The URL can be used to link to this page

03-27-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES March 27, 1985 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. G. ~. Applegate, Chairman Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman Mr. Earry G. Daniel Mr. R. Garland Dodd ~rs. Joan Girone Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R.' Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mr. Ken Cronin, Asst. Dir. of Personnel M~s. Doris DeHart, Legislative Coord. Mr. Phil Bsster, Dir. Of Parks & Rec. F~r. Elmer Hedge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. William Howell, Dir. cf Gen. Services Mr. Robert Masden, Assr. Co. Admin. for Euman Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst. CO. A~min. for Development Mr. William Peele, Chief of Development Review Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Ms. Jean Smith, Dir, of Social Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Ac~. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities Sheriff E. L. Wingo, Sheriff's Dept. Mr. Applegate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:05 a.m. 1. INVOCATION Mr. Applegate introduced Reverend C~lvin T. Eaves, Pastor of Clover Hill Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion of Mr. Dedd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board aDproved the minutes of March 13, 1985, as amended. Vote: Unanimous COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS ~edrick welcomed 65 students representing all the high ~chools in the County who will be participating in Model 85-163 Government Day. He introduced Mr. Stith from the County staff and Ms. L~e Chase from the School System who have been coordinating this program. MS. Chase expressed appreciation to the Board for its support and encouragement regarding this program. She briefly explained the program, the method of selection of students and the schedule for Model Government Day. She introduced the students who were present and would be participating. Mr. Hedrick introduced Ms. Pat Hegdal, Editor of the new publication in Chesterfield, The County Chronicle, and wished her success in her new endeavor. Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. Jerry Lazarus of the Richmond Times Dispatch who was snbetituting for Ms. Paula 8quires. Mr. Eedrick introduced Ms. Justine Dremuk of Midlothian High School, who is the Model Government Day student representing the Public Information Officer. Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. ~ugene Autry, Manager of the Richmond Suburban, C & P Telephone Company, who was present. Mr. Autry, on behalf of C & P Telephone Company, presented the Board with a collage that pictorially depicts the history of Virginia. The Board expressed appreciation to C & P for the collage. Mr. Autry further informed the Board that C & P would be introducing a new service between Midlothian and Chester on June 2, 1985, which will eliminate the toll calling and explained the details of the system. Mr. Daniel stated that C & P and Mr. Autry have made many outstanding efforts with regard to the restoration of Magnolia i Grange and expressed further appreciation to him for the private sector's involvement. 4. BOA/~D COMMITTEE REPORTS Mrs. Girone stated she was still working with the Richmond Regional Planning District Conunission regarding the Small Business Administration. Mrs. Girone stated Maymont is beginning a fund raising campaign and will be approaching the small businesses in Chesterfield to help with the funding of the Park. she stated the Park is beautiful and invited all to visit. Mrs. Girone stated the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission is working on the budget and they are suggesting that the MP© be funded independently of the Commission and that would mean approximately $5,000 to the County in additional funding if the proposal is adopted. She stated they are also looking at funding a study of the water resources in the.Richmond Region and the potential to develop Lake ~enito as one. She stated they are also going tO sUggeSt that the Commission prepare a plan of work for a study of the ports system that would go to a consultant. Mr. Mayes stated he represented the Board at a meeting with the Govern~r on the Summer Jobs Program, he had attended the Preallecation Hearing for Primary Roads where Senator Gray and Delegate Watkins appeared on behalf of the Ruute 36 underpass in Ettrick and he attended the bill signing ceremonies for H.B.1515 · with other members of the Board at the Capital. Mr. Applegate stated the Capital Region Airport Commission met on ~arch 26, 1985 and they have delayed the bid opening for construction until April 10 to allow some additional contractors to submit proposals, the groundbreaking is scheduled for May, and the Con~ission is in the process of selecting a project manager which cost of the management service is included in the 85-164 $34,000,000 that was projected for the cost of renovation. ~e stated that during the construction period of the apron, a portable walkway to protect passengers from inclement weather will be installed. He stated another committee is looking into the ground transportation and have had five meetings during the month trying to work out an agreement between the independent operators and Grooms Transportation in an effort to provide a better ground transportation system with the understanding that during the construction period it would be difficult. He stated traffic is up approximately 9%'and may have been up even higher except for the inclement weather. Mr. Hedrick stated that he and Chief Panes had a very productive meeting with the Volunteer Rescue Squads on March 26, 1985 and would be contacting the Board to schedule a date for a meeting. 5. RPQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, F24ERGENCY ADDITIONS OR C~AN~PB IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board added to 10.D.2. a bingo and/or raffle permit for the Chester Youth Sports Boosters, Inc. because of the emergency nature of the issuer deferred 10.C.2., Approval of Bids for Phase I of Iron ~ridge Park, until April 10, 1985; deleted Item 8,A., Claim of Barbara Pitt for Value of ~o Lost Rings; added to Item 10.I., Executive Session, the consultation with legal counsel regarding H.M.K. vs. the County and related law suits pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, because of the emergency nature of the issue; and further the Board adopted the agenda as amended. Mr. Daniel inquired if Item 8.B. and 8.C., tax exempt financing for Walden Place and Creekwood Crossing, should be eliminated due to the recently adopted policy of the ~oard which indicates the Board will not be involved in financial matters of Various developers. Mr. Micas stated to the contrary, because if the Board does not respond to the 60 day letter from ~I~DA, the inaction will constitute approval of the VHDA financing. Vote: Unanimous 6. I~ESOLUTTONS OF SPECIAL R~COGNITION 6.A. WBSLE~ K. MARTIN, JR., GENERAL S~RVICB$ DEPARTMENT Mr. Ken Cronin introduced Mr. William Howell. Mr. Howell introduced Mr. Wesley H. ~artln, Jr. and briefly outlined his outstanding service to tho County. On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Wesley H. Martin, Jr., will retire from the General Services Department, Chesterfield County, on March 31, 1985; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin has provided te~ years of quality service to the citlz~ne of Chesterfield County; and ~7¥EREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors will miss Mr. Martin's diligent service. NOW, THEREFORE, BP IT KESOLVPD that this Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Martin and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his service to the County. AND, BE IT FURTHER R~SQLV~D that a copy of this Resolution be presented to Mr. Martin and that this Resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. 85-165 Mr. Applegate presented Mr. Martin with the executed resolution On behalf cf the Board and introduced members of Mr. Martin's family who were present. 6.B. EASTER SEAL WEEK On motion of the Board, the followin~ resolution was adopted: ~EREAS, the Easter Seal Society has provided services to dis- abled children and adults in Virginia since 1944; and ~ERFJ~S, the Society operates speech centers across the State and provides direct, rehabilitative services such as wheelchairs and braces to people in need; and WHEREAS, the Society sponsors Stroke Clubs and Voice Clubs and operates Camp ~aster Seal ~aet and West in an effort to improve the quality of life for disabled persons. NOW, TEEREFOREt BE IT RESOLVED by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors that the week of April 1-7, 1985 De declared Easter Seal Week in Chesterfield County. AND FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby seeks the support of all its citizens to aid the Society through volunteer actions and through contributions to make this campaign a success story for Billy Joyner~ the 1985 Easter Seal Child, Greg Morgan and others who are aided by the unti~ing and enthusiastic efforts of the Easter Seal Society as demands for human service programs are ever increasing. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate stated he would be presenting the resolution during the Easter Seal Telethon on March 31, 1985. 6.C. CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION ~ONTH Ms. Jean Smith in~roduced Ms. Suzanne Fleming, Senior Social Work Supervisor. MS. Fleming outlined the activities Scheduled during the month to promote child abuse prevention. She expressed appreciation for the support the Board had given in the pas~ toward this effort. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS, child abuse and neglect are realities that touch all segments of the community of Chesterfield County; and P~EREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of SuperviSors believes that children are best served in their own homes and that the factors that create ckild mistreatment can be addressed with support from corm~unity ~esourcss; and WHEREAS, the community service agencies and private citizens have joined hands to strengthen the family's ability to continue functioning as a family; and P~EKEAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes and supports the effo~ts to resolve the issu~ of child abuse and neglect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT P~ESOLVED that the month of April, 1985, be proclaimed Child Abuse Prevention Month and that this resolution be called to the attention of all citizens. Vote; Unanimous 85-166 Mr. Applegate presented the executed resolution to Ms. Fleming on behalf of the Board. 6.D. FAMILY APPRECIATION WEEK Mr. Ed Marsh was present ~epresentinq the Optimist Clubs in its request for the adoption of a resolution recognizing family appreciation week. He explained the need and importance of the family in the community. On motion of the Board, the following resolution wa~ adopted: hq~ERBAS, the family is one of the ~oldest human institutions; and WHEREAS, the family fulfills many essential functienz in society by providing protection, training and emotional and social support to its members; and WMEREAS, despite claims of its demise, the family remains an important organization in all societies; and WHEREAS, the Beard of Directors of Optimist International has designated April 7-14, 1985 "Family Appreciation Week" and requested that Optimist Clubs use the time to promote the value of family life and its importance not only for Optimists but for the eo~unity as well; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors wishes to acknowledge the importance of families and expresses appreciation for the families of this County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT t~ESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors declares April 7-14, 1985 as "Family Appreciation Week" in Chesterfield County and encourages all citizens to join in this celebration of family life. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Appleqate presented the executed resolution to Mr. Marsh. 7. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UN$CNEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS O MESSRS. JOSEPH MATYIKO, SR., JOHN R. SMITH AND MORRIS MASON REGAPJ)ING FOWHITE EXTENSION AND ROUTE 288 INTERCHANGE AREA Mr. Morris Mason stated there have been a lot of drawings and discussions with regard to the Powhite Extension and the Route 288 interchange but thsy had never seen any definitiv~ plans as to how the road would he put together and constructed. He indicated Mr. John Smith would be speaking on behalf of himself and Mr. Matyiko. ~r. Smith, Board Chairman of Chesmid Matylko, Incorporated, and Matyiko Investment Corporation, stated these two companies combined own St. Leger's Square.which comprises 168 acres of zened industrial and commercial property located on the east and west side of Coalfield Road. He presented a scale drawing with an overlay tope map oi the area indicating where he felt there Once was a road, reviewed several fixed landmarkz in the area, stated they attempted to put this on as absolute a scale as possibly could be done, reviewed mileage between vario~ points on the map, etc. He stated they had expected to have their final censultants report prior to thi~ date but since their work is keyed to the County's consultants' plan they are being delayed until they get some scaled definition as te what the consultants' recommendations are. Me discussed the various consultants they had retained which had not worked out and the fact that they decided to develop a plan on what should he included in the plan without external pressures. He r~£erred to the public hearing plan, the second design for the pistol flyover and diamond interchange~ he reviewed the history of the area since 1974 with regard to environmental concerns, zoning in the areal right of way donations, soil conditions, measurements on 85-167 the prepared map. Mr. Smith further discussed connectors on the roadway, alignment of the road network and the cloverleaf and the at grade interchange at Coalfield Road. ~e discussed the west line of Route 288 which was moved Several years ago, the speed on roadways for exit ramps, the ramps, the pistol flyover and its effect on %he road network, the original design for flow of traffic~ the reasons for cloverleafs versus the proposed design and the scale used in the maps prepared, etc. He read the resolution adopted by the Board on July 27, 1983 with regard to ~owhite/Houte 288. He stated it was his understanding that Subsequent to this time, a letter was written to the ~ighway Department which omits the portion which indi0ates the plan may require modification. He stated he also had a letter which was written by Wilbur SMith and Associates to Mr. Bryce Pcwell who had recf~ested information regarding the initial pistol flyover. He read the verbiage regarding the pistol f~yover plan design advantages and general conclusions which generally indicates the pistol flyover design would require less land as well as accommodate greater traffic. A copy of the letter and resolution to which Mr. Smith referred are filed with the papers of this Board. 8. D~FEP~ED ITEMS 8.H. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING FOR WALDEN PLACE Mr. Micas stated that this item was deferred at the request of the applicant at the March 13, 1985 meeting. He stated the Board had adopted a policy which indicated the financing of new multi-family projects in the County should be the responsibility of the developers using conventional sources of financing. He stated the Board has received a 60 day letter from the Virginia Housing and Development Authority (VHDA) which asks the Hoard to consider allowing V~DA to issue tax-exempt bonds for Walden Place in Brandermill. He stated if the Hoard approved this it would be to the benefit of the developer so long as he connnitted ~01 of the units to low and moderate income tenants. He stated if the Board takes no action today or approves the financing, U~DA will issue the bonds and the issuance of the bonds would be contrary to the established policy. He stated if the Hoard is to be consistent with policy, the Hoard should adopt the attached certificate of disapproval. Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Hoard that he serves as an officer of the proposed Brandermill Wood's Retirement Village, declared a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act, and excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Larry ~orton, representing Pralin and Waldron, stated the bottom line on this project for the senior citizens of the Count~ does hinge on the funding arrangement. He stated the rate differential on the bonds is approximately 10 3/4% versus 131 which equates to a rental of $120 difference per month per unit and that is why the bond funding is very critical. He stated they are the largest Virginia ~a~ed nursing home builder in the State, they have about 15 nursing homes, they are concerned and know the needs of the senior citlzens~ they have gone to the rental units versus nursing home facilities for people who do not need to go to a nursing home, etc. Mr. Dodd inquired if in the financing scheme, there is any criteria as to income or eligibility, etc. Mr. Herren stated the income level would be approximately $17,000 for the residents and the rent and services run from $1,000 to $1,600 a month. He stated typically the senior citizens are on fixed incomes and their children or others pay the monthly charge. Ms. Delma Hunter, representing Beaufont Towers, stated she deals with admissions and iamily members who are locking for independent living for their parents on a daily basis. She requested that the Board look at this project not as multi-family housing but as a retirement housing facility for people who do not need the facilities of a nursing home. Mrs. Girone stated that the matter before the Board is the issue of financing, not the need of Walden Place or another facility. Mr. Daniel stated the zoning is already in place and the developer can begin construction. Ms. Hunter etated she understands the multi-family policy which the Hoard adopted but she also understands the need for the type of service which they are offering. She stated this is not a strict multi-family development. Mr. Daniel read the policy indicating the developer should secure the funding through the private sector and that the government should not be involved. He stated the County is not talking about endorsements or curtailing any type of housing pattern. Ms. Hunter stated she felt the tax-exempt financing would make a difference for residents on a fixed income and there will be eventually no place for the elderly to live Or afford to live independently in the County. Mr. W. D. Curry, representing the neighborhood group~ in Brandermill, stated he was approaching 65 and if he wanted to live in this complex, he has no assurance as to what the other 20% would be as time goes on and so he is concerned with the financing mechanism. He stated he had met with Mr. Waldron and he indicated that a couple could live in the facility, so there are no assurances that the complex is for singles, there are no assurances that under the VHDA funding it will not be something else in the future than what it was originally intended to be, and requested the Board to support its adopted policy. Mr. Jerry Olinger, administrator of Beaufent Towers, stated the Board has its policies but requested the Board consider the people who are involved. He stated the people are 65 and older, they have been through things in life that other~ cannot conceive, etc. He stated the Board is being presented an Opportunity to assist people who have helped develop the county, the state and the country and who need help today. Mr. Mayes stated it wa~ awkward for the Board in that it is being asked to approve/disapprove a recfuest for financing and not to address the quality of life being represented. Mr. Olinger stated he felt the two issues could not be separated. Mr. Rudy stated he would be representing the parties on the next item for tax-exempt ~undinq for Creekwood Crossing. He stated he felt if the Board ie getting ready to enforce a policy, would it not be proper to consider both of these at the same time since they involve the same issues. Mr. Micas stated that although they both involve the application of the housing policy, they are different projects and it would be better to treat them separately. It was generally agreed they would be discussed separately. Mr. Daniel stated he realizes there may be a perception that the Board is not pro-~lderly which is not the case. He stated the nursing home, the tax relief for the elderly, etc., clearly indicates the Board is quite active in supporting the elderly. He stated this is a case where there is a policy to address an issue and the Board should conform to it or there was no need to adopt it. He stated at the Board meeting on March 13, 1985 the Board pa~ed a policy not to become involved in the financing of multi-~amily housing and no One has addressed that issue, only the mechanisms for this particular location. He stated the zoning is in place. On motion of Mr. Daniel, eec6nded by Mrs. Girone, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute a certificate of disapproval of the Virginia ~ousinq and Development Authority'e issuance of tax-exempt financing for Walden Place per the Board's policy adopted on March 13, 1985. M~. Dodd inquired if there were a way to limit this occupancy only to the elderly and that it could not change. 85-169 Mr. Larkin Goshorn, representing VHDA, stated were they to finance the project, it would be predicated on the understandinq that this would be a project which would be limited to the elderly by the loan documents. Mr. Dodd inquired if they were in the policy of changing an elderly to a open-type apartment project. Mr. Goshorn stated he felt this project would be inappropriate for any other type of occupancy. Mr. Daniel inquired if the developer followed all the procedures ~equired, built the project and in five to ten years qradually made changes, who would assure that what is approved is being done. Mr. Goshorn stated the loan documents would dictate the u~e of the property and ~r~DA monitors and ~crutinize~ projects the entire time that the financing is outstanding. Mr. Daniel stated he felt this was a non-enforceable document. Mr. stated it was enforceable. Mr. Dndd offered a ~ub~titute motion, seconded by Mr. Mayes, that the Board approve the request for tax-exempt financing by the Virginia Housing and Development Authority for Walden Place based on the proper safeguards being in place for the elderly only. Mr. Dodd ~tated he would also like the conditions addressed in zoning. Mr. Daniel stated the zoning had already been approved. Mr. Dodd stated what really concerns him is that time after time zoning applications for this type of zoning have been denied for va:ious reasons, it is obvious that people don't want the elderly to live in mobile homes, they don't want them to live in converted garages, they don't want them to llve in additions to homes, etc. and inquired what was to be done. He stated he is tired of seeing the selfishness of some con,unities. A vote being taken on the substitute motion was as follows: Ayes: Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd. Nays: Mr. Daniel and M:S. Circus. Absent: Mr. Applegate. ~%r. Micas stated the motion failed to carry. Mr. Micas stated that if the vote on the original motion fails, then failure to take action at this meeting will constitute approval and VHDA will issue tax-exempt financing. Mr. Daniel requested a recegs. It wac generally agreed the Board would recess for two minutes. Reconvening: Mr. Naye~ called for the vote on the original motion: Ayes: Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Oirone. Nays: Mr. Mayes and Mr. Dodd. Absent: Pit. Appleqate. Mr. Micas stated obviously the certificate of disapproval has not been adopted and there exists a matter for which no decision has been made. He stated technically the Board ShOuld have a motion to pass by the issue. Mrs. Girone stated the Board has a policy which it adopted on March 13, 1985. She inquired, i~ at the first meeting after that adoption, the Board was to disavow a policy that is not even Cwo weeks old. She stated the c0m~unity i~ represented and they do · not want ho place their community in jeopardy regarding this project as they are concerned about the income level, the funding, etc. She stated the County has had a serious problem with a project that had restraints on it through VHDA and the County had to go almost two years trying to find out who lived in the project, let alone trying to find out what their age group was. She stated VHDA was not capable and the County had to intercede. She outlined various aspects of the project. Mr. Dodd stated that was Section 8 Housing and this is entirely 85-170 different. Mrs. Girone stated it was still through VHDA and when there were social problems, they went to VtDA to straighten it out and they could.not do it. Mr. Mayes stated thi~ is not the situation in this case, this is whether or not to approve or disapprove the financing, He stated just because a policy was adopted it may not be in the best interest of the County and he had no problem with not adhering to it. M_rs. Girone stated she would like to move that the certificate of disapproval be approved. Mr. Micas indicated that the Board may not consider a motion already defeated at the same meeting, Mr. Mayes ruled that the Board continu~ with the next item on the agenda. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. 8.C. TAX~EXEMPT FINANCING FOR CREEKWOOD CROSSING Mr. Micas stated this multi-family project of 204 units is similar to the previous issue and either approval or inaction will constitute authorization for VHDA to fund the project with tax-exempt financing. Mrs. Girona inquired if thi~ was to house the elderly. Mr. Rudy stated it was for apartments. Mr. Rudy was present representing the Atlantic Momes Corporation. He stated the statute, in this kind of case, imposes on V~DA that they determine in connection with the financing or construction of such project, that the local governing body has not within sixty days sent a letter of disapproval to VBDA. He stated it does not require nor does it request the Board to approve or disapprove anything and it is advisory in nature. He stated in 80% of these Cases that occur in the state, the governing bodies do not interfere with conventional financing which is what this is. Be stated if the Board takes no action, then you are not interfering with the financing. Me stated it is not mandated that the Board take action. Be stated the policy says in the preamble that the Board recognizes that there is plenty of affordable housing available but he disagreed. Me requested the Board not act on the 60 day letter per the policy which indicated it is inappropriate for the Board to take action in this matter. Me stated most localities do not respond to letters of this type and they do not respond to these applications. He stated he felt Mr. Daniel was correct in the beginning of the meeting when he inquired if the Board needed to take action since there was a policy adopted. He stated he disagreed with the County Attorney in that he felt a failure to act does not constitute the County's approval. Me stated the project was zoned last year and the project has been through schematic planning. He ~tated tax-exempt financing is competitive and because of that VHDA makes area location surveys, site location surveys, they examine the financial statements of the parties involved and award certain projects and the result is a better project. He disagreed with financing for rehabilitation of units as he felt a better project initially is better. Me reviewed the rental costs for the units, some of the features, and stated the rent will not be subsidized. Me stated after years of struggling, the Board went to the State of Virginia to sell bonds for the purpose of building a road because they had a better rate of interest. Be stated this is a similar situation. ~4r. Applegate stated that Mr. Rudy's clients suggested that we do this rather than hold the public hearing. Mr. Rudy stated that the statute did not require a public hearing. Mr. Applegate stated that the County understands that but ~ot to act on it and let it go wa~ against his policy of awa~eness. Mr. Dodd stated that he did not understand why the item was on the agenda in the first place but he does have a different 85-171 feeling for the elderly than for straight zoning. He stated he did not quite understand the policy in that it says the Boa~d will not get involved in financing and yet we are getting involved. Ee stated he felt he did not know who was violating the policy as he felt the policy said no action would be taken and the Board is taking action. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girune, the Board adopted the Certificate of Disapproval for Creekwood Crossing and authorized the Chairman to execute said document. Mr. Applegate stated he was the first proponent of tax-exempt financing and after lengthy discussion the Board adopted a policy. He stated he felt this indicated that the Board did not encourage new multi-family development with the use of tax-exam~t bonds and was not the fact that the Board would not get involved. A vote being taken: Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayee, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~stention: Mr. Dodd stated he felt the Board is voting on something that need not be voted. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS o 1985-86 SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the 1985-86 Secondary Improvement Budget. Mr. McCraoken stated the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation had advertised the public hearing and no action is requested of the Board at this time, only to receive citizen input. Mr. Hedrick stated subsequent to the public hearing, staff will prepare comments for the Board and the Board would be requested to take action at a later da~e. Mr. Wayne Meadows~ a resid®nt of Clifton Farms, stated Stigal Drive is in very poor condition, has been for some time and they have complained but nothing was done. He stated he collected a petition with 75-80 names in support of improvements to the roads, contacted Mr. Perry who came and looked at the roads and wrote a letter indicating the roads were bad. He related instances involving accidents, emergency vehicles, etc. which he felt were all due to the poor road conditions. He stated the vehicles are being damaged, there is only one exit/entrance, ute. ~e stated Mr. Perry indicated that it might be 1986 or 1987 before improvements can be made, the roads could not stand another six months without improvements, there are drainage problems and there are another 100 homes planned to be built. Re indicated there were only a few people present because it was a day meeting. There were 7 people present in support of Mr. Meadows' comments. Mr. Applegate inquired if maintenance and improvements were what was needed. Mr. Meadows stated minor work would only improve the situation but for a period of several weeks and there is a major problem in the area. Mr. ~mory Chase stated he agreed with everything stated by Mr. Meadows, this is a road of about .8 of a mile and %hers are heavy vehicles constantly utilizing it and patching will not hold, There was no one else present to address this matter and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Daniel stated he has always felt the secondary road budget was inadecuate. He stated he felt there was no equity in the distribution of'resources in this budget as proposed as Dale District is scheduled to receive $30,000 out of a $2,3~0,000 budget after County-wide issues of $470,000 are taken cut. He stated Dale District constitutes 20% of the population in the County and he could not accept the distribution of road funds of 85-172 which they are to receive a 1.2% rate of return. He stated he could not vote for this budqet. Mr. Applegate stated approval is not being requested at thie time. He stated that the people of Clifton Farms are in dire need of immediate road improvements and requested Mr. Perry look at this situation as soon as possible and bring back a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Perry stated he would addres~ the issue at the April 10, 1985 meeting. Mr. Perry stated it would be acceptable to hold a work Session on the 1985-86 Secondary Improvement Budget prior to adoption. Mr. Hedrick stated staff has heard the input, will work with the Highway Department and present the Board alternatives on their issues. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the issue was whether the budget would be divided equitably in each district or whether it would be based on needs and She felt the proposed budget was based on need. Mr. Meyes and Mr. Daniel discussed who decides the needs. Mr. Appleqate stated the Board is not to act today but that the input received will be incorporated and addressed at that time. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board requested that the input received today be considered by the County Administration and that the staff be directed to review this and present recommendations to the Board at a work session prior to a Board decision. Mrs. Girone stated that some consideration should be given to the projects that have had.funds accumulated over a period of years. Mr. Dodd stated he understood Mr. Daniel's concerns but in reviewing the list, Enon Church Road, for example, the iunding eo~letes financing and he does not want anything to hold up the project. He stated most of these projects are completing financing except for $500,000 for Turner Road. Mr. Hedrlck inquired when the budget would have tO be adopted. Mr, McCracken stated the budget should be adopted by June. Vote: Unanimous 10. NEW BUSINESS 10.A. SCHOOL BOARD ITEMS 10.A.1. ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Mr. Nedrick stated the Board is requested to adopt the prepared resolution authorizing the issuance of $3,000,000 in general obligation bonds by the Virginia Public School Authority. Dr. Cain was present to answer any questions. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following resolution: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF $3t000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES OF 1985, OF CEESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCNOOL AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: 1. Pursuant to Section 15.1-189 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), the School Board of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County") at its regular meeting on March 13, 1985 adopted a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") to authorize the issuance and sale to the Virginia Public School Authority (the "Authority") of three million dollars ($3,000,000) aggregate principal amount of g~neral obligation bonds of the County, such bonds tO be authorized and issued pursuant to the Public Finance 85~173 !Il Act, Title 15.1, Chapter 5, Sectien 15.1-170 et .~eq., of the Virginia Code and purchased by the Authority pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22.1-166 with the proceeds of sale of bonds ~o be i~sued by the Authority pursuant to Virginia Code Section 22.1-167. This Board deem~ it advisable and in the best interezts of the County to authorize and provide at thiz rime'for issuance~ sale and delivery of such bonds. 2. For the purpose of financing the costs of school improvements of and for the County, there are hereby authorized to be issued, sold and deTivered an issue of three million dollars ($3,000,000) principal amount of general obligation bonds of the County to be designated and known as "General Obligation School Bonds, Series of 1985" (hereinafter referred to as the "Bonds"). Ail such Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form and shall be in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof. ~he Bonds shall be numbered ~rom R-1 upwards in orde~ of issuance. The Bonds shall mature aanually on such day and in such principal amount in each year as shall be determined by the County Administrator and shall bear interest at such rate or rates as shall be specified by a subsequent resolution of this Board, such interest to be payable on a date which is not more than twelve (1~) months from the date of the Bonds and semiannually thereafter. The County Administrator is authorized to determine, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this resolution: the date or dates of the Bonds; the interest payment dates thereof; the maturity dates thereof, provided that the final maturity of the Bends shall be not later than forty (40) years from the date the Bonds are issued under this resolution~ the amount of principal maturing on each maturity date; the place or places of payment thereof and the paying agent or paying agents therefor; and whether or not the Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to their stated maturity or maturities and if subject to such redemption, the premiums, if any, payable upon such redemption and the respective periods in which such premiums are payable. 3. The Bends shall he executed, for and on behalf of the County, by the manual or facsimile signature of the Chairman of this Board, and shall have an impression of the corporate seal of this Board or a facsimile thereof affixed thereto or imprinted thereon, attested by the manual Or facsimile signature of the Clerk of this Board. The County Administrator shall direct the County Treasurer of the County, as the registrar for the bonds (the "Registrar"), to authenticate such Bonds and no such Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of authentication endorsed on each Bond shall have been manually e×eeuted by the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Bonds the Registrar shall insert in the certificate of authentication the date es of which such Bonds are authenticated~ such date to be the date upon which such Send ie actually authenticated if the date of such actual authentication is an interest payment date or to be the interest payment date next preceding the date upon which the Bond is actually authenticated if such Bond is not acutally authenticated upon an interest payment date or to be the date of the Bonds if such Bond is acutally authenticated prior to the first date upon which interest is payable upon the Bonds. The execution and authentication of th~ Bonds in the manner above set forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authen- tication of the Bonds. 4. The principal of the Bonds shall be payable in such coin or currency of the United Etates of America as at the respective dates of payment thereof is legal tender for public and private debts, at the option of the holder thereof, at the place or places of payment and through the paying agent or paying agents for the Bonds determined by the County Administrator in accordance with paragraph 2. Interest on the Bonds shall be 85-174 payable by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered owners of the Bonds at their respective addresses as 1such addresses appear on the books of registry kept pursuant to paragraph 6 hereof. 5. The full faith and credit of the County shall be and is irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal ef 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 ara assessed, 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 of and interest on the Bonds as the same respectively become due and payable. 6. At all times during which an9 Bond remains outstanding and unpaid, the Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept at the office of the Registrar in Chesterfield, Virginia, books of registry for the registration, exchange and transfer of the Bonds. Upon presentation at the offle~ of the Registrar fcr such purpose the Registrar, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, shall registrar, exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, On the hooks of registry the Bonds as herein set forth. Any Bond may be exchanged at the office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds in other authorized principal amounts of the same interest rate and maturity. Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred upon the books of registry by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or 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 or his duly authorized agent, in form satisfactory to the Registrar. All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this paragraph 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 paragraph shall be cancelled. 7. ~he County shall make no use of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds which would cause the BOnds to be "arbitrage bonds" under Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the County shall comply with the applicable regulations of the Internal Revenue Service adopted under such Section 103(c) so long as any Bond is outstanding. 8. The proceeds Of the sale of the Bonds shall be applied, at the direction of the School Board of the County, to the payment of the cost of school improvements of and for the County. 9. The Bonds shall be sold to the Authority at not less than par plus accrued interest and on such ether terms and conditions as are provided in a subsequent resolution of this Board. The sale and the form and definitive details cf the Bonds shall he approved, ratified and confirmed by a subsequent resolution of this Board. 10. The County Attorney is authorized and directed to file a copy of this resolution, certified by the Clerk of this Board to be a true and correct copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the County. The Clerk of this Board is authorized and directed to arrange ~or the publication once within ten (10) days 85-175 )f the date of such filing a notice of the adoption of this resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the County, all in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-199. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: "LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 15.1-199 ci the Coda of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, adopted on March 27, t985 a resolution authorizing the issuance of $3,000,000 principal amount of General Obligation School Bonds, Beries of 1985, of such County. The proceeds of the sale of such Bonds shall be applied to the payment of the cost of school improvements of and for the County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY~ VIRGINIA Richard L. Hedriok Clerk of the Board of Supervisors" 11. 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 any of the remaining portions of this resolution. 12. All resolutions and proceedings in conflict here%;ith are, to the extent of such conflict, repealed. 13. This resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Micas stated the Board would have to meet on April 9, 1985 at 12:30 p.m. to approve the intereet rate for the is~u&nce of the bonds. 10.A.2. INCENTIVE GRANT FOR HANDICAPPED C~ILDRE~ On motion of Er. Daniel, aeconded by Mrs. Gircne, the Board approved an incentive grant from the Title VI-B of the Education for the ~andicapped Act recently received from the State and increased the School's operating budget by $17,900 for receipts and expenditures. LEASE OF OFFICE BUILDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by.Mrs. Girone, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a lease agreement for an office building at 10021 Iron Bridge Road for the Department of Social Services which monthly rent will be $1,250 for 2,125 square feet. Vote: Unanimous 10.C. PARKS AND RECREATION ITEMS 10.C.1. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LAKE CHESDIN PARK AREA On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved and authorized the Parks and Recreation Department to proceed with a feasibility and development study for the Lake Chesdin Park area which co~t is estimated to be $33,000 and further appropriated said funds from the General Fund balance. Ayss: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dedd. A~stention: Mrs. Girone because of concerns that the Board is aware of. 10.C.3. OPERATION OF FOOD CONCESSIONS AT VARIOUS PARKS On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set the date of April 24, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a lease of real property at various park sites to operate food concessions. OPERATION OF FOOD CONCESSION AT MARROWGATE PARK On motion of Mr. Daniel, Seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board set the date of April 24, 1985 at 9:00 a.m~ for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of leases of real property at Harrowgate Park to operate a food concession. Vote: Unanimous 10.D. CONSENT 10.D.1. STAT~ ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County 2nvironmental Engineer, in aooordan¢~ with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of White Manor Lane and Glen Tara Drive in Glen Tara Sections ~ and 4B, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Of Mr. Dodd, ~econded by Mr. Mayes, ih is resolved that White Manor Lane and Glen Tara Drive in Glen Tara, Sections 3 and 4B, Matoaca District, be and they.hereby are established as public road~. And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department of ~ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, White Manor Lane, beginning at the intersection with Twelveoaks Road, State Route 3123, and going 0.06 mile easterly to the intersection with Glen Tara Drive, then continuing 0.05 mile easterly to a dead-end; and Glen Tara Drive, beginning wh~re State maintenance ends, Glen Tara ' Drive, State Route 3124, and going 0.08 mile southerly to the intersection with White Manor Lane, then continuing 0.02 mile southerly to tie into proposed Glen Tara Drive, Section 4D of Glen Tara. This request i~ inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 13 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors quarantees to the Virginia Department of ~iqhways a 50 foot right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Glen Tara are recorded a~ follows; Section 3. Plat ~ook 33, Page 96, June 13, 1979. Section 4B. Plat Book 43, Page 15, May 24, 1983. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination O£ Sehaviland Drive, Larkin Lane, SouthernDelle Lane 85-177 and Southernbelle Court in Glen Tara, Section 2, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, on motion o~ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Dehaviland Drive, Larkin Lane, Southernbells Lane and Southernbelle Court in Glen Tara, Section 2, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Dehaviland Drive, beginning where State maintenance ends, Dehaviland Drive, State Route 3132, and going 0.07 mile northeasterly to the intersection with Southernbelle Lane, then this road becomes Larkin Lane; Larkin Lane, beginning where State maintenance ends, Larkin Lane, State Ruute 839, and going 0.13 mile southeasterly to the intersection with Southernbelle Lane, then this road becomes Dehaviland Drive; Southernbelle Lane, beginning at the intersection with Dehaviland Drive and Larkin Lane and going 0.06 mile southeasterly to the intersection with Southernbelle Court, then continues 0.07 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; and Scuthernbelle Count, beginning at the intersection with Southernbelle Lane, and going 0.05 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 40 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of- way for all of these roads. This section of Glen Tara is recorded as follows: Section 2. Plat Book 39, Page 58, September 18, 1981. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Junilla Lane, Valencia Road and Valencia Place in Glenwood, Sections C and D, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Junilla Lane, Valencia Road and Valencia Place in Glenwood, Sections C and D, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it is requested to take into the Secondary System, Junilla Lane, beginning at the intersection with Valencia Road, State Route 2855, and going 0.04 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac; Valencia Road, beginning where Slate Maintenance ends, Valencia Road, State Route 2855, and going 0.04 mile northeasterly to the intersection with Valencia Place, then continues 0.03 mile northeasterly to a temporary turnaround; and Valencia Place, beginning at the intersection with Valencia Road, and going 0.15 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 26 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 foot right-of-way for all of these roads except Valencia Road which has a 60 foot right-of-way. These sections Of Glenweod are recorded as follows: 85-178 Sestion C. Plat Book 30, Pages 89 and 90, March 24, 1978. Section D. Plat Book 44, Page 63, November 22, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 10.D.2. BINGO AND/OH RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for the Ben Air Rotary Club, the Chester Civitan Club~ the Bensley Volunteer Fire Department and the Chester Youth Sports Boosters~ Inc. for calendar year 1985. Vote: Unanimous t0.E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 10.E.1. STREET LIGBT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the street light installation cost approvals for lights as follows in the Bermuda District with the understendinq that the remaining $738.42 in the Bermuda District Street Lights be utilized and that the balance of $753.58 be loaned from the Clover Bill District Street Light Funds with the understanding it will be repaid when funds are received in the Bermuda District account: 1. Morshead Drive and Bruce Road - $261.00 2. East Hundred Road and Florence Avenue - $575.00 3. East Bundred Road and Spruce Avenue - $656.00 Vote: Unanimous 10.E.2. PHASE I OF ROUTE 60/147 DRAINAGE DISTRICT On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board: 1. Appropriated $372,885.65 for Phase I construction of the Route 60/147 Drainage District with funds to come from the following sources: Category Funds available VDH&T commitment (450' of 66" pipel Koger commitment Materials (concrete pipe) Constr~ction (J.H. Martin) Contingency Total Revenues Expenditures $279,798.15 43,087.50 50,000.00 $372,885.65 $153,141.85 213,985.45 5,758.35 $372,885.65 2. Authorized the the County Administrator to award a purchase order for materials to Concrete Pipe for Phase I construction in the amount of $153,141.85. 3. Authorized the County Administrator to award a construction contract to J. H. Martin & Sons for Phase I construction in the amount of $213,985.45. 85-179 Vote: Unanimous Mrs. Girone expressed appreciation to staff for the management of this project. She stated further that the Highway Department Open cut Route 147 during the rush hour. Mr. Mc~lfish stated he would contact Mr. Perry regardin~ this matter. 10.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 10.~.l. Fd~POR~S ~ WA~ER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with %he water and sewer financial reports. 10.F.i.h. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CON~RAC~S Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. Mr. Dodd disclosed to the Board that his company was involved in the next issue, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from tke meeting. 1D.F.2. VACATION OF PORTION OF SPR%NG STREET Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance vacating a portion of Spring Street. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of Spring Street within Cool Spring Subdivision, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 8 at page 107. W~EP~EAS, Kent's ~nterprises, Inc. has petitioned the Board o~ Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of Spring Street within Cool Spring Subdivision, Bermuda Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 8, page 107, made by J. W. Push, dated September, 1947. The portion of Right of Way to be vacated is more fully described a~ follows: A portion of Spring Street 50' in width within Cool Spring Subdivision, as shown on a plat made by Charle~ C0 Townes& A~sociates, dated dune 7, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of thin ordinance. WB~R~AS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 ef the Code o~ Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the right of way 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, ~he above described portion of Spring Street is hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use except as hereinafter outlined. The grantees hereby convey unto the County and the County hereby reserves a 16' wa~er easement, 16' sewer easement, and 85-180 variable width construction easement within the portion of Spring Street hereby vacated as shown on the attached plat. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of VirGinia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, 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 fo Section I5.1-4S5 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the fores and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall v~st fee simple title to the centerline o£ the right of way in the owners of the abutting lots free and clear of any rights of public use except as hereinabove stated. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the naraes of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Kent's Enterprises, Inc., R. A. Blackwell, E. J. Blaekwell, Natalie Blaekwall, and Automotive Exporters, Inc. or their successors in title, as grantees. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone. ~2o~ent: blt. Dodd. Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting. 10.F.3. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 10.F.3.a. REQUEST FOR WATER AND SEW-ER IN BALLARD OAKS Mr. Welchons stated the survey of the area indicates there is 63% for sewer service and 63% for water service. Be stated that if the County were to extend either utility into the subdivision it would be appropriate to install both to prevent disturbing the street twice but since the 70% requirement had not been reached, staff recor0mended denial. Mrs. Pleadows from the Ballard Cake Subdivision stated there were 16 homes in the area and there is no land for expansion, the neighbors are stable and not transient, etc. She stated that they cannot believe that it was proper to develop this property with septic tanks because when it rains, the yards are flooded. She discussed other property in the area, the road network, the lot ~izes, the age of the septic tanks and the problems experisncsd. She stated she felt another neighbor would agree to water service in the future as they are now experiencing problems and she felt another neighbor selling a home wo~ld agree to reduce the price of the house ~o the purchaser would agree to connect. She requested a deviation from the policy of 70% as their area is in dire need of ~hese ' services. One other neighbor was present in favor of this request. Mrs. Girone stated she felt certain at least one other resident would connect which would bring it closer to the 70% requirement. After further discussion, it was on motion o£ Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the staff prepare the design for water and sewer service to the Ballard Oaks Subdivision, tranmferred $3,000 from ~63 Surplus to 380-1-65551-2142 and transferred $5,000 from 574 Surplus to 380-1-75301-2142. It was understood that the funds for construction would he taken from the 1985-86 CIP Extension funds. Vote: Unanimous 1O.F.3.b. KELLERSLEY SUBDIVISION FOR SEWER SERVICE Mr. Welchons stated as a result of the survey in the area for sewer service there was only a 44% favorable response and staff recommended denial. Mr. Mayas state~ he felt it would be more 85-181 expensive in later years to construct this project when the 70% is obtained. He stated he did not feel the percentages were that important when there are people in need who want the service and it will cost the County more in the future, he felt it would be wiser to do it now and that he felt it similar tc the previous case. Mr. Applegate inquired if there were failing septic tanks in the area and about ~he estimated cost. Mr. W~lchons stated that the cost information was presented at the time the survey was authorized and he did not have the informatlcn with him. Mr. Hedrick stated unlike the previous case there is a substantial difference between the 70% and the number of people that would connect to this project. He stated in the new procedures established in the Utilities CIP the Board has an opportunity to add discretionary projects and can look at them relative to the other projects in the district. Mr. Daniel stated that as we address the areas skipped, the 70% rule will always need discretionary action, ae stated that the County is becoming more and more urbanized, that we might reach the point when connections may need to be mandatory. Mr. Mayes stated he felt he was ready to act On this matter. Mr. Applegata stated the co~t of the project should be determined. After further discussion, it was cn motion of ~r. ~ayes, seconded by Mr Daniel, resolved that this request be deferred for 60 days to attempt to improve the percentage and to ascertain a cost estimate. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.4. CONSENT ITEMS Mr. Dodd stated one of the lines in the following consent items involves the shut down of the water treatment plant and inquired if there were a tremendous emergency from the Appomattox, would there be any way that the plant could be kept in a state that it could be used. Mr. Welchons stated to keep the plant in operation, it needs to continue operating and he hoped there would not be an emergency longer than it would take to bring the plant back into functioning capacity. 10.F.4.a. WATER CONTRACT FOR WHITESTONE, SECTION 2 On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Eoard approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W85-53CD/6{8)5532 - Installation of Water Lines for Whitestone, Section 2 Developer: Delami Corporation Contractor: J. H. Martin & Sons Contractors, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 19 Code: 559-1-00552-0000 Vote: Unanimous $29,302.00 7,318.50 (Refunds through Connections) $21,983.50 10.F,4.b. WATER LINE EXTENSION ON UPTON ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents fbr contract W84-39E/6(8)4397, construction of a water line on Upton Road, to B~chard L. Crowder Construction, Inc. who submitted the low bid in the amount of $33,519.39 using PVC pipe. It is noted that funds for this project have been previously appropriated. Vote: Unanimous 85-182 10.F.4.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR ASHBROOKE, SECTION 1 On motion ~£ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the ~ollowing sewer contract: S85-32CD/7(8)5322 - Ashbrooke, Section 1 Develope~: S & B Development Co. Contractor: R.M.C. Contracterz, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: ~stimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 89 Code: 574-1-00556-0000 Vote: Unanimous $140,843.50 ~,718.55 (Refunds through connections) $136,124.95 10.F.4.d. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG DODOMEADE STREET, WINFR~E STREET AND W~ET HUNDRED ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, to accept On behalf of the County, a 5' strip of land along the north side of Dodcmeade Street, a 10t ~trip along the east side of Winfree Street, and a 15' strip alonq the south side of West Hundred Road, from the Community Bank. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.4.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG PROVIDENCE ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, eeconded by Mr. Mayas, the Soard approved and authorized the County Administrator, to adopt on behalf of the County, a variable width strip of land atonq Providence Road from Bethany Place Baptist Church. Vote: Unanimous DEDICATION ALONG SPRING RUN ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by M~. Mayez~ the ~card approved and authorized the County Administrator, to accept on behalf of the County, a 20' strip of land along Spring Run Road from D & S Builders~ Incorporated. Vote: Unanimous 10.F.4_~. DgED p~. DEDICATION ALONO COURTHOUSE ROAD On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator, to accept on behalf of th~ County, a 30~ strip of land along Courthouse Road from Continental Land Sales, Incorporated. 10.G. REPORTS Mr. Hcdrick pre~ented the Board with a report on the General Fund Balance and General Pund Contingency Account. 10.I. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board went into Executive Session to discuss the condition, acquisition or 85-15Z use of real property for public purposes and consultation with legal counsel regarding H.M.K. vs. Chesterfield County and related law suits pursuant to section 2.1-344 (a) (2) and (6) respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950r as amended. Vote: Unanimous 10.N. IbIFOP~MAL MEETING WITH MODEL GOV~P~NMENT DAY STUDENTS The Board met informally with the students participating in Model County Government Day. Reconvening: The Board recessed for lunch at the Airport. Crosswind Restaurant. Reconvening: Mr. Apptegate called the meeting to order and indicated Mrs. Girone would be presiding over the afternoon a~ssion per the established procedures of the Board. REQUESTS FUR REZONING 85S026 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS requested reconsideration of a previously granted Conditional Uae (Case 81S064) plus Conditional Uae Planned Development to permit use exceptions in a Residential (R-7) District on an 8.5 acre parcel fronting along the north and south lines of Ives Lane, beginning at a point.approximately 400 feet south of Dell Drive, and also fronting the east and west lines of Bowlin Court. Tax Map 40-1 (12) Pocoshock Eills, Section 4, Block A, LOtS 11 through 33 and Block B, Lots 8 through 11 (Sheet 15). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had again deferred this case for 30 days and it appears there could possibly be an additional deferral. He stated it had been double advertised and suggested that the Board defer this case until after the Planning Commission takes action. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board d~ferred this request until after action is taken by the Planning Commission which will allow the case to be brought to the Board in normal fashion. 84S064 In Clover Hill Magisterial Diatrlot, JJR, A VA PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 163.5 acre parcel lying at the western terminus of West Providence Road. Tax Map 38-9 (1) Parcel i (Sheets 13 and 14). Mr. Peele stated the Board had deferred this request to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with staff and submit proffers. He presented the Board with the proffers. He noted that the · Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Pat Bowe represented the case. There was no one present in opposition. Mr. Applegate stated staff has worked with the developer and basically one problem remains unresolved which is the intertraffio system in the development. He stated last month the question arose as to whether or not traffic should enter and exit West Providence Road or the Extension of We~t Providence as opposed to having the traffic follow a new determined road by another application for zoning which he could not support. He 85-184 stated he read the statements from staff about daily trips and that there are other parcels in the area which could lead tc additional problems. Be stated, however, the proposed Powhite Parkway has cut across the subject property and has prohibited ingr~s~ and egress to the subject subdivision from the north. He Stated the developer originally planned for more than 300 lots but has now proffered that they would only develop 300 lots on the entire parcel. ~e stated additionally they have profferred they would not ask for more than 100 building permits in any year over the next three years. Mr. Applegate stated based on the proffers, he would recommend approval with the understanding that the development would enter and exit off of West Providence Road Extended and further asked that staff continue to look into the entire road network to provide sufficient ingress and egress for future development. Mr. Dodd stated he agreed that the low density of 1.8 ~ite~ per acre would eliminate a lot of the traffic. On motion of Mr. kpplegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved the request subject to acceptance of the following profferred conditions: 1. We proffer a maximum of 300 lots on the 163.5 acres that arq involved in this zoning CaSe. 2. The subject 300 lots will be phased so that no more than 100 building permits will be obtained the first year and totals not to exceed 200 in a two-year period or 300 in a three-year period, thus allowing the balance of the area to develop. 84S192 In Mateaca Magisterial District, JA/~ES O. Mi~RTIN, JR. requested a Conditional Use to permit a convenience store in an Agricultural (A) District On a 2.12 acre parcel fronting approximately 315 feet on the ~ast line of Qualla Road, also fronting approximately 2!0 feet on Spring Run Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of those roads. Tax Map 93-5 Parcel 1 (Sheet 30). Mr. Peele stated the applicant's representative is present and has requested a 30 day deferral. On motion of Mr. Mayer, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred this case until April 24, 1985 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Unanimous 84S203 In Midlothian Magisterial District, SIGMA DEVELOPMENT, INC. requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S078) to modify Conditions 6 and 7 tc allow 35,000 square feet of an additional office space with sole access via Chinaberry Drive to Route 60. This request lies in an Office Business (0) District on a 147.72 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,900 feet on tho w~St line of Chippenham Parkway, also fronting approximately 50 feet on Jahnke Road, and located in the southwest quadrant cf the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 19-1 (1) Part of Parcel 16 (Sheets 8 and 9). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. ~e stated the applicant has submitted a proffer and staff had prepared an addendum both of which he read. Mr. Ed Willey, Jr. was present representing the applicant. He stated this request would be for an additional 35,000 square feet of office space. He stated when thio zoning was approved there was a 215~000 square foot maximum to the development that would access only Route 60 and Midlothian Turnpike. He stated that the developer agreed, among other things, to build Chinaberry Drive 85-185 to its present extent and to improve, signalise and modify the intersection at Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive in accordance with directives from the Transportation Department and the Highway Department. He stated they were in negotiations at that time for Fidelity Bankers Life and thereafter Monarch Company, owner and holding company, and their projections were for 100,000 square feet for the Fidelity Building and if you add the 28,000 square feet for PruCare and the ~0,000 for the Sigma Building it is well within the maximum. He stated, however, when development plans car~e about fo~ Monarch and Fidelity, the initial idea oi moving their headquarters in a 100,000 square foot building became 135,000 square foot building which has necessitated this request. He requested that the amendment be approved. He stated if they are granted this increase would affect, at peak hour, only eleven vehicles at Route 60 and Chinaberry would b~ affected according to the County's Transportation Department. .He stated in exchange for that they have agreed with the conditions recommended by staff and have proferred other conditions. Mr. Chuck williams, President of Fidelity Bankers Life, stated he has been a resident of Midlothian District for 31 years and he is in favor of the request. Be stated be felt some basic considerations in this matter are that ultimately and the most affected party in this endeavor is the Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company; the land in question has been purchased by an affiliate of Fidelity Bankers; the building is to be constructed by an affiliate of Fidelity Bankers; the purpose ie to provide suitable housing to enable the Fidelity Bankers to move its national headquarters to Chesterfield County; it is a clean, quiet, non-polluting, well-established, profitable and growing business that operetta nationally and will bring with it a quarter of a billion dollars in assets, 250 jobs and the addition of several million dollars of taxable commercial base to the County. He stated that they have never asked for any special inducements to persuade them to relocate in the County, no tax concessions, ne free reade, no free utilities and no industrial bonds. He stated they just need a building suitable to their needs, hopes to occupy the building in early 1986 and anticipates being here into the next century. Mr. Clark Pla×co of Planning and Design Collaborative, was present representing H.~.K. who is an adjacent landowner te the Boulders. He stated ~.M.K is not Opposed to the Sigma Development nor specifically to the Fidelity Bankers Life Building. He Stated they are impressed with the quality of the development and think they have done an admirable job. He stated H.M.K is not trying to deny the County a corporate plum, a corporate headquarters relocation or expansion cf the County's tax base but would like to participate but finds it impossible to do because of its current situation which can only be made more impossible by this amendment. He stated they are concerned with the serious additional traffic congestion which will occur at Route 60 and Chinaberry Drive, the calculated misrepresentations and subsequent cover ups by Sigma in filing application for site plan review and building permits for the Fidelity Banker~ Building and the far reaching implications approval of this request will have on any further negotiations or settlement of the multitude of issues involving Sigma, 5.M.K. and the County. Mr. Dexter Williams o! Kellerco wa~ present representing H.M.K and their concerns regarding tra£fic. ~e stated they had prepared some comparative analyses of the traffic conditions with th~ proposed amendment in comparison with the current development approvals, how they compare with the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Plan in effect and what they are today. He reviewed five points of comparison which were the local traffic; the full development of the Janhke-Chippenham Development Area Plan; the Sigma Development with 215,000 square feet and 200 room motel; the Sigma Development with the 215,000 square feet, 200 room motel; and 285 multi-family units; and the Sigma Development with 215,000 square feet, 200 room motel and 285 multi-family units and the additional 35,000 square fee~ of office space. He 85-186 stated the information he would present would be different in two respects in that all their numbers are based on the Jahnke-Chippenham Development Area Plan and not only will they present th~ measure of critical lane volume and level of service but also the measure of vehicle delay and backup. He presented charts with the information indicating the "P" level of service for 1985 p.m. peak level of service and critical lane volumes at Route 60 and Chinaberry for all five of the points of comparison. Ee reviewed the 1985 p.m. peak load vehicle delay and the percentage increases for each of the five points of comparison which he felt were just as impertant as they are the vehicles that are backed up on the approaches to side streets, backed up on the ramps, stacked on the sides, e~c. which creates a milk bottle e££ect. He stated the result of the~e ~tudies are that they exceed the 1% increase as presented by the applicant. There was some discussion regarding various service levels for other roads, with construction of additional roads and improvements, etc. 5~. Applegate questioned the impact with the development beinq phased. Mr. Williams stated that other factors would have to be taken into consideration which they had not reviewed as they did a study using the same factor~ as Wilbur Smith & Associates in order to compare like figures. Mr. Plaxco reviewed what was currently being constructed in the development. He stated he felt Sigma was in direct violation of their zoning conditions as he felt the developer deliberately mislead the County regarding the square ~eotage, approval~ by the Planning Commission for amendments, submission of applications for building permits, etc. He presented pictures to the Board of the construction of the building. Mrs. Girone stated the County was aware of some concerns regarding differences in square footages and ~r. Hedrick was administratively reviewing these. Mr. Hedrick stated this issue deals with enforcement of building permits, etc. and goes beyond the scope of sonlng. Mr. Micas stated the Board should confine their consideration of the case to the health, safety and welfare of the area based on the application. Mr. Plaxco stated H.M.K does not care how much or what Sigma builds nor how much they misrepresent the facts, except when those factors directly affect the potential for H.M.K. to zone or develop its OWn land. He stated they met with the Sigma representatives to try to resolve the access issue which prevents H.M.K. from developing an economically feasible development. He stated they prepared a written documentation of the meeting and the Sigma development has written indicating they would review the summary but they have not yet truly attempted to negotiate to resolve what H.M.K. feels is an intolerable situation. He stated they are concerned that if the Board approves this amendment discussions between H.S.K. and Sigma will be affected. He stated the crux of the problem is inadequate capacity of Jahnke Road. and Chinaberry and prohibits B.M.K. from zoning their property and explained the developer's concerns in detail. Mrs. Girone stated that developer concerns are not under consideration by the board at this time but the health, safety and welfare concerns for the area. Mr. Pla×co stated that H.M.K. offered to provide the right of way for Chinaberry to Sigma if they would make H.M.K. whole again. He stated he had hoped that this would be accepted and with approval of this request, they will have no reason to cooperate with H.M.K. He added also that there are no provi~ions for Sigma to improve Jahnke Road to the four lanes required in the Jahnke-ChippenhamArea Development Study to which they also object. He stated further that he did not feel equal treatment was being given to B.M.K. in the zoning case except through litigation. He stated they have expressed three concerns any which he felt should at least warrant a deferral if not a denial of the Sigma request which are the traffic congestion at Midlothian and Chinaberry, the deliberate misrepresentation on the square footage and the approval Of this request will eliminate any need for negotiations between Sigma and H.M.K. Be requested that the request be deferred for 90 days to allow Sigma, H.M.K. and the County to have serious negotiations to resolve this intolerable situation or deny the request. 85-187 There was discussion regarding square footage per acre approved for Sigma vs. N.M.K. Mr. Hedriok stated that he and Mr. Plaxco see things differently. He stated he has been involved in meetings with ~.M.K. and unless what they had proposed was accepted, without exception, the negotiations broke down and their public posture is that the County is not willing to negotiate but negotiation implies give and take on both sides. He stated this public posture is not accurately reflecting what has been happening in the negotiations. Mr. Plaxco stated he did not feel that was what was actually happening and explained further. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this had come a long way in solving a lot of problems and it is only a practical matter to allow another story to this building and she felt the conditions and proffers addressed the issues very well. After further discussion, it was on motion of M-rs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, resolved that the Board approve this request for an additional 35,000 square feet of development with sole access via Chinaberry Drive to Route 60 subject to the following conditions: 1, Within thirty (30) days of approval of this request, a construction schedule shall be submitted detailing 1) Chinaberry Drive Extended improvements, 2) the improvements required at Buford and Jahnke Roads, and 3) the improvements required at southeast q~adrant of the Chippenha~/Jahnke interchange. All improvements shall be planned as required in Case 83S078. 2. Upon approval of this request, the applicant shall prepare construction plans for the above noted projects. 3. Completed plans shall be approved by the Chesterfield Trans- portation Department and the VDE&T, and construction shall commence on the above noted projects according to the approved schedule. And further the Board accepted the following proffered condition: With respect to the abover we are to submit a construction schedule detailing (1) Chinaberry Drive Extended improvements, (2) the improvements required at Buford and Jahnke Roads, and (3) the improvements required at southeast quadrant o~ the Chippenham/Jahnke interchange and, upon approval cf same, prepare construction plans. Upon submittal and approval of said construction plans, we will provide surety with the County for the three above noted projects. Vote: Unanimous $5S012 (Amended) In Midlothian Magieterial District, ARCMIE K. McLELLAN, JR. requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) of 7.7 acres plus a Conditional Use Planned Development encompassing the 7.7 acres plus a 2.51 ecre tract zoned General Susiness (B-3). This property fronts approximately 400 feet on the west line of Grove Rd., approximately 830 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 16-12 (2) Sunny Dell Acres, Lots 7, 8, 9 and lO (Sheet 7). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mrs. Girone stated staff has developed a road plan and the developers through the zoning process are contributing to it and their will be a new road network through this area of Route 60 leading all the way to Route 147. She stated it also included the J. C. Penney'e track. Mr. McCracken explained the road system and stated staff is working on obtaining the right of way from the developer which 85-188 they feel will be accomplished. Mr. McLellan was present representing th~ applicant. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Kenneth L. Barton, revised January 21, 1985, shall be the Master Plan. {P) 2. Prior to obtaining ~ building permit, thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Grove Road, shall he dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, f~ee and unrestricted. (T) 3. The proposed public read(s) may have a minimum right of way of fifty (50) feet, provided a ten (10) foot utility easement is provided adjacent to the right of way. (T) 4. The proposed extension of Busy Street shall have a minimum typical section of forty (40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. {T) 5. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed along public roads, driveways and parking areas. (EE) 6. In conjunction with the granting of this request, a thirty (30) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot rear yard setback requirement shall be granted. Also, in addition to General Business (B-3) uses, all Light Industrial (M-l) uses shall be permitted. (P) 7. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained alon9 the southwemt property line adjacent to Residential (R-15) zoning. Other than the proposed sewe~ line, there shall be no facilities permitted within thim buffer. This buffer shall be landscaped to screen this development from adjacent residential land uses. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) (Note: ~rior to obtaining building permitm, schematic plans most be approved by the Planning Co~m%ission. Site specific conditions may be imposed during schematic plan approval.) Vote: Unanimous 85S022 In Midlothian Magisterial District, RIV~RSIDM SCHOOL, INC. requssted a Conditional Use to amend a previously ~ranted Special Exception (Case 74A099) to permit expansion of a private school in a Residential (R-It) District on a 1.03 acre parcel fronting approximately 230 feet on the west line of McRae Road across fro~ Razen Street. ~ax Map 10-10 (4) Bon Air Plat, Block 12, Lot 2 (Sheet 3). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Anthony DeOrio, representing Riverside School, wes present. Re stated they are in agreement with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Be premented visual renderings of thm existing and proposed iaeility which he reviewed. He stated that the school was a non-profit organization providing a speoial need for children with learninq disabilities; they are willing to invest funds to eliminate the trailer modules; acknowledged the historic value of the main mtr~cture; discussed the total classroom square footage of 2~000 square feet; stated the total complex has 2,300-2,400 square feet, discussed the setbacks, the floor plan, ets. He stated they are not asking for this 85-189 amendment to increase the enrollment as they do not intend to exceed the 50 students; the traffic will not increase since the student population will not increase; and stated the area would be administrative offices, closets, hallways, and ~estrooms, ~e stated the prepared plan is not a final plan and they will comply with what the County feels necessary. He discussed the drainage, the curbing and shrubbery. He stated they will not be increasing the parking lot size and will relocate it, they will not reduce the number of trees except for those necessary, they will ~elocate the flagpole to the back of the property, the playground will be relocated behin~ the building, discussed the buffers, stated no signs will be installed--all of which will keep the appearance of a residential neighborhood. He stated they are willing to work with the surrounding neighbors. He stated he has heard concerns about the future if the school should move. He stated they will be spending approximately $250,000 on the complex. He stated they have actually increased the traffic ~afety by improving the parking lot and the traffic will eot increase. He stated they would like to preserve the existing building because of its historic significance as it was a school, it became a church, then a residence and then a school. He stated it would become a library, study area, a storage area, or a retreat area for the teachers. He submitted 15 letters in support of this request. Mr. Wes Hinton, Curator of St. Michael's Episcopal Church, stated they basically surround Riverside School, they retain 14 acres for privacy reasons, representatives of the school did discuss this request with them and they are net opposed, they have worked wi~h the school for many years and they trust and feel they will do what they say. Dr. Douglas Bloomfield, practicing doctor in Richmond and consultant for Riverside, stated he was in favor of this request, Be stated this is the only school of this nature in the area and the need is overwhelming which is evidenced by the people trying to enroll their children in the school. He stated he felt they should be allowed to improve the facilities. Mr. Applegate inquired if the applicant would consider upgrading the road to commercial standards as may be required by the Highway Department, Mr. DeOrio stated he would but he was not aware of what that would entail. Mr. Applegate explained the site problem coming up the hill and perhaps a turn lane may be necessary. Mr. DeOrio stated that would be acceptable, Mr. Applegate inquired if they had considered sharing the parking lot with St. Michael's. M~. De0rio stated they had not considered it but would. Mr. Applegate stated that he understood there would not be an increase in students. Mr. DeOrio stated there would not be an increase because the classroom square footage would remain about the same if this request is approved, the nature of this education almost requires a 1:1 ratio of teacher to student and to increase teachers to obtain more students would not fit into their budget or space situation. Mrs. Girone stated that she served for a period of several months on the Board of Riverside but left in March, 1979 and has not had any involvement in any way with anyone involving the school or the school itself since that time. MS. Ruth Harris, academic coordinator at Riverside, explained that they would lose a great deal if they were to try to accommodate more than 50 children because of the familiarity that is necessary in teaching these special children. Mr. Henry Rudd, property owner across the street, stated that he did not oppose the school but fears that it may grow in size. stated if the size of the square footage for classrooms will not increase but by a small figure why is it needed, will they increase the staff though net the students which will increase the traffic, they did not oppose the requests for amendments in 1979 and in 1981, etc. He stated the trailers will be eliminated 85-190 which amounts to approximately 600 square feet but the new building will be 5,000 square feet and he could not believe this would maintain a residential appearance on the acreage. Re stated he did not object to the improvement to the parking lot. He inquired how they could maintain the building when they indicated they felt it was hard to maintain the trailers. He discussed the enrollment figures and if any one had checked to see if there are only 50 students in the school. Mrs. Girone explained that the State monitors private schools and stated that the staff could obtain a head count if Mr. Rudd desired. Mrs. Girone requested that Mr. Peele request Mr. Jim Schiavo to inspect thc school for number of students, Mr. Rudd inquired about the construction materials as they have not seen amy plans, what the roof line will be, etc. Mr. Rudd inquired what would happen if the school moved out. Mrs. Girons reviewed the history of the zoning of the site. She stated that if this conditional use is approved it is on top of the residential R-15 zoning. She stated that if the school were to leave, the land and buildings would revert back to the R-15 aching. She stated the same thing happened to the Razen Library down the street which is now a residence. She stated she felt the community should be assured this will not be commercial. Mr. Rudd stated that this new building would be attractive to another commercial enterprise. Mrs. Girone stated if that were the case, it would be a new zoning case. Mr. Rudd stated they do not wish to come to the Board every twelve months over different cases. Re submitted petitions with 138 names of which 75% live within a five block radius of the school who are opposed. Ms. Patricia Sunko, a resident of Ben Air and a member of the ~istorical Society, read a letter from the Historical Society expressing concern in regard to the size, the paved and gravel front yard, overdevelopment of the lot, setbacks, etc. She stated because of the historical significance and the residential area it seemed not to be in the best interest of either the residents of the neighborhood or the school to approve the request. (A copy o~ the letter is filed with the papers of this Board.) Mr. Peter Imhof, an adjacent property owner, stated they are concerned with the domino effect of commercial development in the area. He stated he felt a conditional use may open a door to commercial enterprises. ~¢ stated the school has grown and asked for expansion in the past, it is not serving just the County but other areas and the need will continue to grow. He stated they may outgrow the present facility in five years and may ask to add another wing, they are concerned with the traffic in the area, concerned they may want more teachers for the students, concerned about the paving and curbing, etc. He stated the school wants to grow and the Historical Society wants to maintain a status quo. He stated the neighbors feel it will grow more, that the need will outgrow the facility and move and leave a building met up for commercial use. He requested that the Board listen to the 138 people and perhaps a compromise could be arrived at. ge stated that if the request is to be approved, that the conditional use be tightened to require that the new structure follow the existing roof line, perhaps place additional requirements on staff and students and that the paving be tar and gravel rather than black topping. He added with the use of the building by 85-100 people that perhaps the installation of sewer would be wise. Mrs. Girone stated the closest line would be from Jimmy Winters Road to the school which would cost approximately $40~50,000. Mr. ~mroch requested that the Board look at the impact on the neighborhood and listen to the people who are opposed. Mrs. Cabell Goodman stated she had lived in the area for 25 years and has seen the impact of development in the area. She stated that she is concerned with the safety of the citizens as they cannot walk down the road. She requested denial of this request as it is a commercialization of residential property. 85-191 Mrs. Carla Rudd stated she talked with Dr. Darden, past president of Riverside, and inquired if the school were to expand, would he buy her home and he replied he would noh. She stated that at a meeting last night, Mrs. Girone ~eferred to "we" as if she were representing the school which she felt was a conflict, as well as her being a member of the Historical Sooiety. She stated the residents were promised to have plans yesterday of the proposal and they have yet to see them and inquired if this were an implication of what to expect in the future. ~he stated it is poor planning as they continue to come back for additional amendments. She stated there is no problem with the school but they are concerned with growth. She stated the school Serves other jurisdictionE, not only the County. She stated if this is the only school of this nature, it will more than likely grow to service the needs of the children who require special attention. Mr. David Rains, a 24 yea~ resident of Ben Air, stated he was not complaining about the school aE they have always been good neighbors but he is concerned with the conditional use permit. Be stated his long ranqe concern is if they should move as nO one will buy this building for a residence. He stated this is too great a temptation for someone to try to change the zoning to make use of the buildinq if and when the school leaves. Mrs. Girone stated the zoning was held for the Bazen Library and assured him it would remain the same at this location. Mr. Rains stated he did not feel they were equivalent situations er building sizes. Mr. Robert McDonald, a landowner in the area, stated he had been before four different chairmen with regard to the school. He stated they are going to eliminate 800 square feet but the additions will be 1,800-2,000 square feet. Me ~tated if 50 children are using that 2,000 square feet there is 40 square feet per child in the classroom. He stated the Board should not be looking at a building to upgrade the school, but at a building that will replace that usage of classroom that they are intending to vacate which is in essence not 4,000 square feet but 2,000 square feet. Be reviewed the history of the school, its previous location, its relocation into the Ben Air area, the history of the Ben Air area itself, etc. He stated he objects to the expansion of the school in the capacity that it is requested, and requested that the drainage of this property not be channeled toward McRae Road as it will flood property that he owns which has a small creeR. Me requested that if the Roard ~hould approve this request, that it be held to 2,000 square feet which is half of what they are askin9 but it is adequate. He stated the applicant has agreed to several items such as signs but nothing has been addressed regardinq the watershed. Me Stated others are for this request hut they do not live in the area. He stated he feels this conflicts with the neighborhood and requested that the Board either defer this until the school and the neighbors meet to come up with an acceptable agreement or deny the request. Mr, DeOrio requested that the Board con~ider the feats that they pointed out which ara contradictory to the assumptions made by the Opposition. Be stated they do not intend to e×pand the classroom size but to allow space for storage, utilitarian uses, academic and administration offices. Be stated the area in total ie important for the school's operation. Mrs. Cirone inquired about the staffing level and Mr. DeOrio agreed that they would accept a limitation of 20 staff and 50 students at the school. When asked, approximately 50 people stood in favor of the request with 7 opposed who were present at the meetin9. Mr. Dodd stated he felt the conditions as amended would protect the residents and are acceptable by the school. Mr. Mayes stated he felt there has been a breakdown in communications and 85-192 suggested beth groups get together and discuss the issues to produce a better feeling result. Mr. Appleqate stated was concerned with the traffic situation on McRae Road as he felt there was a sight problem. He stated he felt commercialism along the area could be controlled by future zoning requests which he did not feel would be approved to further con~mercial development. He stated in response tc the Historical Society's concerns about the historical significance of the building, the school owns their property and building and ceuld destroy the structure at will. Ee stated St. ~ichael's has prospered here and Riverside offers a distinct service to its students, and as long as it is limited as suggested and as long as the traffic is not a problem, he could support the request. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the conditions would protect the neighbors and are satisfactory to the school. Ee stated that a similar situation exists in Lynchburg which works well. He stated he felt communications between both groups should be Mrs. Girone stated that she thought it would have been a good idea to eliminate trailers and was surprised it became such a controversy. She stated that she felt some of the controversy was due to misinformation and misunderstanding and better communications would be helpful. She offered amendments to the conditions that would require that the roof line of the new building would generally be in keeping with the original building and that staff be limited to 20 and students to 50. She stated she felt the new building would improve the health, welfare and safety of the students there and she did not believe that affording them a new building that complies with the County and Highway Department regulations would have a negative visual or safety impact on the neighborhood. She stated she felt this would be an improvement of the site, the property and neighborhood. Mr. Mayas inquirsd if this should be deferred to allow the groups to meet as he felt harmony could be achieved. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the two additional conditions addressed the concerns mentioned and she did not believe that a deferral would achieve mere than that and she felt it would be best to proceed today. She stated she also would like to eliminate condition #4 as recommsnded by the Planning Commission. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstandlng~ the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. The proposed structure shall have an appearance similar to that d~picted in the renderings submitted with the application. The faces of the structure shall employ subdued colors. (Note: As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed structure must be located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the side property line and' twenty-Give (25) feet from the rear property line.) (P) 3. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. 4. Enrollment shall not exceed a total of fifty (50). (P) 5. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property line. This buffer shall be landscaped with evergreens to screen this use from adjacent property to the north. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted tc the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. 85-193 10. 11. Vote; 6. Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted between the parklnq area and McRae Road to minimize the view of the parking and driveway from MoRes Road. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (Note: As required by the Zoning Ordinance, all driveways and parking areas must be located a minimum of fifteen (~5) feet from the right of way of McRae Road.) 7. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No Sunday opsration shall be permitted. (P) 8, One (1) sign, not to exceed two (2) square feet in area and a height of five (51 fmet, shall be permitted identifying this u~e. This sign shall not be lighted. The mign's facades shell be of subdued colors. (Note: As required by the Zoning Ordinance, the sign must be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way of McRae Road.) (P) 9. The mobile units shall be removed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the new structure. (P) The roofline of the proposed s~ructure shall generally be in keeping with the roofline of the eximtin9 ~tructure. (ES) A maximum of twenty (20) full and part-time employees shall be permitted. (BS) It was generally agreed the Board would recess for two minutes, Reconvening: 858023 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DOUG AND MARK SOWERS requemted rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 10.34 acre parcel fronting approximately 391,feet on the south line of Lucks Lane, approximately 1,480 feet west of Abingdcn Road. Tax Map 38-1 (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet 14). Mr. Pools stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request. Mr. Mark Sowers was present. There was no oppomition present. Mr. Applegate stated he thought the Board had imposed road improvements on several other zoning cases along Lucks Lane. Mr. McCracken stated most of the other zoning oases had been in areas where complete reconstruction of Lucks Lane would have to be accomplished before the County could obtain a desirable roadway but they have not asked for any widening or turn lanes other than the minimum. Me stated most of these will be addressed on the tentativs subdivision plan when it comes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Applegate stated this is an begin looking at turn lane~ or widening, ars. Girone stated she felt the Board should look at road~ like this which need total upgrading where the developers along the way can contribute to a fund to help pay for the road reconstruction in part or in total, Mr. Hedrick stated the County realistically and practically can assess development £oi those improvements for which we can document there is a direct impact on the development and on that 85-194 public facility but anythinq over and beyond would be good faith negotiations. On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission will be looking at right of way, turn lane issues, etc., if it is necessary during subdivision approval. 85S024 In Midlothian Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWERS requested re~oning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-40) plus Conditional Use to permit stock farms on a 100 acre parcel fronting in two places along the north line of Genito Road for a total of approximately 626 feet, beginning at a point approximately 800 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map 46-1 (1) Part of Parcel 10 (Sheet 12). Mr. ~oole stated the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request subject to acceptance o~ the proffers. He added that staff reviewed ~his case as all cases with regard to protecting adjacent property which could develop and referred to the condition recommended. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, stated they were in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, however, were not aware until this date of the recommended condition. He stated that with no more than 1 horse per every three acres and the soil problems in the area, it puts a 20 acre buffer around the property which could cause some problems. He ~tated that because of soil problems and the proposed buffer, stables may have to be placed in front of the homes. Be requested that the condition not be imposed. Mrs. Girone stated there have been problems with horses going up to the property lines causing problems. Mr. Rudy stated he felt that probably occurred where density was higher than is proposed here and that every house will not hav~ horses. There was some discussion regarding the site plans, the buffera, the area deleted from the request, septic tank~ in the Swift Creek Reservoir Drainage Basin, etc. It was generally agreed by the applicant that the buffer would be 50 feet and the wording - "pastured or" in the condition would b~ eliminated. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: No horse(s) shall be stabled within 50 feet of the boundary of the subdivision. And further the Board accepted the following proffers: 1. The maximum number of lots on the 100 acre request will be twenty-five (25). 2. Only lots of three (3) acres or more shall be allowed to have horses and, further, that the maximum number of horses per lot shall be one (1) horse for each three (3) acres of area per lot. Unanimous Vote: 855025 In Midlothian Magisterial District, H.M.K. CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Office Business (O) on a 12.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 975 feet on the south line of Jahnke Road, also fronting approximate- ly 700 feet On Aldwell Drive, and located in the southeast 85-195 quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 19-1 (1) Parcels 11 through 25 and Tax Map 19-1 (4) Glen ~cho Place, Block B, Lots 1 through 8 and SA (Sheet 9). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended that the request be denied. Mr. Joel Cross of Planning Management Associates was present representing the applicant. He stated the owner has no current plans to develop this property but is trying to comply with the comprehensive plan and then H.M.K. would like to respond to the office market which is growing in the County. He stated if it were to wait until a client wanted space, it would take 6-9 months to have the zoning approved through the County. He stated the owner does not want to misrepresent the property and say to a client that the comprehensive plan calls for office use but we cannot give it to you right now. He described other parcels and the zoning in the area, the Pewhite Parkway extension, the extension of Chinaberry, and the upgrading of Jahnke Road to four lanes which have impacted this site. He stated the property is being taxed as office use, the development of roads, etc. is forcing this property to become office use, if the owner had plans today for a use it would take approximately two years to get to the point of occupancy which is also when the road networks should be completed, and if there is a piece of property needing rezoning this is it. Mr. Dcdd inquired why the applicant did not apply for a Conditional Use Planned Development when that is what is happening in the area. Mr. Cress stated that conditional zoning )rovides for incompatible land uses, accommodates new or novel forms of development and allows for increased densities on a project over and above what the zoning ordinance may allow. He stated they are asking for none of the above. Ne stated they have no site plan and dO not expect ~e have one in the near future and under the County's ordinance, they cannot submit a conditional zoning application without having a site plan sc they only could submit under conventional zoninq for au office designatiou unless the County wants to selectively enforce its ordinances. Mr. Applegate inquired what the existing zoninq is. Mr. Peele stated the eastern portion i~ zoned agricultural and the western ~ertion is residential. Mr. Cross stated they do know they want offices but do not know what site plan or form that development will take. Mr. Peele stated it was not unusual for a developer under a Conditional Use Planned Development to submit a master plan which is not engineered down to exact detail. He stated the detailed plan would go back to the Planning Commission for schematic approval and at that point, reasonable changes are permitted as long as they follow the spirit and intent of the original zoning conditions. Mr. Daniel inquired about how much office would bc permitted on the site. Mr. Peele stated there is no indinaticn in the application regarding what is proposed on the site. He referenced the Jahnke-Chippenham Plan regarding square footages allowed. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated he felt office use is in order but should be compatible with what has been zoned in the area. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the proposed land use complies with the Jahnke-Chippenham Plan. She stated Conditional Use Planned Development would allow the parcel to be developed to the standards established by the Jahnke-Chippenham Plan. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved rezoning to office business (0) with Conditional Use Planned Development, subject to the following conditions: 85-196 Prior to approval of any individual site schematic plan, a definitive overall plan for the entire acreage shall be submitted to the Planning Co~m~ission for approval. This plan shall be consistent with the Jahnke/Chippenham Development Area Plan. ~rior to any schematic plan approval, the following shall be accomplished: a. Plans for improvements to Jahnke Road; the Powhite/Jahnke interchange; the Chippenham/Jahnke interchange; and Chinaberry Drive Extended to accommodate traffic from this development shall be approved by the Transportation Department and the VD~&T in accordance with the Jahnke/ChiDpenham DeveloQment Area Plan. b. Funding for the aforementioned road improvements shall be committed, as determined by the County and VDB&T Staffs. Vote: Unanimous 85S027 In Midlothian Magisterial District, AM3%NDA W. AND O.J. PETERSON III requested a Conditional Use to permit a stock farm in a Residential (R-40) District on a 9.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 818 feet on the north line of Old Gun Road East, approximately 2,050 feet west of Cherokee Road. Tax Map 2-8 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheets 2 and 3). Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to c~rtain conditions. Mrs. P~terscn was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. ThUs Conditional Use shall he granted to and for Amanda W. and O.J. Paterson, III and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. 2. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.~. Timmons and Associates shall be considered the plan 0£ development. (Pi 3. The proposed str~cture shall be designed and built to house a maximum of four (4) horses. (P&CPC) 4. The pasture and stable area shall be maintained to eliminate the proliferation of odor and propagation of insects. (P) Vote: Unanimous 85S028 In Clover Hill and Midlothian Magisterial Districts, BUSINESS PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC. requested: (1) Rezoning from Agricul- tural (A) to Community Business (B-2) of 11.68 acres and to Office Business (0) of 1.24 acres with Conditional Uae Planned Dsvalopment to permit ume and bulk except/ohm on these tracts, )lue on an additional 11.5 acre parcel zoned Co--unity Business (B-2) and Agricultural (A) fronting approximately 1,100 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike at Sturbridge Drive, and fronting approximately 825 feet on the south line of Robious Road, approximately 100 feet east o~ Fernleaf Drive. Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcels 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25~ 26 and 27; and (2) amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned 85-197 Development (Case 84S047) to revise Condition ~ relative to access, in a General Business (~-3) District on a 6.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 950 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 30 feet west of Sturbridqe Drive. Tax F~p 17-11 (1) Parcels 4 and 5 (Sheet 8). Mr. Peele stated the Planninq Commission had recommended approval of both requests subject to certain conditions. Mrs. Girone stated this would make a major change in the appearance in Route 60 if approved. Mr. Ed Willey, Jr. was present representing the applicant. ~e reviewed the history of both pieces of property, discussed the access on both pieces of property, the use and improvements to the property, the architecture, etc. He stated that tbs applicant agreed with the conditions except they would like condition ~2 amended regarding "any OCcupancy" permits since they may need a temporary occupancy permit.. It was generally agreed the word "final" be inse~ted in the first sentence of condition ~2. Mr. Apptegate inquired about the road system and if there would be a traffic light at the intersection. Willey stated they have agreed to a light at the intersection and it is one o£ their first prioritiss. Mr. Applegate inquired about the day care center. Mr. Willey stated the amendment will include the Lilly property which will allow them to realign the front of the building and explained in detail the road network and development proposed. There was no one present in opposition. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved ths amendment to Case 84S047 subject to the following conditions: 1. Access to the development fronting the south line of Midlothian Turnpike (Tax Map 17-11 (1) Parcels 4 and shall be limited to that shown on the revised Master Plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, ~nc., dated Noven~er 6, 1984. This condition supersedes Condition 9 of the previously ~ranted Conditional Use Planned Development (Cas~ 84S047). 2. Prior to the issuance of any final oscupanoy permits, the two (2) existing crossovers in front of this p~operty (Tax Map 17-11 (1) Paroels 4 and 5) shall be closed and the westernmost new crossover shall be constructed. In conjunction with construction of the n~w crossover, a left-turn lane shall be constructed. (T) And further the Board approved the Community business (B-2) office business (0) zoning plus conditional use planned development subject to the following conditions: and 1. The followinq conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. ~immons and Associates, Inc., dated November 6, 1984, and the application shall be considered ~he Master Plan. (P) 2. Prior to the release of any building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Robious Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. This dedication may be phased in conjunction with the phasing of construction. (T) 3. The proposed north/south road shall be constrdcted as a four (4) lane facility with a divided median (i.e., two twenty-seven (27) ~oot lanes, face of curb to face of curb) in a minimum right of way of seventy (70) feet for a sufficient length to acoo~odate stacking and control turning movements similar to that shown on the Master Plan. The remaining length of the north/south road shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet and shall be constructed to a typical section of forty-four (44) feet, face of curb to face of curb. With the exception of a building permit for the church (Building p), no building 85-198 permit shall be issued until the north/south road has been recorded. 4. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall b~ constructed along the entire length of the property abutting Midlothlan Turnpike and Robious Road. In conjunction with the first schematic plan approval, the applicant may submit a phasing plan for these improvements to the Planning Commission for approval. (T) Nc access shall be permitted to Midlothian Turnpike and Robious Road except as shown On the Master Plan. 6. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the three {3) existing crossovers on Midlothian Turnpike shall be closed and two (2) new crossovers shall be constructed, as illus- trated on the Maeter Plan. Left-turn lanes shall be constructed on Midlothian Turnpike at each new crossover location. (T) 7. The developer shall bear the total cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection o~ the proposed north/south road and Midlothian Turnpike. (T) 8. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (ES) 9. 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 e~bmit a plan to Environmental ~ngineering and VDH&T providing for on- and off-site drain- age facilities to be utilized in the hydraulic engineering of this project. This plan shall be approved by the En- vironmental Engineering Department and VDH&T, and all necessary easements cheil be obtained prior to the clearing of any land. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits. 10. Storm drainage shall be directed to the single main proposed storm sewer, rather than to the creek in the vicinity of Avon Park. 11. A seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be maintained alon9 the northwestern property line abutting Avon Park and along the western property line adjacent to Parcel 32, Tax Map 17-11 (1). The width of this buffer may be modified by the Planning Commission through schematic plan review if a detailed plan proves that sufficient screening can be accomplished in a lesser width. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained alon9 the northeast boundary of the Community Business (B-2) tract adjacent to the Agricultural (A) tract designated £or church use. Thes~ bu£~er widths shall be exclusive of any easements for drainage and/or utilities. A conceptual landsqaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Prior to any clearing and/or grading, the contractor shall flag all buffer areas and contact the Planning Department for an inspection of these buffer areas. The developer shall contact the Planning Department for an inspection of these buffer areas once clearing and rough gradinq is completed adjacent to the buffers, If existing vegetation and/or topography is not sufficient to provide year-round screening, additional land- ecaping shall be required. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. (P~ 12. Within the fifty (50) foot setback along Midlothian Turnpike and Robious Road, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be 85-199 planted. Thi~ landscaping shall not be within any sewer and/or water easements. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with sche- matic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Depart- ment within ninety (90) day~ of rough clearing and grading. The Planning Commission may reduce the setback along Midlothian Turnpike to twenty-five (25) feet if, at the time of schematic plan review, detailed landscaping and/or berming plans are submitted which are acceptable to the Utilities and Planning Departments and minimize the visibil- ity of parking areas. (P&U) 13. The day care facility (Building O) shall be granted an exception to the required number of parking spaces. Parking shall be provided based on a ratio Of one (1) parking for each six {6l children enrolled up to a maximum of six (6) spaces plus one (1) for each employee. In addition, an area for drop-off and pick-up shall be provided, separate from the main parking area. (P) 14. Detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with site plan review. Exterior lighting shall be designed so as not to project light into adjacent residential properties. (P) 15. Parking areas shall have at least five (5) square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum fifty (50} square f~et; shall have a minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall include at least one (1) tree, havinq a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping material. The total number of trees shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, Os fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located ~e aZ to divide and break up the sxpanse o~ paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. (P) 16. Prior to the erection of any signs, a complete sign package, to include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Signs shall comply with the requirements of the respective zoning classification. However, the Commission may modify these requirements if the applicant can demonstrate that the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance has been maintained. (P) 17. Structures along Hobious Road shall be similar in appearance to that depicted in the renderings submitted with the appli- Cation. (p} Vote: Unanimous 85S030 In Matoaca Magisterial District, COMMONWEALTH TRACTOR AND EQUIPP~NT COMPANY requested rezoning from Agricultural (A( to General Business (B-3) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions on a 6.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 400 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge ~oad, approximately 1,200 feet north of Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-5 (1) Parcel 2 and Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 31). 85-200 ~r. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request. Mr. Oliver Rudy wa~ present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. ~r. Daniel questioned the need for the same type of conditions as wore applied to other property across the street. He stressed the need for consistency in the area. Mrs. Girone agreed that it is a nice corridor and that it ~hould be developed properly. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt terming should be required, the siqn~ should conform and heavy equipment should not be parked in the front. Mr. Dodd stated what is across the road is not the same as this piece of properly-as there is a quarry behind it, there i~ a landfill, etc, but he would agree the equipment should not be in the front of the building. Mr. Rudy stated that customer and employees parking will be provided in the f~ont and the heavy equipment will be in the rear of the building except for a piece of display equipment. He stated $8,000-$10,000 will be spent on landecapinq and the plans have been approved. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Meyes, ~eeonded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans entitled "Commonwealth Tractor & Equipment," prepared by J.K. Timmon$ and Aesociates, Inc,, and dated December 19, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. 2. The site Ehall be landscaped and/or bermed to screen the view of heavy equipment from Route 10. (BS) Vote: Unanimous 11. ADJOUR~MENT On motion of Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 5:55 p.m. until 2:00 p,m. on April 2, 1985. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator 85-201