10-23-85 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
October 23, 1985
Supervisors ~n Attendance:
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Chairmen
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice chairman
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
~. ~. Garland Do(~d
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County A(kministrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mr. Tom Callahan,
Airport Manager
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Legislative Coord.
Chfef Robert Eanes, Fire
Department
Mr. J~mes Gillentine,
Nursing Home Admin.
M~. Elmer ~odg~? Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. W~!]Jlnm Howell,
Dir. of Gen. Services
Mr. Robert Masden,
Asst. CO. Ad, in. for
Human Services
~r. Richard McElfish,
Dir. of En¥. Eng.
~. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attofney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info~
Services
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy,
A~st. Co. Admin.
for Development
M~jor Li M. Parrish,
Police Department
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Aootg.
Ms. Jean Smith, 'D~r.
~r. M. D. Stith, Jr.~
Exe¢. iAsst., Co. Adm.
Mr. Robert Wage~knecht,
Dir. of Libraries
Mb. David Welchons,
Dir. oi Utilities
Mr. James Zook, Acting
Dir. of Planning
Ir. Applegate called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
9:00 a.m. (EDST).
1. I,N~,OCAT ION
Mrs. ~irone introduced Reveresd R. Chancellor Hamilton, Pastor of
Mt. Pisgah United Methodist Church, who gave the invocation.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
O~ motion of Mrl Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Soard
approved the minute~ of October 9, 19~5, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
~5-768
6. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
6.A. HE~4AN ~!. RICHARDSON, M.D,
F~S. Mitchell introduced Dr. Herman ~. Richardson who retired
ifrom private practice and briefly outlined his professional
e×perience in Midlothian. Dr. ~ichardson expressed his
appreciation ~or the love and support of his friends and family.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WItEREAS~ Dr. Herman M. Richardson has served six
generations of Chesterfield County cltisens since his arrival
here as an intern in 1929; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Richardson's family medical practice grew from
approximately 20 house calla a day, when he was notified either
by poatal card or a central telephone operator who would hear
that someone wes sick and notify him, to a full office practice;
and
WHEREAS, Dr. Richardson, and his wife, Lucille, lived at
their home on Midlothian Turnpike from 194] until the house was
recently moved to make way ~or Midlothian Station Shopping
Center; and
WREREAS, Dr. Richardson has been a productive member of
County life as a charter member of Salisbury Presbyterian Church;
a charter member of Salisbury Country Club; a founder and Board
Chairman of Citizens Savinga and Loan Association; a member of
Cheaterfield County School Board; a member of the Board of
Directors of the Richmond Area Heart Association; tbs 1954 State
Senior Golf Champion; and ~onorary Captain of the Virginia State
Police Force, so named because he was physician to 70 classes of
the State Police Academy.
NOW, T~EREPORB B~ IT RESOLVED that the ~oard of Supervisors
hereby honors Dr. Barman M. Richardson for his service to the
County for over half a century; and commends him for "talent,
· magination, energy, and drive," words he once used to his
friends'and neighbors in Midlothian.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate presented Dr. Richardson with the executed
resolution. Dr. Richardson expressed his gratitude far this
recognition.
It was generally agreed that the Board would recess for five
minutes.
Reconvening:
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mrs. Mitchell introduced Mr. William Townsend, Director of the
Vocational Education for the County School System. Mr. Townsend
stated that Dr. Kurt Kobert, a German industrialist and founder
and owner of Rauni Works of West Germany, and former Governor
John Dalton mst and started a student exchange program six years
ago. Re stated the purpose of the program was to improve
vocational, technical and cultural relationships between the
United States ~nd Europe. ~e stated this is the only e~change
program in the world designed exclusively for vocational
technical students. He stated the program has been so successful
and well received by private industry and government that it is
new administered by a non-profit foundation in the United states.
He stated other companies such as ~hilip Morris, R. J. Reynolds
an~ other Ge&man companies are participating in this exchange. He
stated since the program's beginning in 1981, we have sent 21
students from Chesterfield to West Germany. He stated this is.
85~769
the third year whereby seven young German students are living
with host families in the County and attendinq our school system.
}{e introduced the students who were present. The Board welcomed
the students present. F~. Daniel stated this apprentice program
that the students are involved in is second to none. Be
described some of the innovative management practices of Hauni
and stated he felt it was a great honor to participate in 'this
program.
Mr. Cillentine stated the Nursing Home is establishing an
Alzheimer's Unit which should be completed and operational in
January, 1986. He stated in this era of high technology and
advances in medicine and health care delivery systems, nursing
homes Jn particular will have an increasing zola of
responsibility in the long term care and rehabilitative needs of
the elderly and others. He stated the County Nursing Home is a
leader in programs that meet the qualify health ears delivery of
citizens of our community in long term care needs, rehabilitative
needs, etc, Re stated they have looked into various enhancements
in how to structure an Alzheimer's management program for quite
some t~me. ~e stated the diGease is a progressively,
deteriorating, irreversible condition which ultimately leads to
'death which he outlined in detail as well as the care necessary.
He stated the wing will accommodate 16 beds, a secure and
protective area inside, a fenced-in courtyard area, etc. He
stated there are a n~mber of Alzheimer's patients at the Nursing
Moms and they will be transferred to the new unit when it is
Operational. He stated the cost will be nominal for this unit as
existing staff will be installing the security systems, materials
have been donated, etc. and th~ benefits will be tremendous to
the patients. Ee stated they did not feel this would take away
from the other services at the Nursing Home because these
patients are currently there, it w0~ld enhance the services and
there is room for expansion should if be necessary in the future.
The Beard commended the Nursing Moms administration on its
efforts,
4, BOAPJ) COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Dodd stated he had attended a meeting of the Capital Region
Airport Commission and it was brought to light that about seven
years ago thc Airport was losing about $1,000,000 a year and this
year it made a profit of $21,000. Be stated this is quite a
change and it indicates the Airport is becoming financially
stable.
Mr. Dcdd stated on Monday,' he, M/. Applegate, Mr. Hedrick, M~.
Balderson and Mr. Stifh met with most of the major industry
leaders located in the 1-95 corridor and Bermuda Hundred/Enon
area. He stated they were.concerned about lack of communication
between the County and their companies, they wer~ concerned about
the 1-95 corridor which is underdeveloped and requested that
perhaps the Public Information office could begin notifying them
of policy changes. He stated they also felt more of a commitment
should be made to the Economic Development Department. Be stated
the bottom line is that if the County is concerned with economic
development and having Dew industry locate here, then the County
needs to have the support of th~ ~xisting industry. He stated
the meeting provided some good dialogue and opened the door for
future communications which he would like continued. Mr.
Applegate stated this is something that has been talked about for
the pmst several years--opening up the avenue of
communication--to enable each to Hnderstand the other's problems.
Mr. Mayes stated he met with the Matoaca Advisory Committee and
they hs~ called an emergency me,ting on October 24, 1985 to
discuss the grade ~eparation in Ettrick.
Mr. Mayas ~{ated he was honored to be able to introduce the Itauni
students to the Kiwanis Club of Petersburg.
85-77o
~r. Mayes stated he attended the World Food Day at Virginia State
University where the A~bassador of ~enya was the main speaker.
He stated he attended the annual dinner meeting of the Metro
Richmond Chamber of Commerce where the President of the American
Broadcasting System was the mnin speaker. He stated he attended
the fourth Annual Community Leaders ~nformation Program at Fort
Lee sponsored by C&P Telephone Company.
Mrs. Girone stated often times the Board does not relate positive
comments it hears from others regarding staff members. ~he
stated she was very proud at the Metro Chamber annual dinner
at which two of the speakers singled out Mr. ~odge regarding his
positive efforts regarding regional cooperation and that he would
be mis.~:ed when he lef~ the County's employment. She stated other
people also recognized Mr. Hedge's contribution to the County as
well during the evening, She stated she was very proud of Mr.
Hedge and how he represented the County for the past ten years,
Mrs. Girone stated she attended a meeting of the Richmond
Renaissance where they are talking about tourism sites to
establish a gateway building from 1-64 into Richmond and another
satellite ~acility on 1-64 and 1-95 North and 1-95 South as you
approach Richn~ond. She stated they will be asking the Board to
cooperate aa well as Henrico and Hanover. She stated an
architect is working up a proposal.
~ra. Girone stated she visited the Midlothian Fire Station and
all the fire stations in the north during Fire Prevention Week,
attended the Business Council Meeting, spoke to a group of
realtors which Bernard Savaqe arra~lged regarding the bond issue
and what is happening in the County. She stated she attended the
~oorefield Dedication at which Mr. Stan Balderson made a very
strong and positive statement on behalf of the County. She
stated the Goals Committee of the MPC met and will be coming
forward in January with some recommendations for the goals and
objectives for the MPC. She stated there was a meeting on Sunday
at the Marriott with the ~CA, there were 10-12 community leaders
as well as an attendance of about 700. She stated she also met
with three civic associations on thc bonds.
Mr. Daniel stated he spoke to the Falling Creek P.T.A., the Dale
Volunteer Firemen as well as others regarding the bond issue. Ee
stated he had been appointed to an Economic Development Committee
of the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and they
have had ~ series of preliminary meetings as well as a breakfast
last Thursday with the legislators. Hc stated this meeting
focused mainly on ~ssuea which must be done in the region in
order'to becom~ more competitive and they will be reporting back
to the C0m~is$ion.
Mr. Applegate stated he had attended many meetings on the bonds
and he had chaired the meeting of the Richmond Regional Port
Steering Committee last week. Ee stated he attended a charter
meeting for a new optimist club in Chesterfield County which was
sponsored by the Colonial Heights Optimists.
5. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION~ EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR CF~NGES
IN TH~ ORDBR OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs. Girone, th~ Board
deferred Items 8.A., Repeal of Restriction on Truck Traffic on
Section'of W~rbro Road, and 10.D.I., 1985-86 Rural Addition
Projects, to Nove~aber 13, 1985 and approved the agenda as
amended.
Vote: Unanimous
6. ~ESOLUTIONS ~F SPECIAL RECOGNITION
6.B. MR. EL~R C. HODGE, J~., ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTR~TOR
Mr, .~edrick stated that Mr. Rodgc, as in the past, has
85-771
distinguished himself, and his fine job in Chesterfield has bee~
recognized as he has been offered aed has accepted a position
County Administrator in Roanoke. He stated there are a number of
other thi~s that could be said which he would reserve for the
reception lhat is planned in his honor. Mr. Mayes expressed
appreciation on behalf of the Board of Visitors of Virginia State
University to Mr. Hedge for his cooperation and assistance.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. Elmer C. Hedge, Jr. was employed by
Chesterfield County in 1976 as its Director of Data Processing
and wes promoted to its Director of Management Services in 1978;
and
WEEREAS, M~. Bodge's leadersblp and direction were
recognized to be outstanding; whereby in 1980 he was promoted to
Assistant County Administrator to assist in the challenges and
demands faced by one of the fastest growing localities in the
state and nation; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hedge's commitment to excellence in financial
management has caused Chesterfield County to be one of the few
Units of local government that has been awarded the Certificate
of Conformance and the Distinguished Budget Award from the
Governmental Finance Officers Association of America; and
W~EREAS, Mr. Hedge has been a pioneer in the County's
communications effort through his tireless efforts in
coordinating the E-9-1-1 emergency system, the police and fire
communications system, the internal telephone system for both the
General County Government and School System; and
W~BAEAS, Mr. Hedge's innovations in automated data
processing have increased the efficiency of County departments
from records management to libraries through the implementation
of state-of-the art technologies; and
WHEREAS, Hr. Hedge has been instrumental in regional
cooperation with his involvement in ~hu creation of the Diamond
and his efforts with the expansion of the Richmond Regional
Airport; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hodge~s commitment to the County's
participation in internship programs of local universities has
benefited numerou~ ztudents and provided the County with
assistance in many areas of expertise; and
WHeReAS, Mr. ~odge is an active participant in church
affairs, as well as many community and regional organizations and
has especially distinguished himself and the County in the
Leadership ~etro Richmond Program.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
hereby recognizes Elmer C. Hedge, Jr. for his many contributions
toward the excellence of Chesterfield County government, the
quality of life for its citizens and wishes him every success in
:his new position of County Administrator for Roanoke County,
virginia.
Mr. Applegate presented Mr. Hedge with the ex~cuted resolution.
Mr. Bodg~ expressed appreciation to the ~card for the resolution
and for the support he has received over the years. He stated
the past 10 years with the County have been the most rewarding of
his career and he looks upon them with great satisfaction,
stated the County has excelled in so many ways because the staff
is a team and he;is proud te have been part of that team. He
~tated Chemter~.ield is truly a "First Choice" community, it has a
"First Choice" Board of Supervisors and an excellent staff. Be
offered his as§istance should the County ever need it.
?. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
~. Hedrick stated there were no hearings scheduled at this time.
. DEFERRED ITEMS
.B. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES
Mr. ~ook stated at ~he last Board meeting, staff was directed not
to pursue an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would have
addressed the nonconforming uses but to consider alternatives to
address a particular situation which is not necessarily unique
and one that the County could face Jn the future. Be stated this
is the issue of mobile homes in the residential districts which
prevents replacements of homes on the same site. He stated staff
feels the ordinances are adequate and they feel the solution
would be 1) the filing of a rezoning case for an area beyond the
particular site in question which would also be impacted for a
suitable classification for mobile homes; and 2) the individual
property owner to request a mobile home permit from the Board of
Supervisors. ~te stated that is the way the process works today
except in this particular case where the area is zoned R-15. He
stated in some areas the rezoning may or may not be appropriate.
He stated while motions for rezoning to affect the use of land is
usually done at ~he property owner's request, this particular
instance and perhaps in other areas it may be the local
government's responsibility to address the larger question. Re
stated the owner would then follow Up with a request for the
mobile home permit. Mr. Dodd stated this is an area where there
is cormmercial development and there are four mobile homes in the
area. He stated what prompted this rsquest was a man who wanted
to replace his mobile home with a new one and could not. He
inquired what would happen if this is zoned R-7 and the Board
considers changing R-7 in the future. Mr. Zook stated he felt it
would remain as it is because it would not be large enough to
down zone. Mr. Dodd cautioned staff that when w~ go to some of
the R-7 areas, the mobile home part of it is the only way a
person could trade homes and if it is not included in R-9 he
would have major problems in hi's district because he has a lot of
25' lot subdivisions with mobile homes.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, the Board directed staff to initiate on
behalf of the Board zoning action for this property located in a
Residential (R-15} District to be considered by the Planning
Commission and then by the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Girone stated she did not know wbat is wrong with replacing
an old mobile home with M new one. She stated ~he did not feel
it necessary to rezone ~n entire block from R-15 to R-7 when all
a person is doing is upgrading a trailer. She stated it may be
appropriate ~or this property to be R-7 and that is another issue
but aa an overall policy for the County, she has a problem with
that. She stated General Plan 2000 indisates it is the policy of
the County to place mobile homes in parks and not have individual
homes located all around. She stated if that is the policy, then
we should not do this at all. She stated that this would be
perpetuating a single mobile home on a single family lot in a
single family residential neighborhood. She stated if this is
what is to happen, the Board has two different policies. She
stated she felt the replacement of an existing mobile home to a
newer home is an asset to the area. She stated to rezone a
community just to allow a putsch to replace an old home with a
new one seems inappropriate. Mr. Dodd stated he agread but is
just trying to resolve a problem and taking staff's
recommendation. He stated if there is another solution he would
consider it. Mr. Micas stated the current zoning ordinance and
the policy cf that ordinance is that on your larger lots like
R~lS, if there is a mobile home, it can stay there but you are
discouraging'continued mobile homes in the larger lot
852773
subdivisi0ns~-you g~andfathered them but you are not going to
permit them to replace that mobile home. He stated now what
staff is saying is that in the smaller lot subdivisions, you are
still permitted to grant continuing permits for mobile homes, but
on the smaller zoning olassificationa, if you rezone this to R~7
then you can continue grant permits on a case by case basis. Mr.
Daniel stated it seemed the bigger the lot, the more appropriate
a.mobile home might be. Be inquired if the original permit was
given some rights. Mr. Micas stated that if you change the
zoning ordinance to permit the replacement of mobile homes in all
size lots, then you will have mobile homes in the larger
s~bdivision$. Mr. Daniel inquired if the person who has the
mobile home permit can apply for a permit. Mr. Micas stated you
can do. that but the Board's current po]icy is not to permit
mobile homes in larger lot subdivisions. Mr. Dodd stated that
type o~ change was suggeeted ~o weeks ago and the Board
indicated they did not want to do that. Mr. Micas stated this
change is much more precise and define~ a solution to an
individual problem. Mrs. Girone state~ the Board is considering
discussing R-7 and ~-9 and cutting down density, and now we are
forcing all the mobile homes to be in R-7. Mr. Dodd stated he
thought this should just be made R-9 since we are considering
doing away with R-7 and staff indicated that going R-9 would not
address the renewal process and it would have to be R-7. There
was additional discussion regarding other mobile homes in the
area, other zoning districts, etc. Mr. Micas stated the motion
by Mr. Dodd is the most prudent approach that does not have
additional consequences and preserves the existing zoning
ordinance and permits this upgrade Of a mobile home.
Mr. Mayas seconded the motion.
Ayes: Mr, Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
Abstention: Mrs. Girone.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the permit will run with the land Or the
property owner. Mr. Dodd stated it would be a permit for five
years.
8.C. UPDATE ON CONDITIONS OF AUSTIN ROAD IN PRESTWOULD FARMS
Mr. McElfish presented the Board with an updated report on the
conditions of Austin Road in Prestwould Farms. He stated in
addition to the written report, on Saturday the contractor did
prepare and roll the road for shooting by Whitehurst Paving on
Monday morning. He stated it had been raining and the developer
stated he would like to have it dry prior to paving so it may be
Friday, weather permitting. He stated the residents a~e seeing
improvements.
O~ motion of Mr~ Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board deferred
further consideration of this matter until November 13, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
8.D. APPOINT}~NTS - YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
appointed M~. Jennifer Dvorak from Clover Hill Migh School
(Clover Mill District Representative) and Ms. Elizabeth Painter
from Moaacan High School (Midlothian Dietrict Representative} to
the Youth Services CoK~ission whose terms are effective
immediately and will expire on June 30, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
9. PUBLIC BEARINGS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled.
10. N~ BUSINESS
10.A. SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES
Mrs. Jean Smith stated that the Board of Social Services received
notification that they will be receiving supplemental federal and
state funding for Child %~elfare Services and Day Care for
Children. She stated this will help offset the $75,000 reduction
in Title Xx funding which was experienced this year, help fund a
much needed social worker position to deal wl~h child abuse cases
and with day care funding to ~upport the local employment
services program for ADC recipients.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by ~z'. Dodd, the Board:
I. Accepted and appropriated $49,091 in State and Federal Funds
for Child Welfare Services.
2. Accepted and appropriated $8,600 in State funds for Child
Day Care Services.
Vote: Unanimous
10.B. AMEND~LENT TO A~R~MH~T CR~T~NG CAPITAL R~G~ON
~R~ORT CO}tMI$SION TO ADD HANOVER COUNTY
Mr. Micas stated Hanoves County hms applied for membership with
the Capztal Region Airport Commission add presented the Board
with a ~e~ond amendment t0 the Tripartite agreement adding
Hanover County. He stated Hanover will pay $]72,067 and will
have two voting members. He stated other members to the
Commission will be requested to adopt a similar resolution. Mr.
Dodd stated HanOVer is a very important part of the area amd
recommended approval.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board adopted
the following agreement and authorized the Chairman and County
Administrator te e~ecute the document:
Second Amendment to Tripartite ~qreement
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of this day of October,
by and between th~ COUNTY OF HANOVER, a political subdivision of
the Commonwealkh of Virginia (Hanover), the CITY OF RICHMOND, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the City),
the COUNTY OF N~NR~C0, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia (He~rico), the COUNTY OF C~EMTE~i~IELD, a
)olitical subdivision cf the Co~nonwealth of virginia
Chesterfield), and the CAPITAL REGION AIRPORT COMMISSION,
olitical ~ubdivision of the Co~onwealth of Virginia (the
~ommission);
W I TN E S SETM:
WHEREAS, the Commission was created pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 537 of the Acts of the 1975 General
Assembly and was conf]nued by Chapter 380 of the Acts of the 1980
General .Assembly, as amended, by Chapter 117 of the Acts of the
1985 General Assembly (the Enabling Act);
WHEREAS, the City, Eenrico and the Commission have
heretofore entered into a Deed and Agreement, made as of the lst
day of January, 1976 (the Original Tripartite Agreement) whereby
certain property known as the Richard Evelyn Byrd International
Airport, now known as Richmond Internstional Airport (Byrd
Field), (the Airport) was transferred by the City to the
Commission; and
WMEREAS, pursuant to Section 5 of the Enabling Act
Chesterfield, by resolutions adopted on April 11, 1984 by
Chesterfield and on April 24, 1984 by tne Commission, joined
Commission; and..
WHEREAS, the Commission ha~ commenced an expansion and
modernization o~ the airport facilities at th~ Airport, includin%
the construction and equipping of second-level passenger boarding
concourses, expansion, renovation and equipping of various areas
in the existing terminal building, reconstruction of the aircraf~
apron and certain improvements to the parking and roadway areaz
(the Project); and
~EREAS, in Order to finance a portion of the costs of the
Project the Commission has ieaued its $28,600,000 Airport Revenue
Bonds, · Series of 1984 (the Bonds) and its $4,120,000 Airport
Revenue Note (the Note); and
W~EREA$, prior to the issuance of tlc Bonds and the Note the
Commission determined that in order for the Bonde and the Note to
be sold on an economical basis it would be necessary ior the
City, ~enrico and Chesteriield to agree to assist in providing
security for the Bonds, the Note and for certain bonded
indebtedness of the City incurred on behalf of the Airport plus
accrued interest payable by the City thereon (the Existing Debt)
(the Bonds~ the Note and the ~xisting Debt being collectively
referred to as the Obligations) by providing a non-binding, but
moral obligation to make up certain deficits with respect to th~
Obligations, and the City, Henrico and Chesterfield determined
that it was in their best interests and the best interest~ of
their respective residents to de se; and
WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Bonds and the Note the
Comm~ea~o~ further determined that in order for the Bonds and the
N~te to be sold on an economical basis, it would be necessary for
thc City to subordinate the payment of the EMisting Debt, upon
certain terms, to payments reouired to be made with respect to
the Bonds and the Note, and the City determined that it was in
the best interests of the City and of its residents to do so; sad
WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Bonds and the Note the
Commission, the City, Henrico and Chesterfield agreed that it
would be necessary to amend the Original Tripartite Agreement in
erder to (i) assist in providing security for the Obligations and
implmment the agreement of the City to subordinate the Existing
Debt to payments required to be made with respect to the Bonds
and the Note, and (ii) conform certain previsions of the Original
Tripartite Agreement to reflect the entry of Chesterfield into
the Commission, and to that end the Commission, the City, ~enrico
and Chesterfield entered into an agreement dated as of December
1, 1984 [the First Amendment to Tripartit~ Agreement) to provide
for the matters described in clauses (i) and (ii) above; and
WHEREAS, the Cor~mission, by Resolution Number 84-6-5 adopted
June 26, 1984, authorized its Executive Director to extend an
invitation to Hanover to consider membership in the Co~umisslon
based upon (i) ~ contribution by Eancver to the Commission of an
amount, payable in equal installments over a ten year period,
equal te $3.29 times the population of Hanover, and (ii) the
enactment by Banover of a satisfactory resolution providing for
its moral obligation support of {he Obligations; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Hanover, by resolution
adopted July 10, 1985, expressed its desire to have Banover join
the Commission as a Participating ~olitical Subdivision (as
defined in the Snabling Act); and
WHEREAS, the Commission, by Resolution Number 85-7-1 adopted
duly 30, 1985 and acting pursuant to the ~nabling Act, authorized
the admission of Hanover as a Participating Political Subdivision
of the Commission upon the adoption of a suitable amendment to
the Original Tripartite Agreement and First Amendment to
Tripartite Agreement to provide for (i) adding the moral
obligation support of Naaover with respect to payment cf the
Obligations, (ii) evidencing the terms of Hanover'~ contribution
tO the Co~m~ission, and (iii) conforming the terms of the Original
Tripartite Agreementand =he Eirst Amendment to Tripartite
Agreement to reflect %he addition of ~anover as a Participatiag
Political Subdivision of the Conmlission;
NOW, ~HEREFOR~, for and in consideration of the fcregcing
premises, the Commission, the City, Hen~ico, Chesterfield, and
Hanover hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Except ss amended by the First Amendment to Tripartite
~Agreement and this Second Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, the
Original Tripartite ~greement remains unmodified and in full
fores and effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendr~ent to
Tripartite Agreement, the First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement
remains unmodified and in ful~ fezes and effect.
2. Except as provided in paragraph 4 of this Second
Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, the First ~Lmendment to
Tripartite Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the term
"Localities" as used therein shall henceforth mean and be
con~trusd to mean the City~ Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover,
collectively. Hanover hereby adopts and approve~ all of the
terms of the First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, as amended
hereby, to the same extent as if it had been original party
thereto, including without limitat±en, the provision by ~nover
of its non-binding, but moral obligation ~upport with respect to
payment of the Obligations, in the manner and to the extent
described in the First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, as
amended hereby. The City, ~enrico, and Chesterfield each ratify
and confirm the terms of the First Amendment to Tripartite
Agreement, as amended hereby, including, without limitation,
their respective mcral obligation support with respect to payment
of the Obligations and the City'~ subordination of the Rxisting
Debt, all in th~ manner and to the extent described in the First
Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, as amended hereby.
3. The First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement is hereby
amended specifically as
la) Th~ second sentence of Paragraph 1 (c) is hereby
amende~ to read as follows:
Beginning in 1986, all monies received from
Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover, as hereinafter
described, for the purpose of making up a deficit
in any Existing Debt Repayment Amount shall be
u~ed by the Commission or its designee as soon as
possible after receipt thereof to make payment Of
Henric0's~ Chesterfield's and Hanover's Pro Rata
Shares, ~s hereinafter defined,'of any such
deficit.
(b) Paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) are hereby amended to
uead as follows:
4. (a) The submission by the Commission of each Annual
Schedule to the chief administrative officers of Henrico,
Chesterfield and Hanover shall constitute urgent request~ by the
Commission to the Board Of Supervisors of Henrico, of
Chesterfield and of Hanover, respectively, for an appropriation
for the upcoming Governmental Fiscal Year of the sum of the
following amounts taken from such Annual Schedule:
(i) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the Debt
Service Reserve Deficiency;
(ii) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Reserve Note Debt Service;
(iii) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Estimated Note Deficit;
(iv) their respective Pro Rata Shares of any Back
Interest; and
(c)
follows:
(v) their respective Pro Rata Shares of the
Existing Debt Deficiency. .
For the purpose of assuring that the Commission's
annual requests (as evidenced by the Annual
Schedules) for appropriations may be considered by
their respective Boards of Supervisors, the chief
administrative officers of Itenrico, Chesterfield
and Hanover shall include the sum of the foregoing
amounts in their respective proposed budgets
submitted to thezr respective Boards of
Supervisors for each Governmental Fiscal Year so
long aR any of the Obligations remain outstanding.
Paragraph 6(b) is hereby amended to read as
{b) AS soon as possible after July I of each
Governmental Fiscal Year, but not later than July
15 thereof, each of Henrico, Chesterfield and
Hanover shall, from its appropriation made for
such purpose, pay to the Commission or its
designee its Pro Rata Share of the Existing Debt
Deficiency.
(d) The second and third sentences of Paragraph 9 are
hereby amended to read as follows:
The City further agrees that it shall forgive,
extinguish and forever release its claim against
the Commission for the City's Pro Rata Share of
any annual Existing Debt Deficiency if and to the
extent all of Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover
appropriate and pay their respective Pro Rata
Shares of such Existing Debt Deficiency as
provided in paragraphs 4 and 6 above. In the
event any of Henrico, Chesterfield or Hanover or
all of them should fail to appropriate and pay to
the Commission or its designee its full Pro Rata
Share of any annual Existing Debt Deficiency, then
the City's Pro Rata Share of such annual E~isting
Debt Deficiency plus the amount which any or all
of Benrico, Chesterfield and Hanover shall fail to
appropriate and pay of their respective Pro Rata
Shares of such annual Existing Debt Deficiency
shall not be extinguished, but shall be continued
as an obligation of the Commission and added as a
new final payment after the then previously last
scheduled payment on the Existing Debt.
(~) The second sentence of Paragraph 15 is hereby
amended to read aS follows:
Paragraphs 1 and 14 of the Original Tripartite
Agreement are hereby amended, effective from the
date of this Second Amendment to Tripartite
Agreement, to read as follows:
"1. It is expressly understood and agreed to
by the parties to this deed and agreement
that the Commission shall not convey, sell or
otherwise dispose of any real estate conveyed
to the Co~ission by the City without the
prior w~itten consent of the City, ~en:i~e
County, Chesterfield County and Hanover
County."
"14. In additien to the undertakings of the
3 City, Eenrico County', Chesterfield County and
., Hanover County contained in paragraphs 1
through 13 of tha First ~endment to this
deed and agreement, as amended by the Second
Amendment thereto, the City, ~enrico County,
:{ Chesterfie!d. CDunty and Hanover County hereby
· 85-778
covenant and agree that they shall pay to ~
Commission their pro-rata share of the amoun'
by which capital expenditurss and operating
expenses of the Commission exceed reven~e~,
in accordance with budgets approved by the
participating jurisdictions and to the extent
that appropriations have been authorized by
the participating jurisdictions."
4. Inasmuch as the Commission has already issued ~ts Bonds
and Note ~ of the date of this Second Amendment to Tripartite
Agreement, the term "Localities," as used in paragraph 14 of the
First Amendment to Tripartite Agreement to describe those
jurisdictions whose consent to such issuance was required by
Section 103 (k) of the Internal ~evenue Code of 1954, as amended,
and Section 15 Of the Enabling Act, does not apply to Hanover.
5. Banover hereby agrees to pay to the Commission, subject
to annual appropriations, a membership contribution in the total
amount cf $172,067, payable $17,206.78 per annum for ten (10)
consecutive years (calculated on the basis of $3.29 times the
most recent Tayloe Murphy Institute population figures for
Hanover). By Hanover's making the foregoing agreement for a
membership contribution and by its adopting, executing and
delivering this Sesond Amendment to Tripartite Agreement, the
Commission, acting pursuant to Section 5 of the Enabling Act,
hereby finds that Hanover had made satisfactory financial
arrangements to join the Commission, and Hanover is hereby
declared to be a Participating Political Subdivision of the
Commission, effective as of the date of the Commission's
resolution adopting this Second Amendment to Tripartite
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County of Hanover has caused its
name to be subscribed hereunto by its Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors and its seal to be hereto affixed and attested by its
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors~ they being authorized to do so
by a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Hanover, on the' day of October, 1985; and the City of
Richmond has caused ~ts name to be subscribed hereunto by its
City Manager and its seal to be hereto affixed and attested by
~tm City ~lerk, they being duly authorized so to do by Ordinance
adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond,
on the __ day of October, 1985; and the County of Eenrico has
caused Sts name to be subscribed hereun=o by its County Manager
and its seal to be hereto affixed and attested by its Clerk of
the Beard of Supervisors, they being duly authorized so to do by
a resolution' designated as Agenda Item__ , adopted by
the Board of Supervieors of the County of Se~ on the
day of October, 1985; and the County of Chesterfield has caused
its name to be subscribed hereunto by its County Administrator
and its s~al to be hereto affixed and attested by its Deputy
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, they being duly authorized so
to do by resolution adopted by the Board o~ Supervisors of the
County of Chesterfield, on the__day of October, 1985; and
the Coramission has caused its name to be subscribed by its
Executive Director and its seal to be affixed and attested by its
Secretary, they being duly authorized sO to do by resolution cf
the Commission adopted On th~ __ day oi October, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
10.C. CONSENT ITEMS
10.C.1. BINGO AND~'6R NUAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
requests for bingo and/or raffle permits for calendar year 1985
from the Woman's Club of Chesfsr add the Grange Hall
Parent-Teacher Association.·
Unanimous
0.C.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANC~
his day'the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
irections from this Board, made report in writing upon his
~amination of Peregrine Road, Talon Lane, Hawkbill Read,
awkbill Circle and Alms Lane in Oak Run, Section 1, Dale
~pon consideration whereof~ and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
,y Mr. Mayee, it is resolved Peregrine Road, Talon Lane, ~awkbill
~oad, Eawkbill Circle and Alms Lane in Oak Run, Section 1, Dale
)istrict, be and they hereby are established ar public roads.
~nd be it further resolved; that the Virginia Department of
{ighways and Transportation, be and it hereby i~ requested to
~ake into the Secondary System, Peregrine Road, beginning at the
~nterseotion with ~opkins Road, State Route 637, and running
~esterly 0.17 mile to the intersection with Talon Lane; Talon
i.ane, beginning at the inter~ecticn with Peregrine Road and
~unning northerly 0.03 mile to end in a dead end. Again, Talon
~ane, beginning at the intersection with Peregrine Road and
~unning southerly 0.08 mile to the intersection with Hawkbill
~ad, then continuing southerly 0.0S mile to the intersection
~ith Aims Lane, then continuin~ ~outherly 0.02 mile te tie into
~ieting Talon Lane, State Route 2883; Eawkbill Road, beginning
~t the intersection with Talon Lane and running southeasterly
).08 mile to ~he intersection with ~lawkbill Circle, then
~ontinuing ~outherly 0.05 mile to tie into existing Rawkbill
~oad, State Route 2S81; Rawkbill Circle, beginnin~ at the
intersection with ~awkbill Road and running easterly 0.08 mile to
=nd in a cul-de-sac; and Alms Lane, beqinning at the intersection
· ith ~alon Lane and running westerly 0.03 mile to tie into
~roposed Alms Lane, Treemont Subdivision, Section C.
~hie request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distance
~hese roads serve 65 lots.
And be it further re~elved, that the Board of Supervisors
9~/arante~s to the Virginia Departme~t of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all o£ th~se roads except Rawkbilt Circle which
has a 40' right-of-way.
This section of Oak Run~'is'recorded as follows:
Section 1. Plat Rook 47, Page 50, October 5, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
direction~ from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examinatiun of Spring Meadow Road, Spring Meadow Terrace, Autumn
Way, Jonquil Terrace, Poplar Hollow Trail and Poplar Hollow
Terrace in Spring Grove, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
~y Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Spring Meadow Road, spring
Meadow Terrace, Autumn Way, Jonquil Terrace, Poplar Hollow Trail
and Poplar Hollow Terrace iD Spring Grove, Midlothian District,
be and they hereby are established as public roads.
An~ be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department cf
Highways and Transportation, be it hereby is requested to take
nrc the Secohdary System, Spring Meadow Road, beginning at the
intersection with Brown Road, State Route 789, and going 0.08
mile southwesterly to the intersection with Spring Meadow
Terrace, then c0n=i~uing 0.07 mile westerly to the intersection
' ' ~' 85-780
with Autumn Way, then continuing 0.05 mile southerly to the
intersection with Jonquil Terrace, then continuing 0.08 mile
southerly to the intersection with Poplar Hollow Trail, then
continuing 0.07 mile southwesterly to a cul-de-sac; Spring Meadow
Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Spring Meadow Road
and going 0'.03 mile southerly to a cul-de-sac; Autumn Way,
beginning at the intersection with Spring Meadow Road and going
0.07 mile northwesterly to a cul-de-sac; Jonquil Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with Spring Meadow Road and going
0.06 mile westerly to a cul-de-sac; Poplar Hollow Trail,
beginning at the intersection with Spring Meadow Road and going
0,13 mile easterly to the intersection with Poplar Hollow Terrace
and then continuing 0.05 mile northerly to a cul-de-sac; and
Poplam Hollow Terrace, beginning at the intersection with Poplar
Hollow Trail and going 0.04 mile easterly to a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope and site distanCe
easements.
These roads serve 55 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50'
right-of-way for all of these roads.
Spring Grove is recorded as follows:
Plat Book 42, Pages 41 & 42~ February 2, t983.
Vote: Unanimous
10~C.3. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF POLICE OFFICER
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board hereby
respectf~lly requests the Circuit Court Judges to appoint Curtis
C. Tanner as e Police Officer for Chesterfield County beginning
November i, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
10.C.4. AGREEMENT WITH CARPENTER CENTER
On motion of Mr. Mayea, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
a contractual arrangement with the Carpenter Center in the amount
of $25,000 i'n conjunction with the School SyStem and ~urther
authorized the C0~nty Administrator to execute any necessary
documents.
Vote: unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated he had talked with representatives of the
Carpenter Center and they requested that the funds be ~orwarded
earlier than October. Mrs. Girone requested tkat funds be
forwarded to the Maymcnt Foundation earlier as well. Mr. Hedrick
explained the system hy which contributions are made but
indicated he would cheek into the matter to speed up th~ process.
10.C.5. AGREEMENT WITH RICHMQND SYMPHONY
On motion of M~. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
a contractual arrangement with the R~chmond Symphony in the
amount of $23,600 in conjunction with the School System and
further authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents.
Vote: Unanimous
~?.C.6. AGREEMENT WITH PETERSBURG SYMPHONY
On motion of Mr'. Hayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
a contractual arrangement with the Petersburg Symphony in the
amount of $5,000 in conjunction with the School System and
further authorised the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents.
10.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
10.D. 2. R~QU~ST TO REPAIR ACCESS ROAD AT CHESTER MIDDLE SCHOOL
On motion of ~. Dodd, seconded by Mr. M~yes, the Board adopted
the following resolution:
Whereas, the ~oard of Supervisors of ChesterfieJd County has
received a request to repair the driveway at the Chester Middle
School.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board hereby
requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
tO repair the driveway on an accounts reoeivable basis and that
$1,700 from the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Pund~ be appropriated
for this project.
Vote: Unanimous
1O.D.3. CONTRACT FOR DESIGN PLANS IN AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK
Mr. McElfish stated staff feels that Whitepine Road at the
Airport Industrial Park should be extended to allow for
additional properties for sale, He stated this would be extended
to the poin~ where the properties there can be served and sewered
by gravity. ~e stated staff has been negotiating with Austin
Brockenbrouqh to accomplish the designs for construction plans
for an amount not to exceed $18,507.00 with the funds to be
expended from the Airport Industrial Reserve Account. Mr. Dodd
inquired what number of acres will be avaiable for development.
Mr. McElfish stated it would open up all the property on the east
side of Whitepine Road from Mr. Newell's property to the north as
far as possible and it should be about 30 acres but the l~ft side
iS questionable. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to see a plan
for the Airport Industrial Park, where all the roads are to ge in
the future, etc. She stated if we are to expend money to sewer a
portion of that road, she would like to know if that is the best
use of the money, if this the best design to extend Whitepine
Road, etc. as well as a plan indicating which locations are Phase
I~ II or III, which 10ts have sewer available and where each lot
is. Mr. McElfish stated to the extent that it can be sewered,
the Master Plan shows Whitcpine going straight ahead to the
limits (approximately 1,800 ft.) where it can be sewered and then
there are two options as to where the road could go. Mr. ~edrick
stated there is a ~aster Plan but there is the question of the
whole issue of the Industrial Park and who and how it will be
managed. Re stated the Park has been under the Department of
Economic Development for some time but Community Development has
been concerned and the management issue should be addressed. He
stated that issue is part of the Economic Development policy and
it is a timely question. ~s. Girone inquired what the Master
Plan shows. Mr. Micas stated it has been platted but not
subdivided. Mr. Balderson stated it shows the proposed extension
of W hitepine Road {completed to dmte as well as where it is
intended to go). Re stated where Whiteplne Road will eventually
go will be addressed in the Central Area Plan as well as the
management of the area. He stated there is concern about land
use in the area, the management and the sale of property and all
issues are related. He stated there exists a master plan
exclusive of lots ss a decision was made not to plat the property
as it would be abetter management strategy to provide parcels
depending on the need of the purchaser. He stated the lets are
85-7B2
created when the sales are made and they have been very di]igen~
whem discussing this with clients to make sure there is no
physical constraints with the sale of another.- Mrs. GirQne
stated she felt if this were a private commercial park, a plan
would be worked OUt in d~tail as to water, sewer, lots, etc. She
stated the Park has not been selling well and with Route 288 this
will be a prime site and she felt if there were a detailed plan,
people would be more interested.
Mr. Daniel stated several weeks ago he toured the Park with Mr.
Hedriek snd these issues were discussed including management,
establishment and quality standards~ etc. He stated he agreed
that the entire issue of the Industrial Park ~rom its manaqement
to its marketing to its planning should be more structured. He
inquired if this ma%te~ were deferred to have a full review of
the area and its issues, would any sales be lost. Mr. Balderson
s~ated the area where there are infrastructures is about 65% sold
out and this would add an additional 30 acres for sale. ~e
stated there exists no client today, however, but that it is not
to say that in the time it takes to do a study, there may be
clients interssted. Mr. Daniel inquired when the rsvisw could be
completed. Mr. ~edrick Stated with the current work load, the
current staff, etc. e date could not be given. ~e stated he felt
that Mr. Balderson could continue to market the property, there
are plans to extend the read, etc. He stated staff is
comfortable that this is the next logical s~ep in developing the
Park but if the Board is not, the issue could be deferred for 30
days to obtain additional information. Mr. Dodd stated he did
not feel there was any logical reason to de!er this issue because
this is for the design of the sewer lines and you cannot sell
property without it. Mr. Daniel inquired if the lots were to fit
the sewer or vice versa. Mr. Dodd stated the lots should conform
to the sewer. ~e stated he did agree~ however, with what has
been said with regard to a plan and marketing, etc. He stated he
ielt sales at the Park were acceptable considering there is no
road to get tO the area. ~e stated this would be the most cost
efficient and flexible strategy and still insure quality. Mrs.
Girone inquired if the physical layout of the property is
dictating where the sewer line ha~ to qo. Mr. Balderson stated
that it was.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board:
1. Appropriated $18,507 from the Airport Industrial Park
Reserve Account for the design of Wbitepine Road Extension,
Phase III.
2. Authorized 's~aff to proceed with awarding the design project
to Austin Brockenbrough and Associations as one of the four
engineers on contract for pro~essional services.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the motion should include that staff
accomplish a full review of the Airport Industrial Park. Mr.
Dodd stated he felt staff is currently looking at the full
marketing approach at this time and this additional verbiage was
10.D.4. RUNWAY LAi~DSCAPE BUFFERS AT ROUTE 10 AND COgBILL ROAD
Mr. took stated there is currently a contractor performing work
for the expansion of extending and widening the runway at the
Airport. He stated in conjunction with that, the County is under
obligation to do clearing in the approach zone to the Airport.
He stated during the process o~ doing that, Mr. Daniel has
expressed concern ~nd requested the issue of landscaping come to
the Board and;the work has been suspended from Route 10 within
200 feet ih %he interim. He stated the County does not have the
option to leave the trees. ~e stated staff met with Mr. Daniel
and he has concerns about the quality of the plan add would.ilks
85-783
additional work to include berming. He stated there will not be
additional mobilization costs because of this deferral. He
stated the 200 ft. does need to be cleared in the near future and
until as it is cleared, it represents an obstruction of the
approach zone. He stated that staff would develop alternative
landscaping plans to be presented for Board consideration which
should be in January, 1986 with anticipated work in the spring.
Mr. Applegate inquired if staff had complied with FAA
requirements. Mr. Zook stated FAA requires that the area be
cleared. Mr. Applegate stated the County does not have any
alternative then. Mr. Daniel stated he agreed that this will be
done but there could be several alternatives On how it will be
done. He stated the staff needed to look into what the area
would look like in more depth and he agreed that the County will
bays to meet FAA requirements. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the
equipment was on location at this time and the FAA required it
and did not understand the need for delay in removing the trees.
Mr. Daniel stated tl:e County will still meet the FAA requirements
and there will be no repercussions relative to cost or funding
and that a decision is not necessary at this point in time. Mr.
Appleqate stated this delay would place additional work on staff
when there are major projects underway. Mr. Daniel stated the
Airport is in the middle of hie district and he felt it needed
more study and it will not jeopardize anything. Mr. Dodd
inquired if Mr. Daniel would accept the Board's commitment tO
agree to a reasonable cost ~or the landscaping plan. Mr. Daniel
stated there has not been a cost determined and nothing will be
jeopardized if the Board does not take action between now and
spring. We stated the policy o£ the Board has been that from the
City of Richmond to the Courthouse, that they have w~tehed every
bit of zoning, construction, etc. along that major corridor, Mr.
Applegate stated the tress have to be removed and the decision to
landscape could come later. Mr. Daniel stated he would rather
have it cleared and landscaped in the spring. Mr. Dodd inquired
~f this was a safety issue. Mr. Daniel stated that the spring
would allow sufficient time to abide by the requirements.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
deferred consideration of the landscaping of the 200 feet along
Route 10 in conjunction with the Airport expansion project until
staff has completed optional plans for landscaping the property.
Ayes: Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Applegate.
10.D.5. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT R~GULATING SATELLITH
Mr. Zook ~tated the Board of Zoning Appeals had requested that
the Board of Supervisors consider amending the Zoning Ordinance
relative to the regulation of satellite dishes. He stated the
thrust of the amendment would be to preclude the placement of
satellite dishes in front yards. We stated staff has reviewed
how these dishes are regulated in Henrico, Richmond and Fairfax
and what the County currently has is better than or equal to
those jurisdictions with respect to setbacks, heights, locations,
etc. He stated there is, however, the potential for dishes to be
located in the front yard with our current regulations and an
ordinance amendment would restrict them to rear yards. Mr. Mayas
inquired what is wrong with what exits now. Mr. Zook stated a
large lot could have a dish in the front yard. Mr, Pools stated
the zoning ordinance regulates satellite dishes as
structures and there are minimum setbacks that are in effect.
gave several examples of how and where dishes could be located on
lots and their v~slbility. Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel the
Board could regulate the technical requirements cf the placement
of dishes. H~ stated the setbacks are reasonable and should stay
in force. B¢~ ~tatsd he did not feel the Board should set a
requirement ~hat would override the technical requirements which
are critical for the dish placement. Mr. Daniel stated this
action would be sending this to the Planning Commission to review
85-784
the ordinance. Mr. Maye~ Stated he felt the Planning Commissic~
had enough work to do without spending time on this issue. Mr.
Daniel stated these problems are coming about in residential
neighborhoods and that is what has brought this issue up at this
time. He stated this will not insuru that action is taken, only
that it be reviewed. Mr. Mayes stated he ~elt the Board would be
denying someone the right to enjoy the various satellites if the
only location approved is in the rear yards. Mr. Daniel stated a
variance could be granted. Mr. Dodd stated he agreed with Mr.
Mayes but he had concerns with the rural parts of the County as
well. Me stated this is the way some people are competing with
the high rates of the cable company, that Chesterfield is lastly
becoming th~ most regulated County in America, this is providing
additignal workload for staff, it is taking rights away from
citizens because of some abuses, etc. He stated he felt thc
abuse should be addressed rather than infringing on people's
rights. Mrs. Girone ststed the Planning Commission could look at
the rural and urban problems. Mr. Apptegate slated with the
growing popularity of dishes this is certainly the case, and he
felt that perhaps the issue should be addressed at this time.
Mr. Dodd stated cable does not serve some areas ~f Enon and this
is their only recourse with respect to receiving programs.
On motion of Mrs. ~irone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
recp/ested the Planning Commission review the Zoning Ordinance
relating to satellite dishes and forward a recommendation to the
Board for consideration.
Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd,
10.E. UTILITIES ITEMS
10.E.1. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS
1O,E.l.a. REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE ON TREELY ROAD
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized thc Utilities Department to proceed with the extension
of public water on Treely Road of whleh 17 of the 24 residents
have signed co~tracts to connect to this extension. It is noted
that the estim&ted cost is $65,000 and will be funded from the FY
85-86 Capital Improvements Budget, Water Line Extensions.
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.l.b. REQUEST FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE ALONG ALBERTA ROAD
On motion ef Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
autherised the Utilities Dcpartmen~ to conduct a survey of
Alberta Road in Stanwick, Section 1, to determine the number of
residents that would sign contracts obligating them to connect to
public water and sewer if made available.
Vote: Unanimous
WATER LINES TO SERVE WOODLAND POND SUBDIVISION
Mr. Mussy disslosed to the Board that he is a property owner in
Woodland Pond Subdivision, has not participated in any discussion
regarding this matter and declared a conflict of interest.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his real estate firm
may participate in the sale of some of the property in the
Woodland Pe~d S6bdivision, declared a possible conflict of
interest and~excused himself from the meeting.
85-7~5
Mr. Dodd stated he would like to point out to the Board the
amount of money the County is putting into residential
development on the front end and when we go into industrial
development it is cri!~cized. Mr. Welchons stated ths up front
money is basically to replace a four inch line on Beach Road
which is deteriorating and expensive for the County to maintain.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dedd~, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following water contract:
Water Contract Number W85-169CD, Water Lines on Beach and
Nash Roads to serve WQcdland Pond Subdivision
Developer: Midlothian Enterprises, Incorporated
C~nbractor: H. Bamner Gay & Company, Incorporated
Total Contract Cost: $401,818.75
Total Estimated County Cost: 191~250.00 .(Cash Refund -
$10§,000.00; Refund through ~onnections - $86,250.00)
Estimated Developer Cost: $210,568.75
Number o[ Connections= O
Codes: 5E-2511-997 (Refund through Connections)
And further the Board transferred $55,000.00 from 5H-5724-2009
(Cash Refunds) to 5H-5724~SGgM. The remaining $50,000.00 cash
refund will be appropriated with the FY 86-87 and FY 87-88
C~pital Improvement Budget.
Ayes: Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Appiegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
10.R.2. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
10.~.2.a. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR SURPLUS COUNTY PROPERTY
Mr. Welchons stated on August 14, 1985, the Board authorized
staff to advertise the sale and receive bids on a parcel of land
near Iron Bridge Road and Chalkley Road, containing 31¼ acres.
Be stated two bids were received and were less than the assessed
value. He stated the property is also adjacent to some future
development and should increase in value and recommended that the
bids be rejected and that it be held for future consideration.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
rejected all bids received for 31~ acres nea~ Chalkley and Iron
Bridge Roads.
Mr. Dodd stated he was in basic agreement that the value would go
up but he thought a higher offer might be negotiated by the two
highest bidders. He stated he did not feel the County should
hold the land forever.
Mr. Daniel, amended his motion, seconded by Mr. Applegate, that
the Board reject all bids received for 31~ acres near Chalkley
and Iron Bridge Roads but that staff negotiate further with the
two highest bidders to see if their offer could be increased to
be more compatible with the assessed value.
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.2.b. CQNDE~kNATION PROCEEDINGS ALONG CROOKED
10.E.2.b.1. MAGNOLIA L. PATRON, NELLIE Z. PATRON AND ALVA KIRBY
Mr. Welchons stated the developer had a professional appraiser
review the 97operty and the amounts indicated are higher than
what the County Would normally offer for the easements along
Crooked Brench.~ He stated staff recommends that the staff
85-786
proceed with condemnation on an emergency basic but that staff
continue to ~egotiate. Mr. Mayas inquired if the procedure on
how the offers are arrived at has been discussed with the
property owners. Mr. Welchons stated the property owners have
not been told how negotiations are handled. Mr. Mayas stated he
felt the property owners fe~l the government is just taking the
property and requested that the staff discuss the information
with them and that the matter be deferred. Mr. Applegate stated
th~ contrao: for sewer will be held up. Mr. Mayas stated he felt
the property owners had a right to understand the procedure
first. Mr. Welchons stated Mr. Glen Morgan, attorney for the
Patrons and others, was present. He stated that the residents do
not object to the construction of the lin~ but with the price
offered and anything done today does not prohibit continuation of
negotiations. He stated if an amount cannot he agreed upon, the
Courts will set the price.
Mr. Morgan stated the rmsidents are not opposed to the line being
constructed but with the compensation, not that they think it is
unjust but they want to see the appraisal. Mr. Mayas stated that
there is a standard way in which things are done and he felt the
residents should see this as well. Mr. Morgan stated there have
been different offers for different tots and they are confused
with the amounts. Mr. ~ayes stated he asked Mr. Welchons to
provide him with examples as to how the figures were set. Mr.
Dodd stated a counteroffer will probably be made and the
developer will be paying the cost, nothing will be lost because
it could be negotiated out. Mr. Mayas stated as long as he is
assured that this will be worked out satisfactorily, Mr. Morgan
stated the line is not the problem, only the compensation. Mr,
Mayas stated he was only concerned that the property owners
rights are protected. Mr. Morgan stated they would be.
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Reard
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amounts
as set. opposite their names are not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on October 24, 1985 of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject Of said condemnation proceedings and pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, these proceedings are on an
emergency basis; and further that staff is authorized to continue
negotiations to try to reach a reasonable solution.
Magnolia L. Patron (Lot6) Crooked Branch Sewer $300
Magnolia L. Patron (Lot 10) Crooked Branch Sewer 325
Magnolia L. Patron and
Nellie ~. Patron (Lot 8) Crooked Branch Sewer 250
Magnolia L. Patron,
Alva P. Kirby and
Nellie Z. Patron Crooked Branch ~ewer 650
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.2.b.2 LEON W. AND FPJkNC~$ M. HAYES
On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr, Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if. the amount
as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Admlnietrator notify said property
Owners by registered mail on October 24, 1985 of the County's
intention to enter ~pon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said e0ndemna~ion proceedings and pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Cede of Virginia, these proceedings are on an
emergency basis.
Leon W. and Fra~ces M. ~ayes Crooked Branch Bewer $100
Vote: Unanimous
85-~87
10.S.2.b.3. ~$TMK WOOD TAYLOR
9n motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute ~ondemnation
proceedings against the following property owner ii the amount as
set opposite her name is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owner
by registered mail on October 24, 1985 of the County's intention
to enter upon and take the property which is to be the ~nbject of
said condemnatien proceedings and pursuant to Section 15,1-238.1
of the Code of Virginia, these proceedings are on an emergency
Basis.
Ester Wood Taylor
Cr~oked Branch Sewer
$i00
10.E.2.b.4. ~gRMIT A. AND ALBERTA ~. HENDRIX
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
prooeedlnge against the followimg property Owners if the amount
asset opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail on October 24, 1985 of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to bo the
sub,eot of said co~de~nation proceedings and pursuant to Section
15.~-238.1 of the Cede of Virginia, these proceedings are on an
emergency basis.
Kermit A. and Alberta L. Mendri× Crooked Branch Sewer $700
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.2.c. CONDEMNATION FOR SEWER EASEMENT FOR FAIRP~NES, SEC. 4
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the County Administrator notify said property
owners by registered mail On October 24~ 1985 of the County's
intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the
subject of said condemnation proceedings and pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia, theme proceedings are on an
emergency basis.
John F. and Frances A. Shine Fairpines Sewer $398
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.3. CONSENT ITEMS
10,E.3.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR CROOKED B~ANCH TRUNK S~ER
Mr. Applegate inquired about the developer participation in the
Crooked Branch truck sewer contract. Mr. Welchonm stated the
developer does not receive refunds until he develops, and pays a
connection fe~. Be stated the developer is also requesting that
he be able to receive up to $60,000 in refunds from connections
for property that may connect as a result of this line not on his
property. He stated the ordinance provides %hat this can be done
upon approval by the Board and it is included in the $421,000.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized.the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for.the following sewer contract:
85-788
Sewer Contract Number S8~-57CD/7(8)575E, Crooked Branch
Trunk Sewer
Developer: Pioneer Financial Corporation
Contractor: Central Builders, Incorporatmd
Total Contract Cost: $421,339.20
Total Estimated County Cost; $421,339.20 (Refund through
Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost= 0
Number of Connections: 15
Code: 5N-2511-997
Vote: Unanimous
10.~.3.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR FAIRPIN=$, SECTION 4
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents for the following sewer contract:
Sewer Contract Number S84-150CD/7(8)4EOM, Fairpines, SectioI
4; Onsita and Offsite Sewerm
Developer: Commonwealth Development Corporation
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Incorporated
Total Contract Cost: $72,690.50
Total Rstimated County Cost: 7,843.53 (Refund through
Connections)
Estimated Developer Cost: $64,846.97
Number Of Connections: 27
Code: 5N-2511-997
10.E.3.c. PERMIT FOR VE~CO ALONG OLD HUNDRED ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
a request from Vepco to install an underground cable acro~s a 60~
wide strip, which has been dedicated to the County, along Old
Hundred Road, north of Hrandermill Parkway provided they relocat~
th~ cable at Vepco's expense if it interfere~ with the
installation of future utilities or ~oad widening, a copy of the
sketch is filed with the papers of this Heard.
Vote: Unanimous
10.E,3,d. EASEMENT FOR VEPCO ALONG VIRGINIA PINE COURT
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute a 15' wide Vepco easement along the
property line adjacent to Cardinal Electric and American Filtron~
from Old Dominion Trucking to Virginia Pine Court.
Vote: Unanimous
10.~.3.e. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG RAMBLEWOOD ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, Seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting on behalf of the County, the conveyance of a
10' strip Of land along Ramblewood Road from Pinebark Associates.
Vote: Unanimous
10,E.3.f. DEED OF DEDICATION A~ONG MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved
85~89
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any nece~ar%
documents accepting on behalf of the County the conveyance of a
24' strip cf land along Midlothian Turnpike from Midlothian
Restaurant Associates, a Virginia Limited Partnership.
10.~.3.g. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG SPRING RU~ KQAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary
documents accepting on behalf of the County the conveyanc~ o£ a
20' strip of land along Spring Run Road from Stephen M. King and
Robin O. King.
Vote: Unanimous
10.E.4. REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
10.F. REPORTS
Mr. Bedrick presented the Board with a report on the status of
the General Fund Contingency and General Fund Balance, the Road
Reserve Funds and the District Road and Street Light Funds.
Mr. Appleqate inquired when the year end budget figures would be
considered as there were requests for a secretary for General
District Court, firemen for Dale and Matoaca Districts and add
backs f0~ Mental ~ealth/Mental Retardation. Mr. Hedrick stated
that would be brought to the Board at the November 13, 1985
meeting.
M_rs. Giron~ read the policy voted On for ~obilc Nomes in General
Plan 2000 Dy the ~oard which encourages mobile home parks and
discourages placement otherwise. She stated if the Board was to
depart from that policy, they should change the General Plan
2000. Mr. Dodd stated there are no parks being built but two
were recently eliminated in Midlothian Di~tric~. Mrs. Gl:cue
stated the Board zoned the property for those two home parks for
shopping ¢~nters because of the profit m~king Opportunities. She
stated that if the Moard wanted the parks to r~main, the Board
should have turned down the zoming. She added that if this policy
were repealed, then it allows mobile homes in parks and in
p:ivate subdivisions which was done today. Mr. Applcgate stated
there wa~ a particular problem which was dealt with today. He
stated the General Plan 2000 would be considered in the spring
and that issue could be addressed further at that time. Mr. Dcdd
stated he felt to do away with the policy would not be practical
:and the specific problem is being addressed to adequately handle
the situation. Mr. Dedd stated he has 90% of the mobile homes in
his district but he does feel the Plan is fair to the mobile home
industry but thc specific situation is being handled properly.
10.G. EXECUTIVE SES$IDN
On motion of Mr. Dodd, sse0nded by Mrs. Giro~e, the Board went
into Executive Session to consider legal matters concerning
Plantation pipe Line Company v. Chesterfield County and to
consider the'condition, acquisition or use of real property f0z
public purposes purmuant to Sections 2.1-344(a) (6) and (2),
respectively, o~ the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
85-790
Mr. Hedrick stated anothe~ Executive Session to consider the
cendition~ acquisition or use of real property for public
purposes would be deferred until after zoning.
10.H. LUNCH WITH AMEUBOP CULTUPe%L FOUNDATION (~AUNI') STUDENTS
The Board recessed to travel to the Vo-Technicat Center for lunch
with the Hsuni Students.
Reoonvening at 1:30 p.m.:
10.G. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone~ seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board went
into Executive Session to consider the condition, acquisition or
use of real property for public purposes pursuant to Section
2.1-344(a) (2) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Recenvening:
10.I. PUBLIC HEARING ON JAHN-KE/CEIPPENHAM PLAN A~ENDMENT
Mr. Zook stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider amendments to the Jahnke/Chippenham
Area Land Use Plan, He stated the Jahnke Chippenham Plan had
been adopted by the Board in 1983 and the revision has been
initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a request by
HMK, developers in the area, in conjunction with their re~0ning
request which includes an access plan to Powhit~ Parkway. He
stated when that plan was reviewed there were other problem areas
identified that were not related to the HMK plan and there are
other amendments planned to deal with those. Be stated the prior
plan did allow ~or a plan amendment to be initiated by a
developer request if alternative access or direct access could be
Provided. He stated the previous plan states the appropriate way
to.allow increased land use density to Occur would be through a
plan amendment. Be stated Amendment #1 recognizes the density
requested by HMK in Alternative 8 and suggests that the typical
development review process that the County follows with respect
to all properties~could allow intensities that-would range from
the previously adopted alternative 7 to the now stated
Alternative 8. He stated the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the amendment. He stated Amendment %2 deals with
language change in the plan because the plan is to provide
general direction, it should not preclude opportunities for
considering facts during a zoning case or preclude changes in
appropriate actions based upon additional information. He stated
language is included in the plan which does preclude the County
from doing 'this as well as prsventing changes in uses of the land
which are minor deviations from the overall intent of th~ plan.
ihs suggested that the verbiage "if property owners/developers
iwish to pursue more intense land uses than in this Plan, then a
plan amendment must be prepared..." be changed to "may be
required...". ~Ie stated this would allow for the staff,
Commission an~ Board to have a plan amendment prepared on major
oases when such a plan amendment is needed, He stated on minor
eases, the plan is flexible to deal with those miner deviations.
Ne stated staff would make the initial determination if a plan
amendment were needed and then begin processing the zoning
application. Me stated if the Planning Coma~iasion er Buard of
Supervisors felt that the application was a major deviation, they
would have th~ prerogative of saying that it required a plan
amendment and send the case back to the Planning Commission for
an amendment prior to hearing the case.
85-791
Mr. Zook stated staff also recommends changes with regard te the
Voorhees Transportation Plan that was done along with the
Jaknke/Chippenham Plan as it is also extremely specific and goes
into detail as to the number of right and left hand turn lanes,
He stated it was felt that the plan should be considered a
general plan and if better information comes to light during the
zoning process or ouhside of the zoning process that suggest~
there is a better way to deal with the miner aspects of that
plan, then that should be allowed to occur absent a plan
amendment. He noted that the HMK proposal for zoning was
deferred by the Planning Commission at last night'~ meeting until
December 3. He stated the Board may defer or act on Amendment $1
which was approved by the Planning Commission. He stated with
regard to Amendment $2 with increased flexibility of changing the
language, the Board does have the Richmond Honda case on its
zoning agenda this afternoon. Be stated the Hoard should hear
and make that change to the plan prior to a determination on the
Richmond Honda CaSe.
Mr. Dodd stated he is concerned about dealing with subarea 1, and
read from the report which indicated in dealing with subarea 1
things are left hanging as it says that there is possibility of
getting better access to the property! and a higher level other
than single density could be appropriate. Me stated this made
him very uncomfortable and would rather see a more definite
recommendation that could be appropriate because he testified in
Court that something other than agricultural or single family
density would be appropriate in that area. Me stated it makes
him uncomfortable to testify in court and come back and see it
hanging wide open and he would like something said stronger that
could'be appropriate. Mr. Zook stated that what Mr. Dcdd was
referring to was the 1983 plan and that Amendment #1 does allow
densities in that area that are non-single family residential.
Mr. Dodd stated that if H~ gets its road network, th~n that
would definitely happen. Mr. Z00k ststed that was correct
subject to Board approval. Mr. Zook stated Alternative 8 mirrors
HMS proposal, however, HMK has made some slight changes to their
proposal since they did the traffic analysis and this plan
amendment would require that the uses specified in the zoning
application met the test of success on the transportation system.
He stated this would require that they do another traffic
analysis andthis plan wo~ld allow this traffic analyGis to be
considered in the zoning ease absent another plan a~endment.
There was no one present to speak in favor or opposition to the
request.
Mrs, Girone recommended that the Board de,er Amendment $1 which
iS direutly related to }IMK which was deferred by the Planning
Commission and that this be discussed at the time the HMK zoning
!ease is discussed. She stated that the Board should consider the
i Amendment $2 as she felt it would be easier to deal with Richmond
Honda and clearer if they are kept together. She moved approval
of Ammndment 92 to the Jahnke/Chippenham Area Land Use Plan. Mr.
Dodd stated he felt this was so important to the County that the
entire plan should he con~idered at one ti~e and not taken
piecemeal. He suggested that perhaps the entire plan should be
deferred.
Mrs. Girone stated that Amendment 92 deals with Richmond Honda
and they are under a time pressure and have requested that the
case be double advertised. She stnted this amendment do~s not
have anything to de with Amendment $1 a~ they are distinctly
separate. She stated she felt Amendment #2 could be dealt with
and defer Amendment #1 until the HMK case comes forward. Mr.
Dedd stated HMK has been trying to come forward and he is
disappointed that it has not made it yet as it seems that it has
been s~udied to death. Be stated the wording of Amendment ~1
allows for a~higher level of use which could be appropriate and
leaves plenty of latitude. He stated he sees no reason t? delay
at this time. Mrs. Girone stated in the past the Board
85-792 .
has approved the zoning and then amended the plan and it i$a
matter of which comes first.
She stated the problem the Planning Commission had was with
density questions raised by the public that appeared. She stated
that the Planning Commission was requested to review that issue
and for the Board to amend a plan that would allow a certain
density or change in the area when we do not have a
reeo~endation from the Planning Commission on the case that is
directly involved seems backwards. She stated the Board does not
iknow what the Planning Con~issioe will decide on December 3, 1985
!as they could deny, approve or go anywhere in between. She stated
she did not know how the Board could amend a land use plan for
the area when the Planning Commission has not made a
recommendation. She stated the Midlothlan Commissioner indicated
he was not well enough informed to vote last night and that he
needed additional information about the case. She stated she did
not keow what the rush was to amend the plan as it would not help
or hurt ~MK one way or the other if the zoning case has not been
dealt with. She stated she felt the case and the amendment to
the ?lan involving the case would both be better dealt with on
the same day.
Mr. Dodd stated when he testified in Court and indicated that
Area 1 would be more than low density housing, he took that very
seriously and he did not intend to vote for something that does
not give higher intensity for the road improvements. He stated
he felt the Board was laying ground work now to deny the higher
use later which he felt wrong. Mrs. Girone stated she did not
know what the Planning Con~nission was plannimg to do. Mr. Daniel
inquirgd if the Planning Commission reviewed amendments to the
General Plan before the Board. Mr. Zook stated both amendments
were recommended for approval.
Mrs. Girone inquired if the zoning was approved and then the Plan
was amended for Sigma. Mr. Bedrick stated he thought the plan
was amended first because the purpose of the plan is to lay the
foundation or guidelines for the subsequent zoning actions and
not the reverse. He stated in the case of Sigma, the plan had to
be dealt with first before the case. Mrs. Girone stated that the
staff report indicates that staff conceptually endorses the
developers land use and transportation proposal reflected in the
zoning ease. She inquired if that meant that if the Board passes
Amendment %1, that the Board conceptually endorses the
applicant's reques~ in the zoning ease. Mr. Zook stated the plan
would allow the possibility of finding alternative 7 or 8 to be
appropriate.' Be stated that adopting this plan amendment does
not preempt'the Board's zDning decision with r~spect to the
appropriate density o~ this parcel. Mr. ~edriok stated he felt
the purpose of the plan is an overall guideline £or the zoning of
the area. ~te stated if the Board does not adopt the plan prior
to dealing with the zoning case, the plan in place does affect
the zoning density that the Board would be able to consider in
conjunction with any zoning case in the area because the plan
indicates what the density should be. He stated the plan is a
guide and the Board can deal with any intensity it wishes but the
purpose of the plan is to deal with overall land use patterns in
the area away from the consideration of the zoning case otherwise
you don't need a plan,
Mrs. Girone inquired how Amendment #1 helps the Board deal with
the HMK case. Mr. Zook stated this amendment allows the Board to
consider densities between alternatives 7 and 8. Ne stated it
indicates that, based on information submitted by the developer
which shows an access plan, that will not result in a lower level
of servic'e on the'road, however, th~ traffic analysis done by the
developer addresses a slightly different density situation with
respect to where uses are located, the total amount of office~
etc, Me stated, therefore, this plan states that if during the
zoning process the developer can demonstrate that his land use
proposal and intensity is acceptable and has acceptable levels of
service then it can be approved through the zoning process.
85-793
stated the zoning process will take Care of a couple of
things--the plan refers to'an acceptable level of service and the
zoning process defines that level for Jahnke Road and the
internal road network. He stated that is a definition that can
o~cur in the zoning protons and can change based on the Soard's
determination of what is acceptable. ~e stated staff feels level
D is acceptable. Mrs. Girone stated there are dlsorepancies in
the two sets of figures. Mr. ~ook stated there are differences
between the densities and intensities and locations of those in
the planniDg area. He stated the zoning case requiree that at
schematic plan approval, that additional traffic analysis be done
specific to the land use development that is proposed. Mrs.
Girone stated that the Commission directed staff to verify the
figures and come up with better and closer figures and look at
the road problems and the density and discuss these intensities.
She stated alternative ~s is arbitrary as the Board may exceed
the stated densities so why would want to pick a set of numbers
today when the CoK~ission will deal with on December 3, 1985 and
we will know better what we are dealing with. She crated this
may mean that we will have to do this all over again. She stated
this housed two hours of discussion last night and she did not
feel a decision today was needed as it is not helping or hurting
anyone, the developer or the County. She stated nothing would be
accomplished by approving Amendment #1 today. Mr. Dodd stated he
felt the plan should be considered ix its entirety Or deferred as
you cannot pull out one parcel of land and not others, Mr. Zook
crated Amendment ~II does not refer to any particular land area
on the map.
Mr. Hedrlck stated the purpose of a land use plan was to
determine what the land use patterns should be for that area
based on all the elements that go into a plan s~ch as
transportation, water, sewer, etc. He stated that plan becomes a
guide and you are to deal with that plan when you don't hsve any
specific zoning cases in mind. He stated it i$ a general plan
that you look at and say we think this ~s what this area can
handle and then when the zoning case comes along, you use the
plan aS a reference point and refer that zoning case back to that
plan. He stated then if the zoning ease is an e~eeptlen, then
yoB go back and check it out and reconcile the differences. He
stated specific zoning cases are involved in this particular case
and that is making it more difficult. Mr. Dodd etated that was
true but at no time have they had to pick and choose an area to
iapprove a plan that he is aware of. Mr. Hedrick stated this came
about because of the Sigma zoning case and because of the land
use intensity that wac occurring in that area, the advent of
Powhite Parkway, and the fact that the traffic problems in that
area were so intense it was felt that the Board wanted a plan to
look at all of those issues as it would be a difficult area to
deal with. ~e stated the plan takes that into consideration and
as he understands it the exzsting plan says that the area north
Gf Powhite Parkway; for example, is a lesser density development.
He stated this plan, Amendment ~1, basically opens the door and
says that it can be zoned more densely if certain traffic
improvements are made. He stated if you don't adopt this plan
amendment now or later, the old plan basically says that there
will be low density north of Powhite Parkway. ~e stated if you
go with the plan amendment, it give~ you latitude to go with low
density or more intense use. Mrs. Girene stated that it says
office and single family on the aMI{ site. Mr. Micas stated that
the existing plan recognizes the poeeibility of an amendment to
the general plan to permit higher densities. He stated this
Amendment ~1 makes it more explicit that you can consider higher
densities north of Powhite. Mrs. Girone questioned what will
happen in the next six weeks as we will learn more about the case
and may even want to exceed what is listed and then another
amendment will be necessary. She suggested that the staff and
Commission find out all that is necessary with regard to traffic,
land use, etc. She stated the Board does not have enough
information at this time. Mr. Dodd suggested that the entire
plan be deferred at this time. Mr. Daniel stated that if we act
on 92, we can deal with Richmond Honda. He inguired what w0ul~
85-794 ~
happen with Amendment 91 and the ~MK case. Mrs. Girone stated
the Board could deal with Amendment ~2 and Richmond Honda today
and then in December we will do Amendment #1 and the HME zoning
case. She stated this is logical and will allow time for
additional information. Mr. Dodd stated this has been deier~ed
time and time again and the plan does give the Board the more
than adequate latitude with what can be done.
There was some discuesion regarding density. Mr. Eedrick stated
that the amendment dealn with traffic and traffic improvements.
~s. Girene stated the staff report~ that the developer's current
land use proposal is somewhat different than the land use
proposal on which this traffic analysis was based. Mr. Hedrlck
stated that the developer has a plan and the County will allow so
much density because it will have this much traffic impact and if
the developer can come back and show that the County's figures
are inaocnrate and the traffic impact will not be as great an we
~thought or if the dev~ieper will make improvement such an dirmct
iaccess to Powhite Parkway and that will allow more traffic
!volume, that give~ the. County the latitude to give them highar
id~nsity. Mrs. Girone inquired why we are doing this if there is
!so much latitude. Mr. Hedrick stated with the existing plan that
ilatitude is not there but is with the amended plan. Mrs. ~ir~ne
stated that this would basically prezoning this land if you are
going to approve all these densities. ~r. Dod~ stated that if
yon plan when yon rezone the property, that is not what pla~ing
is supposed to be. He stated the plan is to be approved before
you go into a specific sening case. Mr. Micas stated adopting
Amendment ~1 would not constitute prezoning in any legal sense.
Mrs, Girone stated she has worked on this cane more thanany
other supervisor. She stated the Planning Commission has worked
on this case and they need more information and she is concerned
that the Board wants to rush a decision on this matter. Mr. Dodd
stated there in no rush but this area is very important to
Chesterfield County and there are obvious problems with the
situation but he feels aa involved as any uther supervisor. He
stated once this case went to Court it is as much concern to him
as to anyone else az this will be a gateway to Chesterfield
County. He stated he f%lt the entire plan should be considered or
deferred or denied and not just one little portion. Mrs. Girone
stated the Honda people are concerned about their case and she
felt that amendment #1 should be deferred with ~2 approved. Mr.
Mayes stated if there are all these questions about ~1, why pass
it and if the~e are no questions with regard to %2 pass that.
On motion of Mrs. Girong,. seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
resolved to approve Amendment #2 and deferred Amendment %1 of the
Jahnke/Chippeoham Plan until December ll, 1985 which will be
after the HMK case is heard by the Planning Commission on
December 3, 1985 and will bo the same day the HMK zoning case is
heard by the Board.
}~. Eook explained each amendment. Mr. Mayes stated some of the
information explained requires knowledge of what was accomplished
in 1983 which he did nut have.
Mr. Dodd stated that if the Board approves ~2 and not 91, then he
does not understand what a plan is and the Board does not
understand the issue. Mrs. Girone stated the Board is not saying
they do not agree with ~1 but that we are deferring until HMK
comes forward. Mr. Dodd stated #2 does affect #1 an~ he felt it
all should be considered at one time. Mrs. Girone stated that if
you approved ~2 and not 91 it says that minor cases do not have
to come to the Board and Commission but major cases would and HMK
will have to come to the Board and $2 will not affect HMK. Mr.
Dodd stated it would. Mr, Micas stated that on Subsection B of
Amendment 92, by increasing the flexibility on specific designs
it does affect your ability to zone the entire quadrant, the
whole area is impacted. He stated, in effect, on Subsection B of
%2 you have made it more flexible. He stated if you did not make
the change as suggested in Subsection B it would hamper or hinder
your flexibility i~ the zoning process and it would include HMK.
85-795
Mrs. Girone s~ated it increases the flexibility and is positive
in regard to HM/f. Mr. Micas stated that was correct but it doe~
affect it. Mrs. Girone stated that it was in a positive way.
Mr. Dodd stated the point was that it affected it no matter
whether it be positive or negative.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the Richmond Monde case could be
considered without adopting the plan. Mr. Micas stated you can
consider it but if you approve it, they will not be able to
develop it because the current plan requires a conformance that
is inconsistent with the application. He stated unless you
change the plan, they will not be able te develop, Mr. Dodd
stated he wanted the Board tO do what is right and he felt this
was no~ the correct motion. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the Board
could not move on something that is net sufficiently developed to
enable the Board to make a mound decision. He stated he needed
more information on the relationship between ~2 and ~1, Mrs.
Girone ~×plained briefly the flexibility and latitude that would
be included. Mr. Mayes stated he needed to know reasons why as
well. He stated additional information was provided this date
and he needed to compile all the information.
Mr. Applegate inquired if this plan would accommodate the
existinq request by BMK ~or square footage. Mr. Zook stated it
would subject to any way which conditions are placed in the
zoning cases which the Board will hear and the Planning
Commission will hear. Mrs. Girone stated the report also says
there are discrepancies as she indicated earlier. She stated the
facts should all be gathered prior to the Board voting on the
· ssue. ~he stated the case is not ready. Mr. Dodd stated then
the entire report should be deferred, Mr. Daniel stated the
Planning Commission voted on both amendments and recommended
approval. Mrs. Girone stated the Planin~ Cor~missio~ voted on the
Plan and now they feel they did not have enough information on
the zoninq case and deferred the matter. She requested the Beard
not make the same mistake+ Mr. Redriek inquired if the plan were
net adopted, could the Planning Commission consider the current
zoning case. Mr. Zook stated they could consider the zoning
ease. Mr. Micas stated any <onsideration of the ~MK zoning case
by the Planning Commission would have to assume that the plan
amendment would take place. He stated if it didn't, then they
could not consider it.
Mr. Daniel stated.he did not know what was right but the Board is
not consistent,'
~There was discussion regarding what the schedule was for Richmond
8cnda. Representatives from Richmond Honda mtated they would be
~elayed should this amendment not be approved today. Mrs. Girone
stated even i£ the Doard voted on Amendment ~1 nothing would
happen and inquired why approve it. She stated there are
~iscrepancies which Should be addressed which the Planning
Tommission requested last night when they deferred the issue.
~ir. Daniel stated Mr. Zook indicated this amendment would not
preempt almost any density from what they have asked for downward
to zero. Mrs. Girone stated they may want more than what is
listed and there is more work to be done. Mr. Daniel stated the
densities were at the maximum. Mrs. Girone stated they had been
changed, shifting one category to another, etc. Mr. McCracken
stated some of the densities on the individual tracks that were
presented in the,zoning ease vary slightly from what. was used in
the traffic analysis, some of the locations of the buildings
could change %he distribution of the trips internally, and they
felt these discrepancies were minor compared to the overall
~etwork and they conceptually agree w~th the Overall network. He
stated they did not f~el the~c were any major discrepancies, We
stated the zoning conditions will address any specific concerns
and would give staff the opportunity to come in and refine those
discrepaneies~hen the new t~affic analysis is submitted.. Mr.
Micas stated t~ Fla×im%~a densities advertised for the current MM~
application, cannot be increased without readvertising. Mr. Dodd
stated that the report indicates that higher uses than. single
85-796
family residential can be accommodated if the developer provides
adequate access so he does not feel the Beard would be jumping
ahead of anything. He ststed the plan should he done prior to
the zoning case coming before the Board. Mr. Applegate inquired
how the Planing Commission could restudy the HMK case if the plan
before the Board was not approved, would the Co~nission not have
to use the existing plan. Mr. Micas stated the existing plan
does recognize the possibility of an amendment. He stated if
this amendment were delerred, the Planning Commission
consideration of HMK would have to include a condition that there
was an appropriate amendment to the general plan. Mrs. Girone
ststed that the amendments give greater latitude and by adopting
that, the Planning Commission have given themselves greater
latitude in the zoning ca~e, Mr. Mica~ stated everything the
Planning Co~%mission passe~ in this conte×t is advisory and this
is just a recommendation. Mr. Daniel inquired what would
actually be approved if the amendments were adopted. Mr. Micas
stated with regard to Amendment ~1 you will say that densities in
excess of single family detached may be appropriate given cartain
traffic.changes. ~e stated it would be from ~ero to 2,500,000
square feet in the context of BMK. Mrs. Girone stated that the
2,500,000 square feet is a zoning issue and this Board has never
heard that case. she stated for the Board to adopt the square
footage before the zoning ca~e is heard is not right. She stated
the Planning Commission will have a recommendation for the Board
that is less/more than the 2,500,000 square feet. Mr. Daniel
stated that Mr. Zook indicated that the amendment would allow
anything from sero to 2,500,800 square feet, Mrs. Girone stated
that before the Commission decides on the case and before we get
it, if the Board approves thi~ amendment it will be making land
use changes to the point of Z,500,000 sq. ft. Mr. Daniel stated
that he could say that there should be some form of mixed use and
the amount has not yet been decided. Mr. Dodd stated if this is
approved, you are not setting a figure. Mrs. Girone stated that
it would have to ha lower than 2,500,000 sq. ft. and changing the
density from 7,000 sq. ft. per acre at that intersection. Mr.
Dodd stated that is not correct. Mr. Micas stated if the Board
approved~ the amendment, no determination is being made about what
land use will be approved. Ee stated all you would be saying is
that the general plan include~ the flexibility to con~ider a
m~ltitude of densities. Mrs. Girone stated she did not understand
why the chart was presented then with regard to square feet. Mr.
Midas stated that is another scenario reflecting the current
zoning application but it does not mean you have to zone it that
way and it is not particularly germane to the planning statement.
}~s. Girone s~ated with the current plan there are only 7 columns
iof'possibiliti~s and with the amendment there will be the
additio~ of #8 which increases the density. NLr~' Zook stated the
:column chart would be considered part of the planning statement.
He stated the situation now is limited to column number 7 and
with the amendment #1, flexibility is created to go to column
subject to the zoning process and traffic considerations. Mrs.
Girone stated the amendment designates quantities next to
different uses in different sections; for example, there is
950,000 ~q. ft. for office in Section 1 and 350,000 sq. ft. in
Section 2. She stated this would place caps on the area~ in the
~MK proposal as you have written down the maximum density
office in Section 1 and 2. She stated this was working ahead of
the prooess. Mr. Applegate stated the Planning Commission had
recommended approval of the amendments and Board approval should
not have had any impact on the zoning case submitted. Mrs.
Girone stated the Planning Commission feels there is' not enough
information and there are discrepancies. Mr. Applegate stated
the discrepancies were minor. Mr. ~odd stated he had never seen
a plan deferred to wait for a zoning case and he would not
support it. Mr. Applegate ~%ated the Planning Commission. has
asked the Board to give them direction and this would be a good
opportunity to let them know that they could go to 2,500,000
square feet. Mrs. Girone stated that if the Board votes on this,
it is the Soard's intent to zone 2',500,0~0 square feet. Mr. Dodd
stated that was not~c0rreot but only that a higher level of
service could b~ appropriate. Mrs. ~irone ~tated that the ~oard
without understanding the traffic implications for Jahnke
Chip~enham, i~.~.going to arbitrarily approve'~2,500,000 square
· ' 85-797
feet. Mr. Applegate stated he felt whatever is finally zoned is
going to have to be compatible to the ability of. the proposed
road network to take care of it. Mr. Daniel stated the plan is
for mixed use, it cannot exceed 2,500,000 and all thin~s must
fit. Mrs. Girone ~tated the use is office and single family now
and if the Board approves this, then it is changing the use to
mixed us~ consisting of office, commercial, hotel, residential,
etc. Mr. Dodd stated that was correct if the developer could
provide the necessary road network which will cost
$10,000,000-$12,000,000. Mrs. Girone inquired about the traffic
projection of 75,000 cars per day and if that is an acceptable
level. Mr. Dodd stated the words in the amendment say "may be",
"could be", etc. and those figures would have to be determined by
the Bo.std. Be stated either approve or deny er defer the entire
plan. Be stated the plan should be approved with the details
worked out later and that dealing with the plan and details at
the s~me time has never been done before. Mr. Dodd stated he did
not know what would be done with the case, however, money has
been spent and staff has taken time, etc. to bring forth this
amendment and now you want to consider only a portion of it.
A vote being taken on the motion:
Ayes: Mrs. Girone.
Nays: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Mayas, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
On motion cf Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted
Amendments ~1 and ~2 as submitted to the Jahnke/Chippenham Plan
and that the wording on the bottom of page 9 and the top of page
10 be underlined in red that says "may be".
Mrs. Girene inquired if this resolution passes, what is the new
densities and the new land uses. Mr. Zook stated the difference
in the subareas is shown between the adopted plan, column 7, and
the change would be to allow the flexibility of that in column 8.
Mrs. Girone stated that she felt column 8 is th~ same thing that
HMK has applied for. She stated by approving this, you will be
changing the map and will be exactly what ~MK has asked for with
2,500,000 sq. ft. which will produce 75,000 vehicles per day and
this will be the land use plan for Chesterfield County no matter
who buys or owns the land. She questioned if that was the intent
of this Board. She stated there is a question on the part of the
Planning Co~nnission whether or not that will work, whether
Chippanham Parkway which is at capacity at this time can handle
that, whether Route 60 and Jahnke Road which are at capacity can
handle that, etc. She requested that the Board defeat ~he metlon
and wait until December When all the information and impacts
would be determined. She stated there may be some alterations to
locations of buildings, etc. She stated this is an exact plan
and there is no information from the staff and there has been no
study which she felt is wrong and unwise, She stated aside from
the bulk which is tremendous the Board would be allocating it
through eight quadrant~ and defined how much office, hotel, etc.
is in each section. Mr. Daniel inquired if the figures were
determined to be wrong, could the amendment be amended. Mr.
Micas stated that it could be amended. Mr. Applegate stated the
Plan will not be going back to the Planning Commission. Mrs.
Girone stated the Planning Commission is asking for guidance and
if we approve the plan, it will be telling them that this is what
the Board feels ix correct. Mr. Dodd stated we are simply
stating' that we will consider other than residential housing in
Amendment %1, this plan is tied to traffic which has never
been this tight before, Koger Center and Moorefield did not
participate in traffic improvements, etc. Be stated they will be
spending $10,000,000 ~o construct the roads that they will be
using~ they are producing tax revenue for the County, etc. Mrs.
Girone stated %he Board does not know what is happening and
neither does the Planning Commission and that was why they
deferred the c&se last night. She stated this will make no
difference between now and December 3, 1985. She invited any of
the Board members to ride in the area day o~ night because yon
,.' 85-798
cannot. She stated she would like to know if the road
improvements that the developer of HMK proposes will do the job
or not which i~ what the study is all about. Mr. Applegate
stated he did not feel the adoption of the plan was blanket
approYal of the any zoning case. He stated he did not believe
the Planning Commission who requested a de£erral could look at
the zoning case without looking a plan for expanded density. He
stated right now they could not do what they are proposing. Mrs.
Girone stated they could because they have given themselves the
latitude. She stated approval by the Board will tell the
developer that they are in favor of that. She requested the
Board defer this issue because it will not move anything forward.
She inquired if the Board approved thie~ would the column 8
flgure.s prevail. Mr. Zook stated approval would allow the
flexibility of going up to or below the maximum listed. Mrs.
Girone stated she did not understand how many square feet of
office ~pace in one section, how many square feet of hotel space
in another, etc. without studying it in detail. Mr. Dodd stated
that is not what the Board is doing. He stated the Board is
setting the parameters. Mrs. Girone stated there is a listing
for residential as well which is not defined as to multi-family,
single family, etc. She stated she did not see anything wrong
with delaying this for five weeks. Mr. Mayes stated he felt the
entire issue should be deferred. Mrs. Girone stated that she had
tried to work with Richmond Honda and if they had to be the
sacrifice, that would have to be the case but the HMK cas~ is of
such an important magnitude to the County. Mr. Applegate stated
the Board for the last many months have been pro-economic
development and with Richmond Honda requesting an expansion, he
thought to deny them that Opportunity would be wrong.
The question being called, a vote on the motion was as follows:
iAyes: Mr. Applegate, M~. Daniel and Mr. Dodd.
iNays: Mrs. Girone.
i Ahstention: Mr. Mayes.
DaBiel clarified that he voted in favor of the motion but he
is nut voting for the numbers listed. He stated that will be
determined during the zoning case and this is basically a land
use plan of qualitative not a quantitative plan. ~le stated the
plan indicates they "may" have this uses and not that it "will"
have those usages. Mr. Dodd stated that was also his intent by
the motion.
Mrs, Girone Stated that she did not feel this was good
government.
10.J. REQUEST FOR MOBILE ~0ME PEm4TT
85S149 '
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Richard G. and Diane B.
Wainwright requested a Mobile Home Permit on property fronting
the west line of Ramona Avenue approximately 200 feet south of
M~lba Street, and better known as 10516 Ramona Avenue. Tax Map
98-1 (4) Belmeade, Block 5, Lots 9 through 13 and 39 (Sheet 32).
Mrs. Wainwright was p~esent. There was on opposition present. On
motion Of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
this request for a period of five years subject to the following
standard conditions;
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile
home.
2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile
home site,, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental
prop~rty.'..Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be
parked on'an individual lot or parcel.
3. The min.imum lot size, yard setbacks, required fro~t yard, .
and other Z.0ning requirements of the applicable zoning
85-799
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile ho~
shall be located closer tha~ 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant sbaI1
then obtain the necessary permits from the office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
A-ny viola%ion of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
REQUESTS FOR P~EZONING
85S135
In Midlothlan Magisterial District, BMK CORPORATION requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) of 57.7
acres and to Convenience Business (E-l) of 110.4 acres with
Conditional Use ~lanned Development to permit use and bulk
exception plus amendment to a previously granted zoning request
(Case 85S025) on an ]2.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,800
feet on the north line of Jahnke Road, approximately 200 feet
east of Shadycrest Lane, and also fronting 1,050 feet on the
south line of Jahnke Road approximately 700 feet east of
Shadycrest Lane. Tax ~p 11-5 (1) Parcel 10~ ]]-9 (t) Parcel 2;
11-13 (i) Parcels 15 and 16; 19-1 (1) Parcels 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,
12, 13,-14, and 15; 19-1 (4) Glen Echo Place, Block B, Lots 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
Mr. Poole stated that staff had distributed an addendum today
advising that the Planning Commission deferred action on the case
ilest night until Deoentber 3, 1985. He stated that since the
IBoard does not have a recorlmendation from the Planning
iCommission, the Board should defer consideration of the matter
until December 11, 1985.
On motion of Mrs.'Girone?'seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
deferred consideration of this case until Decen~er 11, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
$5S042 (Amended)
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, MIDLOTHIAN COMPANY requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) plus
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit u~e (muir,family)
exception on a 13.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 560 feet
on the west line of Old Courthous~ Road, approximately 50 feet
west of Courthouse Road. Tax Map 49-7 (1} Parcel 5 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial
of the request. He stated subsequent to that denial, the
developer submitted s revised plan and staff reviewed the plans
and amended the conditions in the staff report. He stated based
on the revised plan, etaff recommends approval. Re stated
several of the conditions in the staff report are reflective
the requirements in the proposed ordinance amendment for
residential muir,family zoning which will be before the Board in
November.
Mr. Ned Powell,~a. principal in the company, stated the Planning
Commission originally denied the request because of drainage, the
85-8~0
number of buildings and its impact on the neighborhood. ~e
stated they have revised the plan, lowered the density and agree
with the conditions as outlined. He stated the plan does conform
with the proposed residential multifamily zoning district. He
stated they have met with the local residents and have satisfied
their draigage and building concerns with buffers between
adjacent properties. He stated they also agree to make
modifications where Old Courthouse ~oad intersects with
Courthouse Road. Mr. McCracken explained the proposed road
~etwork. Mr. Applegate stated he understood from the applicant
that a lane of pavement would be extended along Courthouse Road
from Old Courthouse Road to the commercial development to the
south. Mr. Pewell stated they would do what will be required by
the Transportation Department and the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation. There was no opposition pre,ont.
Mr. Applegate stated th~ original applicant could not work with
the Knights of Columbus, the Church and the residents and
consequently it did not receive favorable consideration.
stated Mr. Powell has constantly worked with the area residents
and has presented a proposal for quality development. Mr. Powell
stated he was in agreement with the conditions.
On motion of Mr. Appiegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the £ollowing conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by $.W.A. Architects, Inc. submitted on 9/24/85, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. The structures shall have an architectural style as depicted
in the renderings titled "Rock C~k Park" (P)
3. Prior to release of a building permit, twenty-five (25] feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Old
Courthouse Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
4. Access shall be confined to a single entrance/exit to Old
Courthouse Road. (T)
Brior to the first schematic plan approval, a schematic road
improvement plan of the Old Courthouse Road/Courthouse Road
intersection, which includes additional pavement and curb
and gutter along Courthouse Road, and the reconstruction of
Old Courthouse Road from Courthouse Road, nurth to the
access into this development, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department"and VDH&T. (T)
Ali roads shall have a minimum pavement w~dth of twenty-four
(24) feet. (P)
7. Concrete curb and gutter shall be in,tailed along the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE and P)
8. 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 surrounding
area. The developer shall submit a plan to Environmental
Engineering providing for on- and off-site drainage
facilities to be utilized in the hydraulic engimeering of
this project. This plan shall be approved by ~nviroPmental
En~fneerfng~ and any necessary easements obtained, prior to
the clearing of any land and implemented prior to the
issuance of any occupancy permit. (EE)
9. The site shall he designed such that no impervious areas,
including roof drains and tennis courts, drain to the north.
]0. The developer shall submit a plan for erosion and sediment
control tO Environmental E~gineeri~g for approval. This
plan shall adhere to the requirements of the "Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, Second Edition 1980,~
prepared by the Virginia Sell and Water Conservation
Con~is~ion. The plan shall be approved by Environmental
Engineering prior to the issuance of any building permit and
implemented prior to the clearing of any land. (EE)
11. The total number cf units shall not exceed 132.
12. Buildings shall be set back a minimum of twenty-five (25)
feet from all private drives and entrances; a minimum of
fifteen (15) feet from any parking space; and shall b~
separated by a minimum of thirty (30) feet. (P)
13. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along all
property lines. With the exception of an entrance/exit to
01d Courthouse Road and utilities which may run generally
perpendicular through the buffer, there shall be no
facilities in this buffer. Within the fifty (50) foot
buffer, landscaping which may include retention of existing
vegetation and/or additional planting shall be accomplished.
A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
in conjunction with final ~ite plan review. Within sixty
(60) days of rough clearing and grading, the buffers shall
be flagged and the Planning Department shall be contacted to
inspect the buffers. If it is determined that existing
vegetation is not sufficient to screen the development,
additional landscaping shall be installed. If additional
land~caping is required, detailed landscaping plans shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for app:oval within
thirty (30) days of the buffer inspection. (P)
14. All buildings, including accessory buildings, shall not
cover more than forty (40) percent of the parcel. No
accessory building except for recreation~ maintenance and
the management office building shall cover more than 100
square feet. (P)
15. The total numbe~ of dwelling units on any one floor level of
a building shall not exceed ten. (P)
16. Sid~wa!ks shall be provided to facilitate internal
pedestrian access between buildings, parking areas and
recreational facilities. (P)
17. Parking shall be provided at a ratio of two (2) spaces per
dwelling unit. {P}
18. The parking and ~toring of recreational equipment shall be
prohlblted unless a contmon storage area is provided for
recreational vehicle parking, including boats, trucks
exceeding 4,000 lbs. net weight and two axles, campers, and
travel and utility trailers. Parking spaces for
recreational equipment and/or vehicles shall be in addition
to that required for parking private vehicles. The storage
areas shall be effectively screened from view. In con-
nection with final site plan review, a plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Pla~i~g Department
for approval. (P)
19. Landscaping for Parking Areas
(a) Interior parking area landscaping.
(1) Parking areas shall have at least ten square feet
of interior landscaping for each space. Each
required landscaped area shall contain a minimu~
.of 100 square feet and have a minimum dimension of
st least ten feet.
(2) The primary landscaping material used in parking
areas shall be trees which provide shade or are
capable of providing shade at maturity. Each
landscaped area shall include at least one tree,
having a clear trunk of at least five feet, The
total number of trees shall not be less than one
for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. The remaining
area shall be landscaped with shrubs and ether
vegetative material to complement the tree
landscaping.
Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout, located so as to divide and break up
the expanse of paving. The area designated as
required setbacks shall not be calculated as
required landscaped area.
(b) Peripheral parking area landscaping.
(1) Peripheral landscaping shall be required along any
side of a parking area that abuts land not in the
right of way of a street such that:
A landscaped strip at least ten feet in width
~hall be located between the parking area and
the abutting property lines, except where
driveways or other openings may be required.
At.least one tree having a clear trunk of at
least five feet, for each fifty linear feet
shall be planted in the landscaped strip.
(c) In conjunction with fina% site plan review, a
conceptual site and parking area landscaping plan shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
Within sixty {60) days of rough clearing and grading, a
detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The landscaping
plans shall De drawn to scale, including dimensions and
distances, and clearly delineate all existing and
proposed parklnq spaces or other vehicle areas, access
aisles, driveways, and the location, size and
description of all landscaping materials. (P)
A minimum of 1.5 acres which is conveniently accessible to
and included within the development shall be provided for
suitable passive and active recreational use by the
occupants. The two (~2) tennis courts shall be constructed
and ready for use prior tO the issuance of any occupancy
permits. The pool, pool house and maintenance building
shall be constructed and ready for use prior to the issuance
to more than 100 occupancy permits. The remaining required
recreational area ~hall be used for passive recreation such
as, but not limited to picnic areas, jogging trails, etc.
(P)
20.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting.
85S099
In Midlothian Magisterial District, NORT~ ~UNDR~D ASSOCIATES
requested rezoning from Agricultural {A) to Residential (R-40) on
a 75 acre parcel located at the western terminus of Gamecock
Road, approximately 720 feet west of Otterdale Road. Tax Map
24-15 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheets 5/6 and 12).
Mr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recom~ended approval
of the request subject to acceptance of the proffered condition.
4r. Eank Myers was present representing the applicant. There wa~.
ho opposition present.
Dn motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
~pproved this request subject to acceptance of the following
)roffered condition:
A maximum of fifteen (15) lots shall be developed on the
subject parcel.
es: Mr. Apptegate, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Daniel and.Mrs. Girone.
~bsent: Mr. Dodd.
~f. D~dd returned to the meeting.
85Sli1
In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA requested
rezoning from Agricultural (Al to General Business (H-3) of 5.35
~cr~s plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk
~xceptions (setbacks and parking space size) on the proposed
tract plus an additional tract containing 1.55 acres, currently
zoned Ce,U~unity Business (B-2), fronting approximately 670 feet
Dn the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting
approximately 470 feet on the east line Of Chinaberry Bonlevard
and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. Tax Map 19-13 (1) Parcels 4, 6, and 25 (Sheet 9).
Hr. Peele stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
of the request subject to certain conditions. Be stated
subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, staff, the
applicant and Mrs. Girone discussed the applicant's concerns
about several conditions. He distributed an addendum to the
Board that were not recommended by staff but addresses five
conditfnn~ addressed by the developer.
Mr. John Henson stated the conditions are essentially what was
agreed upgn except Condition #3 recommended a 10' parking setback
and they would like a 0' setback on Route 60 and 15' along
Chinaberry Boulevard. Mrs. Girone stated that would be
consistent with what was done on the applicant's paroel further
east. }ir. Henson stated Condition %9 recommends curb and gutter
around the entire parcel. Be stated these will be two separate
entities and it would be difficult to comply with this Condition
because of elevations~ setbacks, etc. and they would like the
requirement to apply only to new construction. Mrs. Girone
stated sl~e ~e!t the curb and gutter was necessary at this site.
Mr. ~enson explained what ~as planned for curb'and gutter, the
drainage, the pipes, the landscaping, etc. which would provide
what staff was trying to attain. Mrs. Girone stated she felt
curb and gutter was necessary on Route 60. ~iT. ~oole stated that
~e could not dstermine at this point if there will or will not be
L drainage problem. ~e stated that staff agrees that the best
~ossible quality development should be done on Route 60 and Mr.
~enson did call this morning indicating there is an engineering
problem at the site. Be stated if the Board wishes to provide
flexibilityr they may not want to eliminate the condition
altogether but amend the condition to allow the Planning
Commission to eliminate the curb and qutter if appropriate
engineering data i~ submitted that proves it is impossible or
impractical to install. Mrs. Girone stated that it might be best
to leave that decision to the Planning Cormmission.
Mr. Max Pear,on stated he did have additional setback but the
State acquired .some of the setback for road work and put in curb
and gutter and graded to existing pavement. He stated he was not
opposed to the cost of the curb and gutter aoross the front but
there is,a 6 inch differential when you cut the pavement and put
in the base of the gutter. ~e stated he would prefer to leave it
as it is on the existing portion since {t has existed that way
for 10-12 years2 H~ discussed underground sewers, easements from
IIVepco, etc. whic~ wo~ld also be necessary if this were imposed.,
Mrs. Girone stated she felt it would be best to leave this issue
iup to the Planning Commission. Mr. Zook indicated this was a
condition r~oo~ended by the Environmental Engineering
Departmsnt. There was no opposition present. Mr. Peele explaieed
the conditions as rscon~ended by sta~ and those requested by the
applicant regarding sJgnage.
~n motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, dated September 16, 1985,
shall be considered the Master Plan. The only uses
permitted shall be the sale, rental, service and repair of
automobiles. There shall be no body shop located on the
property. There shall be no vehicles stored on the sits
which are inoperable because of body damage.
2. A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained by the prop-
erty o~mer along the northern property line. Landscaping,
berming and/or topographical conditions shall be such that
the use is adequately screened from the adjacent
property to the north. An eight (8) foot high solid board
fence shall be installed along the entire southern edge of
this buffer. The fence shall be attractive on both sides.
In conjunction with schematic plan review, a conceptual plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval. Within sixty (60) days of
rough clearing and grading, a detailed plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval.
3. No setback shall be required for parking maintained along
Route 60. A fifteen (15) foot parking setback shall be
maintained along Chinaberry Boulevard. Within this setback,
ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. Along
Chinaberry Boulevard, in the northwest corner, landscaping
shall be sufficient to screen the use from the adjacent
residential property to the north and northwest. A
conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be.submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. Within sixty (60)
days of rough clearing and grading, a detailed landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval.
4. Lighting shall be low level and positioned so as not to
project into adjacent property, Chinaberry Boulevard or
Reute 60. (P)
;, Two'.(2) freestanding signs shall be permitted identifying
the developmsnt (i.e., the existing dealermhip and the new
dealership). One sign shall not exceed an aggregate area of
180 square feet and one sign shall not e~eeed a~ aggregate
area of 204 sqeare feet. Signs shall not exceed a height of
thirty (30) ~est. Ail other temporary construction,
building mounted, and directional signs shall be as reg-
ulated by the Zoning Ordinance for Community Business (B-2)
Districts. Signs shall be similar in color, design and
lighting. Signs may be externally lighted, but may only be
internally lighted if the sign field ie opaque ~ith trans-
lucent letters. With the exception of temporary construc-
tion signs, no signs shall be erected until a sign package
depiuting these requirements is submitted to and approved by
the Planning Commission.
6. Architectural renderings/elevations shall be submitted to
the Plan~ing Commission fez approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. The rear of the structure shall
employ the same materials and similar architectural details
as the freht facade.
85-805
7. Display parking spaces may be 9.5 feet by 18 feet. Cust0m~
parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10 feet by 20 feet.
(~)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways end parking areas. This
requirement may be modified by the Planning Commission
during schematic plan review for the area adjacent to the
existing dealership. Drainage shall be designed so as not
to interfere with pedestrian traZ£~. (EE)
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a left-turn
lane shall he installed along Chinaberry Boulevard at the
proposed entrance/ exit, as deemed necessary by the Trans-
portation Department and VDH&T. (T)
t0. A conceptual landscaping plan shall De submitted to the
Planning Co~ission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval within
sixty (60) days of rough clearing and grading. (CPC)
Vote: Unanimous
85S114
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, EQUITY PROPERTIES GROUP,
iNC.~ and CARL M. HENSHAW and WALTER D. HENSMAW, TRUSTEE,
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A), Residential (R-9) and
General Business (E-3) to Community Business (B-2) with
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
exceptions on a 26.84 acre parcel fronting approximately 710 feet
on the South line of Midlothian Turnpike, al~0 fronting 1,150
feet on the east and west lines of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2
(1) Parcels 10, 11, ]2, 14, 16, 17, I$, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27,
28, and 31; Tax Map 28-6 (1) Part of Parcels 2 and 4 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Poole stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval
subject to'.certain conditions and acceptance of certain proffered
conditions. Mr. Edward Kidd was present representing the
applicant. He stated they are concerned with Condition ~20
regarding access to Bojangles' Restaurant. Mr. Poole stated the
condition permits the Planning Comission to delete this
condition if it could not be worked out. Mr. Kidd stated he has
met with with Mr. Anderson, owner of the site and Mr. Prager,
owner of ~ic~ond Chicken Corporation, regarding this matter. He
stated he had a letter from Mr. Aoderson which.he distributed to
the Board indicating they'hav~ no desli~e to have ingress or
egress to the development. He stated they would request that
Condition ~2~ be deleted. Mr. Poole explained the intent of the
condition was to permit people who wish to come to the shopping
center and go to the restaurant to do so without going out onto
the public road system. He stated that the condition would allow
the applicant the opportunity to request a change and will allow
the two. property owners to get together. Mr. Rosenblum stated
they are concerned mainly because of insurance purposes cf two
adjacent property owners who are not co-owners. Mr. Micas stated
insurance matters are not to be considered in land use
considerations. Mrs. Girone inquired if the sign w~uld be the
same as on Route 60. Mr. Poole stated signage and circulation
would not have any impact on the other parcel. There was nc
opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the folllowing conditions:
1. The fo%l~ing conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by D~lton Morgan Shook and Partners, dated Jane 23, 1985,
and the Tex-tual Statement ~ubmitted with the application,
shall be considered the Master Plan. (P&CPC)
2. The proposed shopping center shall have an architectural
style as depicted in the elevations titled "Midlothian
Market" submitted with the application. The rear of the
structures shall have a decorative architectural style and
shall not be plain block, etc. In conjunction with sche-
matic plan review, detailed elevations or renderings, as
well as color and material samples, shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission for approval. (P&CPC)
3. The developer shall provide an accurate account of ~he
drainage situation showing the existing drainage and the
impact this project will have on the site and the sur-
rounding area. The developer shall submit a construction
plan to ~nvlronmental Engineering and VDH&T providing for
on- and off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be
approved by Environmental Engineering Department and VDM&T
and all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to any
vegetative disturbance. The plan may have to be implemented
prior to clearing. (EE&CPC)
4. Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter Qf all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed $o as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic.
5. Stormwater detention shall be utilized. The release rate of
the proposed basin shall be such that the minimum drainage
criteria of the existing downstream facilities shall not be
exceeded, or the recorded 100 year backwater or floodplain
increased. (EE&CPC)
6. Prior to the release of any building permit or recordation
of any right of way and/or subdivision plat, ownership and
maintenance responsibility for the detention facility shall
be established. Such ownership/maintenance reaponsibili=ies
shall be retained by private entities. An indemnification
agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental
Engineering Department to save the County harmlesm of
vectors, maintenance, and replacement responsibilities, etc.
Upon completion of the construction of the detention
facility, it shall be certiiied by a profemmional engineer.
(EE&CPC)
~. All detention facilities shall be built so that on-site
buildings or existing homes downstream shall not be jeop-
ardized due to the failure of the dam. A dam failure
analysis shall be performed and submitted;.to the Environ-
mental Engineerinq D~rtment prior to site plan approval.
(EE&CPC)
8. A seventy-five (75} foot buffer shall be maintained along
the southern and eastern property lines adjacent to R-9 and
A zonings. The width of this buffer may be modified by the
Planning Cor~ission through schematic plan review if a
detailed plan proves that sufficient screening can be
aeeomplishcd in a lesser width. These buffer widths shall
be exclusive of any easements for drainage and/or utilities.
Except for a single public road, utilities running perpen-
dicular through the buffer and/or ornamental fencing or
walls to provide screening, no facilities shall' be permitted
within the buffers. These buffers shall consist of
vegetation, which provides year-round screening of the
buildings, driveways, parking areas, and roads from adjacent
residential development.
A Conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning C0~m~is~ion for approval in conjunction with
schematid p%an review. Prior to any clearing and/or
grading, the contractor shall flag all buffer areas and
contact the Planning Department for an inspection of ~hese
boiler a~eas. The developer shall contac~ the Planning
",?~ ' 85-B07
Department for an inspection of these buffer areas once
clearing and rough grading is completed adjacent to the
buffers. If existing vegetation and/or topography is net
sufficient to provide year-round screening, additional
landscaping 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~cpc)
A detailed lighting plan shall be eubmitted to the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with site plan
review. Exterior lighting shall be designed so as not to
project light into adjacent residential properties. (P&CPC)
P~rking areas shall have at least five {5) square feet of
interior landscaping for each apace. Each landecaped area
shall contain e minimum fifty (50) square feet; shall have a
minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall
include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at
least ~ive (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 eaoh 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall
be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of
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 rnugh grading. (P&CPC)
Approval of the Master Plan doee not imply that th~ County
gives final approval to any particular road section.
(P~CPC)
12. Except where expressly referred to herein, approval Of this
application does :not guarantee that the developer can build
or construct facilities in the future in accordance with
preseDt regulations. If County standards are more or less
restrictive than ithose established herein, the County may
require construction to adhere to the more restrictive
standards. (P&CPC)
13. Approval of this request does not obligate the County to
ex,end water or zewe~.lines. All extensions and necessary
i~provement costs ~hal~ be borne hy the developer. Prior to
any schematic plan approval, a detailed hydraulic analysis
shall be performed to determine if the existing sewer lines
have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development
and land uses. If it is determined that the capacity is
inadequate and cannot ~e increased, densities shall be
appropriately reduced. (U~CPC)
14. Prior to the erection of any signs, a complete sign package,
to include typical colors~ sizes, lighting, etc., shall be
submitted to the Planning Co, lesion for approval. Signs
·hall comply with the requirement~ of the Community Business
~S-2) District ~or shopping centers. However, the
Con~nission may permit an increase in signage if the
applicant can demonstrate that the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance has been maintained, The Commission may
requi~e a decrease in signage if necessary to protect
adjacent residential land uses or prsclud~ sign
proliferation. (P&CPC)
15. The number and location of fire'hydrants ~hall be determined
by the Chesterfield Fire Department. The developer shall
bear the c6st for installation of hydrants. (F&CPC)
16. All utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution. (P&CPC)
17. Within the setbacks along Midlothian Turnpike and Wadsworth
Drive, Ornamental trees and shrubs shall be planted. This
landscaping shall not be installed within any sewer and/or
water easements. A coBcept~al landscaping plan depicting
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan
review. A detailed landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department
within.ninety (90) days of rough clearing and grading.
(P,U,& CPC)
18. The use exceptions (i.e., automobile service and repair in
conjunction with a department store or tire store or similar
business; drive-in establishments; and building material
sales yard, storage yard and sale of feed and seed) ss
outlined in the Textual Statement shall be pezxaitted;
however, outside storage and/or display shall be screened
from view. Screening shall consist of landscaping which may
be supplemented with fencing. A plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
(PaCPC)
19. All driveways and parking areas shall be located a minimum
of fifteen (]51 feet from Wadsworth Drive. All buildings
shall be located a minimum of thirty (30) feet from Wads-
worth Drive. This condition may be modified by the Planning
Commission at th~ time of schematic plan review where the
difference in elevation between the parking area and/or
building and Wadsworth Drive is such that encroachment into
the setbacks will not have an adverse impact on traffic
movements. (P&CPC)
20. The site shall be designed to provide the ability to access
Parcel 29 on Tax Map 28-2 (i.e., Bejangle's Restaurant).
This condition may be modified at the time of schematic plan
review if the Commission determines that the connection is
not necessary or desirable, (P&CPC)
21. Prior to the release of any occupancy permits, adequate
sight distance shall be obtained along Route 60 at its
intersection with relocated Wadsworth Drive. (T&CPC)
22. Prior to the release'.of any occupancy permits, Route 60
shall be widened to'aChieve the typical s~otion as indicated
in: the applicant's traffic impact study for "Recommended
Roadway Improvements.,'. These improvements shall include
widening of Route 60 to six (6) lanes, but not construction
o£ dual left-turn lanes for eastbound Route 60. A phasing
plan for the dual left-turn lanes for westbound Route 60,
pavement widening and curb and gutter on westbound Route 60,
east of relocated Wadsworth Drive, may be submitted to the
T~ansportation Department and VDM&T for approval. (T&CPC)
23. Prior to the release of any occupancy permits, relocated
Wadsworth Drive shall be constructed as a five ~5) lane
typical section with curb and gutter, as indicated in the
applicant's traffic i~act study for "Reco~end~d Roadway
Improvements." This road may then taper tca four-lane
typical section to the southernmost access location.
Relocated Wadsworth Drive shall then be extended to the re-
corded section of Whitestone Subdivision as a two (2) lane
road. A minimum right of way width of sixty (60) feet for
reloc~ted~Wadsworth Drive shall be dedicated to and for
Chesterfield County~ free and unrestricted. (T&CPC)
(Note: In'some instances, right of way in excess of sixty
(6Q)' £eet will be required to achieve the recommended
typical.sections.)
~4. The VDB&T may conduct a signal study at the intcr~ec~oB of
relocated Wadsworth Drive and Route 60 and, if warranted~
the developer shall bE responsible for ene-ha£f the cost Qf
the signal installation. (T&C~C)
~t the time of the first schema%lc plan submission, a
schematic plan for location of access tQ relocated Wadsworth
Drive shall be submitted to the Transportation Department
and VDH&T for approval. (T&CPC)
knd further the Board accepted the following proffered condition:
At the time of the first schematic plan submission, the
developer shall contemporaneously give written notic~ of the
s~bmission to the President of the Brookfield Owners
Association and to the owners of ~ots 2 through 6, Block L,
Section ~, Brookfield Subdivision at their addresses, as set
forth in the Land Use Amendment Application.
Vote: Unanimous
10.L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board
suspended it rules and guidelines to include an Executive Session
to discuss personnel matters.
Vobe: Unanimea$
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr, Mayes~ the Board went into
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters as permitted by
Section 2.1-344 (a)(1) of tbs Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening;
1!. AD$OURNMEN~
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board
adjourned at 4:35 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. on November 13, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
Kichard' L; Se~r~lck
County Administrator
85-810