actual document. Mrs. Girone stated that the report indicates that traffic will be at the "E" and "F" levels of service and the bridge will have to be widened to six lanes to accommodate the traffic. She stated future developments may have more impact than anticipated for the year 2005. Mr. Plaxco stated their projections include estimates of local traffic based on anticipated future growth rates. Mr, Dodd inquired if the square fo0tages were reduced could the developer afford to build the access system and if not, could the property be developed for residential use without the extensive road improvements and what would the levels of service be at Jahnke Road if that were accomplished. Mr. Pla×co explained the collector/distributor system and indicated that the area south of Powhite Parkway could be developed with access to Jahnke Road, but the property north of Powhite Parkway would access through Crestwood Farms. Mrs. Girone noted that the original Jahnke Road/Chippenham Development[ Area Plan indicated that the property south of Powhite Parkway 85-934 could be developed at the same density as the Boulders and acceptable traffic levels could be obtained. Mr. Dodd inquired about level of service "D" and what it entailed. Mr. Plaxco stated that level of service "D" must be mai. stained on all internal roads and all intersections of the collector/distributor system. Mr. Dodd inquired about the intersection of Chinaberry Boulevard and Jahnke Road. Mr. Plaxeo stated that level of servie= "D" must al~o be maintained at that intersection. Mr. Applegate inquired about the intent of amending the condition to require reservation of right of way to the Thack~r Tract rather than dedication of right of way. Mr. Plaxoo stated the Thaeker tract has existing access to Jahnke Road and this developer should not be required to provide access to another developer. He stated they would agree to reserve the right of way to allow the OWner to purchase it at a later date. Mr. Applegate inquired about access north across the railroad. Mr. Zook stated he was not certain who owned tbs property to the north but the Planning Commission recommendation, relative to extension of the road, is not inconsistent with what is shown on the Master Plan. He stated the developer always has the option of requesting permission to extend the road when more is known as to the tyDe of development which is to occur to the north and its impact on the area. Mr. McCracken stated he had not seen the letter from VD~&T to which Mr. P!axco referred, ~at in his discussion with VDH&T, VDH&T has indicated that the extension of the road was a recommendation, not a requirement. Mr. Plaxco stated that the letter was two years old, but VDH&T had indicated the road must be designed to accommodate extension at a later date. Mr. Zook stated the concern is that it is not known how the property to the north in the Citp might develop and the impact it might have on the area. Mrs. Girone stated ~he agreed and stated if the road is stubbed initially, future extension can be accommodated. Mr. Zook explained that the Planning Commission has recommended that the road not be extended. Mrs. Girone noted that even if the Board recommends the extension, the City could deny the connection or vice versa. Mr. Plaxco stated regardless of whether the road is extended, a level of service "D" must be maintained. Mr. Applegate inquired how the traffic estimates w~ll be determined. Mr. McCracken stated that local traffic growth would be projected using routine procedures. He further stated that site generated traffic would be projected using standard trip rates and would be monitored to see that projected rates are refleotlve of the development. He noted the applicant's existing traffic analysis does not'consider extension of the road to the north. Mr. Applegate asked for further clarification. Mr. Plaxco stated the final traffic analysis will consider local traffic as well as traffic generated by future development of the BMK p~operty and all other property in the Jahnke/Chippenham Development area. Mr. Jack N~ll, an area realtor, stated hz has sold many homes in Crestwood Farms. He stated people are cites concerned about projects such as that proposed, but after completed, citizens are generally pleased. He stated the subject developer maintains and builds quality developments. He stated the proposed development will be a great asset to the metropolitan area. Mr. Jerry Jewett stated that while approximately 100 people are present in opposition, approximately 140,000 people whose economic future depends on the approval and construction of the development are not present. He stated the development will generate approximately $3,500,000 in annual tax~s to this County. He stated many homes would have to be built to generate that a~ou~ of tax dollars, He noted homes generate children which require additional schools. He stated the County is becoming a bedroom community and efforts must be made to ~mprove the industrial base. ~e stated the business and commercial base is necessary for real estate tax rates to remain reasonable. He stated this will generate revenue for the County. HO stated man, persons felt the property could not be developed because i~ was constrained by Powhite Parkway, Chippenham Parkway, a swamp and railroad. He stated the developer is a local person who saw the 85-935 opportunity to develop the site. He stated the applicant will develop a quality project which will insure that business will stay in the County as will the developer. Ho stated he felt the County is fortunate to have a developer of this caliber. stated he could not address the impact on Crestwood Far~s but did feel the first responsibility of a developer is to satisfy adjacent property owners. He stated development options are limited because of the site's constraints. He stated the property is unique and Crestwood Farms would be impacted by Powhite Parkway Extension. He stated that while this development will also have an impact, the P~rkway extension will have more of an impact. He recommended that the Board approve the development as he did not feel it would be an inferior product, but one that all could be proud of, Mr. Phil Hugg, President of Central Region of Central Fidelity Bank {CFB), stated CFB had loaned the developer money for numerous projects and that he has an outstanding reputation in the local development community as well as the financial community. He stated the developer is a quality builder and noted his reputation for honesty and integrity are above reproach. He stated he was not present to speak to the density of the project and was not aware of all the issues, rather he was present to give a lender's prospective. He noted the project will be financed based on the density approved by the Board, not on Some future unknown density which the Board might approve. He stated he, aa a resident of Chesterfield County, feels it is important that the County continue to grow and have quality developers like HMK. Mr. Applegate noted that the recommended ~onditions would require that the densities be decreased if a level of service "D" cannot be achieved. Ne inquired if Mr. Hugg would lend money based on such a condition. Mr. Hugg stated that h~ must evaluate the project based on the conditions imposed and consider risk factors either way. F~r. Nugg stated the lender will finance based on the approval granted, not some future unknown action by the Board. ~rs. Girone stated if 2.5 million square feet is granted, the project will be financed based on that square footage because that is what is approved. Mr. ~ugg stated the project will be financed only if it is feasible. In response to a question by Mrs. Girone, Mr. Micas stated the Board is charged with considering reasonable land uses and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens, not whether the project is economically feasible. Mrs. Girone asked for an example of developments which the applicant has constructed. Mr. Hugg stated the applicant has developed and built several shopping centers and apartments ia North Carolina and Richmond. He noted Cloverleaf Lake Apartments as an example. Mr. Daniel inquired about the fi~ed cos{s the developer would bear with respect to construction of the road network. He inquired if 2.4 million square feet is necessary to support construction of the network. Mr. Plaxco ~tated it was. Mr. Daniel inquired if the same road network would be necessary for 1.6 million square feet. Mr. Plaxco stated it would. Mr. Danieli stated the same road network would be necessary regardless of whether 1.6 or 2.4 million square feet were developed. ~r. Joe Marquette, associated with Since Properties~ an office building syndicator in Richmond, stated he was in favor cf this request. He stated the HMK site presents an Opportunity for the County to recruit new industry and corporate headquarters. He stated this site offers good road accessibility and has public utilities. He stated one of the major advantages is its good access to e limited access road system. He stated he appreciated the importance of development requirements. He stated he supported buffering, density limitations and provision of an adequate road system so as to maintain the quality of life; however, requirements and conditions should not prevent the 85~936 development. He stated the County should realize that there are a lot of benefits to be derived from this project. Mr. Robert Miller, a resident of the County, stated he had been a real estate consultant and appraiser for 30 years. He stated he has been impressed by this project; the premier location is man-made by the intersection of Chippenham and Powhite Parkways; the location is a natural for a mixed use complex; the project equals other mixed use projects in the metropolitan area; the project will help to retain some of the dollars that have been going to other area localities; etc. He stated the project is ideal for the County and its residents. He stated the ~oard should be sensitive to individuals and neighborhoods, but also to the County's economy. He stated the Board must look at the financial benefits which insure that the County continues to be strong, have good growth and a good financial base. When asked, he indicated he had worked for the developer in the past. Mr. George Woodall stated he is a resident of the County and since 1965 has been involved in economic development in the State of Virginia. ~e stated he is presently serving on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Economic Developers Association and is Chairman of the Virginia State Chamber of Cormmerce Industrial Development Committee. He stated both o~ these organizations are strong proponents of sustained quality economic development. He stated he is present as a citizen of the County and is proud that the County has a strong, healthy, vibrant economic base. stated the taxes have allowed the industries to expand and the County is noted as an excellent location because of the 1-95 corridor. He stated the County has several industrial parks which attract light industry. He stated the County continues to experience residential growth, but a balance must be maintained between residential and co~ercial/industrial development. He stated the population growth will not abate unless mandated by design. He stated people continue to come to the County because of the outstanding facilities but these facilities cost money which must be paid for by businesses and industries. He stated the project is a quality development which has the potential of accruing in excess Of $3,000,000 in tax revenues. He stated other localities have been successful in attracting this type of development and recommended approval of this request. He stated the County is beginning to attract developments such as the Boulders, the Koger Center, Trammel/Crow, etc. and stated the request project would be very similar. He noted the project would be located at the gateway to the County, a premier location in the metro area and Central Virginia. He stated the project would be a tremendous asset to the area. Mrs. Girone inquired if Mr. Woodall were speaking on behalf of Harrison and Bates. Mr. Woodall stated he was speaking as a citizen of the County. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: The Board agreed to consider Zoning Case 85S160 at this time as all concerned parties were now present. 85S160 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE CHESTEI{FIELD COUNTY PLD/~NING CO~IISSION requested reconsideration of a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 76S130) in a Residential (R-15) District on a 55.38 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the west line of Libro Loop, also fronting approximately 700 feet on the west line of Lockhart Road, and generally located in the western quadrant of the inter- section of these road~. Tax Map 39-11 (1) Parcel 82 and Part of Parcel 5; 39-11 (7) Bexley Cosmopolitan Phase V, Block B, Lots 25, 26,.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39; 39-15 (8) Bexley Cosmo- politan Phase V, Block B, Lots 27, 28, 29, 38, 31, and 32; and com~on open space owned by Virginia First Savings and Loan Asso- ciation (Sheet 14). 85-937 Mr. Applegate stated that he has talked with the attorneys representing both sides. Be requested that those present interested in this cass stand. There were approximately 9 people present. Mr. Appleqate indicated Mr. Dicks, attorney for the developer, was present and had requested a 30 day deferral. He stated he had discussed the deferral with Mr. Dicks and indicated he would support the request only if the developer/owner would agree not to apply for building permits unless they were consistent with the original covenants. Re stated the developer had agreed. Mr. Micas stated he had talked with the developer who repressnted to him that they would not apply for building permits unless they conformed to the original restrictive covenants agreed to. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred consideration of this case until January 22, 1986 with the understanding that the owner/developer will not apply £or any building permits that ~o not comply with the original restrictive covenants during this time period. Vote: Unanimous It is noted M~. Disks was present. 85S135 (Continued) There were approximately 50 people present in regard to this Mr. Urchie Ellis, representing the southampton Citizens Association, stated they were opposed to the HMK development because of traffic which the project would generate. He stated that the area will be heavily impacted by not only H~, but the Stoney Point development as well. He noted the two projects are only about two miles apart. Be stated each project proposes in excess of 1,000,000 square feet Of office/retail space and numerous hofel rooms. He stated the traffic impact will be tremendous on Chippenham Parkway. He stated the cost of the infrastructure necessary to support the developments will be borne by the general public. He stated there has been ne joint analysis or study between Richmond and Chesterfield regarding the projects. He stated the traffic data for the Parham Road/Chippenham Parkway connector is outdated and fails to consider major changes in traffic patterns and development plans. ~e stated that the County should meet with the City and work toward overall solutions which recognize the rights and interests of long term residents. He stated he did not feel anyone knows what the impact will be and this project should not be approved until all facts a~e known. A copy of his statement is filed with the papers of th~s Board. Mr. Bill Axselle was present representing Mr. Jim Thacker. He stated the County has had a policy for years requiring that i developers provide stub roads by dedication of right of way to :adjacent properties. He stated amendment of the condition to require reservation instead of dedication of right of way to the i Thacker Property would be inconsistent with past actions. He noted that access to the Thacker property lies in close proximity to the Jahnke/Chippenham Parkway intersection. Be requested that the condition not be amended as requested by Mr. Plaxco. Mr. Axselle stated he is also representing the Crestwood Farms Residents' Association. He stated they have been working on this matter for a long time. He stated the Planning Commission has worked with as much diligence and dstail as they have on any case. He staled the Commission's recommendation is commendable and represents hard work, although the recommendation i~ nor completely to the satisfication of Crsstwood Farms Residents' Association nor HMK. He stated that while some residents feel the recommendation is reasonable, others have reservations. He 85-938 stated the issue is the density and the impact the density will have on the health, safety and welfare of all County residents. He stated residents recognize that mixed use is appropriate; that conditions which make the development more palatable have been worked out and all should be given credit in this regard. stated, however, at no time did residents agree that the conditions would be applicable for 2,400,000 sq. ft. and that density was an issue. He stated that the property does have a good location and is at the gateway to Chesterfield County, but the existing access to Jahnke Road is presently terrible. He noted that the Jahnke/Chippenham Development Azea Plan limited development of the property north of Jahnke Road to 275,000 sq. ft. because of the access problem. He stated the developer proposes to spend $10-15,000,000 for a road network to support additional densities. He stated the decision should not be based upon the economic feasibility of constructing improved access. He stated the developer did not create the existing problems but he should not be allowed to increase problems and adversely affect the health~ safety and welfare of the public. He stated the Planning Commission, after numerous hours of deliberation, felt 1,600,800 sq. ft. was reasonable. He stated the density was arrived at based on the highest density in the County offices, retail and hotels. He stated if you take an average of five very well known projects in the County, the average density is 10,000+ sq. ft. per acre and HMK is requesting 20,000 sq. ft. per acre and the Planning Commission recommended 15,000 sq. ft. per acre. He distributed a comparison of square footages requested in 1983 and 1985; ths sta£f's recommendation; and the Crestwood Farms Association's recommendation. He noted the chart ~lse compares the traffic impact. He suggested that staff's r~commendation of 15,000 sq. ft. per acre be approved. He stated staff's addendum presents alternatives. He supported #12.a. as amended; noted that Condition #15 relative to dedication of right of way should remain as recommended; stated that deletion of Condition #28 relative to dedication of a water tank site presented no problem. He stated, however, that Condition 929, as amended, was unacceptable and stated the Board should not be concerned as to whether financing can be obtained. He stated regardless of the square footage limit placed upon the development, the applicant always has the right to seek additional square footage at a later date. He stated the amended language may give the developer a foot in the door for additional zoning and will not help with financing. He stated this point was discussed and the language was subsequently deleted by the Planning Commission. He stated he speaks for the Board of Directors of Crestwood Parms Residents' Association although not everyone agrees with the Soard'$ position. He stated the project has the potential for being the best one in the County and one that the County wants; however, the amount of development sh6uld be reasonable so as to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. He requested the Board approve Alternative III, as recommended by the Planning Co~ission. Mrs. Sandra Clark, a resident in Ben Air Manor, stated they moved to the County because homes were approximately $10,000 cheaper than in ~enrico. She stated she felt property values had a lot to do with bridge traffic and the inconvenience of travelling from one side of town to another. She stated her main concern was that Powhite Parkway be protected because it is a major artery connecting Chesterfield with other areas. She stated the Board should insure a smooth flow of traffic over bridges and the Parkway. She stated the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission should be imposed to protect the future development of the County and to maintain its quality of li£e. She stated there is more to the County than depending only on co~ernial development. Mr. Douglas Pace, a resident of the County, stated he felt the location of this project is wrong; there is a moral obligation to protect our resources so ethers Will desire to move into the County. He stated there should be a sound plan for orderly growth. He stated the County should not be motivated by money, 85~939 but by the protection of our natural resources. He stated maintaining the quality of air, light, erosion controls and natural barriere to protect people are necessary. He stated he and his family will breathe dirtier air and drink dirtiem water because of the RMK development. He stated this project should not disrupt people's lives. Be stated that citizens are not interested in developing Chesterfield County into an urban environment. Be stated plans should be developed to protect the virtues and values of the rural community. He discussed crime in an urban community; noted that Route 60 is already showing signs of decay and deterioration and questioned the impact this and other new developments will have on the area. Be stated the County desires to attract projects which will help offset the cost of providing public services; however, this should not be at the expense of the residents. He stated this proje0t is not compatible with the Ben Air community and should not be approved in its present form. He stated the traffic will not be able to travel at an acceptable rate of speed. He stated the retail use is of a great concern because it will have a negative impact on the community and put Ben Air into immediate transition. Mrs. Gloria Bylund stated the County has a rural/suburban versus the crowded/urban atmosphere. She stated County residents have worked hard to improve schools, etc. by supporting bond issues. She stated that citizens supported the bond issue for Powhite ~xtension because they felt it would relieve congestion along Powhite Parkway/Chippenham Parkway/Jahnke Road. She stated the project will make the traffic situations worse. She submitted petitions with approximately 100 names, 13 from the area and others from around the County opposed to this request because of the pollution o~ air, noise, light and traffic. She stated another shopping mall is not necessary in this area, She ~tated the County's good image should be enhanced. She stated the Planning Commission's recommendation is still too dense and r~co~ended a reduction in the retail square footage. Ms. Sandy Pasternak, representing the Crestwoed Elementary School, stated there was much concern that adequate measures be taken to protect the children who attend Crestwood Elementary School. She slated the School should be protected from intruders and crime which might result from the development. She stated the project will attract sma].], children who will wander off the playground into the project. She questioned whether the noise level will distract children from study and questioned the safety of school busem travelling on congested roads, she stated all measures should be taken to protect the children. She requested a 250 ft. buffer, combined with a solid wall, adjacent to the School. She stated when children are at schoo~ they are on County property and parents expect their children to be protected by the County from any mishap, intrusion, etc. that might result because of this development. Mr. Keith Dehone stated there was a meeting called by Mrs. Girone and on short notice several hundred came to express concern relative to the project. Re stated 55% were from Crestwood Farms, but the other 45% were from Buford Road, Spring Grove, Southam, etc. ~e stated all of Ben Air is concerned about the proposed densities. He stated if this project is approved, 55,000 additional vehicles per day will travel the roads. He stated the project will create traffic jams. He stated this is not what the County needs at its gateway. He stated the residents moved to Chesterfield to get away from bigger buildings and an urban environment. He stated growth is good and is inevitable; but growth which is poorly planned is not better. He stated that the Jahnke Road/Chippenham Parkway intersection operates at a level of service "D" to "F" and the development will 0nly worsen the level of service. He questioned what protection residents have to protect them from creeping commercialization. He requested that the Board insure that the impact on Jahnke Road is minimal by eliminating access to Jahnke Road from Chinaberry Boulevard and precluding further commercialization of the area by prohibiting any retail use north and west of the Powhite 85-940 Extension. He stated the density of this project should be further reduced. Be requested the retail square footage of the preject be reduced to the average of that developed in the County, specifically 10,000 sq. ft. per acre. He requested that access be restricted to Jahnke Road by building a bridge for Chinaberry Boulevard to overpass the road. Be stated residents know the project will develop but protection from traffic is needed. He stated the houses along Jahnke Road will lose their value because of traffic and widening. Be stated speculative buying will occur. He requested protection from creeping commercialism. He stated the buffer adjacent to the school should be increased from 50 feet to at least 100 feet. He requested that the quality of life he preserved, and remain as a rural, suburban, family environment. ~r. Linton Bylund, a resident of Crestwood Farms, stated that the impact of high intensity development will adversely affect their quality cf life. He stated that the size of the development should be reduced, especially the shopping mall. He suggested that the retail be designed to serve only the office buildings thereby reducing the amount of traffic. He stated that he is concerned that the Powhite Parkway Extension is now being referred to as the Powhite Corridor. He stated this reference disturbs him because of the potential for high intensity development along this expressway. He stated now is the time for the County to embark upon a more conservative planning situation and stated that maximizing development on every acre of land along this corridor is not appropriate. He requested that the Board take the necessary steps to preserve the quality of life in the County. Mr. Walter Hylam stated he and his neighbors enjoy walking, jogging and biking in the Crestwood area. He stated that the traffic from this development will interfere with these activities. He stated the shoulder of the road is not adequate, exhaust fumes are injurious to people's health, etc. He stated the City of Richmond does not meet the U. S. Air Pollution Standards and noted that one of the monitoring stations is located at Forest Hill Avenue and Chippenham Parkway. Ha stated that if HMK is approved, he and his wife will have to consider moving and at their age a move would be a tremendous effort. He stated Crestwood Farms is located adjacent to a railroad to the north and a forest area to the east. He stated the existing road network protects Crestwood Farms ~rom through traffic. He stated while Jahnke Road has commuter traffic during peak hours, it experiences relatively light traffic otherwise. He stated the applicant proposes a 23 story building towering 430 ft. above sea level with the lowest building being 260 ft. above sea level. He stated these buildings will be visible in Crestwood Farms, especially £rom the higher elevations in the Subdivision. He stated the residents want clean air; the wildlife will be killed, crime will increase, etc. He stated the neighborhood is currently stable. Be stated approval of this would set a precedent for additional developments in the area. Be stated he has been approached by others desiring to purchase his home and he is not sure why unless they plan to extend this type of development to th~ lake. He presented a petition signed by approximately 100 people, mostly Crestwood Farms residents, opposing this development because it will infringe On their quality of life because of additional noise, traffic and air pollution. He stated the development is incompatible with existing area development. He stated there was mentioned that an agreement had been made between the property owners and HSLK in the "Request Analysis". He stated this statement is erroneous and should be stricken because at the subject meeting only 10-20% of the residents were present. Mrs. Ruth Moss stated the Board should protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. She stated that the Police Department Crime Solvers indicate that commercial development has caused a definite rise in crime. She requested that the Board be 85-941 ~esponsible in their decision as the development will affect the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Jay WOod, President of the Crestwcod Parms Civic Association, expressed appreciation to those residents appearing and for the Board~s patience in listening. He stated there has been great testimony as to the integrity of Mr. Perel and HMK. He stated that the residents are not concerned about the financial aspects of the project. He stated that he has concerns about traffic, safety and population. He stated the community's recommendation to the Planning Commission was for less retail because of traffic, crime and noise. He stated the mixed ~se concept was acceptable but the amount of retail should be reduced. He stated the retail should be accessory to the other uses in the project and not destination retail. He stated the conditions reoormmended: by the Planning Commission are appropriate and commendable. He stated the retail will generate twice as much traffic as a similar amount of office development. He stated approval of the retail portion will attract satellite retail which is undesirable. Mrs. Lucille Walker stated that because of the traffic, the ability to travel across the road to the hospital will be hindered. She stated there are numerous elderly people in the area and requested that the Board not force them to relocate. There was no one else presemt to discuss this matter. It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five minutes. Reconvening: Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to the people present speaking regarding this application. He stated this has probably been one of the hardest eases to decide, Be stated he was on the Planning Commission when thc 1983 application was considered. He stated he felt there had been an honest effort to strike a balance between the developer and the neighborhood in the process of the current application. He stated the Board has talked about having a proper land use mix and attracting high quality office and retail use. He noted that the County's residents currently travel to other areas to purchase from high quality outlets. He stated he had visited the Srookfield development recently and was impressed with the quality of life with this area. He stated these types of development are missing in the County. He stated the density, as roeommenacd by the Planning Commission, is comparable to Koger. ~e stated the only question is hOW m~ch additional density should be allowed to make this tract usable, the land use compatible with the neighborhood and the financial ability of the developer to carry the project out, etc. stated the developer proposes to construct $10-15,000,000 of road improvements which are necessary to support traffic for million square feet or 2.4 million square feet. He stated these improvements will benefit all citizens of Chesterfield County. He stated that no developer wants to spend that kind of money for road improvements, but for whatever reason, this is the conclusion. He stated he is sympathetic with area residents as the major impact will be on traffic. He stated he did not feel this Board had ever used traffic which is outside of the control of the developer as a criteria to judge a land use proposal. He stated the proposed network will tie the City and Benrico to the County thereby allowing citizens of all localities to conduct their daily business in a unified fashion. Mr. Mayes stated he felt this was an attempt on the part of the developer, the Planning Commission, the staff and the people to fit the project into the existing environment. He stated the project will be beneficial to Chesterfield County. Be stated all have admitted that growth is going to take piece and is necessary. ~e stated growth is necessary to maintain a tax base and the quality of life which caused people to move here in the first place. He stated thjs is an attempt to contain that 85-942 growth, direct it and control it so that it fits into the environment and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens are protected. He stated that compromise is obvious. Mr. Dodd inquired where you draw the limits o£ ces~ercial development. He stated he agreed with Crestwo0d Farms residents that Jahnke Road should be protected from further co~u~erclal development. He stated that the buffer adjacent to Crestwood Farms should indicate that the County and developer went to great lengths to protect them. He stated Mrs. Girone and others have worked diligently on this case. ~e stated he had a problem with the compromise, as recommended by the Planning Commission. He questioned what mode would be used to expand the project later. He stated the amount of development should be established once and for all so that the developer and residents know the ultimate limits now. ~e stated the County is now breaking new ground with respect to land use decisions based on traffic. He stated the Board has never tied a zoning case to the level of traffic and in doing it now, it will happen again and again whenever a major development is proposed. He stated if the development occurs in oenjuction with the road improvsmsnts, a better level of service will exist. He stated, if not, a hodge-podge land use pattern will occur and the County will be forced to expend State money to correct the resulting problems. He stated he felt reducing the developer's request by one-third is too much for the developer to bear. He stated there should be some place in the middle and urged that the Board's actions establish an ultimate density and settle the case once and for all. He stated he would rather see a motion which would allow the ultimate development to OCCUr in a proper fashion and finish this case. Mr. Applegate stated he felt it should be nailed down% also. He stated the Board's actions should not tie the developer's hands. He expressed appreciation for the people voicing their opinions. He stated he has several concerns regarding Mr. Plaxco's letter. He stated dedication of a water tower site is unnecessary; however, given past Hoard actions and policy, access to the Thacker preperty should be dedicated to prevent HMK from using it as leverage against Mr. Thacker to purchase the property in the future. H~ stated the question of density concerns him. He noted the 12.1 acres in Sub-Area 3 was zoned previously and this Heard has already approved the extension of Chinaberry Drive which will intersect with Jahnke Road. He stated it was his understanding that the Planning Commission's recommendation for 1,600,000 sq. ft. would enable the 12.1 acres to be developed for 220,000 sq. ft, of office space. Mr. Zook explained that 300 hotel rooms, 200,000 sq. ft. of office and 25,000 sq. ft. of retail would be permitted in Sub-Area 3 based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Applegate stated the thing that concerns him is th~ increased traffic and he will have to be satisfied as tO what road improvements will be made and the timing of those improvements before he could support density in excess of that previously approved for Sub-Area 3. He stated in regard to allowing densities in this project similar to those approved for other major County project~, the developer has to spend $10-15,000,000 for a road network. He stated the densitiesi are based on land area and noted that the developer does not intend to donate right of way for Powhite Parkway. He noted approximately 25 acres will be taken for the Powhite Parkway Extension through negotiations between the developer and the VDH&T and/or through the Circuit Court in the form of condemnation. He stated the developer can apply these funds to the cost of providing access tO the project. He stated the concerns regarding the height rsstrictions do not appear to be a major consideration and noted years ago you could see the Medical College of Virginia from the same area. He stated he did not want t6 force anyone o~t of their neighborhood as it i~ difficul~ to move at a~y age. ~e sta~ed the ~oard has adopted a policy of , supporting quality, commercial development to enhance the balancel of the tax base in the County and this proposal is an opportunityl to do just that. Mrs. Girone stated that she discussed th~ density of Sub-Area 3 with staff. She stated the existing soning would allow 92,000 sq. ft. of office space and the current proposal is for 220,000 sq. ft. of office space. She asked if there were a way to reduce the density in Sub-Area 3 and allow the lost square footage to be developed north cf Jahnke Road. Mr. Zook stated that if the Board is concerned about the density south of Jahnke Road, it might be equitable to limit the square footage per acre in Sub-Area 3 to 15,533 sq. it. per acre based on Alternative III, yielding approximately 163,000 sq. ft. of office and approximately 25,000 sq. ft. of retail. Mr. Applegate inquired if it would be possible for the applicant to develop a total of 1,680,000 sq. ft. in any one sub-area of the project and then come back at a later date. Mr. Zook stated that could be possible, but the square footage would be restricted in each sub-area to that shown On the Master Plan. He explained staff would retain the ability to limit the square footage in each sub-area to that indicated in the application; however, conceivably the 1.6 million square feet could be developed totally north of Jahnke Road. He stated, the developer has the right to seek additional soning at a later date. Mr. Applegate inquired if the developer started developing in the north, and reserved certain parcels, could he not come back and requesf additional density when the road network is complete. Mr. Zook stated that was correct. Mr. Zook reviewed what development would be permitted based on the applicant's request and based on th~ Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated the heights of the buildings, etc. would be determined by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. Mr. Daniel stated the developer can build up to certain maximums, stop and not build on other parcels and then request an amendment for the vacant land remaining. Mr. Micas stated that was correct. Mr. Zook stated the developer will be required to build the character of development represented in the textual statement regardless of whether the Board approves 1,600,000 or 2,400,000 sq. ft. Mr. Daniel stated that the applicant will have approval of certain things, but he is not obligated to build them. He stated he agreed with Mr. Dodd in that perhaps the maximum density should be nailed down to eliminate the possibility of the developer seeking additional densities. Mr. Applegate stated any applicanti has the right to amend his application at any time. Mr. Dodd stated the Board could give an indication that additional densities would not be acted upon favorably. Mrs. Girone stated this Board could not encumber future actions. Mr. Dodd stated there could be an indication of that intent. Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation for a~.l of the people involved in this case ranging from individuals to groups and staff.. She stated that the area surrounding the request site has changed so rapidly and gone from a rural/suburban to a suburban/urban af~osphere. She stated that this is also happening in the City and pointed OUt the Stoney Point development. She stated growth is occurring so quickly and all are feeling the effect on traffic. She stated that she was a proponent of extending Powhite Parkway and she never did think that the intersection of Powhite and Chippenham Parkways would attract the kind of development proposed. She stated we thought so much of the need to serve the County with the limited access road that she did not realize the demand it would place on development of this site. She stated what she sees now, is the desire to rezone Evergreen which was zoned in 1981 because of the Powhite Parkway Extension. She stated now the developer is proposing in excess of 4,000,000 sq. ft. of mixed uses. She stated she did not foresee a development such as that would be proposed in such a rural setting; however, Route 28S and Powhite Parkwsy will change the character of the co,unity. She stated the Planning Co~m~ission's recommendation was a wise and prudent recommendation; it meets the need of the area for this type of mi×ed development; it provides for the economic development of the area; it is manageable with respect to the traffic impact; there are enough safeguards built in; and the span of the entire project is 15 years. She stated to approve the entire square footage at this 85-944 time and set the course for the next 15 years in one action is too much to do well. She stated she felt the Planning Commission reviewed and evaluated the proposal in detail with great care. Mrs, Girone moved that the Board approve Alternative III subject to Conditions 1-30 and accepted the proffered condition with the exception of the following changes: (1) amend Condition %18 to include that "no uses would be permitted in the buffer except utilities, fencing, landscaping and berming;" (2) delete Condition %25 requiring dedication of a water tower site; (3) amend condition %12.a. as indicated in the addendum; (4) amend Condition #12.b. to indicate the developer shall "design and ¢onstr~ct" as opposed to "be responsible" for the road =mprovements; and (5) amend Condition #29 limiting the density south of Jahnke Road to 25,000 sq. ft. of retail and 163,097 sq. ft. of office and include the language that additional square footage and hotel rooms may be approved by the Board of Supervisors based on the determination that the initial densities have not adversely affected the health, safety, welfare and quality of life. She noted that through subsequent review )rocesses, staff will require documentation that noise levels will not be increased and noted Mr. Plax¢o has studies which have been accomplished, she stated she intends to include in the Northern Area Plan a statement regarding the western limit of the commercial development on Jahnke Road. She stated she felt the Planning Commission's recommendation is reasonable and has a reasonable impact on the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. She stated she would be hesitant to approve any additional square footage at this time. She stated additional development should be'at the discretion of future Boards who could access the impacts on traffic and the area. She noted that the developer can request the balance of what he has requested today at any time he se chooses. She stated he may want more or less in the future. She stated the square footage recom~nended is based on the density of Koger and the Comfort Inn, and is a good beginning. She stated if the Board's approval accommodates development for a 10 year period, it would be doing a good job. She stated she felt the applicant would seek future amendments b~cause it is not possible to address all details on a project of this magnitude at one time. She stated ~ha entry into the County .should be protected end if it becomes congested, no One can move through it. She stated it would not serve the beet interest of the County to approve a development that would add to the congestion problems. She stated the same can he said of the Chippenham/Parham Connector. she stated Chippenham Parkway is presently at capacity and the Parham/Chippenham bridge is not designed to accon~odate all anticipated trellis. She stated the bridge needs to be a six lane facility according to the RRPDC study. She stated all of these nu~ers are just an educated guess and the square footage recommended by the Planning i Commission is a good beginning to see how it goes. She stated there were enough safeguards and future approvals by the Planning Commission to insure that the development occur~ properly. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board's actlon~ will set the tone for future zoning cases. Be stated that all ground rules should be followed for all future developments with regard to road improvements, approving a portion of the project, etc. He stated he felt very strongly that the Board be consistent for this and all other developments. Mr. Dodd stated Mrs. Girone's motion was good to a point. He stated the point that the developer will receive compensation for the Powhite Parkway right of way which will oi~set some of the cost of the road improvements is true; however, the Planning Commission's recommendation is for a 33% red~ction in what staff suggested was appropriate. He stated the staff originally supported the square footage =eques~ed by the applicant. Mrs. Girone stated that was before anyone worked on the project and before the public hearings. She stated the whole premise of this case is the road network; the last request the applicant submitted did not propose a road network off of Powhite; and the major difference between the previous case, when the Beard said the traffic could not be accommodated and the 85-945 current request is that the developer proposes to build the road. She stated this is a desirable area because it is located along two major roads but the problem with the $i~e is the access. She stated the developer tried to direct all traffic onto Jahnke Road, it did not work, and the previous zoning had been denied because of the b~a££ic on Jahnke Road. She stated the road network now proposed would direct traffic primarily to Powhite Parkway with only 12% of the traffic using Jahnke Road. She stated thi~ is only an educated guess since it is not known exactly what types of businesses/offices will be developed. Mr. Zook inquired if it were the intent of Mrs. Girone that hotel space could be increased and office space decreased or vise versa based on the ratio~ recommended in the request analysis for the area south of Jahnke Road in Sub-Area 3. Mrs. Girone stated that was the intent of the motion. Mr, Applegate seconded Mrs. Girone's motion. Mr. Daniel stated a business choosing a site for major development looks first for the zoning to be in place. He stated businesses will de their own traffic analysis to determine if the site will be suitable and acceptable, He stated he felt the tra~fi~ situation should be left to the major businesses considering the area. Mr. Dodd stated he felt if the ~oard approved a 1/3 reduction in what the applicant requested, the case will come back to the Board again. He stated he felt 2,000,00Q sq. ft. would be more appropriate with all Other conditions as outlined by Mrs. Girone. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved a substitute motion restricting the development to 2,000,000 sq. ft. of office and retail use subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the application, Textual Statement revised September 1985 with Exhibit A 3 through D, shall be considered the Master Plan. Further, Proffers A, B, C and D in the ~extuai Statement on pages 29 through 40 shall be accepted. Proffers E in the Textual Statement on pages 40 through 52 shall not be accepted. (P) 2. The road system necessary to access Powhlte Parkway shall not encroach into the buffer zone. (BS) (NOTE: T~I~ CONDITION SUPERSEDES TEXTUAL STATEMENT, 2. DIS- TRICT, USE AND BULK R~QU~REMENTS~ MIXED US~ D~V~LOPMENT - B-1 DISTRICT, (a) Buffer ~one i). PAGE 9) 3. The Planning Commission shall reserve the right, through schematic plan approval, to impose more stringent require- ments than specified for multifamily units located contig- uous to or on top of non-residential land uses, if deemed (a) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; (b) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (cl to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (d) to facilitate the creation of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewage, ~lood protection, schools~ pa~ks, iorests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (e) to protec~ against one or more of the following: - overcrowding o~ land 85-946 - undue density of population to the community facilities existing or available - obstruction of light and air - danqer and congestion in travel and transpertation or loss of lira, health or property from fire, flood, panic Or other dangers. (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, DISTRICT, USE AND BULK REQUIREMENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - B-1 DISTRICT, (d.) MIXED USE ZONE, ii) REQUIP~ED CONDITIONS, e). PAGES 20 AND 21) (P) 4. Prior to the r~lease Of any building permit for any site downstream of lake, tha Lake Page dam shall be analyzed tO determine the location of the dam failure break lin~. Buildings ahall not be located within the limits of the dam failure lines. (EH) 5. Prior to any schematic plan approval for any building in Sub-Area II, enginesring and construction plans, which provide for the conveyance Qf Powhite Creek through the property, shall be approved by Environmental Engineering and all other applicable agencies. (~E) 6. Prior to release of any building permits or recordation Of right of way and/or subdivision plats, ownership and mainte- nance of ponds/lakes shall be established in a form acc~pt- able to the Environmental Engineering Deparf-ment and County Attorney as to the responsibility of private entities. An indemnification and maintenance agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Department to save the County harmless of vectors, maintenance and replacement responsibilities, etc. If any retention facilities are to be located in the project, they shall be certified by a professional engineer upon their completion. (EH) 7. Environmental Engineering reserves the right to impose conditions, requirements or measures which they deem neces- sary to insure proper drainaqe, adequate permanent stabi- lization and flood protection. (EE) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, IV. PROFP~RS AND CONE~T~0NS, C. UTILITIES A~D ENVIRONMENTAL ENGI- neeRING, 5. PAGE 36) 8. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commis- sion may grant exceptions from the requirements of the Flood Plain Management Ordinance in accordance with the criteria specified in Section 21-77.12 of the Ordinance if ~0nstrue- tied plans for the ultimate location of Pcwhlte Creek have been approved by Environmental Engineering, State Water Control Board, Corps of Engineers and/or VD~&T. (HE) 9. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the peri- meter of driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. This condition may be modified by the Planning Co~ission at the time of schematic plan review upon documentation that alternative m~asures are as durable and as easily maintained aS concrete curb and gutter. (HE) 10. The road plan submitted with the application titled Properties - Access and Land Use Plan," Exhibit A, shall be considered the ~aster Road Plan. Approval of the plan by the County does not imply that the County gives final ap- proval of any particular road alignment or section. In conjunction with, but prior to, the release of any build- ing permits, forty-five (45) feet Of right o~ way, measured from the centerline of Jahnke Road (as specified in the currently approved VDH&T Powhite extension plans), shall be 85-947 dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Any additional rights of way (or easements) required on Jahnke Road or Powhite Parkway, in excess cf that (those) specified on currently approved VDH&T Pcwhite sxtension plans necessary to construct any access improve- ments required at schematic plan review for any particular phase of the applicant's development, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfleld~ free and unrestricted, in conjunction with, but prior to, the release of building permits for that particular phase. 12. A. ~n conjunction with the first schematic plan review, the developer shall ~u~mit, for approval by the Trans- portation Department and VDH&T, a plan and traffic analysis for the entire development showing road im- provements necessitated by the proposed uses and density. At each schematic plan review for any phase of the project, a plan and traffic analysis for those per=ions of the road improvements necessitated by that phase of development shall be submitted and approved by the Transportation Department and VDH&T and such road improvements shall be built or surety, acceptable to the Transportation Department, shall be provided prior to release of any building permits for such phase. The developer shall be responsible for the design and construction of the following road improvements: (1) Additional pavement on Jahnke Roadr between the Jahnke Road/Chippenham Parkway interchange and the Jahnke Poad/Powhite Parkway interchange, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department; (2) Collector/distributor system on Powhite Parkway ~xtended, from a point south of Jahnke Road to a point east of Chippenham Parkway; (Note: The exact terminal of the collector/distributor system will be determined by VDH&T and the Transporta- tion Department, upon submission of design plans.) (3) Loop in the northeast quadrant of the Pewhite Parkway/Chippenham Parkway interchange; (4) North-south collector road, to include ramps to Powhite Parkway Extended; (5) The cost of a traffic signal at the Jahnke Road/north-south road intersec.tion; (6) Full cost of traffic signals associated with the internal road network. 13. During schematic plan review, the approved densities (either for the entire development or for individual tracts) may be reduced by the Planning Commission to the extent that a minimum level of service "D" shall be maintained upon ccm- pletion of the proposed road network (i.e., the Jahnke Road/north-south collector road intersection; all intersec- tions on the north~south collector road; and on the collec- tor/distributor system). The developer shall be responsible for submitting traffic analyses for approval which document that level of service "D" can ba maintained. (T&CPC) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, PROFFERS AND CONDITIONS~ A. GENERAL 5. PAGE 30) 14. Access to Jahnke Road shall be limited to the four-way intersection of the proposed north/south collector as illustrated on ~xhibit "A" unless modified by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. There 85-948 shall be no acces~ from Sub-Area I to the area across the railroad tracks. (T&CPC) 15. A right of way shall be dedicated to Parcel 17, Tax Map 11-13 and Parcel 10, Tax Map 19-1. (T) Prior to any schematic plan revlew,.a detailed hydraulic analysis verifying the capacity of the sewer lines shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for approval. If the hydraulic analysis reveals that the sewer lines do not have the capacity to accommodate development~ the developer shall be responmible for bearing the cost of any sewer line im- provements necessary to accommodate the development. (U) 17. Approval of this request supersedes all previous zoning approvals and conditions on Sub-Area III (i.e., property south of Jahnke Road). (P) 18. No uses shall be permitted in buffer zones ~×cept utilities, fences, landscaping and/or berming. Utilities shall be permitted in the "Buffer Zone," provided they are located such that views of the project from the adjacent property to the west a~e not increased. The exact location of utilities 8hall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review. (P&BS) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO AND SUPERSEDES PORTIONS OF TEXTUAL STATEMENT, 2, DISTRICT~ USE AND BULK P~EQUIREMENTS, MIXED USE DH~U~LOPF~ENT - B-1 DISTRICT ~a) BUFFER ZONE i) USES PERMITTED. PAGES 8 AND 9) 19. Supplementary landscaping for screening may be required by the Planning Commission at the time of not only the first schematic plan r~vi~w, but also at the time of any schematic plan review within Sub-Area I. (P) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION SUPERSEDES TEXTUAL STATEMENT, 2. DISTRICT USE~ AND BULK REQUIREMENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - B-1 DISTRICT, (a) BUFFER ZONE, ii) REQUIRED CONDITIONS, b). PAGE 20. In the "Low Rise Zone," the only uses permitted by right shall ~e residential, hotel and offioe~. However, those uses permitted in the "~ixed Use Zone" may be allowed in "Low Rise ZOne" by the Planning CoIm~issio~ at the time of schematic plan review, provided these uses are not located in free-standing buildings, are an integral part of the overall development, are of such a character, nature and quality so as to have minimal impact on Crestwood Farms and are supplementary and accessory to the residentiai, hotel and office uses permitted by right. (P) (NOTE: TH~S CONDITION SUPERSEDES TEXTUAL STATEMENT, 2. DIS~ TRICT, USE AND BULK REQUIP~EMENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - DISTRICT, (c) LOW RISE ZONE, i) DSES PERMiTTeD. PAGES 11 and 12) 21. Heights in Sub-Areas I, II and III may be reduced by the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan review a determination is made that structures would be visible to Crestwood Farms or to residents alon9 Shadyore~t Lane and Spring Lake Road based on winter conditions. (P&CPC) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, DISTRICT, USE AND BULK REQUIREMENT, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT B-1 DISTRICT, ii REQUIRED CONDITIONS, d) PAGE ]9 AND OFFICE DISTRICT (O) b. REQUIRED CONDITIONS, 4. PAG~ 26) 22. Upon submission of a comprehensive sign package, the Plan- ning Commission may modify the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to the extent that the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and the concept of the development are met. (P) 85-949 (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, PROFFERS AND CONDITIONS, D. DESIGN CHARACTER AND QUALITY~ 7. PAGES 39 AND 40) 23. At the time of final site plan review for each site, an estimate of the cost of installation of required landscaping shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Detailed cost information shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment as each phase of the project is constructed. (P) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, IV. PROFFERS AND CONDITIONS, D. DESIGN CHARACTER AND QUALITY, PAGES 37 AND 38) 24. Development of the multifamily residential tract shall comply with those requirements for a Residential-Multiple Family Zoning District which the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of on September 17, 1985. Nowever, at the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may modify specific requirements provided the spirit and intent of the requirement is accomplished through architectural and/or site design features. (P) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION SUPERSEDES TEXTUAL STATEMENT IV. PROFFERS AND CONDITIONS, S. MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNt~OUSE FOR SALE R~QUIRED CONDITIONS, PAGES 40-52) 25. The proposed 50 ioot buffer, adjacent to the western prop- erty line of Sub Area I, may be increased to no mere than I00 feet by the Planning Commission at schematic plan review, based upon a finding that (a) the 50 foot buffer, (b) character of existing vegetation, (cl proposed addi- tional landscape material, (d) topographic feature~, and architectural quality and character of any proposed develop-, ment are insufficient, or of such a nature as to warrant a greater buffer between the applicantts development and uses west of the property line. However, the location of the transitional zone and Iow rise zone as illustrated in Exhi- bit "~" shall not be altered. As a minimum, an eight (8) foot high solid barrier fence, in lieu of the chain link fence, shall be erected along the western property line adjacent to the Crestwood School Property. (P) (NOTE: This condition is in addition to 2. DISTRICT, USE AND BULK REQUIREMENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - B-1 DISTRICT (a) Buffer Zone on page 8 and ii Required Conditions cl on page 10.) 26. Drive-in or drive-through restaurants shall not be permit=ed in sub-Areas II and III. (P) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, 2. DISTRICT, USE, AND BULK REQUIREMENTS, MIXED USg D~VELOPM~NT - OFFICE DISTRICT (O}, a. USES PERMITTED. PAG~ 23) 27. At the time of schematic plan review for Sub-Area I, the developer shall assure that Crestwood School is not visible from the proposed north/south collector and that noise levels as the result of development are no worse than those which currently exist. Such means as (but not limited to) walls, increased buffers, additional landscaping, berms, and adjustments in the location of roads and/or land uses may be used to achieve the above requirements. (P) NOTE: T~IS CONDITION SUPERSEDES 2, DISTRICT, USE, AND BULK QUIREMENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - B-] DISTRICT (a) Buffer Zone ii a) of the Textual Statement on page 9.) 28. Development in Sub-Areas I and II shall be limited to a maximum of 450 residentisl units, 1,233,040 gross square feet of of£ice~ 578,863 gross square feet of r~t~il and 900 hotel rooms. Development in Sub-Ar~a III shall be limited to a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail and 163,097 square feet of office, office square footage may be in- creased and hotel rooms decreased or vice versat based on a ratio of 15,533 gross square feet of office per acre and 49 hotel rooms per acre. Retail square footages shall not be increased, but may be decreased and office/hotel increased based on the ratios stated herein. Additional square foot- age and/or hotel rooms may be permitted by the Board of Supervisors through subsequent zoning action. The addi- tional square footages and hotel rooms may be approved by the Board of Supervisors, based on determination that the initial densities have not adversely affected the public's health, safety, welfare and quality of life. (BS) 29. There shall be no retail uses located south of Jahnke Road, except for retail uses which are auxiliary to office or hotel use. Such auxiliary uses shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of any schematic plan review in Sub-Area III. (CRC) (NOTE: THIS CONDITION IS IN ADDITION TO TEXTUAL STATEMENT, III. B, SUB-AREAS II AND III., 2. DISTRICT, USE AND RULK REQUIRE- MENTS, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT-OFFICE DISTRICT (O} A., 14, RAGE 24.) And further the Hoard accepted the following proffered condition: The applicant shall notify the owner of Parcel 17, Tax Map 11-13 (1) and Parcel 10, Tax Map 19-1 (1) of any schematic plan review concerning the north/south collector between Jahnke Road and Powhite Parkway and shall notify the prop- erty owners along Shadycrest Lane of any schematic plan review. (Note: This condition is in addition to Textual Statement, Proffers and Conditions, D. Design Character and Quality, D. 10. Page 40.) Mrs. Girone stated the Planning Commission r~commended 1,600,000 sq. ft. based on the Koger project and the Comfort Inn densities end was not an arbitrary figure. She stated she was conserned that the Board have a reasonable philosophy ior permitting an additional 400,000 sq. ft. She stated there needs ts bsa reason for what is done. Mr. Daniel stated the Planning Commission did have a reason for their recommedation hut On the other hand the Board has never required such major road improvementa. Mrs. Girone Stated that the developer proffered those improvements. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the proffers were necessary because the developer r~alized that he must do certain things or his project would not be approved. Mrs. Girone stated that to her knowledge no one told the developer he would have to proffer the road network. M~. Daniel stated that the Board has never required that much of a financial burden on a developer. He stated the 2,000,000 sq. ft. might not be right or the 2,400,000 sq. ft. might not be right, but it is a place to start and the developer may request more density at a later date. Mr. Applegats inquired about the financing of the road improvements. M~s. Girone stated that land use was ~or the Board to consider and not the financing of the development. Mr. D0dd stated the Koger Center, Sigma, Moorefield, etc. probably spent a little money on road improvements. Be stated no one has spent thc money that this developer will spend on this project. He stated if the improvements are not made now, the County will no~ have the money to do it later. He stated the project is good for the County and needs to be settled once and for all. Mrs. Girone stated the reason the proposed road network is necessary is because the site has problems with regard to access. She stated the County did not design the complicated road network and is not imposing it on the developer arbitrarily, rather it is needed for access to the site. She stated if the developer were satisfied with the 358,000 sq. ft. recommended by 85~951 the Jahnke/Chippenham Development Area Plan, the road network required to accommodate the traffic would be much leee. She stated he has proffered the road network because he wanted the larger project. She etated ehe felt to give the developer zonin( which will laet him 10 yeare with the right to come back and amend the zoning ie the wieeet and most prudent decision for the County. she stated the Board would be wise to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission who work long and hard on thie ieeue. Mr. Applegate inquired if the traffic impact of 400,000 additional eq. ft. could be determined. Mr. McCracken crated he did not have the projected volumes at this time. Me crated that the deeign of thc roadway will be baeed on peak hour traffic volumes, not necessarily the daily trips. Mr. Maye~ called for the question on the eubetitute motion. Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd. Naye= Mr. Applegate and Mrs. Girone. 5, DINNER was generally agreed the Board would receee for 20 minutes for idinner at the Buger King. Reconvening: 6. INVOCATION 7. APPROVAL OF MINDTES On motion of Mr. Dodd, eeconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved the minutee of November 27, 1985, ae eubmitted. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Micas introduced Mr. Roger Creager, newly employed Aesistant County Attorney~ and briefly outlined his educational and professional experience. Thc Board welcomed Mr. Creager to the County's employment. Mr. Creager stated he appreciated the opportunity to work with the Board and serve the intereste of the citizene of the County. 9. BOARD'COMMITT~ I~EPORTS Due to the latene~e of the hour, the Board dispensed with reportS. 1~. R~QUESTS TO ~OSTPON~ ACTIO~...~LERGENCY ADDITIONS OR C~ANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board added Item 15.J.4.h., Set Public }Iearing to Convey Property to Commonwealth of Virginia for Construction of Powhite Parkway; added Item 15.I.6., Consider Purchase by County of Trinity Methodist Church; deleted Item 15.D., Elderly and Handicapped Traneportation Service; and adopted the agenda as amended. 11. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mr. Hedrick stated there were no resolutione of special recognition scheduled for this meeting. 12. HEA~INGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIM~ Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 13. DEFEEKED ITEMS 13.A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO EASTERN AREA COMPREBBNSIVE PLAN Mr. Nedrick stated the Board deferred the public hearing to coDsider an amendment to the Eastern Area Comprehensive Plan to this date and time from the November 13, 1985 meeting. Mr. Dodd stated he would like the Board to consider the amendment to the Eastern Area Comprehensive Plan tonight and defer a decision On Mr. Jefferson's property ~ntil a later date. Mr. Micas stated the Board could make a decision on the amendment and there would be an unplanned portion which the Board could defer to a date specific and the land would remain as it currently is. Mr. Dodd stated he would like to allow Mr. Jefferson to meet with the people in the area prior to the Board ruling on that particular property. Mr. Davi~ Sauers, representing the Enon Civic Association, commended staff on the amendment to the plan and stated all are in agreement. Be stated they had numerous meetings and there was no opposition and staff has made the conuaunity concept a wonderful concept. He stated they were concerned with the M-1 parcel which will be dealt with later. There was no one else present to speak and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to those people for getting involved and for staff assistance in preparing this amendment. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the amendment and addendum to the Eastern Area Comprehensive Plan, a copy cf which is filed with the papers of this Board, and deferred consideration of Mr. Jefferson's M-1 property until January 22, 1986. Vote: Unanimous 13.B. APPOINTMENTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board reappointed Mr. Gene Anderson to the Personnel Appeals Board whose term is effective immediately and will expire on December 31, 1988. 14. PUBLIC HF~RINGS 14.A. REQUEST TO OPERATE AN AMBULANCE SERVICE BY TRI-CITY pARA-TRANSIT SERVICE Mr. Nedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider a request to operate an ambulance service in the County by Tri-City Para-Transit Service. MS. Waldron stated the County Code require~ that anyone wishing to operate a ambulance in the County obtain a permit from the Board of Supervisors. She stated Mr. Pederson, President of Tri-City Para-Transit Service, has requested such a permit, She stated the Board must hold a public hearing to determine the need for the service and that the operator is trained and qualified to operate an ambulance in the County. She stated State law will regulate the medical service in the vehicle. Sh~ stated 85-953 currently Tri-City hae a Class H permit which permits him to operate a invalid transport vehicle which means he cannot transport people who need basic life support and ca~net use it for emergencies. She stated he is seeking a Class B permit which would allow those services. Mr. Dodd inquired if this permit could be granted on an annual basis. MS. Waldron stated that was correct. Mr. Pederson stated they would like to provide non-emergency patient transportation on an appointment beefs to and from medical treatments, dialyeis treatment, etc. He stated they currently do this in Richmond and this would provide Chesterfield with a total medical transportation service. He stated they would like to be able to utilize the basic life support, the wheel chair van and the medical transportation. He stated the County uses rescue squads as their ambulance transportation but many commercial ambulances de business in the County providing this type of service that they arq proposing as the rescue squads cannot always provide this service. He stated their standard operating manual will have to be approved by the State Health Department, their investigations indicate there is a need for this service in the County, the Nursing Home uses their services at this time, etc. Mr. Dodd inquired why a Class S permit was being requested when he has a Class E permit which accommodates what he is requesting. Mr. Pederson s~ated there is no ambulanoe service operating with a Clae~ E permit to transport patients to and from medical facilities. He stated dialysis patients, when returning from treatment, are not in the best physical condition and they should have the equipment to perform life sustaining techniques if necessary. When asked Mr. Pederson stated he is not in the rescue operation aspect and he is basically a transport service. He stated with this permit, people esn depend on them to be on time to transport them to an appointment. Mrs. Girone inquired if they would respond to an emergency call. Mr. Pederson stated the state regulations indicate that he should be able to reapond to an emergency if needed but generally they would not want to respond to an emergency situation. He stated to respond to a emergency situation when they have an appointment set up would hurt his husines~ but he indicated they are willing to be implemented into the County disaster plan and if there were a major disaster they would respond. Mrs. Girone Stated she felt there would be a conflict with the rescue squads and the p~blie will be confused and the rescue services would suffer. Mr. Pederson stated he would rather not respond to emergency situations and he is placing modifications in his application to the State Health Department. Mr. Daniel inquired how this servlce was listed in the phone book. Mr. Pederson stated as an ambulance service but that was a mistake and it was supposed to be under Para-Transit Service. Mr. Applegate inquired who established the rates charged clients. Mr. Pederson stated Medicare pays a percentage of the rate and Medicaid has set rates. Mr. Mayes inquired who supervised their services. Mr. Pederson stated the State Department of Emergency Medical Services, Division of Health Department, will certify drivers and attendants. Ne stated they are inspected bi-annually and when they modify their equipment, etc. He stated they prepare reports on every incident for tbe client, the facility and at their office. Mr. Mayes stated he has a problem with a for-profit organization providing the same services in the same area as a non-profit organization. He stated he is concerned there is no agency to which this group would report. Mr. Pederson stated they do not want to get into the emergency situations. Mr. Mayes stated he was concerned with the structure. Mrs. Girone inquired if the County has a shortage in this area as she was not aware this service was n~eded. Mr. Gillentine stated the Nursing Nome averages 10 trips per month of an emergency nature for which they use the rescue squad and in addition to that there are about 20 trips per month to transport patients to medical treatment and the rescue squad is unable to handle this because they are geared for emergencies. He stated they %~se the for-profit ambulance ~5-954 services from Hopewell and Richmond to handle these as they need reliable services to the medical facilities. ~. Daniel stated this is one issue but eomeone at home who needs an ambulance service, opens the phone book and calls this company and will waste valuable time when they cannot provide the emergency service needed. Mr. Pederson stated any emergency calls that they receive will be referred to a rescue squad or to the County'S 911. Ms. Susan Lowe, stated she felt the need existed £or this type of service in the County as she worked for a company who did this type of service in the County, she worked for Bensley-~ermuda and received calls for this type of service and they turned them down; the rescue squads in the County do the best they can with the volunteers they have; the money generated could stay in the County; private individuals need transportation on a regular basis and people should have this choice; the rescue squad is worried about losing calls but this is not the case; the rescue squads provide good emergency service but manpower does not exist for non-emergency situations; etc. Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Pederson had a Class B permit to transport nursing home patients. Mr. Pederson indicated he did not want to handle emergency situations but would need all the equipment, etc. for the time that you might have that emergency. Ms. Brenda Miller stated there is only one service available in Colonial Heights which can transport patients for medical treatment. She recommended that Mr. Pederson be given the Opportunity to operate hfs business in the County. Mr. Valatamere Terravay, a business associate of F~r. Pederson, stated he appreciates the service the rescue squads provide and they do not want tO hurt them in any way. Be ~tated the telephone book did have a mistake in the listing of the service and that will be taken care of. When asked, Mr. Pederson Stated it would be placed in the phone directory under non-emergency a~bulance services. Mr. Terravay stated there is a need for the sezvice. Me stated there should be a business in the County to handle this service rather than call in services from other areas, it would employ County residents, it would keep the revenue, etc. in the County; it would be convenient for citizens to have such a service in the County, etc. Mr. John Hillard, President of Forest View Rescue Squad and Chairman of the Advisory Committee, stated a s~mber of each of the four rescue squads met to discuss this matter and are opposed to Mr. Pedereon receiving a Class B license to .perform emergency services in the County. He stated the Class E permit is acceptable. He stated the four rescue squads provide the service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and have been doing so for many years. He stated they do not feel the need is there as required by the County Code. Me stated they provided emergency and non-emergency services. He stated sometimes they cannot provide all the non-emergency services necessary but Mr. Peterson can provide that under his Class E license. He stated that if this is a paid service to the County, it will hinder the rescue squad's fund drives and their operations. He stated the E-911 number is coming into operation and with another number for emergencies citisens will be confused. He stated Mr. Pederson ha~ to be operational 24 hours a day which he has yet to demonstrate to the Board. He asked that this request for a Class B license be denied. Mr. Dodd stated he did not know of anyone On the Board who is not in support of the rescue squad ~]nd o~ their service provided to the citizens and the savings to the County. He stated he did not know why a Class B permit was necessary but he felt that if other companies are coming in from Hopewell and other areas to provide this service, that it might be appropriate to offer it here in the County. He stated perhaps }~. Pederson and the AdviSory Board should meet and agree to restrict the advertising and hold this only to an annual permit for non-emergency transport. 85-955 Mr, Applegate inquired if the City of Richmond had both paid and volunteer rescue squads. Mr. Hillard stated the City does have both paid and volunteer services that work together and they worked out an arrangement. Re stated in addition the paid services do provide non-emergency t~anapo~ on a contract basis with each facility. He stated the City is divided and there are certain areas which are governed by an EMS Board and the services are subsidized by the City. Ee stated it would not be acceptable to the four rescue squads in the County as their areas are already designated plus some citizens would have to pay and some would receive services for free. Mrs. Girone stated the need is being met in the County at the present time and she did not feel Mr. Pederson has presented a real need for his serviee~ for a Class B permit. She stated she would not like to get into a similar situation as the City. She stated the rescue squads are doing a good job and she did n°touldW feel the Board should approve this request. She stated she move that the Class E permit be sanctioned. Mr. Ped~rson stated he already has a Class E permit. He stated the equipment requirements for a Class E permit does not meet the basic life suppo:t equipment requirements. He stated that he will not respond to any emerqencims, they will do only the scheduling of appointments, etc. He stated he received about 10 calls a week requesting transport which cannot be handled by the rescue squads but they need the life support equipment. Re stated they feel they will be assisting the County by offering this non-emergency service. Mr. Mayas stated if Mr. Pederson received hie Class B'li~ense there would be nothing Eo prevent him from competing with the rescue squads. Mr. Pederson stated that the County wo~ld not have to ~ecoqnize him, he would not be on the E-911 system, etc. Mr. Daniel stated he was concerned with how the listing would be in the telephone dj:eatery and that it would be confusing. Mrs. Giron~ stated the County uses ~z.~ dollars to support the rescue squads to some degree and to sanction this would be creating competition for them. After further dismussion, it was on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the request of Tri-City Para-~ransit Service for a Class E permit be denied. Mr. Micas stated the Board could grant a permit and condition it that Mr. Pederson not respond to emergency situations. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that would be confusing on the part of the citizens as to whom to call. Mrs. Gi~one reiterated there had been nothing on the part of the public to indicate a need for this service. Vote: Unanimous 14.B. ORDINANCE PJ~CARDING PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT BY TNR ASSESSOR AND BOAR~ OF ~QUALIZAT!ON Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to consider an ordinance regarding procedures for review of assessment by the Assessor and the Board of Equalization. Mr. Mica~ explained the effect of the ordinance. There was no one present to discuSS this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, MY AMENDING SECTION 8-8 RELATING ~0 REAL ~A~ A~EM~M~N~ 85-956 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Chapter 8 of the Code of the County of Chester~ fi~ is amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-8. Real estate assessments Pr0eedu~es. (b) Thm real estate assessment office shall notify each affected taxpayer in writing On or before February 15 of any year in which a new or changed assessment for such property is made or proposed by the assessor. Such notice shall be given by mail addressed to the last known address as shown on the land books of the county. (c) Any owner of r~al property or affected taxpayer, any person with a substantial legal or equitable interest in the property involved, or any authorized representative of such persons, or any authorized representative of the county board of supervisors may file a written protest and appear before the assessor and present objections thereto from March 2nd to March 30th of the year in which a new or changed assessment is made or proposed by the assessor. (d) Such person may alzo file a request for relief of the assessment with the board of equalization no later than April 30th of the year in which a new or changed assessment is made or proposed by the assessor. Such protest shall be filed in duplicate with the real estate assessment office on forms prescribed by the board of equalization and made available through the office of real estate assessments. One copy of such protest shall be transmitted forthwith to the board of equalization of real estate assessments, which shall grant appeal of the assessment or change of assessment as a matter of right, and shall accord th9 protestant an opportunity for hearing in person, with witnesses, by counsel, or by s~bmission of memoranda verified under oath. (e) Hearings shall be scheduled by the board of equalization of real estate asseasments with due regard for the convenience of the protestant and with due regard for the time required by the asseasor to investigate the protest and to prepare justification of the protemted a~sessment. The board of equalization of real estate assessments shall publish notice in a newspaper having general circulation in %he county, giving the regular time and place of its hearings, and instruct the sheriff to post such a notice at the courthouse and at each voting precinct, at least ten days prior to each sitting in accordance with ~58.1-3378 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The board of equalization of real estate assessments shall dstermine and rule upon all protested assessments and all proposed reduced assessments within ninety days from the date of hearing or by June 30th, whichever OCCurs first. All actions of such board affecting assessments of real estate in such county shall be certified by such board to the assessor on forms prescribed by and furnished by the State Department of Taxation. Notice of the decision of the board of equalization of real estate assessments ~hall be prepared in triplicate; one copy shall be filed with the minutes of the board of equalization, one copy shall be filed with the records of the director of real estate assessmentm and one copy shall be mailed, first class to the protestant and a£fected taxpayer by the real estate assessment office promptly after the decision is so certified. (f) If no applications for relief are received by April 30th, the board of equalization shall be deemed to have dis- charged its duties. (Code 1960~ §11-8.) Vote: Unanimous 85-957 15 . NEW BUSINESS 15.A. Pd~PORT ECRM THE CAMP BAKER ~ANAGEMENT BOARD Mr. Elwood Elliott, Chairman o£ the Camp Baker Management Board, presented the Board with its annual report on Camp Baker. He highlighted some o~ the major ~ocomplishment~ indicating that hundreds of mentally retarded children and adults have had a dramatic and rewarding experience away ~rom home, there were one and two day respite care sessions, nursing home residents attended the Camp, the blind held its first picnic there, etc. ~e stated the Management Board intends to develop long range plans, improvements and expansion which involves several major civic organizations in a community effort to bring more vitally needed services to the handicapped citizens. (A copy Of the complete report is ~iled with the papers of this Board.) Ne expressed special appreciation to the Utilities Department, Mr. Stith and the Board of Supervisors for making possible this unique public/private relationship for the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Applegate inquired if any financial support were received from Richmond, Benrico or Nanover County. Mr. Elliott stated support is received from Richmond. Mr. Marshall Butler stated the United Way contributes to several of the programs. He stated they do receive support from Richmond but not the others at this time but they have approached them to solicit their financial support. The Board expressed appreciation to Mr. Elliott for the report. 15.B. BOND SALE FOR Mr. Micas stated the School Boa~d approved their resolution tonight requesting the Board to issue the bonds which has been received. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: A P~ESOLUTION AU~HORIZING AND PROVIDIN~ FOR TEE ISSUANCE, SAL~ AND DELIVERY OF MILLION TRRE~ NUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($62,300,000) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES OF 1985, OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O~ THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA: SECTION 1. Eindings and Determinations. {a) Pursuant to Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code o~ Virginia, 1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act), an election duly called and held under the Public Finance Act in the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the "County"), on November 3, 1981, and an Order of the Circuit Court of the County date December 30, 1981, the County is authorised to contract debt and issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of twenty-six million dollars ($26,000,000) for capital school improvement purposes, acquisition of future school sites and suchi other school construction as may be required by the actual educational needs in the County. Twenty million dollars ($20,000,000~ of such general obligation bonds have heretofore been issued by the County, and the Board deems it advisable and in the best interests of the County to authorize and provide at this time for the issuance, sale and delivery of six million dollars ($6,000,000) aggregate principal amoHnt of such bonds. 85-958 (b) Pursuant to the Public Finance Act, an election duly called and held under the Public Finance Act i~ the County on June 12, ]984, and an Order of the Circuit Court of the County dated October 2, 1984, the County is authorized to contract debt and issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of twenty-two milli0n dollars ($22,000,000} for highway improvements including improvements in connection with the extension of Powhite Parkway and improvements to connecting portions of Route 288. Twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) of general obligation bond anticipation notes have heretofore been issued by the County, and the Board deems it advisable and in the best interests of the County to authorize and provide at this time for the issuance, sale and delivery of twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000) aggregate principal amount of such bonds, for the purpose of redeeming such notes on April 1, 1986. (cJ Pursuant to the Public Finance Act, an election duly called and held under the Public Finance Act in the County on November 5, 1985, and Orders of the Circuit Court of the County dated December __, 1985, the County is a~thorized to contract debt and issue its general obligation bonds in the maximum amounts and for the purposes as follows: ~i) in the maximum amount of twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) for school improvement projects in the County; (ii) in the maximum amount of four million three hundred thousand dollar~ ($4,300,000) to provide fire station improvement projects in the County; and (iii) in the maximum amount of three million dollars ($3,000~000} to provide park and recreation improvement projects in the County. None of such general obligation bonds have heretofore been issued by the County, and the Board deems it advisable and in the best interests of the County to authorize and provide at this time for the issuance, sa3e and delivery of thirty-four million three hundred thousand dollsr~ ($34,300,000) aggregate principal amount of such bonds, consisting of twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000} for the purpose described in clause (i) above, four million three hundred thoussnd dollars ($4,300,000) for the purpose described in clause (ii) above, and three million dollars ($3,000,000) for the purpose described in clause (iii) above. SECTION 2. Authorization of Bonds. For the purpose of financing the costs of various public improvement projects of the County, as described in Section 1 hereof, there are hereby authorized to be issued~ sold and delivered an issue of sixty-two million three hundred thousand dollars ($62,300,000) principal amount of general obligation bonds o~ the County to be designated and known as "Public Improvement Bonds, Series of 1985" {hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"). The Bonds shall be dated as of December 15, 1985; shall be numbered from No. R-1 upwards in order of issuance; shall be issued in fully registered form in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof; shall bear interest payable on July 15, 1986 and semiannually on each January 15 and July 15 thereafter at such rate or rates per annum as shall be determined by res01~tion of this Board upon the sale of the Bonds; and shall mature serially on January 15 in each of the years and in the amounts as follows: Principal Principal Yea~r Amount Year Amount 1988 $3,260,000 1998 $3,280,000 1989 $3,280,000 1999 $3,280,000 85-959 1990 $3,280,000 2000 $3,280,000 1991 $3,280,000 2001 $3,280,000 1992 $3,280,000 2002 $3,280,000 1993 $3,280,000 2003 $3,280,000 1994 $3,280,000 2004 $3,280,000 1995 83,280,000 2005 $3,280,000 1998 $3,280,000 2006 $3,280,000 1997 $3,280,00D SBCTION 3. Appointment of Refistrar; Payment of Bonds; Books of Registry; Exchanqes and Transfers of Bonds. (a) Appointment of ~e~istrar. Bank of Virginia Trust Company at its principal corporate trust office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, is hereby appointed Registrar for the Bonds (hereinafter referred to as the "Registrar"). (b) Payment of Bonds. (i) The interest on the Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of the Bonds at their addresses as the same appear on the books of registry as of the first day of each calendar month in which such interest is payable. (ii) The principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable at the principal corporate trust e~fiee of the Registrar, in the City of Richmond, Virginia. (iii! The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or currency of the United States ~of Amerioa as at the respective dates of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. (c) Books of Registry; Exchanqes and Transfers of Bonds. (i) At all times during which any Bend remains outstanding and unpaid, ~he Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept at its principal corporate trust office in the City of Richmond, Virginia, books of registry for the registration, exchange end transfer of the Bonds. Upon presentation at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for such purpose, the Registrar, under suoh reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, shall register, exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, on the books of registry the Bonds as herein set forth. (ii) Any Bond may be exohanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds in order authorized principal amounts of the same inters.st rate and maturity. (iii) Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred upon the books of =egistry by the person in whose name it is registered, in person er by his duly authorized agent, upon surrender of such Bond to the Registrar for cancellation, accompanied by a written instrument of transfer duly executed by the registered owner in person er his duly authorized agent, in form ~atis£actory to the Registrar. (iv) All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this Section 3(o) shall be made without expense to the holder of such Bonds, except as otherwise herein provided, and except that the Registrar shall require the payment by the holder of the Bond requesting such transfer or exchange of any tax or other governmental charges required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. All Bonds surrendered pursuant to this Section 3(c) shall be cancelled. SECTION 4. Redemption of Bonds. (a) Provisions for Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or before January 15, 1996 shall not be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Bonds maturing on and after January 15, 1997 shall be subject to redemption at the 85=960 option of the County prior to their Stated maturities, in whole at any time, Or in part from time to time On any interest payment date, (a) on or after January 15, 1996, and prior to January 15, 2001, upon payment of the principal amount of the Bonds (or portions of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed), plus a premium of one-quarter of one percent (1/4 of 1%) of the principal amount of each Bond or portion thereof to be redeemed for each twelve (12) month period or fraction thereof between the date fixed for redemption and the stated maturity date of such Bond, but not to exceed one hundred and two percent (102%) of such principal amount er portion thereof, and {b) on er aftar January 15, 2001, upon payment of the principal amount cf the Bonds ~or portions of the principal amount to be redeemed), together in each Case with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redemption. In the event lass than all of the Bonds of a particular maturity are called for rademption, the particular Bonds of such maturity of or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. (b) Notice of Redemption. Notice of any such redemption shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed fo~ redemption by iirst class mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner of the Bonds to be redeemed at such owner's address as shown on the books of registry. Such notice shall specify the date, nttmbers and maturities of the Bonds to be redeemed, the date and place fixed for their redemption and the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of any Bond is to be redeemed, that such Bond must be surrendered in exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and the issuance of a new Bond equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not redeemed, and shall also state that upon the date fixed for redemption there shall become due and payable upon each Bond called for redemption the principal amount thereof and redemption premium, if any, thereon, t~gather with the interest accrued thereon to the date fixed ~cr redemption, and that from and after such date interest thereon shall cease to accrue. (c) Effect of Redemption. When notica of redemption of any Bonds shal'i' h~ b~en ~iven as hereinabove set forth, such Sends shall become due and payable on the date so specified for their redemption at a price equal to the principal amount theraof and redamptlon pramlum, if any, thereon together with the interest accrued thereon to such date. Whenever paymant of such redemption price shall have been duly made Or provided for, interast on the Bonds so called for redemption shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for thair redemption. Ail redeemed Bonds shall be cancallad and net raissuad. S~CTtON 5. Execution and Authentication of Bonds; CUSIP Identification Numbers. (a) Bxecution of Bends. The Bonds shall be axecutad in the na~e of the County by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Chairman and the Clerk cf this Board, and the cerperata saal of this Board shall be imprassad, or a facsimile thereof printed, on the Bonds. (b) Authentication of Bonds. The County Administrator shall direct the Registrar to authenticate the Bonds 'and no Bond shall be valid or obligatory ior any purpose unless and until the certificate of authantication endorsed on such Bond shall have been manually executed by an authorized signator of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Bond the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date as of which such Bond is authenticated as follows: Ii) ii the Bond is authenticated prior to the first interest payment data, tha certificate shall be dated as of the date the Bonds are delivered to and paid for by the initial purchasers thereof; (ii) if the Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date; (iii) if the Bond is authenticated On or after the first day of a 85-961 =alendar month in which there is an interest payment date and prior to such interest payment date, the certificate shall be Dated as of such interest payment date; and (iv) in all other instances the certificate shall be dated as of the interest payment date next preceding the date upon which the Bond is authenticated. The e×~cution and authentication of the Bonds in the manner above set forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Bonds. (c) CUSIP Identification Numbers. CUSIP identification numbers may be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print any such number on any Bonds, nor any error or omission wi~h respect thereto, shall constitute cause ior failure or refusal by the successful bidder for the Bonds to accept delivery of and pay for the Bends in accordance with the terms of its proposal to purchase the Bonds. No such number shall constitute or be deemed to be a part of any Bond or a part of the contract evidenced thereby and no liability shall attach to the County or any of its officers or agents because of or on account of any such number or any use made thereof. SECTION 6. Arbitra~e Bond Provision. Thc County shall make no use of the proceeds of the e~'f~ of the Bonds which would cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" under Section 103(c) of the U. S. Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the County shall comply with the applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue Service adopted under said Section 103(c) so long as any Bond is outstanding. SECTION 7. Sources of Payment of Bonds. The full faith and credit of the County shall b~ and is hereby irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of ~ha principal of and interest on the Bonds as the same become due. There shall be levied and collected annually, at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes are a~sees~d, levied and collected, ad valorem taxes upon all property subject to taxation by the County, without limitation as to rate or amount, sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal o~ and interest on ~he Bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. SECTION 8. Form of Bonds. The Bo~d~ shall be in substantially the form set forth b~low with such necessary or appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as are incidental to their numbers, interest rates and maturities or as are othRrwise permitted or required by law or this resolution: [PACE] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONk~ONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BOND SBRIES OF 1985 REGISTERED NO. R- INTEREST RATE= MATURITY DAT~: REGISTERED OWNER: REGISTERED $ ORIGINAL ISSUR ~ATE: CUSIP NO: December 15, 1985 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: The County of Chesterfield (hereinafter r~ferred to as the "County"), a political subdivision of the Cormmonwealth of Virginia, for valu~ received, hereby promises to pay the R~gistered Owner (named above), or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date (specified above), unless this Bond shall have been duly called for previou~ redemption and payment cf the redemption price shall have been duly made or provided for, the Principal Amount (specified above), and to pay interest on such Principal Amount on July 15, 1986 and semiannually on each January 15 and 85-962 ~ly 15 thereafter from the date hereof or from the interest )ayment date next preceding the date of authentication hereof to ~hich interest shall have been paid, unless such date of ~uthenticatien is an interest payment date, in which case from such interest payment date if interest has been paid to such fate, or unless such date of authentication is within the period From the fourteenth (14th) day next preceding an interest payment late to such interest payment date, in which case from such interest payment date if interest has been paid to such date, ~ntil the payment of such Principal Amount (each such date is 3ereinafter referred to as an interest payment date) at the Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, by check or draft ~ailed by the Registrar hereinafter mentioned to the Registered Dwner in whose name this Bond is registered On the books of registry kept and maintained by the Registrar as of the close of Business on the first day of each calendar month in which interest is payable to the address of the Registered Owner as it appears on such books of registry. The p~incipsl of and premium, if any, on this Ecnd are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office Of Bank of Virginia Trust Company in the City of Richmond, Virginia (the "Registrar"). The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in such coin Or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of payment i~ legal tender for public and ~rivate debts. R~FERBNC~ IS 5~%DE TO THE FURTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS eND SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE REREOF~ WHICB FURTHER PROVISIONS ~HALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE THE EFFECT AS TROUGH FULLY S~T FORTH HEREIN. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond as the same become due. This Bond shall not ~¢~ valid or obligatory ~nless the certificate of authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by an authorized signator of ~h~ Registrar. It is hereby certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to have happened, to exist and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this ~end and the series of which it is one, do exist, have happened and have been performed in requla~ and due time, form and manner as required by law, and that this Bond and the Bonds of the series of which this Bond is one do not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the County, by its Board of Supervisors, has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signature of the Chairman of such Board; a facsimile of the corporate seal of such Board to be imprinted hereon, attested by the facsimile ~ignature of the Clerk of such Board; and this Bond to be dated as of December 15, 1985. SEAL] Attest: Clerk of the Board of Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Supervisors Date Of Authentication: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned proceedings. 85J963 BANK OF VIRGINIA TRUST COMPANY, Registrar ~y: Authorized Signator [BACK] COUNTY OF CHESTERFIRLD, VIRGINIA, 9URL~C IMPROVEMENT BOND~ SERIES OF 1985 This Bond is one of a duly authorized issue Of Bonds (herein referred to as the "Bonds") of the aggregate principal amount of Sixty-Two Million Three Rundred Thousand Dollars ($62,300,000) of lika date and tenor herewith, except for number, denomination, interest rate, maturity and rademption provisions, and is issued for the purpose of financing the costs of various public fmproven%ent projects of and for the County, under and pursuant to and in full compliance with tha Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Chaptar 5 cf Title 15.1 of tho Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the sams being the Public Finance Act), elections duly held in the County under such Chapter 5 on ~ovember 3, 1981, June 12, 1984 and November 5, 1985 and resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Suparvisors of the County under such Chapter 5 on August 8, 1984, December 1], 1985 and Decamber 18, 1985. The ~onds of the series of Bonds of which this Bond is cna maturing on or before January 15, 1996 shall not be subject to redamption prior to their stated maturities, The Bonds of the serias of Bonds of which this Bond is cna maturing on and after January 15, ~997 shall be subject to redsmption at the option of thc County prior to their stated maturitias in whole at any time, or in part from time to time on any interest paymant data, (a) on or after January 15, 1996, and prior to January 15, 2001, upon payment of the principal amount of tha Bonds (or the portions of the principal amount thereof to be redeemed), plus a premium of one-quartar of one percant I1/4 of 1%) of the principal amount of each Bond or portion thereof to be redeemed for each twelve (12) month period 05 fraction thareof between the date fixed for redemption and the statad maturity date of such Bond, but not to exceed one hundred and twa percent (102%~ of such principal amount or portion thareof, and (b} on or altar January 15, 20~1, upon payment cf tha principal amount of fha Bonds (or portions of the principal amount to be redeemed}, together in ~ach ease with interest accrued thereon to the date fixed for redamption, In the event less than all of the Bonds o£ a particular maturity areI called for redemption, the particular Bonds of such maturity Or portions theraof in installments of $5,000 to be redeemed shall be selected by the Registrar by lot. If this Bond or any portion of the principal amount hereof shall be callad for redamption, notice of the redemption hereof, specifying tha date and numbar of this Bond, the date and place or places fixed for its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire principal amount of this Bond is to be redeemed, that this Bond must be surrandered in exchange for the principal amount heraof to be redeemed and the issuance cf a new Bond equalling in principal amount that portion of th~ principal amount hereof not redeemed, shall be mailed not less than thirty (30 days prior to the date ~ixed for redemption by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner of this Bond at his address as it appears On the books of registry maintained by the Registrar. When notice of redemption of this Bond (or portion hereof to be ~edeemed) shall have been as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of this Bond {or portion of the principal amount hereof to be radeemed) and of the accruad intarest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall hav~ been they made or provided for, interest hereon shall cease from and afte~ the date so specified for the redemption hereof. 85-964 Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bo~ds of the series of which this Bond is one, this Bond may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other authorized principal amounts and of the series of which this Bond is One. This Bond is transferable by Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the series of which this Bond is one, and upon the surrender hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations and of the sane aggregate principal amount of the series of which this Bond is one will be issued to the traneferee in exchange herefor. (FOPS4 OF ASSIGNMENT) For value received, assigns and transfers unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER TAX IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: hereby sells, the within-mentioned Bond and hereby irrevocably constitute~ and appoints , attorney, to transfer the same on the books of registry of the County kept at the principal corporate trust office of the Registrar with full power cf substitution in the premises. Dated: Registered Owner Signature Guaranteed: NOTE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written on the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration, enlargement or any change whatsoever. SECTION 9. Sale of Bonds. The action of the County Administrator in causing to be published the Notice of Sale of the Bonds and in causing to be distributed to prospective purchasers of and investors in the Bonds the Notice of Sale, a ~orm of Proposal for the purchase of the Bonds and the Preliminary Official Statement of the County relating to the Bonds, the forms of which shall be filed with the minutes of the meeting at which this resolution is being adopted, is hereby approved, ratified and confirmed. SECTION 10. Filin9 of This Resolution. The County Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to file a copy of this resolution, certlfied by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield. SECTION 11. Invalidity of Sections, Paragraphs, Clauses or Provisions. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section~ paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect 85-965 any of the remaining portions of this resolution. SECTION 12. ~eadinqs of Sections, The headings of the sections of this resolution shall be solely for convenience of r~fRr~nce and shall not affect the meaning, con~truction~ interpretation or effect of ~eoh sections or of this resolution. SECTION 13. Rffective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous 15.C. E×PA~D COMMUNITY DIVg~SION INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE BALANCE OF SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT On motion cf Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request to expand the Community Diversion Incentive Program to include the balance of the Sixth Judicial District which would include Sussex, Surry, Greensville, Brunswick and the City Of Emporia which is a state funded program. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick stated the success of this program is due to Mr. Glen Paterson and his efforts in this regard. Mr. Paterson stated he has received tremendous support from the courts and the come, unity as well. 15.~. E~TABLISHMENT OF NEW POSITION IN TREASURER'S OFFICE On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. ~odd, the Board established a new position in the Treasurer's ~epartment to meet new federal and state mandates re~arding reporting requir~nents for governmental investment transactions. It is noted that funding is available within the current budget through downgrading and vacation of two additional positions due to retirement. Vote: Unanimous 15.E. SETTLEMENT CONCERNING PLANTATION PIPELINE COMPANY Mr. Patterson stated that in July, Plantation Pipeline Company filed a ~uit against the Board challenging its determination that its proposed pipeline was not in substantial accord with the County General Plan. He stated that the Richmond Circuit Court has sinc~ ruled in favor of Plantation Pipeline on the issues that were involved in that litigation. Be stated in order to avoid a lengthy appellate process and in order to address some of the safety factors voiced by the residents and Board, Plantation has proposed a comprehensive s~ttlement package that would dispose of all controversy with the County. He stated the proposal contains 17 specific concessions dealing with construction and future operation standards of the pipeline. Ee stated in addition, later in the agenda the Board will be requested to s~t a date for a public bearing to consider a zoning ordinance amendment to be set for public hearing that would require future zoning actions in the form of a conditional use for future pipelines and this would give the Board the ability to address setbacks, locations, etc. on a case by case basis. He stated the conditions and the zoning ordinance change will addres~ the safety concerns which were the focus of this matter originally. He stated he has talked with representatives of the Pipeline Company as well as citizens and while some citizens are still dissatisfied with the manner in which they were originally treated, all but one condemnation ease has been settled. Be stated in order to effect this settlement, the County would withdraw its petition filed with the State Corporation 85-966 Commission, would decline to pursue an appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling on substantial accord and would grant an easement across Rockwood Park for $1,932, Mr. Applegate inquired if Mr. Norwood P0well was present to addres~ his concerns and he was not. M~. Patterson stated he had been present earlier. Mr. Applegate inquired if the County has talked with the attorney representing the citizens group. Mr. Patterson stated he talked with Mr. Thompson this date and he indicated he would not be present tonight and indicated the matter~ have all been settled with the citizens he represented. He stated some people were concerned over their initial treatment, they ware not all satisfied but all legal controversies had been settled. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute the settlement agreement as outlined and filed with the papers of the Board and authorized the Chairman to execute the easement agreement for Plantation Pipeline Company. Vote: Unanimous 15.G. APPOINTMENTS 15.G.1. YOUTH S~RVICES COMMISSION Mr. Dodd nominated Ms. Sarah Gregory as Bermuda District's representative to the' Youth Services Commission for formal appointment at the January 8, 1986 meeting. 15.G.2. COMMUNITY SRRVIC=S BOARD On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board nominated the following people to serve on the Community Services Board: Mrs. Carrie Rogers, Midlothian District Mr. Peter Ward, Midlothian District ~Ir. Stephen Martin, Bermuda District Mr. Roger Haybeck, Bermuda District And further that nomination for Clover Bill District's vacancy be deferred until January 22, 1986; and further that appreciation be expressed tn Mr. Richard Spencer and Mr. Richard Gayle for their service. Vote: Unanimous 15.G.3. APPEALS PAi~EL - VIRGINIA SET-OFF DEBT COLLECTION ACT It was generally agreed that the following people be nominated to the Appeals Panel pursuant to the Virginia Set-off Debt Collection Act: Mr. James Harris (subject to his acceptance) M~. Sam West Mrs. Mary L. Lyle 15.R. REQUESTS FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mrs. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the requests from the following organizations £o~ bingo and/or raffle permits for 1986: t. Mid-Cities Civic Association 2. The 40 & 8 Society; Voiture 1530 3. St. Edward's Council 6546 Knights of Columbus 85-967 4. Monacan ~igh School Athletic Boosters Beach Community Grange No. 958 Clover Hill High School Keynotes The Optimist Club of James River, Ltd. .nd further the Board deferred consideration of a request from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Robert E. Lee Post 2239, until the audit of the financial papers has b~en completed. Vote: Unanimous 15.I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 15.I.1. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED ON ROUTE 288 FROM ROUTE 360 TO ROUTE 10 Mr. Dodd stated he had requested some information from Florida with regard to roads and he would hare liked to have had that prior to making a decision authorizing the Highway Department to proceed with the Route 288 project as it relates to timing and saving of money. Mr. Daniel requested that the 24 months reference be changed to 12 months as Highway Commissioner King assured him that this would be handled with utmost expedience. Mr. Muzzy stated the staff did contact the City Manager of Browerd County, Florida and discussed at some length the road situation there and that they do under some circumstances, construct roads and plan roads on their own. He stated they do, however, have a different situation. He stated they have a different funding sourge situation in terms of a gasoline tax that is a local option as well as impact fees that they can a$$es~ on developments. He stated it is normal for some counties to fund and construct their own roads. He stated they ara in the business of building roads and Chesterfield has not b~en and so there is not s ]ct of comparison. Mr. Dodd stated he was specifically concerned with the Saw Tooth Grass toll road. Mr. Muzzy stated that was set up as a separate authority, financed by and constructed by the authority and not the County itself. Mr. Daniel suggested verbage chsnges to the proposed r~solution seeking a 12 month time frame rather than 24 months. Mr. Muzzy stated that the staf~ has talked with the Mighway Department and they have assured the County that the times indicated are the absolute quickest they can accommodate. Mr. McCracken stated that the 24 month prior is the time frame VDH&T feels it will take to have the design completed. He stated he is talking with VDH&T to see if there is any alternative to accelerate that time frame. He stated once the design is complete, it will be advertised.and awarded. He stated from Route 10 to Route 1 will be advertised in August, 1986 and the remaining section will be advertised in January, 1987. He stated the construction time frame will be 2 or 2% years and the construction should finish about the same time. He stated it will take approximately 2 years to finish the leg from Route 360 to Route 10 Once construction is started and it will be 1989 when the entire project is completed. He stated that VDH&T's schedule is a good schedule considering the scope o£ the project, the interchanges, the length of the project, the bridges, etc. On motion of the Board, the iollowing resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the citizens of Chesterfield County overwhelmingly approved a $30 million bond referendum for the construction of Route 288; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation (VDt&T) has now prepared more detailed plans and estimates for the project and has informed the County that design, construction and right-of-way for Route 288 from Route 360 to Route~.10 as a 4 lane facility with interchanges may not exceed the funding provided by the referendum, depending upon construction inflation rate~ within the next several years; and 85-968 WHEREAS, VDH&T has informed the County that they can design Route 288 as a 4 laned facility with interchanges and that the County desires that this design be completed within 12 months aftsr notice to proceed; and WBEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County desires to have Route 288 from Route 360 to Route 10 constructed as soon as possible. NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT R~$0LVED that the Board requests VDH&T to proceed with the design of Route 288 as a 4 laned facility with interchanges. AI~D BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests VDR&T to make every effort to accelerate the construction of Route 288 from Route 360 to Route 10 and from Route 10 to the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike. vote: Unanimous 15.I.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this ~oard, made report in writing upon his examination of Brookridge Road, Brookridge Way and Brookridge Place in Great Oaks, Section 4 and a portion of Section 2, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Brookridge Road, Brookridge Way and Brookridge Place in Great Oaks, ~ection 4 and a portion of Section 2, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And b~ it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Brookridge Road, beginning where State Maintenance ends, Brookridqe Road, State Route 3090, and going 0.18 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Brookridge Way, then continuing 0.07 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Brookridge Place, the continuing 0.03 mile southwesterly to the intersection with proposed Bexwood Drive, Great Oaks, S~ction 5, then continuing 0.08 mile southwesterly to a temporary turnaround; Brookridge Way, beginning at the intersection with Brookridge Road and going 0.04 mile southwesterly to cul-de-sac; and Br0okridge Place, beginning at the intersection with Brookridge and going 0.03 mile .southerly to a cul-de-sac+ This request is inclusive o~ the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These roads serve 46 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Righways a right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Great Oaks are recorded as follows: Section 4. Plat Book 41, Pages 54 and 55, August 3, 1982. Section 2. Plat Book 34, Pages 43 and 44, September 3, 1980. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions £rom this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Dawnwood Road and Dawnwood Terrace in Queensmill North, Section R, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, 85-969 seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Dawnwood Road and Dawnwood Terrace in Queensmill North, Section B, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are sstablished as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Dawnwood Road, beginning where State Maintenance ends, State ROUte 1390, and going 0.06 mile ~outheaaterly to the intersection with Dawnwood Terrace, then continuing 0.06 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; and Dawnwood Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Dawnwood and going 0.07 mile eaeterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These roads serve 22 lots. A/~d be it f~rther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Queensmill North is recorded as follows: Section B. Plat Book 45, Page 32, March 22, 1984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Ehvironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Smoketree South Parkway, Mansfield Landing, Mansfield Terrace and Mansfield Circle in Mansfield Landing, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Smoketree South Parkway, Mansfield Landing, Mansfield Terrace and Mansfield Circle in Mansfield Landing, Clover Bill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Bighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Smoketree South Parkway, beginning where State Maintenance ends, Smoketree South Parkway, State Route 3340, and going 0.10 mile westerly to the intersection with Mansfield Landing. Then continuing 0.05 mile westerly to tie into Smoketree South Parkway, State Route 3340; Mansfield Landing, beginning at the intersection with Smoketree South Parkway and going 0.04 mile southerly to the intersection with Mansfield Terrace, then continuing 0.02 mile southwesterly to the intersection with Mansfield Circle, then continuing 0.05 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Mansfield Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Mansfield Landing and going 0.12 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; and Mansfield Circle, beginning at the intersection with Mansfield Landing and going 0.03 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance easements. These road~ serve 30 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department Of Bighways a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads except Smoketree South Parkway which has a 60 .right-of-way, and Mansfield Landing which has a 40' to 50' variable width right-of-way. Mansfield Landing is recorded a~ follows: Mansfield Landing. Plat Book 45, Page 38, April 2, 1984. 8519~0 Vote: Unanimous 15.I.3. STREET LIGHT BEQUESTS On motion of ~e. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the installation of street lights at the following locations with any necessary funds to be expended from the District Street Light Punds as indicated: 1. Intersection of Meadowdale Blvd. and Beulah Road, Dale 2. Eullington Road (on pole between 9018 and 9028 where there is a transformer and if that interferes further down the street toward the end) Midlothian 3. Coalfield Road and Queen,gate, Midlothian 4. Coalfield Road and Prince William Road, Midlothian Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel stated he had submitted a request for a light in Garland Hcight~. Mr. McElfish stated they are processing the request at the current time and it should be coming up at the next Board meeting. i5.I.4. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC EEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE B~LAT- ING TO CONDITIOMAL USE FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITY USES On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set the date of January 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing consider an ordinance relating to public and private utility use as a conditional use. Vote: Unanimous SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EASTERN AREA PLAN TECNNICAL AMENDMENT On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board set the date o£ January 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing to consider the Eastern Area Plan Technical Amendment. Vote: Unanimous 15.I.6. PURCHASE BY COUNTY OF TRINITY METHODIST CHURCN On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized staff to proceed with the purchase of Trinity Methodist Church at the intersection of Iron Bridge and Krause Roads in the amount of $172,500 and further that $50,000 be appropriated from the contingency and $122,500 frem the fund balance. Vote: Unanimous 15.J. UTILITIES ITEMS 15.J.1. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN ARROWH=AD~ SECT~, 2 Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been set for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a 16 ft. drainage eamement across lots 23 and 24; Block E, Arrowhead, Section 2. There was no one present to discuss this matter. On motion of Mrs. Girone, s~conded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: 85-971 AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 16 foot drainage easement across Lots 23 and 24, Block E, Arrowhead, Section 2, Clover Bill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk'~ Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 14, at pages 34 and 35. WHEREAS, L. V. Tapscott and J. R. Mills, Jr., have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, iVirginia to vacate a i6 foot drainage easement across Lots 23 and !24, Block ~, Arrowhead, Section 2, Clover Bill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 14, pages 34 and 35, made by J. K. Timmons, dated November 12, 1964. The easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A 16 foot drainage easement across Lots 23 and 24, Block E, Arrowhead, Section 2, the location of which is more fully shown, shaded in red on a plat made by J. K. Timmons, dated November 12, 1964, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WEEREAS, notice ha~ been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the easement sought to be vacated. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid easement be and is hereby vacated. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.I-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee simple title of the easement hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots free and clear of any rights of public Accordingly, thi~ Ordinance shall he indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and L. V. Tapsoott and J. R. Mills, Jr., or their successors in title, as grantee. Vote: 0nanimous 15.J.2. CONDE~L~NTION ACROSS PROPERTY IN ROCK SPRINGS FARMS On motion of Mr. Daniel, SecOnded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation proceedings against the following property owners if the amount as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on December 12, 1985 of the County's intention to enter upon end take the property which i~ to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of virginia. James C. Nelder, Jr. and Barbara Nelder S73-2T/9 $412.00 85~972 Vote: UnaniMous 15.J.3. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 15.J.30a. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE ON A~.R~RTA ROAD Mr. Welchons statad in response to a petition, the Board authorizad the Utilities Department to conduct a survey to determine the number of residents that would connect to the public sewer system if made available on Alberta Road. Be state~ only 17% (2 out of 12) of the ~esidents signed and returned contracts agreeing to connect to the public sewer system. Be Stated staf~ recommended that the project be cancelled due to lack of desire to connect to the public sewer ~y~tem. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred consideration O£ this matter until February 12, 1986. 15.J.3.b. REQUEST FOR SEWER SERVICE IN STONR~NGE SUBDIVISION On motion of Mrs. Girone, ~eeonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to conduct a survey of the Stonehenge Subdivision to determine the number of residents that would sign contracts agreeing to connect to the public sawer system if made available. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4. CONSENT ITEMS 15.J.4.a. WATER CONTRACT ALONG ROUTE 10 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract Number W85-46B for construction of a 30" water line along Route 10 from the Courthouse to the Airport Water Pumping Station to Yates Construction Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $908,176.00 in accordance with engineer's recommendations and further the Board appropriated $300,000.00 from 5H (Bond Burplus) to 5N-5835-546N for construction, right of way and contingencies. It is noted there had been a prior appropriation in the amount of $800,000.00 in the Capital Improvement Sudget. 15.J.4,b. WATER CONTRACT FOR COALFIELD ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary document~ for Contract Number W85-167B ~or con~trnotion of Phase II of the 24" water line along Coalfield Road from Genito Water Pumping Station to Midlothian to Lyttle Utilities, Incorporated, in the amount of $490,547.00 and further th~ Board transferred $391,000.00 from 5H-SS35-~01N to 5H-5835-5G7N and appropriated $200,000.00 from 5~ (Bond Surplus) tn 5H-5835-5G7N for construction, County furnished materials, right of way and contingencies. It is noted there has been a prior appropriation in the amount of $900,000.00 in the Capital Improvement Budget for Phase I and Phase II of this project, Phase I will require $509,000.00 of the prior appropriation which leaves $391,000.00 for construction of Pha~e II. 85-973' 15.J.4.c. CONTRACT FOR WATER LINg PROM AIRPORT PUMPING STATION TO ROUTE 360 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Contract Number W85-97C for construction Of a ~ortion of the water line from the Airport Pumping Station to Route 360 to Richard L. Crowder Construction, Incorporated, in the amount of $730,922.13 in accordance with the engineer's recommendations. It is noted that funds for this project were appropriated under the Capital Improvement Budget; therefore, no additional appropriations are required. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4.d. SEWER AGR~=M~NT FOR DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION FOR REYMET ROAD AND FRIEND AVENUE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved Sewer Contract Number S85-128CD/7(8)5BSM, for developer participation between Glenn P. Reynolds and Glenn R. Martin, executors Of the estate of J. Louis Reynolds and the County and further authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents on behalf of the County. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4.e. DE~D OF DEDICATION ALONG WADSWORTH ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf of the County a t5' wide strip of land adjacent to Wadsworth Road from C. M. C. Centers, a Florida General Partnership. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4.f. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG COALFIELD ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents accepting on behalf Of the County a 20' strip of land along Coalfield Road from the Chesterfield County School Board. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4.g. RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ABANDON PORTION OF W~DSWORTH DRIVE On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Meyes, the Board adopted the following resolution: Resolution of the County of Chester£ield's intention to consider a Resolution and Order to abandon a portion of Wadsworth Drive. Pursuant to Section 33.1-151 cf the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that at s regular meeting to be held on January 22, 1986, it will consider a Resolution and Order tc abandon a portion of Wadsworth Drive more fully described as follows: A port~on of Wadsworth Drive, Route 887, as shown on a plat prepared by Lewis & Owens, Incorporated, dated April 25, 1985, and revised May 13, 1985 and June 12, 1985, a 85-974 copy of which is attached to this resolution. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Board shall send a copy of this Resolution to the State Highway and Transportation Commissioner thereof. The Clerk shall further cause to be published and posted the required notices of this Board's intention to abandon this portion of Wadsworth Drive. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.4.h. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONVEY PROPERTY TO COMMONWEALT~ OP VIRGINIA POR CONS~RUCTIO~ OF POWRITE PARKWAY On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of January 8, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. to ccneider the conveyance cf three parcels of land to the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation for the construction of Powhite Parkway. Vote: Unanimous 15.J.5. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. 15.K. Pd~BORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with status report on the Gcner~ Fund Contingency, the General Fund Balance, the Road Reserve Funds, District Road and and Street Light Funds. He also presented the Board with a list of Board projects which had been specifically requested by the Board. Mr. Daniel indicated he ha added several items which had not been included such as leaf burning, trash pick up, etc. 16. ADJOUP~NI~E~T On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adjourne at 11:15 p.m. until 11:00 a.m. on December 18, 1985 at the State Treasurer's Office at the Monroe Building in Richmond. Vote: Unanimous Richa~ %. ~Hedrick County Adminietrator ~5-975