Loading...
03-22-1989 MinutesBOARD OF G, H. Applegatet Chairman C, F. Curri~, Jr., Vice Chairman Harry G. Daniel Jesse J. Mayes M. B. Sullivan Lane B. Hamsey M~. Amy Davis, Exec. Asst. to CO. Admln. Asst. CO. Admln., Legis. Svc~. and Intergev~rn. Affair~ ~s. Joan Dole~al, Clerk to the Board Mi. ~kradferd S. Ha=umer, Depu=y CO. A~min., Management Servic~n Mr. William H. Howell, Dir_ of 91annin~ M~. Mary Leu Lyle, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masden, Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. R. J. McCraeken, Dir. of En~. En~. ~r$. S. Arline McGuire, Mx. Gary McLaren, Dir. of Economic Dev~lopm%. ~r. Steve Mica~, CO. Dir. of News/Info. Services Aviation Services Mr. Jay Stegmaier, Dir. of Budget Dir. of ~arks a Rec. Dir. of u~ilitiss Mr. Applegmte called the meeting to ordex at 9:05 ~. lq~VOCATION Mr. Applegate i~trod~eed Dr. Glen Bohannon, Senior Pamtor of Central Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. 89-195 2. P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO .£~ ~LAG OF 'r~ UNITED STATES OF Delegates John G. Dicks, III and Stephen H. Martin of the Virginia General Assembly led the Pledqe of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 3. APBROV~.LOFMINUTES 3.A. MARCH 8, 1989 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the minutes of March 8, 1989, as a~ended. Vote: Unanimous 3.B, MARCH 15.,..1.9.8) On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~econded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved the minutes of March 15, 1989, as amended. Vote: Unanimous (It was noted copie~ of the transcript of the March 15, 1989 meeing on the Public Hearing to Consider Applicants for Appointment as Clover Bill District School Board Representative, were distributed to the Board. 4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S CO~94ENTS Mr. Stith stated the Virginia Art Education Association, Central Region held its annual Youth Art Show at the Sovran Bank Center. He introduced Miss Casey Lamere, a third grade student from Falling Creek Elementary School, who was in attendance to present her painting to the Board. Mr. Applegate commended Miss Lamere for her outstanding accomplishment, stated the painting would be appropriately displayed within the Courthouse Complex and recognized her mother and art teacher who were also pre~ent. 5. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Daniel reported he attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Co~mission meeting; also attended two committe~ meetings for the Metropolitan Planning Organization, at which there was discussion regarding the development of a work program for a taxi service. Mr. Mayes reported that he attended the meeting of the Education Committee for the Information Management Council. Mr. Sullivan reported that he attended the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission meeting; that he and Mr. Currin attended the opening of W-XEX'~ construction in the Arboretum which action will benefit not only WXEX but the television industry and the County as well. Mr. Currin reported he attended the Appomattox Basin Industrial Development Commission meeting (ABIDCO) and informed the Board that on March 23, 1989, at 5:30 p.m., ABIDCO is having a meeting with the Petersburg City Council to make a presentation regarding ABIDCO's organizational structure, goals and objectives, previous year's accomplishments, etc., which information he felt could prove beneficial to the region. 89-196 fi. P~QUEST-~ TO ~O~T~O~ ~TION, E~4ERG~NCY ADDITIONS OR C~ANGg5 IN -rm~ORl)ER OF ~RESE~TATION On motion o~ ~r. Sullivan~ ~ecOndeO by Mr. Currin, adopted the agenda, as submitted. Vote: Unanimeu~ the Board 7.A. G~N~RA~ A~$EMSL~ RESQLUTIOH$ 7.A.1. MK. JOh%~ K. DAFERON Delegate John G. Dicks~ III presented to Mrs. Mildre~ Daffron and the family of Mr. John R. Daffron, Sr., a resolution, on bmhalf of the General A~sembly, pesth~mously honoring Mr. JOhn R. Daffron~ Sr. as a token of ~teem an~ re~pec~ in which his memory is held by the General Assembly Of Virginiu. 7.A.2. S~ERIFF O. B. GATES Delegate John ~. Dick~, III pre$~s~ed to membmrs of the ~amily an~ ~riends of Sheriff O. B. Gate~ & resolution, on b~half of the General A~embly, posthumously honoring Sheriff Gates, ~ a token of esteem and re~pect in which hi~ memory is held by the C~nerat Assembly of Virginia. 7.A.3~ SBERIFP ENLMETT L. WINGO . Delegate Stephen H. Martin p~esented to Mrs. ~dna Wlnge and members of the family of Sheriff ~n~ett L. wingo a resalnt£cn, on behalf of the General Assembly, posthr~ously honoring Sheriff Wing0, ~$ a ~oken of esteem an~ respeot in which his memory is held by the ~eneral Assembly of Virginia. 7.~. DESIGnATInG APRIL 9-I5, 1959 AS "VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK~, On motion of the Board, the following resolutlon was a~opted: ~N~R~A~, The United ~tates is a Nation in which countless indlviduals have volunteered their liv~, energies and fortunes fo make this a better world for themselves, thsir neighbor~ and their posterity; and W~EREAS, This ideal ha~ been continued and ~nhaneed by the citizens of Chesterfield County who ye!un=ear service and substance for the good of the people in thi~ Area; and WH=REAS~ In time of diminished r~sources and increa~e~ the quality of life; and WHEREAS, Both giver and receiver benefit from the sharing of skills and resources. NOW, T~ER~FOK~ ~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board Of Supervisors hereby declare~ th~ week of April 9 15, 1959 as "Voluntser Appreciation Week" in Chesterfield County and urges all citizens to r~cognize ~he outstanding contributions being ma~e to our lives and neighborhoods by our Mr. Applegate pre~nted the ex~¢uted resolution to M~. Carolyn 89-197 7.C. DESIGNATINQ APRIL, 1989 AS "CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH" On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Child abuse and neglect is a reality that touches all segments of the community of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisorz believes that children are best served in their own homes and that factorz that create child mistreatment can be addressed with support from co--unity services; and WHEREAS, The community service agencies and private eitizens have joined hands to strengthen the families' ability to provide appropriate care and guidance of their ehildren;'and WHEREAS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes and supports the efforte to resolve the issue of child abuse and neglect in our locality. NOW, TH~R~FOR~ BR IT R~SOLV~D, that the month of April, 1989 be proclaimed "Child Abuse Prevention Month." AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that appreciation is hereby extended to the Child Protective Services Workers for their dedication to working with families and that this resolution be called to the attention of all citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate presented the executed rezolution to Ms. Suzanne Fleming and members of the Social Services Department staff who were also present. 8. ~EARINGS OF CItiZENS ON UNSC~ED~LED ~TTE~ OR ~LAIMS There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 9. DEFeRReD 9.A. kCC~PTANCE OF DERD OF GIFT FROM VIRGINIA L.A.D. COMPANY, INC. Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he is part owner of Virqinia L.A.D. Company, Inc., declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Daniel crated he felt the entire Board was cognizant of its image regarding conflicts of interest and if Mr. Currin were one of the contributors he felt he should be permitted to participate in the presentation. Mr. Micas indicated it would be appropriate for Mr. Currin to participate in the presenta- tion; therefore, Mr. Currin went into the audience. Mr. Applegate stated he felt that it is because of contribu- tions and/or donations by members of the community, such az Mr. Currin and others, that the County is able to provide many of its services; expressed appreciation, on behalf of the County, for the gracious donation and suggested that staff recognize those individuals at an appropriate time. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board accepted a deed of qift of a one-half (1/2) acre parcel of land from Virginia L.A.D. Company, Inc., which parcel frontz on the west side of Old Stage Road and is located near the intersec- tion of Old Stage Road and Osborne Road, and on which the Henricus Foundation intends to construct a Visitor's Center. 89-198 (IT is noted a copy o~ the deed is filed with the papers of this BOard.) Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel, Mr. ~ayss and Mr. Sullivan, Absent= Mr. Coffin. Mr. Cnrrin returned to the Board dias. 9.B. A~ENDMENT TO FOREIGN BUSINESS R~CgUITMENT AGREEMENT After dlseuasicn, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr, Coffin, resolved the Board amend it~ Foreign Business Recruitment Agreement with Contrade International America, Inc. by deleting Scandinavian countrie~ from the list of European countries for which services are to be provided, a copy of which agreement is filed with the papers of this Board. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currln, Mr, Daniel and Mr. sullivan. Abstention: Mr, Mayee, as he felt he did not have sufficient knowledgm regarding th~ item to vote. o TO CDMSID~R AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGP~/~ENT COFIVEYIN~ P~AL PROPERTY AT THE CMESTER~I~LD COUNTY AIRPORT I~DUeTRIAL PARK TO SCANCENTER VIRGINIA, INC. Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been ~or a public hearing to consider an amendment to an agreement conveying real property at the Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park to ~C&nC~nter Virginia, Inc. There was no one present ;o speak in favor of mr against the a~nded its ~grcement conveying real property at the Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park to ScanCen~er Virginia, Inc. to extend tbs time for hiring a full~tim~ resident ~irector from March 15, 1989 to May IS, 1959. (A copy Qf %he ~mended Agreement is filed ~i~h the papers of this Beard.) Vets: Unmnimous Mr. Daniel excused himself from the meeting. ll. ~ B~MINKE$ ll.A. AUTHOR~ZATION P~SOLUTION FOR PARTICIPATION IN SLATE NON-ARBITRAGE PROGRAM FOR SERIES 1989-A ~OMD ISSUE On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolution: A RBSQLUTIOM AUTEORIZING T~E TREASUP~R OF THE COUNTY OF C~STERFIELD~ VIRCINIA TO I~¢VEST THE PROCEEDS OP ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE STATE NON-A~ITRAGB PROGRAm4 BE IT R~S0LVED by the Boa~d o~ Supervisors of the COunty of Chesterfield, Ui~glnia, as follows: that {a) the Board of eupervisor~ has received and reviewed the Information Statement dated Mar~h 1, 19S9 describing Stats Non-Arbitrage Proqr~ of the C~onwealth of Virginia {~SNAP") and (ii) the Contract er~ating the S~ate Program Pool I ("SNAP Pool I"), and {b) th~ COunty has 89-199 afforded the opportunity to discuss SNAP with the Investment Manager and Special Counsel to SNAP, and the Board of Supervisors has determined that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize the Treasurer of the County to participate in SNAP. 2. The Contract is hereby approved and the Treasurer is authorized to execute th~ Contract on behalf of the County. 3. The Board of Supervisors acknowledges that its decision to authorize the participation in SNAP iS based solely on the information set forth in the Information Statement and in the Contract, and the Board of Supervisors hereby acknowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth Virginia is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the County in connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in the Contract. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent= Mr. Daniel. ll,B. ASPEALT OVERLAY OF AIRFIELD DRIVE On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board authorized the County Administrator to accept a grant from the Virginia Department of Aviation, in the amount of $80,000, for the 1989 Airport Maintenance Project to be used to repair and overlay Airfield Drive and appropriated $20,000 in matching funds from the completed Treely Road Rural Addition Project as the County's share of th~ grant to overlay Airfield Drive; and further authorized the County Administrator to solicit bids for the repair and overlay of Airfield Drive and enter into a contract with the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. ll.C. I~ESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FUNDS FOR THE COUNTY JAIL ANNEX PROJECT On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHiR=AS, Chesterfield County has completed an addition to public use and administrative facilities at the jail; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisore On December 15, 1986 adopted a Resolution requesting the Board of Corrections to approve $100,000 reimbursement to the County for an addition to the Chesterfield County Jail; and WHEREAS, $90,075 was approved for reimbursement by the State Department of Corrections and appropriated by the General Asse~ly; and WHEREAS, 50% of the $235,724 (or $117,862) i~ eligible ~or reimbursement from the Department of Corrections. NOW, T~RE~0P~, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests total funding of $117,862 from the State Department of Corrections (approval of an additional $27,787) in the upcoming biennial budget. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin, Mr. Mayes and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 89-200 ll.D.1. EE~ ~UELIC HEARING DATE TO CO~SIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF A LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT B~Ey PAgK FOR OPERATION OF FOOD CONCESSIONS On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. ~ayes, the Beard the date of April 12, 1989, aC 7z00 p.m., for a public hearing to con~ider the conveyance of a lea~e of r~al property at BeA~ety Park ior opera~ion of food concessions. ll.D.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE A~4ENDM~NT This day the County Environmental ~ngineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made reDort in writing upon his examination of Summit Acres Drive in Summit Acres, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o~ ~r. C~r~in, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Summit Aere~ Drive in Su~it Acres, Mi~]othi~n D~strlct, be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be i~ further r~olv~d, that the Virginia Department Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into ~he Secondary System, Summit Acres Drive, beginning at the inter~ection with Buford Read~ State Route 67~, and going ~outhwe~terly ¢.18 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage Thi~ road ~erve~ 16 lot~ And be ~t further re~otve~, tha~ the Board of Supervisors ~uarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50~ rlght-o£-w~y for =his road. Su~mit Ao~es is recorded as fellows: Plat Book 4~, Page 76, F~bruary 2~, 1985; And a re~ub of Lots 1 through 4~ Block "C'~; Lot~ 3 and Block "B"~ and a ~aeatlon of Summit Acres Drive, Summit Acres, Pla% Book 52, Pag~ 82, April 3~, 1986. ll.D.3. STATE ROAD ACCEPTA~C= This ~ay the County Environmental Engineer, in aCCOrdance with directions from this ~oard~ made report in Writing upon his examination of Bravard Drive and Brev~rd Court in Br~vard~ Section I, ~atoaea Di~trlct. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion o~ ~r. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it ~ resolved that Brevard Drive and Bre~ard Court in ~revard, ~ection 1, Matoaca District, be and they hereby ere established as public roads. A~d be it fR,%her r~solved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it h~Ieby is requested to take into the Secondary ~ystem, Breverd Drive, beginning at the intersection with Branders Bridge Read, State Rout~ 625, and going southwesterly D.07 mile tO th~ i~tersection with Srevard Court, then continuing ~onthwesterly 0.02 mile to tie into proposed Brevard Drive, Brevard Section 2; and Brevard Court, beginning at the intersection with Brevard Drive and going easterly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slops, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 21 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for Brevard Court and a variable width 50' to 70' right-of-way for Brevard Drive. This section of Brevard is recorded as follows: Section 1. Plat Book 46, Pag~ 10, June 8,.I984. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Millhouse Drive, Springhouse Drive and Springhouse Court in Reedy Mill, Section A, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Mayes, it is resolved that Millhouse Drive, Springhouse Drive and Springhouse Court in Reedy Mill, Section A, Matoaca District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Millhouse Drive, beginning at existing Millhouse Drive, State Route 1250, and going northerly 0.16 mile to the intersection with Springhouse Drive~ Springhouse Drive, beginning at the intersestion with Millhouse Drive and going westerly 0.01 mile to end in a dead snd. Again, Springhouse Drive,. beginning at the intersection with Millhouse Drive and going northeasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Springhouse Court, then going northerly 0.20 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Springhouse Court, beginning at the intersection with Springhouse Drive and going southeasterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads serve 30 lots. And be it further resolved, that ihs Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these roads. This section of Reedy Mill is recorded as follows: Section A. Plat Book 58, Pages 3 & 4, August 3, 1987. This day the County ~nviroD/nental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Michaels Ridge Road and Robert~ Mill Court in Keswick Kills, Sections 1 and 2, Midlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by ~r. ~ayes, it is resolved that Michaels Ridge Road 89-202 Midlothian District, be e~d they hereby ar~ ~st~hlished as pub!ia roads. And be it further resolved, that =he virginia Department o9 TranspOrtations! be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Michaels midge aced, beginning at the inter~ectien with Winterfield Road, State Rout~ 714, and going southeasterly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sacl and Robert~ Mill Court, b~ginning at the intersection with Winterfield Road, State Route 714, and going southeas=erly 0.08 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is iD¢t~sive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of T~ansportation drainage easement~. Th~e roadn ~erv~ ]1 guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 30' right-of-way for all of these roads. These sections of Kee~iek Sills are recorded as fellows= Section 1. Plat Book 37, Page 100, January 6, 1981. Section 2. Plat Book 58, Page 100, October 27, 1987~ Vote: Unanlmo~s This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with direchion~ from hhi~ Roar~, ~o~e repor~ in writing upon his examination Of 01d Ban Air Place in Old Ban Air Place, Sec%ion A, Midlothiun District. Upon consideration whereoi, and on motion of ~r. Coffin, ~ccon~d by ~r. ~ayes, it ie resolved that Old Boa Air Place in Old Ran Air ~lace, Section A, Midlothian ~i~trictr be and it hereby is established as a public road, And be it ~urther resolved, that %he Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to =eke into the Secondary System, Old Ben Ai~ Place, beginning at the int~r~eti©n with Ol~ Ban Air Road, State Route 71~, and going northwesterly 0,18 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the ad3acent ~lop~, sight distan=e and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves 15 lots. And be it further re~olved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Doper=meat of ?ranspor~ation e 50' right-of-way for this road. This section of Old Ban Air Place is recorded a~ Section A. Plat Book 59, Page 46, November 23, 1987. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.4. AMENDMENT TO F~BRUARY 22, 1989 MINUTES Mr. Currin stated that he had indicated at the February 22, 1989 meetin~ that his participation in th~ vo~e on Ite~ ~esolution Supporting Route 895, wa~ not releted to property along 1-295 to the Meadow~illo Interchange and, therefore, did ~9-203 On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board amended the minutes of February 22, 1989 as follows: FROM "Mr. Currin stated he wished the record to reflect that he owns property along 1-295 to the Meadowville Interchange, it is his understanding the proposed resolution is documentation of previous actions relative to support for the oonatrnotion of Route 895 and, therefore, does not constitute a potential conflict of interest for him. Mr. Micas stated the "resolve clause" does reaffirm support for Route 288 and Route 895; however, the record should indicate that Mr. Currln's support is for only the Route 895 portion of the re~olution and that he did not have a conflict on the matter. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopte~: WHEREAS, the extension of Route 288 from 1-95 to 1-295 and the extension of Route 89~ from 1-95 to 1-295 are of vital importance to the economic development of the Richmond region; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation recommended, as part of the 1-295 location decision, that Route 288 be extended from 1-95 to I-2~5; and WHEREAS, during the regional discussions concerning the location of 1-295 the need for and importance of Route 895 were also documented; and WHEP. EAS, the Board of Supervisnr~ of Chesterfield County adopted resolntion~ of mupport for Route 895 in January 1987 and August 1988; and W~ER~AS, the Ricbzaond Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, and tahe Capital Region AirpOrt Co~nission have also endorsed Route 895. NOW, THEREFORE, EM IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors reaffirms its support for the extension of Route 288 and Route 895 and encourages others in the region to join with Chesterfield in obtaining funding for these projects so that they can be constructed. Vote: Unanimous" TO "Mr. Currin stated he wished t~he record to reflect that he owns property along ~-295 to the Meado~ille Interchange, it is his understanding the proposed resolution is documentation of previous actions relative to support for the construction of Routs 895 and, therefore, does not constitute a potential conflict of interest for him. Mr. Micas stated the "resolve clause" does reaffirm support for Route 288 and Route 895; however, the record should indicate that Mr. Currin'e support is for only the Route 895 portion of the resolution and that he did not have a conflict on the matter. On motion cf the Board, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the e~tension of Route 288 from T-95 to T-295 and the extension of Route 895 from 1-95 to I~295 ars of vital importance to the economic development of the RicbJnond region; and 89-204 recommended, as a part of the T-195 location decision, that Route ~8~ he extended from %-9S to 1-295; and WH~F~ASr during fha regional discussions concerning th~ location of 1-295 th~ n~d for ~n~ importance of Route ~9S wera also documented; and W~EPd~AS~ the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County adopted resolutions of support for Boute 89~ in January, 1987 and Auqust, 1988~ and W~EREAS, ~ha Board also presented s~atem~nts of ~uppor~ for Route 8~5 in Aprll 198~, November 1986, Karch 1987, June 1987 and April 198fl; and W~E~A0, the Richmond Me~ropolita~ Plannin~ Organization, th~ ~ichmon~ ~egtonal Planni~ District Co~is~ion~ and ~ Capital Region Airport Co~ission have al~o ~ndorsed Kou~e ~95. NOW, T~E~FORE, BE IT ~SOLVED, ~ha~ ~he Board of 288 and Route 895 and encourages othe;s in the re~ion to join with chesterfield in obtainlnq funding for the~e proj~c{~ so that ~hey can ~ eon~t~uote~. ll.D.5. TREASURER'S REQU~S~ FOR TEMPORARY BORROWING IN A~TICI~ATIQN OF TAX ~t~C~IPTS On motion of Mr. Carrie, ~econded by M=. Mayas, the Board authorized t~a County Tr~asure~ to undertake temporary borrowing up to SR,00O,00O from utility and General Pun~ Capital Project funds in anticipation of taxes rscelved in May an~ Jnn~, 1~$9, pur~uan~ to Seation 15.I-545 of the Code of Virginia and which fun~s ~ill be borrowed ,only as needed, will ~e r~paid UpOn receip~ of tax revenues, w~th the General Fund remitting the a~eunf of the loan and foregoing interest to the appllu~ble Capital Projects fund. ll.E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 11.E.1. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, ~eoon~ed by Mr. Carrie, the Board a~proved the cost for a street light in~tallati0n at the intersection ef Jahnke. Read and Southam Drive, in the amount of $35%, and a~ the interseo~ion o~ Jahnke Road and Springlake Road, in the ~mount of $974, totalling $1,35g, wit~ f~nds in the amount of ~664 to be expended f~om the Midlothian District Street Light Fund and $69~ to bo exp~nded from ~-hs Mi41othian District Three Cant Road Fund. Vote: Unanimous 11.~.2. $=T ~UBLIC HEARING DAT~ TO AF~ND ZONING ORDINANCE RELAT%V~ TO OFFICE, CO54MERCIAL AND INDUgTRIAL gONI~G DISTRICT~ There was discussion as to the timeliness of ~oheduling the public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance relative %o office, commercial and industrial zoning districts on the recommended date of April 12, 19~9; that a condansed document be provided to the Board outlining the m~jor chanq%~, etc.; the B~-205 exclusion of any provisions for the safe disposition of solid waste in the proposed ordinance; the scheduling of a work session on this issue to further review its contents, modifications, eto.; disposition of the upcoming budget prior to considering this item; etc. On motion of Mr. Currln, seconded by Nr. Mayes, the Soard tabled consideration of ~tem 51.~.2., Set Public Hearing Date to Amend Zoning Ordinance Relative to Office, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts until 2:00 p.m. so that staff could bring back a tentative timeframe for inclusion of this issue in the scheduling of topics to be discussed at the work session on ~arch 29, 1989. ll.E.3. JAHNKE ROAD AND SOUTHAM DRIVE LANDSCAPING On motion o~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board appropriated $2,700 f~om the Midlothian District Three Cent Road Fund for landscaping at the intersection o~ Jahnke Road and Southam Drive and adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the construction of the Powhits ~arkway has impacted the Southam Subdivision, and; WHiP, AS, the Southam Civic Association has requested the County to provide landscaping adjacent to the limited access fence along Jahnke Road east of Southam Drive. NOW, THeReFORe, B~ IT R~SOLV~D, that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to install landscaping at the intersection of Jahnke Road and Southam Drive wit/% the cost not to exceed $2,700.00. ll.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ll.F.1. PUBLIC EEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE VACATING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 8~ BLOCK K, MAYFAIR ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SECTION D Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a 10' temporary construction easement across Lot 8, Block K, Mayfair Estates Subdivision, Section D. Ho one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a 10 foot temporary construction easement across Lot 8, Block K, Section D, Mayfair E~tate~ Subdivision~ Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 54 at Pages 85 and 86. WHEREAS, Irvin G. Borner, petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a 10 foot temporary construction easement across Lot 8, Block K, Section D, Mayfair Estates Subdivision, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 54, Pages 85 and 86~ made by Po%ts and Minter, dated September 11, 1986. The portion of the 89-206 temporary construction easement petitioned to be vacated is more fully described az A portioD of a l0 foot te~%porary construction easement across Lot 8, Block Et ~ectlon D, ~ayfair Estates Subdivision, the location of which is more fully ~hewn, on a plat made by PoEts and Minter, dated October 17, 198S, a copy of which i~ attached hereto and mad~ a part of this Ordinance. k~EREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1~431 of the Code of Virginiat 19~0, as ar~ended, by advertising; and WHEREAS, ac public necessity e~ist~ for the continuance of the portion of the easement son~ht to ~e vacated. NOW T~R~FOR~, M~ I~ QEDAINED BY THE ~OARD OF SUPERVISORS BP CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That p~rsuant to Section 15.1-4S2(b) of the Code of Thi~ Ordinance shall be in full force and effeo~ in aeoOr~anc~ with Section 15.1~482(b) o~ ~ Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, s~ amended, and a certified dopy of thi~ Ordinance, together with the plats attached hereto mhaI1 be recorded sooner than ~hirty days hereafter in the Cl~rk's 0friGo of ~e Circuit Court of Chesterfield county, Virginia pursuant i$ ~o d~stzQy the force and ef~sct cf the recording of portion of the plat vacahed~ Thi~ Ordinance shall ve~t fee Accordingly, thi~ O:~inance ~halt be indexed in the names of the County of Chssterfield, as qrantor, and Irvi~ ll.F.2, RIGNT-0F-WA~ ITEMS ll.F.2.a_I~ ~UTHORIZATIOM TO ACQUIR~ ~AS=ME~TM FOR THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT ACROSS R~OP~RTIES O~ ~. MOSES L. AN~ MEM. SARAH FENDLEY AND ME. JOBEPE P. AND MRS. IRIS K. PRITCMARD On motion of Mr. Applegate, sec0~ded by Mr. Coffin, the ~oard authorized the County Attorney %o proceed with the use Of eminent domain against th~ ~ollowing property owner if the amount as set opposit~ their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that ~he County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mall on M~rch 2~, 1989 Of the County's intention to enter upon and take the pCOpurty which is to be the subject of said usm of eminent domain. This action is on ~n emergency banim and the County intends to ex~rcise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section lS.l-23S.1 e~ the Cede of virginia. ~oses ~. Fendley, Jr. and Sarah C. Fendley; and Joseph P. Prltohard and Iri~ K. Pritohard T~× ~ap 48-9(1)~ $24,608 ~9-207 ll.F.2.a.2. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS FOR THE UPPER SWIFT CREEK TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT DOMAIN ACROSS PROPERTIES OF WMD PARTNERSHIP On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with the use of eminent domain against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite their na~e is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property owners by registered mail on March 23, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property whioh is to be the subject of said use of eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. WMD Partnership Tax Map 48-111)2 $2,340 Vote: Unanimous ll.F.2.a.3. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS ~OR TEE UPPER SWIFT CREEK TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT DOMAIN ACROSS PROPERTY OF SOUTHEASTERN ENGINEERING SALES~ INC. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Hoard authorised the County Attorney to proceed with the use of eminent domain against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify 'said property owners by registered mail on March 23, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said use of eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of virginia. Southeastern Engineering Sales, Inc. Tax Map 48-5(5)14 $6,782 ll.F.2.a.4. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS FOR THE UPPER SWIFT CP~EEK TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT DOMAIN ACROSS PROPERTY OF MS. JOYCE W. CASHION On motion of Mr. Applegat~, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board authorized the County Attorney to prooeed with the use of eminent domain against the following property owner if the amount as set Opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify said property OWners by registered mail on March 23, 1989 of the County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is to be the subject of said use of eminent domain. This action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of virginia. Joyce w. Cashion Tax Map 48-5(1)3 $4,876 Vote: Unanimous 89-208 ll.F.2.a.S. AUT~O~IZA~IO~ TO ACQUIRE E~$~ENT$ FOR THE UPPER SWIFT CP~EEK TP~NSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT ACROSS PR0~ER~ 0E MS. GERTRUDE P. GOOD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with the use of eminent domain against the following property owner if the amount as set opposite their name is not accepted. And be it further resolved that the County Administrator notify property owners by rmgistezed mail on March 23, 1989 of the County's intention to enter npen and take ~he property which is to be the ~u~jeet of said use of eminent domain. This action i~ on an emergency basis and the County intend~ to e~er~ise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virqinia. Gertrude P. Good Tax Map 48-~(1)2 lI.F.2.a.6. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE EASEMENTS FOR T~E UPPER SWIFT CPd~EE TRANSPORT SYSTEM BY EMINENT DOg, lIN ACROSS PROPERTY OF ~R. IRVING. MORNER On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Cuzrin, the Board authorized the County Attorney to proceed with the use of eminent domain against the followi~g property owner if the amount as ~et opposite their name i~ not accepted. And b~ it further r~solved that th~ County A~inistrator notify said property owners by reqiEtered ~ail on Narch 23, 198~ of the County'~ intention ~o ~ntsr upon and take the property which is to be the subject c~ ~aid use o~ eminent domain. This astion is on an emergency bamis and the County intends to exercise immediate right of entry, pursuant to Section 15.t-238.1 of the Code of Virginia. Irvin G. Morner Tax Map 4~-14(1}3 $14,345 Vote: Unanimoum APPROVAL OF CONtRaCT FOR PURCHASE OF 2 + ACRES ALONG ROUTE 60 FOR WATE~ TANK SITE On motion of Mr. S~llivan, ~econde~ by Mr. Currin, the approved a contract fo~ thm purchase of ~.02 acres more or and an 0.7 acre~ mote or less variable widbh ~$ement for ingress/egress and utilities ~o the parcel located along Route 60 from E. M. Ciejek, Inc. a% a cost of $80,000 a~d authorized the County Administrator to sign the contract and execute the necessary deed acceptin~ the conveyance on behalf of County, with the closing suDject tn approval o~ a conditional use permit by th~ Planning Commission and the ~card of Suparv£$oem an~ approval of the contract by th~ County Attorney and the site by the County'~ engineer. Vote: CONSENT ITEMS ll.F.3.a. APPROVAL OF QUITCLAIM DEED TO VACATE DRklNAGE EASEMENT REQUESTED BY MR. GILBERT W. SMITH AND CAPITAL INCORPORTATED On motion Of Mr. SuLlivan, seconded by Mr~ May~$~ the Board approved the request of Mr. Gilbert W. Smith and Capital Incorporated to vacate a I6' drainaqe ea~em~Dt and authorized the Chairman of the ~oard and the County Administrator to 89-209 execute the necessary Quitclaim Deed to vacate said easement. (A copy of the plat is filed w~th the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.b. ABBROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR VACATION AND R~DEDICATION OF WATER ~ASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF SLN ~OCONO ASSOCIATES, L.B. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the vacation and rededication of a water easement across the property of SLN Pocono Associates and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to e×ecute the necessary easement agreement. (It is noted the vacation and rededication is to correct an error in a previously recorded plat, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.c. ABBROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR TWIN CEDARS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the following water contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary doc%h~ents: 89-0336, Twin Cedars: Developer: Brandermill Investment Associates Contractor: R. M. C. Contractors, Inc. Contract Amount: Water - Sewer - Total - Estimated County Cost: Water - (Refund through connection~) Estimated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: 28 Code: $ 58,067.50 $ 48,847.D0 $106,914.50 $ 9,704.04 $ 97,210.46 5B-2511-997 Vote: Unanimous %l.F.3.d. APPROVAB'OF .SEWER CONTRACT FOR THE LAKES OFF-SITE SEWER LINE On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the following sewer contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents: 89-0125 - The Lakes Off-Site Sewer Line: Developer: Bradley %nvestments, Ltd. Contractor; Roanoke Construction Company Total Contract Cost: Estimated County Cost: (a) Capital (b) Charqe Recovery Cost Estimated Total Estimated Developer Cos%: Number of Connections: Code: (Refund from W~stewater Capital Recovery Cost Charges) (Cash Re£unds) $299,761.00 $ 23,233.00 $ 71,601.75 $ 94,834.75 $204,926.25 Future 5N-2511-997 5P-5724-8009 ll.F.3.e. APPROVAL OF SEWER CONTP~kCT FOR COURT SQUARE OFF-BITE SEWER LINE On motion of Mr. Sullivant seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved the following sewer contract a~d authorized the County Administrator to execute any n~cemmary documents: 89-210 89-0209w Court Square - Off-Sit~ Sewer 5ina: Dave%oper: ~. Forace and Ann Hill Contractor: G. L. Howard, ~nc. Contract Amount: Estimated County Coat: (Refund through connections) E~timated Developer Cost: Number of Connections: Future Ccde~ $27,110.00 $21,532.%4 $ 5,577.86 5N-251]-997 Vets: Unanimous AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TRE UPP~ SWIFT CREEK T~UNK On motion o~ Mr. ~ulllvan, se~en~ed by ~r. Mayas, the Board awarded Contract Numb~r S85-98C, Part A for th~ construction of th~ Upper $w~ft Creek Trunk Sewer t~ tAe lowest bidder Metri~ Constructors in the amount of $3,774,447.00. (It is noted funding for this project has been previously appropriated.) Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.~. APPROVAL OF SEWER CO~TRACT FOR QtrEENSgARK On motien of ~r. Sullivan, s~conded by Mr. M~yes~ approved the following sewer contract~ 89-0t36, Queenspark - Off-Sit~ ~ewer Line. Developer: QueensmiI1 Corporation Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors (Refund through connectionsl the Board $84,695.~0 $44,764.95 $39,930.0~ 5N-2511-997 SECTION A On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the followin~ sewer ~9-0023, Pheasan= Run - Section A - Offsite Sewer. Contractor: Coastlin~ Contractcr~, Total Contract Amount: E~timated County Cost: $41,285.82 (Refund through connections) E~imat~d D~veloper Cost: $23,983.~8 Vote: Unanimous II.F.4. P~POR~S Mr. Sale presented the Board with a ~eport on the d~veloper Il.G. REPORTS Mr, Ramsay presented the Board with a statu~ r~pert On the General Fund Contingency ~¢OO~t~ General Fund Balance, Road Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Puruha~a~ and the ~oard ~ublic Hearing Schedule. 89-211 Mr. Ramsey stated the has formally notified following roads into the State Secondary System: ADDITION8 WILLOW GLEN Route 3604 (Willow Glen Road) - From Route 3600 to southwest loop Virginia Department of Transportation the County of the acceptance of the LENGTH 0.45 Mi. NORTH CHASE Route 3600 (Woodlake Village Parkway) - From Route 3631 to 0.01 mile north Route 3634 Route 3634 (Long Cove Road) - From Route 3600 to 0.07 mile east Route 3635 Route 3635 (North Chase Road) - From Route 3634 to south cul-de-sac Route 3636 (North Chase Court) - From Route 3635 to south cul-de-sac Route 3637 (North Chase Place) - From Route 3636 to northeast cul-de-sac 0.40 Mi. 0,12 Mi, 0.20 Mi. 0.20 Mi. 0.07 Mi. W~ST BAY Route 3600 (Woodlake Village Parkway) ~ From 0.01 mile north Route 3634 to 0.0] mile north Route 3640 Route 3640 (Wost Ray Drive) - Prom Route 3600 to east cul-de-sac Route 3641 (West Bay Court) - From Route 3640 to southwest cul-de-sac Route 3642 (West Bay Road) - From Route 3640 to 0.15 mile south Route 3640 Route 3643 (West Ray Rlace) - From Route 3640 to east cul-de-sac 0.11 Mi. 0;39 Mi. 0.18 Mi. 0.15 Mi. 0.06 Mi. SUNRISE BLUFF Route 3600 (Woodlake Village Rarkway) - From 0.01 mile north Route 3640 to 0.06 mile northwest Route 3644 0.16 Mi. FIDDLERS RIDGE' Route 3644 (Fiddlers Ridge Roadl - From Route 3600 to southwest cul-de-sac Route 3645 (Fiddlers Ridge Court) - From Route 3644 to south cul-de-sac Route 3646 (Fiddler~ Ridge Lane) - From Route 3644 to ~outh cul-de-sac Route 3647 (Fiddlers Ridge Place) - From Route 3644 to northwest cul-de-sac 0.27 Mi. 0.07 Mi. 0.16 Mi. 0.06 Mi. WEST BRANCH Route 3600 (Woodlake Village Parkway) - From 0.61 mile north ROUte 360 to 0.01 milo north- west ROUte 4300 0.06 Mi. 89-212 ADDITIONE WEST BRANCH {oontiflued~ Route 4300 (We~t Branch Road) - Prom Route 3600 to southwest cul-de-sac HEATHER GLEN Route 3600 (weedlake Village Parkway) - From 0.0~ mile northwest Koute 4300 to ~.08 mile northwest Route 4301 Route 4301 (Heather Glen Road} - From Route 3600 ta northeast loop ACCRN RIDER Route 3600 (Wmodlake Village Parkway) - From 0.08 mile northwest Route 4301 to 0.11 ~il~ northeast Route 4302 Route 4302 {Acorn Ridge Road) - From Route 3~00 %0 east oul-de-ea~ 4302 to northeaet cul-de-sac Route 4304 {Acorn Ridge Court) - From Route 4303 tu southeast cul-de-sac LENGT~ 0.19 Mi. ~.14 Mi, 0.21 Mi. 0.22 M~. ~.~4 ~i. 0.14 Mi. It was on motion e£ Mr. Danlel, seconded by Mr. Curtis, re~olved that the Boa~d ~uepend the rules to bring back Item 11,~.2., Set Fublic ~aaring Date to A~end zoning Ordinance Relative to Office, COmmercial and Industrial ~oning Di~riots, and I1.G.3., Public Hearing Schedules, for consideration at this time-. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Boar~ brought ~aek Item 11.~.2., set Public Hearing Date to Amend ZoAing Ordinance Relative to Officer Co~u~ercial ae~ Industrial Zoninq D~tric%s, end ll.G.3., Pnhlic Hearinq sohedule~, for consideration at this time. 11~G.3. AND 11.G.4. PUBLIC ~EARING SCHEDULE/WOR/{ SESSION SCHEDULE There was brief discussion regarding ~he pending Ma~ch work session meeting/public hearing schedule regarding amend- ments =c %he ~oning ordinance, Capital Improvement Programs, Budget, etc.~ and it was generally agreed to adhere to the following schedule ce ~arch 29, 1989 for work session topi~: 10:00 a.m. - ll:00 a.m. Zoning Ordinance A~endment ll:S0 a~m. - 3:00 p.m. Capital Improvement Rrogram (County, Utilities & Schools) 3:00 ~.m. - 5:00 p.m. Budget 1I.~.2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DAT~ TO ~/~END ZONING ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~on~e~ by M~. Mayas, th~ Board Set the date of April 12, 1989, at 7~00 p.~., for a public hearing 89-~13 to consider amendment of the Zoning Ordinance relative to office, commercial and industrial zoning districts. Vote: Unanimous ll.H. LUNCH The Board recessed to travel to the Sunset Cafe for l~nch. 11.I. MOBILE HOME I~EQUESTS 89SR0177 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE B. HYDE requested renewal of Mobile Home Permit 84S037 to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of May~ood Street, at Ramona and Ravindale Avenues, and b~tter known as 2310 Maywood Street. Tax Map 98-5 (2) Bellmeade, Block 9, Lots 63 through 65 (Sheet 32). The first per, it was issued on February 22, 1984. Mr. Jacobsen stated staff recommended approval of Case 89SR0177, subject to certain standard conditions. Mr. George Hyde stated the rose--ended ~onditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Hayes, the Board approved Case 89SR0177 for seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. 2. No lot or paroel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental propertyl Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size~ yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall b~ skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall 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. 7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 89-214 In Bermuda ~a~is~erial P~strict, LEONARD AND RACHEL~LER re- qumsfed renewal of Mobile Nome Permit ~4~R009 to park a mobile home on property fronting the southwest line of Seminol~ Avenue, approximately 100 £~e~ $~uth o~ Maywood Street, and better known as 10610 Seminole Avenue. Tax Map 98-6 (3) ~ellmeade, Block 10, Lots ~ through 14 {Sheet 32). ~he first permit was iEsned on June 3~ 1970. ~95R0151, subject to certain standard condi=ions. Mr. and Mrs. ~eeler stated the reoommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. approved Case 89SE0181 for seven (7) years, smbje~t to the following ~tandard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of th~ mobile home. mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home he n~e~ for rental p/opezty. 0sly one (1} mobile home shall b~ 3. The minimum lot size, yard metbackm, rgquired front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile r~siden=e. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added ~hall not be plac~d on ~ permanent foundation. 5. Wher~ pubIic (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be u~ed. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Moms Permit, the applicant installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation o~ the above conditions shall be grounds for In Bermuda Magisterial ~ietr~t~ AIraRT ~. ~ M~A~ON R~ BAKER mobile home on property fronting the east li~e of Erightwood Avenue, approximately 270 feet South of Treadwood Street, and better known as 10225 Brightwood Avenue. Tax Map 98-1 (2) Central Park, Bleak 16, 5Qt~ 12 through 15 {sheet 32). The first permit was imsued en July 11, 1973. Mr, Jeo0h~en ~tated staff recon~ended approval of Casa $9SE0185, subjeot to certain standar~ conditions, ~s. ~aker stated the reoommended conditions were acceptable. There web no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Curtis, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SR01S5 for seven (7} Nears, subject to th~ f011owLng standard coodition~: 89-21~ 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of th~ 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 property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. 4. 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. 5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall 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. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. 89~R0191 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RONALD $. SPAIN requested renewal of Mobile HOme Permit 84S056 to park a mobile home on property fronting the north line of Norcliff Road, approximately 400 f~t east of Pams Avenue, and better known as 2420 Norcliff Road. Tax ~ap 82-1 (3) Kingsland ~eights, Block 14, Lots 11 and 12 (Sheet 28). The first permit was iseued on March 28, 1984. ~r. Jacobsen stated staff r~co~ended approval of Case 89SR0191, subject to certain standard conditions.. Mr. and Mrs. Spain stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case $9SR0191 for Seven (7) years, subject to the following standard conditions: 1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile hom~. 2. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be u~ed for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size, yard ~etbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that ne mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any e×i~ting residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted hut shall net be placed on a permanent foundation. 5. Where public (County~ water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. 89-216 shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Offlcia~. This ~hall he done prior to %he installation or relocation of the mobile home. A~y violatie~ of tbs above condition~ ~hatl h~ grou~s for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. tl.J. REZ©NING 88SN00~3 In Midlotbian Magisterial 5istrlct, CON.mn c~nL~n~u~, XMC, requested Conditional U~e Planned Development to p~rmit a 198 foot tower plus bulk (se=back) exceptions in = Business (B-l} District. This requsst lies on a 0.2 ac~e parcel fr~ntlng approxima=ely 40 feet on the Bu~or~ Road, approximately 500 feet north of Midlo%hian Turnpike. Tax Map 1~-1~ (I} ~aX~ Of ~arcel 1~ (Sh~t Mr. $~ob~on $~at~d tha~, upon th~ r~qum~t of the applicant, at its March 21~ 1989 meeting the Planning Co~isslon reco~ended deferral of Case S8S~0063 for thirty (~O) day~ and since the request wa~ doubl~ adv~rti~ad~ it WOuld be appropriate for the ~oard to ~efer consideration until April 26, 1989. Thsre was no opposition to ~e request for deferral. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, 9eeonded by ~r. Mayes, ~he Board deferred Case 88SN0063 un%fl April 26, I989. Vot~: Unanimou~ 89SN0104 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial District, B~A~K~OOD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY requested r~zoning from kgricul~uxal (A) to General Business (B-3) on an 11.35 acre tract with proffered conditions on this trac~ and two (2) adjacen= tracts zoned Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-&O), A r~ail complex is planned. This re,est on the west line of Iran Bridge Road~ acros~ from the south line of Centralia Road. Tax Xap 95-12 (1) Pert of Parcel 7 and (~) Greenyard, section A, Rezubdivisiun of Lot I, Block Block A, Lot i and Tax ~ap 9~-16 {1) ~art of Parcel 3 {Sheet 31). Mr. Jacobso~ ~tat~d th~ Planning C~i~ion approval of Case ~PS~Q104, subject to a single conditio~ ~d acceptance of the proffered conditions and noted the applicant had submitted an addi%t0nal proffer for the use of public water Mr. Willi~ Blackwood stated the reco~snd~d =o~di~ion was acueptable, ~ubmit=ed copie~ of an additional proffer relative to the use of public water an~ ~ewer tc =he Boar~, and ~tated the 9ro9o~ed development wo~ld be of comparable quality as that o~ Chesterfield Meadow~ Shopping C~ter. Ihere wa~ On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Ca~e 89SN010~, ~ubject ~o th~ following condition: A ~venty-fiv~ (7~) foot buffeI, to include th~ thirty-five {35) foot Aqricultural (A) feet cf the B-3 property shall be maintained 89-217 adjacent to the remaining portion of Tax Map 95-12 (1) Parcel 7. Other than utilities which run generally perpen- dicular through the buffer, public roads or other screening devices, there shall he no facilities located in the buffer. Existing vegetation, with the exception of areas which may be cleared to accommodate the facilities permitted herein, shall be maintained in the buffer. If adjacent property is developed for residential use, additional land- scaping and/or screening shall be installed by the owner of the B-3 development upon request by the Planninq DeDartment. If the adjacent property is developed for a use compatible, as determined by tko Planning Department, w~th the B-3 development, the buffer may be modified by the Planning Depart mont. And further, the Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Architectural treatment - the architectural treatment of all buildings will be compatible with Chesterfield Meadows Shopping Center. Detailed renderings depicting these requirements shall be ~ubmitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with the site plan review. 2. Exterior lighting the entire tracts will utilize uoordinated lighting fixtures with the same light source (i.e., all metal halide or high pressure sodium). 3. Actual uses will be limited to B-1 uses and the following B-2 and B-3 uses: a. Gas station (no repairs); b. Tire store with automotive repair provided the bays are positioned so as not to be visible from public roads; c. ~ealth club; d. Printing shop; e. Pet grooming shop; f. Veterinarian clinic, provided there is no overnight boardinq or outside runs; g. Department store.; h. Outdoor cafe or patio dining in conjunction with a restaurant that does not have a drive-through windows i. Restaurent with drive-through window; j. Craft center with the outdoor qarden display and/or storage, provided the outdoor display/storage area is screened from view of adjacent properties and public rights of way. 4. 0nly one (1) use may be permitted in excess of 12,000 feet, provided such use does not e×ceed 25,000 square feet of enclosed building area. 5. If and when single family residential homes are built on the western nineteen (19) acres of Tax Sap 95-12 (1) Parcel 7~ access to Greenyard Drive shall be provided across Lot 1, Block A, Section A of Greenyard, Section A, Resnbdivision of Lot 1, Block A if so requested at the tim~ of rezonlng or tentative subdivision review of such parcel. 6. The permitted construction of a building in excess of 12,000 square feet and less than 25,000 square feet shall not be within the quadrant formed by lines within 150 feet of Route 10 and 150 feet cf the property identified a~ Tax Map 96-9 (1} Parcel 10. 89-218 Vote Within 200 feet of the property identified as tax parcel Number ~6-9-1-1~ (currently known ag Trinity Methodist church) nO gas pumps and/or convenience store shall be located. The erosion ~ontrol and ~rainage plan shall in=Iude measures to minimize the impact of surface runoff on Tyler's Eoud. This plan shall be approved by Enviror~ental Engineering prior to any clearing or grading. The erosion control an~ drainage plan shall assure~ to the maximum extent possible, that the water quality and sedimentation problems of Tyler's Pond would no% be diminished. Public sewer and water shall be 89SN01tl Is Clover Sill Magisterial 9ietriot, CAR POOL, I~C. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case to permit use (motor vehicl~ wash) and bulk exe~pfion~ in a Co~unlty Busine~g {B-2) District on a ~.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on the north line ef Null Street Road, al~o ~ronting app~o×i~ately 289 feet on the east line of S~ncrest Drive, and located in the northeast quadrant of inter~ectlon of these roads. Tax Nap 49~? (1) Parcel 44 (Sheet ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commi~sien approval of Case 89SN0111, subject to certain conditions and acceptance o9 the proffered conditions. Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing the applicant, stated the yaeommends~ conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Apptegate stated he had met with Mr. he felt the pro~osed use would he appropriate for the subject site as it would be a more quality development than other similar uses along Route 360. On motion of Mr. Applsgate~ seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0111,. subject to the following conditiena: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, tbs Textual Statement ~ubmitted with th~ applioatleu, as amended by the lsttsr dated J~]uary 3, 1989~ amd the plan prepared by Seamen and Associates! ~.C., revised Febr=ary 2, 1989, shell ba considered the Maater Plen. (P) (NOTE~ Thim condition supereede~ Conditions 1 and 13 of Case 87S0~7.) 2. Archi=ec=ural trea=men~. The building shall have an architectural style as depicted in the elevations prepared The architettuxal treatment of th~ building ~hall be ~uch that no building facade {whether ~ront, ~i~e, or rear} con~i~ts of a~chitectural materials inferior in quality, appearance, or d~tail to any uther facade ~f the building, No portion of %he building constructed of unadorned cinder block or corzugaued and/or sheet metal ~hatl be visible from uny adjoining property, or public right of way, Mechanical ~q~pmen=, whether ground-I~v~l or rooftop, ~hall be shielded and screened from public view an~ signed to be perceived as an integral part ~f the build- ing. Detailed ren~ering~ d~pi¢~ing tb~se shal~ be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with ~ite plan r~view. (P) 89-219 (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 7 of Case 07S027.} A five (5) foot buffer shall be maintained along the northern property line adjacent to Tan Map 49-7 (1) Parcel 12. Except ~or utilitiee, which run generally perpen- dicular through the buffer, a fence and landscaping, there shall be no other facilities or improvements permitted within thim buffer area. A minimum six (6) foot high, solid board fence shall he installed along the southern boundary of this buffer. Between the fence and the north- ern property line, landscaping shall be installed to break up the expanse of the fence as viewed from tho adjacent property to the north. A detailed landscaping plan de- picting these requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (CPC) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 9 of Case 87S027.) A fifteen (15) ~oot parking and driveway setback shall be maintained from the ultimate right of way of Suncrest Drive, as designated on the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. (P) Signs shall comply with the requirement~ of the Corridor Overlay District standards. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 2 of Case 87$027.) (NOTES: And further, conditions: (a) Except as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of Case 87S027 remain in effect for this development (i.e., Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11,. 12, and 14). (b) If the request property i~ developed for a shopping center, all previously imposed con- ditions of Case 87S027 shall apply. (c) Prior to obtaining site plan approval or building permits, ~chematic plans mu~t be submitted for approval. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions to insure proper site design, land use compatibility and transition.) the Board accepted the following proffered 1. Access to Hull Street Road shall be limited to an exit only. 2. A 35' right of way, measured from the csnterline of Suncrest Drive, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. Vote: Unanimous 09SN0127 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~UDSON W. ~umGIN$ requeste~ Conditional ~se to per, it a self-storage warehouse facility in an Agricultural (A) District. This request lies on a 5.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 367 feet on the east line of Baldwin Creek Road, approximately 2,260 feet north of Beach Road. Tax Map 89 Il) Part of Parcel 40 (Sheet 28). 89-220 ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission r~eo~ended approval of CaSe ~95N0~27, subject to csrtain conditions. He noted public water and sewer is not available in this area; however, the subject property was originally developed fob poultry farm and has been converted into a storage facility and approval of this request for e limited time period would be consistent with previous Board action and allow ~tili~atien of the existing facilities until such time that the request property and ~rounding.area develops for residential-type Mr. Ludson Hudgins stated the recommended conditions ware acceptable. Ther~ was no opposition present. There was discussion relative to tbs proposed business whether or no~ the Board has a policy for not permitting businesses to utilize wells and septic systems; the proposed Charlotteeville Action Plan indicated that ¢~rtain commercial uses should not be permitted without public sewsr~ that the request is to use a poultry farm that has been converted into a B~dgins in~icate~ there would be ne office on the site so there subjec~ parcel contains 16 acres with the nearest homes located to the north of the subject sit~, and that he contacted residents along ~alwln Creek Road and had received approximately 50% favorable response to the proposed use. ~ayes stats~, in view of the information provided, he could support the request. On motion cf Mr. Mayas, seconded by ~r. Cardin, ~he approved Case ~9SN0127, subject to th~ follo~ing conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan ted with the application sh~ll be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. This Condi=ional Use shell be limited to t_he operation of a warehouse (sel~-storage) facility, exclusively. (P) 3. All activity associated with this use shall be confined to the interior of the existing structures. Out~ide storage of vehicles or o=her items shall be prohibited. (P) 4. Other than normal maintenance or ~osmnti~ improvements, no additions or exterior alterations shall be permitted to accommodate this use. (P) 5. Driveways and parking areas shall he gravelled with minimu/a of ~ix (6) inches of #21 or ~21A stoAe. gravelled parking areas ehakl be delineated by permanent m~an~ Ii.e., concrete bumper blo~ks, timbers, etc.). 6. Hours of operation shall be limited %o between 9:00 a.m. and ~:~O p.m., Monday through Saturday. 7. There shall bs no tra~tor trailer deliveries permitted. This Conditional U~ shall be granted for a period not to exceed five (5) years from the date si approval. (NOTE~ Prior ~o obtaining any building or occupancy p~rmit~, site plan~ mus~ be submitted to t~e Planning Department for approval.~ Vote: Unanimous 89-22I In Hermuda Magisterial District, GF~OP, GE T. ELDER requested rescuing from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3). Expansion of an exieting retail complex is planned. This request lies on a 2.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on the west line u£ Je££erson Davis Highway, approximately 550 feet north of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad right of way. Tax Map 133-15 (11 Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobeon stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0130. There was no one present to represent the request. Since there was no one pre~ent to represent the request, it was generally agreed to place Case 89SN0130 in its regular sequence on the agenda. $95N0139 (Amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, WILLTS ~. T~O~SON requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 87S092) relative to use, parking~ and paving requirements. An office/commercial complex is planned. This request lies in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet On the east linc of Crowder Drive, approximately 260 feet south of Westfield Road. Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 7). Mr. Jacobson stated the ~lanning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0139, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Willis Thompson stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no oppogition present. Mr. Sullivan stated this request was in compliance with not only the Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan but also with the Midlothian Area Community Plan to be heard by the Board in April and, based On that information, he felt the requested use appropriate for the area. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SN0139, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditione notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J.K. Tiu%mons and Associates, P.C., revised December 15, 1988, shall be considered the Maeter Plan for conversion of the existing residence. In conjunction with thc approval of this request, an exception to the requirement that parking and driveway areas be paved shall be granted. Further, an exception to the required number of parking spaces shall be granted. These exceptions shall be granted for a period not to exceed five (5) years from the date oi approval of this requeet, or until additional office space is developed, whichever occurs first. A minimum of three (3) parking spaces shall be provided for use of the existing resi- dence. Should the number of spaces prove to be insufficient to accommodate the office and/or antique shop use, additional parking spaces, per requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be provided upon request by the Planning Department. Non-paved parking areas and driveways shall be graveled with a minimum of eix (6) inches of ~21 or ~21A stone. At the end of five (5) years from the date of approval of this request, or upon development of additional office and/or eommercial space, the site shall be brought into 89-222 cemplianss with ee~dit~on~ stated herein, as well as requirem~nt~ of the Zoning Ordinan~ At the end of five (5) years, if no additional office and/or commercial ~pac~ hms been developed, the tim~ period may be extended through ~chematic plan review. Prior to develop~en[ of additional office and/or commercial space, an overall Master Plan which conforms to the conditions stated herein, as well as requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, shall be submitted approval. to the Plannin~ commission for Uses shall bs BusinEss (O) District, plus Business (B-i) uses: Antique shep Ar~ school, gallery~ or mOSev~ Artist material and suppl~ ~tore Book or stationery Story Brokerage Clothes stere Curio or gift shop Dress shop Florist shop Locksmith Musical instrument sales Of£ic~s~ business and professional Offics supply store · 0ptc~etrists sales and servic~ Photography studio Sewing machine sales, instruction, ~nd service Specialty shop Shoe repair shop Tailoring and dressmaking shops Tel~phon~ tooth a. This condition supersedes paragraphs 1, 2, and 5 of Condition t of Case 87S092. Paragraphs 3 and { of Condition 1 of Ca~e 87s092 re, sins iD effect as follows: Th~ driveways and parking ar~as shall s:reened from view of adjacent properties to the north and east. The me,hod of screening ~hall ~e approved by the Planning Department at the time of ~ite plan review. Prior to the issuanc~ of an permit for ns~ of the exi~in~ residence for any non-re~id~ntlaI us~ thirty (30} feet of rlqht of way, measured from ~h~ ~*nt~rline of Crow~er D~ive, shall be dad- i~ated to e~d for the COunty of Chesterfield, free and ~nrestrlcted. b. If the e~isti~g house has not been developed for an offid~ er permitted commercial ~se er if sits plan approval has not been obtained for use of the existing house, at the lime that the Midlethian Area Community Plan ia adopted, development thereafter may have to comply with tho development Standards of %he Village Overlay District. S~eciflcally, the requirements, to include parking and paving requirements, o~ the Village Overlay District would supersede any granted wi~h approval.} limi%e~ to those permitted in the offic~ ~he following Conveniencs 8~-223 Travel arranging and transportation ticket servicee. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 3 of Case 87S092.) At the time of site plan review for use of the ~xisting structure, the Transportation Department may require additional pavement and curb and gutter along Crowder Drive prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for use of the existing structure. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for Phase II, additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along the entire property frontage of Crowder Drive. (T) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Condition 7 of Case 87S092.) (NOTES: a. Except as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of Ca~e 87S092 remain in effect for this development. b. If the property has not been developed or redeveloped for an office or light commercial use or if site plan approval has not been obtained at the time that the Midlothian Area Communit~ Plan is adopted, any development thereafter may have to comply with the standards of the Village Overlay District. c. Prior to obtaining building permits, site plans must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.) Vote: Unanimous 89SN0143 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DIC~ STRAUSS FORD, INC. AND DICK STRAUSS SUZUKI, INC. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 83S024 and 87S002) relative to sign lighting. This request lies in a Light Industrial (M-l) District on an 11.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 660 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 970 ~eet on east line of Johnston Willis Drive, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection cf these roads. Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcels 12 and 13 (Sheet Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0143. No one came forward to represent the request. Since there was no one present to represent the request, it was generally agreed'to place Case 899N0143 in its regular ~equence on the agenda. 89SN0150 In Midlothian Magisterial District, WATERFORD AT B~MILL requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 86Sl17). A shopping center is planned. This request lies in a Light Industrial (M-I) District on a 21.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,050 feet on the north line of Genito Road, also fronting approximately 750 feet on the east line of Coalfield Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 47-4 (1) Part of Parcel 16 (Sheet 13). 89~224 approval of Case 89S~0150 subject to certain condftions. acceptable. There wa~ no opposltien present. thi~ request which he felt %~ould impact the Clov~r ~i~ District and asked that the request ba heard. A~ter a brief discussion, it was generally agreed %o place Case ~9SN0150 in its regula~ ~equense on the agenda. 89SN~2D8 In Bermuda ~agisterial District, ~T~FXEI~D ~O~T~ BOb_RD OF SUP~R~ISOP~ raqueste~ r~z~ning from Agric~Itural (A) of 15.0 acmes, General Business (~-3) cf 0,6 acre~, and Light Industrial (~-1) of 50.0~ acre~, to General Industrial with Conditional Use Planned Develo~en%. kn indus~xial complex i$ planned. This request lies on a to,al Of 66.2 acres fronting approximately 1,0~0 leek on %h~ soutA line of llne of ~e Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, and located 1 and 4 and Ta~ Map 1~0-~3 (I) ~arc~l 1 and Par% of ~arcel (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the ~lanning C~i~zion ~eco~ended Ms~ Jennifer Lanqz was prezen% ~o represent the re~e~% and no opposition present. development; that the de~elopm~n~ sqandards for the proposed for brin~in~ the r~ques: ~efor~ th~ Boar~; Economic Development Department to the ~tanninq C~is~ion working. Mr. J~es Martin, on~ of [he property owners, m~a~d he had r~nested the Economic Development Department to p~0ceed with the rezoning of hhis property. improper since he had no~ had an opportunity to vote ini%iatin~ ~he application. the Board. Th~ Board generally agr~ %o place Case 89S~0208 sgsN0150 In Midlotkian Magisterial District, W~I~FO~ A~ ~i~I~ requested amendment to Conditional U~e Planned Development ICase 86~I17). A shopping o~nter is planned. ~his request lies in a Light Industrial {M-i) Di~t~ict on a 21.0 acre parcel fronting approximahely 1,050 feet on the north line of Genito Road, also fronting approximately 75~ feet on ~he east llne of Coalfield Road, and lo~ate~ in the northeast ~uadrant of the 89-225 intersection of these roads. Tax Map 47-4 (1) Part of Parcel 16 (Sheet 13). Mr. Jacobsons presented a summary of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case ~9SN0150, subject to certain conditions. Mr. J. B. Campbell, representing the applicant, stated th~ recommended conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate expreseed concerns that the proposed development not adversely impact his district with respect to the requested use for commercial development versus an office development, the square footage of the subject cite being equivalent to the size of a mid-range shopping center, and the need for sufficient transportation improvements. Mr. Jacobson stated the applicant's Textual Statement end conditions, as contained in the Request Analysis, are very similar to development criteria currently established for commercial tracts within the Waterford and Centerpointe developmente (i.e., specifically, building architectural styles and heights; buffers; interior landscaping; land use transition; signs; pedestrian access; and other on-site amenities) and will ensure a quality development while, at the same time, minimise the impact of the proposed shopping center on area residential properties. Mr. MoCracken indicated the first phase of development will generate traffic equivalent to that generated by 310 multifamily units and 54,000 square feet of retail has been approved; however, prior to approval of any further development, some of the proffered/conditioned road improvements must be constructed or committed. After further discussion, it was on motion of ~r. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved that the Board approve Case 89SN0150, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by CMSS Architects and the Textual Statement, submitted with the application, shall be considered the Master Plan for the proposed shopping Center. (P) (NOTE: This condition Case 86S117.) is in addition to Condition 1 of The shoppiag center shall be designed such that architecture, visual, and site design do not project typical strip development. Architectural renderings/elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schemstic plan review. (P) (NOT~: This condition is in addition to Condition 20 of Case 86Sl17.) Within the recruited setbacks along public roads, all existing vegetation having a caliper of eight (8) inches or greater, shall be retained unless removal is approved by the Planning Department. Clear areas of 200 square feet or greater within these setbacks shall be pleated with a mixture of trees and shrubs in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards. Detailed landscaping plans depicting these requirements shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P) A twenty-five (25) foot setback shall be provided adjacent to Waterford Lake Drive and Watercove Road. (NOT~: This condition is in addition to Condition 27 of Case 86Sl17). 89-226 Public water ~nd ~astewater syst~m~ shall be used. (NOTES: (a) ~xcep{ as noted herein, all previously imposed conditions of Ca~e 86S117 r~main in effect for this ~evslopment. LOw Density Office ILD0) development shall comply with Low Density Offic~ (LDO) requirements of Case (c) Prior to obtaining site plan ~pprevat er building p~rmits, ~chematic plans mu~t be (d) At the time.of schematic plan review, the Plannin~ Commission may impoae additional conditions to insure Ian~ use compatibility and transition.) In MaTcaca ~aglsterial District, NA$H I~OAD/WOODPE~i~R ROAD TR~T r~qu~sted re~onlng from Agricultural (A) to CO~U~uni=y Business (~-2) on forty-two (42) acres and Residential On 2,441 acres, plus Conditional U~e to permit an recreational facility. A mired use development to p~rmit single f~ily r~sid~ntial, co~ercial, and recreational faoilities is planned. This request li~ on a 2,483 acre parcel fronting approximately 13,000 feet on ~e north line ~9 Woodpecker Road~ alS~ fronting in %we (2) places for a total of approximately 11,000 feet on the east line of Nash Road, and located in the northeast quadran~ of th~ intersection of these (1) Parcels 1 ~rough 16; Tax Map 113 (1) Parcels 15 and 16; Tax Map 113-9 (1) Parcels 3, 4, and 5; Tax M~p 129-4 Parcels 1 ~hrough 8~ Ta~ Map 129-12 (1) Parcels 1 through Tax Map 130 (1) ~arcel~ ~, 7, and 8; Tax Map 130-~ (1) Parcels 1 through 5; Tax Map 130-I3 (1) Parcels 1 through 9; Tax Map 130-14 (~) 9arcel$ 1 Through ~3~ and Tax ~ap 146-~ (1) Parcels 1 through 20 (Sheets 30~ 31, 39, and 40). dmvslopmen~, along with uther issues (i.e., public uafety, ~oadz, etc.). He prese.nted a brief s~xy of %kc Co~ission reco~ended approval oi Case 88SN014~, ~ubj~c: certain conditions and acceptance of t~e resubmitted and outlined additional prof~eI~ relative %o the acreage ~or a (1) acre lo%~ a~ compliance with fha County septic System Policy a~ f~nally adopted by the Board of Supervisors. ~r. Currin di$close~ ~o the Board that he does not own any of the property under consideration ~ut, due to his clo~e a~ociation with ~he individual~ initiating thi~ he has b~an advise~ by ~he Co~onwealth Attorney'~ Office that he may have a eonflic~ of in,erect; therefore, he declared potential conflic~ of interest pursuant to the virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused h~m~elf ~he meeting. %ha% the Boerd had jura r~ceive~ the addend~ containing the proffered condi~ion~ an~ ha~ ~e~u~sted that du~ing the applicant's presentation, regardless of th~ length of neumssary, %ha= =he umw proffered condition9 bu addressed individually. 89-227 Mr. Oliver Rudy~ representing the applicants, presented an overview of the proposed development and outlined the intent of proffered conditions relative to uses, transportation, environmental issues, road improvements, right-of-way, etc.; referenced portions of the Western Area Land Use and Transportation Plan as it related to the proposed request; stated the resubmitted proffers reflected not only the o~iginal proffers with the deletion of those proffers pertaining to the commercial tract which was withdrawn but also included the dedication of 54.3 acres for use as a school site, with the addition of 5 acres for use as a fire station, that the applicant would record no subdivision plat in the subject site which shows a lot smaller than one (1) acre until and unless a revised septic system policy permitted smaller lots and the applicant had proffered compliance with the County Sophie System Policy as finally adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Be pointed out this project would be served by public water and that through the orderly development of tho property, water will be made available at various points along Nash Road and Woodpecker Road to provide the opportunity for residents in those areas to connect to public water if they so de,ire. Ho stated his clients feel they have complied with everything asked of them, that they will produce a quality project and asked the Board for favorable consideration of the request. Mr. Mayas congratulated Mr. Rudy and his clients for their sensitivity for the needs toward schools, public safety, road improvements, etc., but he felt, aa much as he had discussed the need for consideration for the citizen on well water and the potential for groundwater contamination, it appeared to him no sensitivity was being shown for those individuals. stated the applicant has agreed to abide by the County Septic System Policy as finally adopted by the Board of Supervisors; however, he exprssed concern that there was no mention of the use of test wells for the proposed development nor was there any consideration given to the disposition o£ the wastcwater as per information provided to the Board at their Charlottesville Retreat regarding dishwashers, garbage disposals, washing machines being prohibitsd from connection to the septic systems in order to avoid groundwater contamination. Mr. Sullivan stated he had not heard the exports at tho Charlottesville Retreat state that one could not have a dishwasher or washing machine connection to a septic sytem but he did hear them say they could not recommend that garbage disposal uses be permitted on the systems. Mr. Mayas expressed concern that people would buy homes with appliances such as dishwashers, washing machines, etc., and the use of detergents would disturb the natural processes in the septic eytem that is vital to preventinq septic system failures and would ultimately Mr. Rudy stated he had understood the revisions to tho ordinance regarding the development and maintenance standards for On-site waste disposal systems was to be determined through the public hearing process whereby the public would have an opportunity to comment and ~hat the results of that hearing would be the criteria by which everyone would have.to adhere. Mr. Mayas questioned if that process determined it was not feaeible to install septic systems would the applicant consider the installation of public sewer. Mr. Rudy stated he would not. Mr. Mayas stated he would like to recommend approval of the request but under the circumstances and the fact that he could get no definitive answers to his questions, he could not. When a~ked, Mr. MoCraoken stated the 'Thoroughfare Plan, recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 21, 1989 me,ting, included for thi~ area the construction of two new collector %yp~ roadways - one connecting Woodpecker Road aligning with Cattail Road then generally extending 89-228 northwestwardiy to Nash Road, and another COnnecting Nash Road and running basically east/west with individual lot frontage along these collector roads being minimized. He stated the developer has pro,tared to construct these roads within the project and staff had conducted the usual analyses with respect to improvements on WoodpeeRsr Road and Nash Road, Hu stated the applicant has agreed to provide rights-of-way to straighten the roads, shoulders, turn-lanes, etc., normally requested of developers but the Transportation Department did not request the applicant to rebuild the road. He ~tated he felt the impact of the proposed d~ve]opment woul~ be felt ~or~k of the project on t~e northern se=rich of Nash Road toward Beach Road which improvements will be ~ealt ~ith either through the Six Year Plan which ix very unlikely or throuqh the development cf the property to the north. Mr. George Beadles, Jr.~ Mr. Charles Hardy; and Has~ings voiced opposition to the proposed request as they felt i.e reprsseR~ed an unacceptable risk to area groundwater and Swift' Creek; would geneTate increased volumes of traffic; affect CoS~ of future capital Improvement ~rogra~s (i.e., schools, firs and safety Drotectlon, ~tc.); er~ate a greater prSSSUr~ On the natural environment; expressed concerns regaTding the lack of information r~la£1ve ~© the numbe~ of existing wells in ~ss and t_he impact o~ thi~ project on those wells~ the location of and s~wage dlsposal for a new school site, %he timeframe wlthiz which 9ublle water will ~e provided, th~ expense involved for road improvementu and who will bear the cost, the potential tax impact of this development on the citizens of the County; and f~lt the project is generally not in the best interest of the hsalth~ safety and welfare of the Matoaoa citi=ens of Chesterfield County. Mr. Rudy st~te~ the applicant has provided axper~ testimony to address the concerns expressed by area re~identm and assure ~h~m that their concerns have ~een adequately addressed, that no other developer hue exhibited the concekn for septic systems that this developer has and he felt there had been no evidenoe to rebut the professional evidence propertied r¢lutiv~ to this project. aware of =he situation through monltering those wells before the eurrounding drinkin~ w~Ils were contaminated. ~r. Rudy is for this one an~ if a sopris system policy state~ that test wells sro necessary the applicant will ~cmply with the policy. development of the project, public water ~ould be made availabI~ to Nash Road and Woodpecker Road and if the water is available in an area at the time there should be a septic system failnre, the afiected resident would have an option of connecting to public water. fire station site; provisions fo~ test wells if rmquire~ through the adoption of a County septic s~tem policy as well as 0thor criteria of the policy which will be considered during ensure the economic feasibility of the prelect if the major aspects of road improvement~ to ~ash Read/Woodpecker presented. 89-229 Mr. Sullivan commended Mr. Rudy and his clients for their diligent efforts in working with the County in developing what he felt was a good proposal at this time for this site; stated the Board encourages large tract development and the applicant has complied with that and presented a fine plan for his project; stated he felt the proffers were much better and addressed previously stated concerns7 and indicated he was prepared to vote favorably for the request. Mr. Mayes stated he felt this request exhibited how the best considerations can be developed, he felt it had been handled above board and very well represented and that the major items had been addressed. Be stated, however, there were still several minor items which concerned him which he felt were not sufficiently addressed (i.e., disposal of wastewater from dishwashers, washing machines, etc., the lack of test wells for adequate monitoring of the systems, etc.). Me stated he was well aware that those minor concerns could not prevent the property owner the highest and best use of his property; and although he felt the major items had been addressed, he hoped the Board would include test wells in the septic system standards when considering adoption of those standards. He stated~ however, with the minor concerns he had mentioned being unresolved, he could not make a motion to approve or vote for the request. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board accepted withdrawal of the proposed Community Business (B-2) zoning and associated proffered conditions f~om the request and approved rezoning of Residential (R-25) with a Conditional Use to permit an outdoor recreational facility and accepted the following proffered conditions, as per the addendum: 1. The applicant proffers that the development of this prop- erty shall be limited to 2,000 residential lot~ and that transportation study shall be done at such time as the development exceeds 1~500 residential lots. 2. The Master Plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Road Plan. Approval of the Master Plan by the Connty doe~ not imply that the County gives final approval to any particular road alignment or sec- tion. ~ndividuai lot £rontage along the collector roads shown On the Master Plan shall be minimized ac determined by the Transportation Department. 3. Forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Nash Road and Woodpecker Road, shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. 4. Prior to recordation of any lots adjacent to Nash Road, a revised centerline for Nash Road shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation Department. Forty- five (45) feet of right of way from the approved revised centerline of Nach Road chall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. 5. A north/south road and an east/west road shall be provided within the project. In addition, an east/west stub road right of way shall be provided to Swift Creek. The exact alignment of this north/south road and east/west stub road shall be approved by the Transportation Department. These roads shall be constructed to urban collector standards. The north/south road shall be constructed from Nash Road to Woodpecker Road as dictated by the orderly development of the project, but prior to the issuance of more than 1,200 residential building permits. 6. Additional pavement shall be constructed along Hash Road and Woodpecker Road to provide left and riqht turn lanes at each approved accesS. The ditch line along Nash Road 89-230 1,500 fe~t ~outh of Licking Creek) and Woodpecker Read shall be relocated for the entire property frontage and adequats shoulders provided. A phasing plan may be sub- for the ditch line and shoulder improvements. . 7. Applicant will dedicate on site within one year of the date of approual of the zoning~ 59.3 acres, 54.3 acres for addition, applicant will reserve an additional 25.7 acres on site for purchase by the County to be used for additional school sites. This reserved property will be pnrchassd within ten (10) year~ from the dote of the purchase, said value to be d~termin~d by an 5iAI appraisal. In the event the dedicated parcel is net designated as ~chool site within ten (10) ysars of said dedication, then the aRplicant shall have the absolute right and obligation acre price which applicant paid to acquire said property in 1958. 8. A fifty (5D) foot buffer strip, exclusive of required yards, shall be established and maintained adjacent t~ Nash Road (Route 636) and Woodpecker Road (Route 626). ~tat~, provided howsvea, that the applicant shall be area at the headwaters of the lake situated below the dam of Woodland Pond_ Prior to approval of any ~ite plan or reuorOation of any plat~ the developer shall flag this access(es) and utilities, no aooe~ shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted on any final ~ite plans, an~ any final check and this oondlti~n at the ~ime of site plan or tentstiva 9. Thoro will be no recordation of any lot which adjoin~ until the location of said facilities has been determined. siv~ ef maintenance buildings, snack bars and two hundred (200) fsst from any single family residential lot line. 11. Parking shall be provided on th~ ~asis of forty-five spaces per nine (9) holes of golf course, one (1) for each forty-five (45) square feet of combine~ swift, lng and parking areas for six (61 ar more vehicle~ be paved. Also, the BOCA Code acquires ~wo-way driveways to be a minimu~ of twenty-four (24) feet in width unless l~cal serving parking lots cOntainin9 up to fifteen (15) parking driveways Serving parking lots of sixteen (16) to thirty (30) parking spaces to be twenty-two {22) ~eet in width.} 12, Signags and lighting shall conform to Overlay District 89-231 13. No facility intended to be transferred to any Homeowner's Association which may be created as a result of this development, shall be transferred until said facility has been completed or until a bond has been posted providing for 100% surety of ~he completion of all such improvements. 14. Retention capability shall be designed into the lake facilities which would help deter downstream flooding. 15. Applicant will impose restrictive covenants on the lots to be developed as a result of this zoning which are equal to or more restrictive than the Woodland Pond Restrictive Covenants. 16. The development will be extended over a 20-year period of time and to assure this length of development, the devel- oper will market no more than one-twentieth of the lots proposed to be developed per year beginning with the date the property is rezoned and using 2000 lots as maximum density. 17. (a) Between the date of zoning and the adoption by the County of its Septic System Policy, the Applicant will record no subdivision plat in The ~ighlands which shows a let smaller than one (1) acre. (b) That the Applicant will, in the development of The Highlands,. abide by the County Septic System Policy as finally adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Daniel requested that Mr. Mayes clarify his specific concerns regarding the proposed request as he felt,the Board should be sensitive to the concerns of the district supervisor. Mr. Mayes s~ated he needed a definite answer as to how the wastewater problem would be resolved (i.e., test wells standards) and further expressed concerns relative to school capacity, transportation problems, etc. He stated he did not feel satisfied with the request in that he felt the school, transportation problems, etc., had not been sufficiently addressed; that he could not secure any certainty fer the requirement of test wells in the septic system policy; and stated that those issues indicate an insensitivity for area citizens on wells and he could not in good conscience support the request. He added he did not want the record to reflect in the future when these problems begin to severely impact citizens of the County that he was a party to it. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. Nays: Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. Reconvenlng: 88SN0234 In Matoaca Magisterial District, ZANE G. DAVIS, SR. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25). A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 253.5 acre parcel fronting in three (3) places for a total of approximately 170 feet On the west line of Second Branch 89-232 Road, beginning at a point approximately 1,~50 feet north of River Reed.' Tax Map 127 (1) Part of Parcel 2 [~heet .38). Mr. Jacebb0n stated th~ Planning Con%mission approval of Cane $8SN0234 and acceptance of the proffered COnditions. He stated, howeveY, staff reco~ended denial of the request as the proposed use is contrary to the Western Area Lend Usc and Transportation Plan which designates the site and the surrounding area south of Second Branch for agricultural and forcstaI uses over the next several years; residential developement in thi~ area of The County would be premature at this time and could not be supported by existing or planned public facilites; and approval of the request would set a precedent for further development in the areas of the County designated on the land u~e plans for agricuttural/forestal uses. H~ not~d, however, Mr. Davis has agreed to provide Dublic water with a minimum lot size of acres and will comply ~ith the standards of the County Septic System Plan when adopted. Mr. Davis stated the averege lot size will be 1.? acres with no lot smaller than 1.0 acres, stated he would agree ~o dedicate 200. feet of right-of-way for an east/west road through the proje~ 'and exhibited a cody of his proposed subd~vislon plat to the Board. Mr. MeCracken stated the Planning Commission approval of the Theruughfare klan at their. March 21, 1989 meeting; however, the Board has not held their public hearing process on that Plan. ~e stated the issue of an east/west road will be addressed at the subdivision level. ~r. Davis stated he would assure the dedication of the 200 feet of right-of-way for the east/wes~ collector road if it wore t~ go through his property. When asked, ~r. $chmelz stated public water service would be available to meet the demand~ for fi~e service in the area. There was no opposition present. Mr. Mayes stated tha~ based on the information prsoented, Mr. Davis~ efforts to go out of hie way to meet the requirement~ and the fact th~ applicamt is agreeable to compliance with the septic system standards he could ~upport approval of the On motion oi ~r. Mayes, seconded by ~r. Currin, the Board approved Case 88SNO234 and accepted the following proffered 1. The average tot siz~ in the development will be more than 1.70 acres or more, wi{h no lea less thau QD~ (1) acrs, and I=ss ~han 140 lots. Public water shall be used. ~he County Septic System Policy, as firstly adopted by th~ Board of Supervisors, shall be complied with for the entire development. 4. The attached restrictions will be incorporated to preserve the ~ooded and natural Characteristics of the land to produce a rural etmosphere~ as ~ell as Saving a minimal impact on th~ water runoff so as not to a~ect downstream properties. {A copy of ~aid restrictive covenant~ ar~ filed with the papers of this Board.) Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that the use is contrary to the Western Area Land Use and Tran~ortatien Plan and for %hat reason, he could not support the r~quee~. 89-233 Mr. Currin referenced another rezoning request which approved that is similar to the one being considered. Ayes: Mr. Applegata, Mr. Currin and Mr. Mayes. Nays: Mr. Sullivan. Abstention: Mr. Daniel. 89SN0118 In Matoaca Magisterial District, NEW ~OLF ASSOCIAte ~I~D PARtnERSHIP requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 839013) relative to the transfer of operating rights, p~us use and bulk exceptions to permit the expansion of an outdoor recreational facility. This request lies in General Business (B-3), Community Business (B-2), and Agricultural (A) Districts on a 13.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 357 feet on the south line of Hull Street Road, approximately 450 feet cast of Suncrest Drive. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcel 40 and Tax Map 49-11 (1) Parcel 16 (Sheet 14). Mr. Peele presented a summary of the proposed request and stated the Planning Commission recommended denial of the exccptions to the Corridor Ovcrlay District requirements and approval of amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development to permit expansion of an existing outdoor recreational facility and transfcr of the operating righte. Mr. Edward Kidd, representing the applicant, presented an overview of thc proposed request and stated the recommended conditions were acceptable with the exception of the sign requirement. ~e submitted copies of a signage proposal indicating the type eignage the applicant desires. Board discussion, questions and comments ensued relativc to identification of the original driving range; ingress/egress at the McDonald's site being a severe safety hazard; the potential for accidents occurring at the existing crossover; non-compliance with the Corridor Overlay District requirements; etc. Mr. Applegate stated he was very concerned with the access for the proposed request and stated he' needed additional information regarding thc transportation impact of the proposed request. Mr. Sullivan stated he concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of exceptions to the Corridor Overlay District requirements es much effort was exerted to establish those standards and he felt thcy should be adhered to. Mr. Mayes stated he understood the concerne regarding the crossover and ingress/egress to the site, however, he felt the sign exception was acceptable and could support the request. Mr. Daniel stated he was uncomfortable with the entire request because of the controversy with the previoue rezening of the site and stated he felt a Master Plan for the entire site should be developed in the interest of the health, safety and welfare Of thc cltisens of the County. Mr. Maycs inquired if the applicant would accept s deferral so that concerns of the Board members could be resolved. Mr. Kidd indicated timing for development of the project was very important; however, after· further discussion, he stated he would prefer a deferral rather than a denial and would be regarding deviation from the Corridor Overlay District requirements. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, thc Board deferred consideration of Case 89SN0118 until April 26, 1989. 89-234 Hr. Applegate stated he would like to attend the meeting with Mr. Kidd and staff to discuss access and transportation 895N0140 In Matoace Magisterial District, CHESTE~IELD CO~TY BOA~D OF SUPERF~S~RS . requested amendment to conditional Use (Case 88S005) to permit the transfer of landfill operating rights. This requsst lie~ in an Agricultural (A) District on a 52.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 40 feet on the ~outh line of Road. Tax Map 72 (1} Parr of Parcel~ 15 and 16 (Sheets I8 and a construction/demolition/debris landfill on the request property. He stated Condition 16 of Casa 885005 granted ~he the current reque~ i~ for ~n~men% ~e Condition 16 of Case 88S005 to per,it the applicant to transfer landfill operating right~ to hi~ ~pouse, broth~r~, Sisters, and/or children. Hs noted the proposed amendment would have no impact upon the operation of %he landfill, that all other previously imposed condition~ remain in effect~ and tka~ the Planning Commission recQmmended approval of Case. 895N0~40, subjec~ to a tingle condition. Mr. Maye~ ~taLed the COunty Attorney has stated that in order to initiate this request it would have to be a Board action prior to getting it on the agenda for eon~id~ratle~, it could net have been dealt with otherwise, it appears that from the information provided the Board put the item en the a~enda, h~ had not participated in putting this item on the agenda (no conference with anyone~ no one asked him about the case and there was no meeting to place it ~o the agenda) Er. ~ieae sta~ed he had letter indicating that request to the ~%anning the ~lanning Commission the Bcar~ had voted to remand this Commission and it is now before the but he had voted against that motion and at the same time had made a complaint ~hut t_he way the i~em was placed on the agenda was net in adherence to proper procedure. Mr. Micam stated that, as indicated in his letter, as long as the Board by majority vote authorized the amendment then the procedure was legally appropriate. Mr. Meyes ~teted this item was placed on ~he agenda as a ~oard action but it was not a Boar~ ao~io~ because he did ~0t play a part in it end that di~ net follow due process. Mr. Ram~ey indicated hs kn~w of no requirement or procedure that requires an agenda item has to be approved by the Board ~r. Mayes referenced a letter from t_he County Attorney which he ~aid stated the only way which items may be placed on th~ Board is by the request cf mn applicant or by a majority vote of the Board. Mr. Ramsay stated he believed that the l~tter was referring ~c th~ issue of an item going from the Board to the Planning Commission. ~r. Mayes stated he had not understand that to he procedure and if the Board was going to deal with the r~quest he would leave as he wa~ not go~ng to be a pelt of this. Mr. Micas stated his letter was intended to indicate that the process the Board followed was legally appropriate and he was satisfied that the process was appropriate. Mr. Mayes stated this case did not follow the proper process if it was placed on the agenda by Board action as he was denied the opportunity to participate in it. He stated to Mr. Hornet that he had no objection to the recfuest being made insofar as the applicant was concerned because he felt it was a legitimate one but he did feel that the procedure used was inappropriate and he would not participate in it. At that point, Mr. Mayes excused himself from the meeting. Mr. George Beadles, Jr. voiced concerns regarding the procedure by which the application was brought to the Board for reconsideration; stated he felt it would have been better if Mr. Berner had initiated action regarding the request rather than the Board; suqgested the current request be withdrawn and resubmitted through the applicant; and expressed concern that this action would set a precedent for similar requests. Mr. Bill Hastings also expressed concern regarding the procedure by which the request was handled. When asked, Mr. Homer stated he agreed with the Planning Commission recommended condition. Mr. Daniel stated he concurred with the record as he saw it regarding the ownership of the landfill and whether or not it would be sold or transferred outside the family; that there was sufficient concern during the eriginal ease to restrict the. ownership of the facility. He ~tated when the Board decided to reconsider this case, he said that he could only support the reconsideration of the case if it were remanded with a condition restricting the use to Mr. Borner's immediate family. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt this request had generated much concern among the entire Board; that at the time the decision was rendered, Mr. Horner had indicated he felt the condition was too restrictive; that he felt an error had been made by some type of action not being taken at that time; he did not feel the Board was setting a precedent; that from his standpoint he felt the manner in which the case was handled was erroneous and he wished to rectify the situation and that was why he had voted to send it back to the Planning Commission and that was why he intended to support it now. Mr. Currin concurred with Mr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan; stated he felt an injustice had transpired and felt it should be rectified; that he had voted to remand the case to the Planning Commission for reconsideration; and intended to vote on the case at this time. Mr. Applegate' stated his original vote was not against the landfill but against the condition imposed on the applicant as he felt that particular restriction prevented the use of the property; that much effort had been exerted to establish a policy to monitor landfills; if those landfills are monitored and operated correctly then he felt it should not matter who operated it; and that he intended to support the recommendation but felt the condition L~posed was too restrictive. When asked, for the record, Mr. Micas indicated the Board had complied with the proper legal procedure to bring the matter back before the Board for consideration. On motion of Mr, Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Boand approved Case 89SN0140, subject to the following condition: The Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Irvin G. Horner, his spouse, and/or ~hildren and shall not be transferrable to any othe~s, nor run with the land. (CPC) 89-236 (NOT~$: a. ~his condition supersedes Condition h+ Ali o~h~r conditions of zoning approval for Case 88SQ05 remain in effect.) Ayes: Mr. Applegat~, Mr. Currin, Mr. Dani~ and ~x. ~llivan. Absent: M~, Mayes. Mr. Mayes returned te the ~estin~. ~PSN014I In Matoaca Magisterial District, DA~ZD A. LESLIe, ~RTHA Agricultural (A] to Community ~uslnass (~-2], plu~ Conditional retail ~happing center is planned. This request lies on a 15.u of Hull S~reet Road across from Specks Drive. Tax Map 49-10 of the request for exceptlon~ to Corridor Overla~ District ~qui~e~nt~ and approval of the rezoning with Conditional Planned Development to permit drive-in facilities, outside staff is not comfortable wi~h %he Iequ~st ~or an additional Drive. Mr, Mayas mad~ a motion to approve Case 89SN0141, subject to 1. Tho following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- Ma~te~ Plan. 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the Departments, and utilities that run ~enerally perpen- dicular through this buffer, there shall be no facilities plan submission, a conceptual landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Co~ission for approval. At the time cf schematic pla~ review, the Planning Contmission ~ay modify this buffer requirement to allow retention/deten- tion within the buffer, if doc~entation is submitted aooomplisho~. A ~e%ailed landscaping plan shall ~i×ty (60) days of slea~ing and rough ~radinq. The de- tailed plan shall include th~ general location of existing ~oaping and fencing, and ~c~ions through the buffer that depict how screening ~£ the site from adjacent propertie~ will be accomplished. 89-237 (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 3. ~ ten (10) foot exception to the twenty-five (25) foot setback requirement for buildings, driveways, and parking areas shall be granted along Specks Drive Extended, for a distance of 450 f~et south of Rull Street Road. A twenty- five (25) foot setback shall be maintained along the remainder of Speeks Road Extended frontage. Within these setbacks, landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards. A decorative fence or wall shall be installed within these setbacks, where necessary, to screen the rear facade of the shopping center, accessory buildings, and parking, loading, and storage areas from view along Specks Erive Extended. A conceptual plan shall be submitted to the Planninq Commis- sion for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed plan shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Department f6r approval within sixty (60) days of clearing and rough grading. The detailed plan shall include the location of landscaping and fencing and sections that depict how screening of the site from Specks Drive Extended will be accomplished. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, III. 2. relative to the setbacks along Specks Drive Ex- tended, and is in addition to III. 10. and III. 14., relative to screening the rear of the shopping center, loading and storage areas, and accessory buildings.) 4. A forty (40) foot setback shall be permitted along Hull Street Road. Within this setback, a three (3) to four (4) foot high undulating earth berm shall be installed. This setback shall be landscaped in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards, Perimeter Landscaping C. A conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. A ~etailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning De- partment for approval within sixty (60) days of clearing and rough grading. (P) (NOTE: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement, III. 2. relative to setbacks along Route 360.) 5. Parking areas shall have at least five (5) square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area shall contain a minimum fifty (50) ~quare 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 five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be land- scaped with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized land- soaping material. The total number of trees shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as required set- backe 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 ~he Planning Department for approval within sixty (60) days of clearing and rough grading. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, III., 4,). A single freestanding sign, not to exceed an area of twenty-four (24) feet and designed as a monument-type sign, shall be permitted to identify this development and the tenants therein. Except as noted herein, all signs to include the freestanding sign, shall comply with Corridor 89-238 uign packager to include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., is submitted to ~ho Planning Commission for ap- proval, the Planning Cormmission may modify building- mounted sign requirements to allow buitdinq-mounted signs similar to those within Victorian Sqna~e Shopping Center. {cPc) ~NOT~: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, III., ?. Prior to release of any building perallts, an overall ~aster drainage plan ~hall be submitted to Environmental Engineering fur approval. In conjunction with ~ite plan Submission, a plan for re- tention/detention for that portion of the site which ~ains to Rur~er'$ RUb shall De submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. (RE) 9. Public water and ~a~te~ater ~yst~m~ shall be used. 10. The development ~hall conform to Overlay District stan- dards relative fo paving and curb an~ gutter, Section 2t~67.21 {e}. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, 8.) I1. The structures shall have an architactnral style similar to Victorian Scluar~ Shopping Center. All s~ruet~res shall conform to Overlay District ~tandards, Section 21-67.21 (c). Rendering$/elevatlen~ depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. {~) (~OT~: This condition supersedes Textual Stat~m~nt~ III., lQ and 14.) 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit~ sixty (60) feet of right of way from Route 360 to the southern prop~ arty l~na shall be dedicated to and for Chesterfield Coun~y~ free and unrestricted. The developer shall bm (60) foot ~ight of way. {CPC) 13. TO provide for an adequate roadway syat~m at th~ time of the complete development, the d~vuloper wilt be respensi~ bls for thc following; ~rovide a third through-lane for the entire property frontage and a separate rlgkt-turn lane a= the proposed Speaks Drive ~xtended. b. Additional pavement along westbound ROUte 360 to provide a left-turn lane at ~p~ek~ Drive ~xtended. c. A minimum fonr-la~e typical ~action f~r Drive Extended at its iuter~ec~iun with Route ~60 (i.~., one il) inbound and three (3) out- bound d. ~lgnal modification at the Speaks Drive/Route 368/speek~ Drive EXt=nded intersection. e, The developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any addi- tional right Of way (or easementl r~quire~ for the improvsments identified above. 89-239 14. Access for this development shall be limited to the proposed Specks Drive ~xtended, as approved by the Trans- portation Department. (T) (NOTES: (a) The request property lies within the Route 360 Corridor Overlay District and, except as noted herein, must coniorm to Overlay District requirements. (b) Prior to obtaining site plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. (c) At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions to insure land use compatibility and transition.) Mr. Cngbill stated the applicants are in agreement with the recommended conditions with the exception of Condition 6 which he requested to be modified to identify only the primary tenant in this particular portion of the shopping center rather than the development and the tenants therein. Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommended that an additional freestanding sign not be approved; however, the Planning Commission, in its consideration of the developer's proposal and staff's recos~endaticn, determined it would be appropriate to accept a small, freestanding ~iqn up to twenty-four (24) square feet consistent with the type sign exhibited at the meeting by the applicant. Mr. Cogbill read excerpts of a letter from the applicant to Mr. Jacobson indicating that the applicant had agreed to upgrade the Genito Road frontage of the existing Victorian Square Shopping Center even though that site was not part of this particular rezoning request. Mr. Applegate questioned the impact of the additional vehicular trips generated'by the expansion of the shopping center. Mr. Jacob~on stated the Transportation Department staff had indicated they were comfortable with the recommended conditions. When asked, Mr. JacObsOn stated staff felt the applicant did not need an additional freestanding sign along Route 360 as the existing Route 360 sign is sufficient to identify the development end one wall-mounted sign to identify the use is sufficient and that approval of the requested freestanding sign would set a precedent for other sites, as well as other area development, to seek freestanding signs. 5e ~urther stated that each individual business will have a wall-mounted sign, either on the canopy or above the windows and doors of the businessee, to appropriately identify them and will be of sufficient height to be seen from within the shopping center or from the roadway. On motion of Mr. ~ayes, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board approved Case 89SN0141, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Tectonics Group, and the Textual Statement sub- mitted with the application, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern and southwestern property line. Existing vege- tation within this buffer shall be maintained, where possible, and supplemented, where necessary, to mcreen the use from future adgaoent development. Other than land- 89-240 scaplng, fencing and other screening devices, irrigation, acce~m as approved by the Elanning and Transportation Departments, and utilities that run generally perpen- dicular through this buffer, there shall be no facilities located within the buffer. In eonjunstion with cchematic · plan eubmiesicn~ a conceptual landscaping plan shall he submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. At the time of schematic plan review, the Planning Commission may modify this buffer requirement to allow retention/deten- tion within the buffer, if documentation is submitted which proves that sufficient zcreening/buffering can be accomplished. A detailed landscaping plan shall be sub- mitted to the Plannin~ Department for approval within ~ixty (~0) days O~ clearing and rough grading. ~he %ailed plan shall include the general location of existing vegetation to be retained, %h~ loc~tion of preposed land- scaping and fencing, and sections through the buffer that depict how screening of the site from adjacent preperties will be accomplished. (P} (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, III. 3 and il.) 3. A ten (i0) loot exception to th~ twenty-five (25) foot setback requiremunt for buildings, driveways, and parking areas shall be granted along ~peekz Qrive E~tended, for a distance of 450 feet south of Hull Street Road. A twenty- five {25) foot setback shall be maintained along the remainder of Specks Road Extended frontage, Wi~hln setbacks, landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standard~. A decorative fence or wall shall bs installed within these where necessary, to screen the rear facade of ~hs shopping center, accessory buildings, and parking, loading, and storage a~eas from viuw along Specks Drive Extended. A conceptual plan shall be submitted to the Planning Com~i~- sion for approval in conjunction with schematic plan ~eview. A detailed plan shall be aubmitfed to the Plan- ning Department for approval within $i~ty (60) days of clearing an~ rough grading. The detailed plan shall include th~ location of land~caping and fencing and sections that ~epict how screening of the ~i%a from Drive ~xtended will be asc~nnpli~bed. (NOTE; This condition cupersedes ~he Textual ~tatament, III. 2. relative to the setbacks along Specks Drive tended, and is in addition to III. 10. and II!. 14,, relative to screening the rear of the ~hopping center, loading and s~erege areas, and accessory buildings.) 4. A ferry (40) foe2 setback shall be permitted along' Hull Street Road. Within this setback, a three (3} to ~eur (4) foot high undulating earth berm shaft be installed, This setback shall he Iand~caped in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards, ~arimetsr Landscaping C. A Conceptual landscaping plan d~picting this requirement in conjunction with schematic plan review, A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning De- partment for approval within sixty (60) days of clearing and rough grading. (~0~E: ~his condition is in addition %0 ~he Statement, III. 2. relative to ~tb~cks along ~oute 5. Parkin~ areas shall have at least five (5) 'square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped ar~a shall contain a minimum fifty (50) square feet; shall have a minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet~ and shall include at least one (I) tree, having a clear trunk of nt least five {5) feet. The remaining area ~hall be land- scaped with shrubs, ground cover orother authorized lend- 89-241 scaping material. The total nnmber of trees shall not be less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of paving. The area designated a~ required set- back~ ~hall 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 sixty (60} days of clearing and rough grading. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, TTT., 4.). 6. A single freestanding Sign, not to exceed an area of twenty-~eur (24) feet and designed as a monument-type sign, shall be permitted to identify the anchor tenant within this portion of the shopping center. Except as noted herein, all ~ign~ to include the freestanding sign, shall comply with Corridor Overlay District requirements. However, if a complete sign package, to include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., is submitted to the Planning Commission for approval, the Planning Commission may modify building-mounted sign requirements to allow building-mounted signs similar to those within Victorian square Shopping Center. (BOa) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual StatemDnt, III., 6.) 7. Prior to release Of any building per, its, an overall Master drainage plan shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. (E~) 8. In conjunction with site plan submission, a plan for re- tention/detention for that portion of the site which drains to Homer's Run shall be submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval. 9. Public water and was%ewater systems shall be used. (U) 10. The development shall conform to Overlay District stan- dards relative to paving and curb and gutter, Section 21-67.21 (e). (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, III., 8.) 11. The structures shall have an architectural ~tyle similar to Victorian Square Shopping Center. Ail structures shall conform to Overlay District standards, Section 21-67.21 (c). Renderings/elevations depicting this requirement ~hall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. (P) (NOTE: This condition supersedes Textual Statement, III., 10 and 14.) 12. Prior ko the issuance of a building permit, sixty (60) feet of right of way from Route 360 to the southern prop- erty line shall be dedicated to and for Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. The developer ~hall be responsible for constructing a minimum two-lane road for a length of 850 feet south of Route 360 within this sixty {60} foot right of way. (CPC) 13. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of the complete development, the developer will be responsi- ble for the following: 89-242 a. Additional pavement along eastbound RQ~te 360 tO provide a third through-lane for the entire property frontage and a separate right-turn lane at the p~OpOsed Specks Drive Extended. b. Additional pavement along w~tbound Route 360 to provide a left-turn lane at Specks Drive Extended. c. A minimum four-lane typical section for Specks Drive Extended at its intersection with Route 360 (t.a., one (1) inbound and tkree {3] bound lanes}. d. Signal modification at the Specks Drive/Route ~O/~p~eke DriYe ~x~ended interseutien. e. The developer will dediaata to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any addi- tional right of way. (er easame~t) required f~r the improvements identlflsd above. 14. Access for this development shall be Iimite~ TQ ~he Droposed Specks Drive Extended, a~ approved by the port~tion Department. (T) (NOTES: (a} The request property Iie~ within the Route 36~ Corridor Overlay District and, e~cept as noted herein, must ooDferm to Overlay District requiremente, {b} Prior to ohtaininq ~ite plan approval building permits, schemati= plans must eubt~itted to the Planninq Commission for approval. (c) At the tim~ of echematie plan review, Planning Commieeion may impose additional and transition.) Mr. Daniel crated he hoped this actiou did not sst a precedent for additional tenants and/or other area develoDmente to requeet additional ffe~standin~ signs and expressed concern that the ~pirit and intent of the Overlay District Standard requirements is being deviated from to the point of eroding its purpose. 5e further stated he ~lt the location of the monument-type sign at this site ss compared to th~ ~ign located eubstantially to ~hs applicant's total sales per year and voiced support for staff's reuoK~endation. Mr. Sullivan concurred with Mr. Daniel and stated Ae f~lt the Boar~ should be consistent in administering the requir~men%~ proliferation of ~ignag~ ~long Rcute 10, RQU~ 60 and 260. When asked, ~r. Cogbill stated the subject property is owned the originnl owner, with ~he exception Qf an ou~parcml where there is currently a ban~ located, and hh~ owner would not permit the lessor~ ~o have individual freestanding signs. Mr. Maye~ crated %hat a business should be given every flexibility to make a profit if granted a rezonlng and the Board should be flexible when required. AyeS: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Currin and Mr. Maye~. ~ays~ Mr. Sullivan and mr. Daniel. 89~243 Mr. Daniel noted he was not voting against the rezoning but he felt very ~trongly regarding the setting of a precedent for additional tenants and/or other area developments to re~ues% additional freestanding signs and expressed concern that tha spirit and intent of the Overlay District Standard requirements is being deviated from to the point of eroding its purpose. 89SM0130 In Bermuda Magisterial District, G~OR(~ T. ~LD~R requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B~2) to General Busine~ (B-3). ~×pansion of an existing retail complex is planned. This request lies on a 2.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 210 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 550 feet north of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad right of way. Tax Map 133-15 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0130. Mr. David Warriner, representing the applicant, stated the recommended conditions were acceptable. There: wa~ no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, th~ Board approved Case 89SH0130. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0143 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, DICK STRAUSS FORD, INC. AND DICK STRAUSS SUZUKI, iNC. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Developments (Cases 83S024 and 87S002) relative to sign lighting. This request lies in a Light Industrial (M-i) District on an 11.0 aore parcel fronting approximately 660 feet on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, also fronting approximately 970 feet on east line of Johnston Willis Drive, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcels 12 and I3 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89SN0143. He noted staff had called the applicant but no one had appeared to represent the request. There was no OppOsition present. There was a brief discussion relative to the comparisDn of this request to a recently approved amendment to conditions of zoning for Brown Buick relative to sign lighting; etc. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Currln, the Board approved Case 89SN0143. Vote: UnanimouE Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Appleqate requested the rules be ~u~pended to add two items to the agenda. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Currin, ths Board suspended its rules to add Item ll.K., Resolution Concerning Approval of Residential Rezoning, and Item ll.L., Executive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding BBC Brown Boveri, Inc. versus the County of Chesterfield, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (6} of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, to the agenda. Unanimous 89-244 Item ll.K., Re~al~tion Concerning Approval of Residential with legal counsel regarding BBC Brown Boverl, Inc. versus the ~h~ Cede of Virqini&, 1950, as amended, to th~ agenda. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Maye~ excused himself from the meeting to attend the Crater Planning Dimtrict Commission meeting. In Bermuda Me~isteriaI District, C~ESTERPI~D COUNTY BOAR~ OF ~,F~RIr~SOP~ requesced zezoninq f=om A~ricultural (A) of acres~ General Business (B-3} of 0.6 acres, and Ligh% with Conditional Use Planne~ Developmen~ An industrial oomplea is planned. Thia requeac lisa mn a total o~ 66.2 (Sheet 42). Attorney, s~aff is race--ending that the Board initiate On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~econded by ~. Sulliv~n~ ~ke Board requests would no% b~ financially beneficial ~o ~e County. the rezonin~ request. item could be fam~-%racke~, advertised and oonsidered Dy both the Planning Co~ig~ion and Board simultaneously and that with ~rocedures be deferred until April 12, 1989~ to permit staff Ayes: Mr_ Applega~e~ Mr. Cuxrln, Nr. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. 11,~, R~SOLUTIO~ CONC~R~IN~ k~ROvAL OF E~SID~NTIAL REZONING On motion of Mr. ~ulliv~n, seconded by Mr. Denial, the ~oar~ adopted the relieving re~olutton: W~EREAS, Chesterfield County has b~n experiencing high rate~ of residential growth for over a decade; and WS~P~AS, residential growth places extraordinary d~mands on the ~elivery of necessary public services~ and 89-245 WHEREAS, state law currently imposes severe restrictions on the ability of the County to insure that the cost of residential development is fairly borne by the development community rather than by County funds; and WHEREAS, the County can no longer approve new residential development, under the present legal restrictions, without adversely affecting the overall financial stability, welfare and safety of County citisens; and WHEREAS, in recognition of these legal ~estrictions, the General Assembly has enacted legislation, effective July 1, 1989, which will permit the County to accept monetary proffers from developers seeking rezoning and to create transportation districts to fund necessary road improvements; and WHEREAS, the Hoard of Supervisors has consldersd, and has forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation, a proposed plan addressing the disposal of wastewater in residential developments~ and W~HR=AS, in order to fulfill its obligation to promote orderly land use planning and to protect the financial stability, welfare and safety of County citizens, the Board must adopt all necessary ordinances and policies pursuant to the new legislation and must further consider the issue of wastewater disposal in residential zones before the Board can reasonably consider and approve new residential development. NOW, THEREFOP~, BE IT ~SOLVED, by the Hoard of Supervisors of Chesterfield County that, from this date, the Board will not approve any requests for residential rezoning until the Board has taken all necessary action to adopt and implement a proffer system pursuant to the new legislation adopted by the General Assembly and has completed its consideration of the proposed wastewater disposal plan. This resolution shall apply to all residential r~zoning requests except those for which a recommendation has already been made by the Planning Commission. There was discussion regarding the effective date of new legislation adopted by the General Assembly, the ramifications of implementation of said legislation, appropriate advertisement and setting of public hearing dates, the preclusion of any applicant meeting with Planning staff to file an application and being scheduled on the Planning Commission's docket, the inclusion of a date for legal limitations for the subject resolution, amendment of the proposed resolution to include the date of September 1, 1989 as the "sunset" clause if the Board were to not adopt a proffer ordinance; etc. Mr. Sullivan amended his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, as follows: WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has been experiencing high rates of residential growth for over a decade; and W~R~AS, residential growth places extraordinary demands on the delivery of necessary public services; and WHeReAS, state law currently imposes severe restrictions on the ability of the County to insure that the cost of residential development is fairly borne by the development community rather than by County ~unds; and WHEREAS, the County can no longer approve new residential development, under the present legal restrictions, without adversely affecting the overall finanolal stability, welfare and safety of County citizens; and 89-246 General Assembly has enacted legi~iation, effec~iv~ July 1, 1989, which will permit the County ko accept ~one~ary proffers forwarded ~o the Planning Commlasloa for its consideration and recommendation, a proposed plan addres$inq the di~po~at of waatewater in residential developments; and WNEREAS, in order to fulfill its obliqation to promote s~ahility, welfare and safety of County cltisenE, the Board must adopt all necessary ordinances an~ policies pursuant to Hoard will not approve any requests for residential resorting adopted by the General Assembly and has completed its ra~olution ~hall apply to alt ~e~i~ential resorting requests except those for which a recommendation ha~ already bean made its own force if the Board take~ no action to Adopt a proflez ordinance by September 1, 19~9. Ayes: Mr. Apple~ate, Mr. Currln, ~r. Daniel and Mr. Sullivan. @~ motion ~f ~r. Daniel, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board ~ent into B~cutive Session for consultation with legal counsel regarding BBC Brown Boveri, Ins. ver~ue the County of Chesterfield, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a} (6) of the Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, aa amended. Ayes: Mr. Applegute, Mr. Cur~in, Mr. Daniel and Mr. s~llivan. Reconvening: 12. AI)JO~ On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the adjourned at 6:55 p.m. until lO:00 a.m. on March 29~ Ayes: Mr. App~eqate, Mr. Currln,. ~r. ~aniel and Mr. Sullivan. Absent: Mr. County Admini~ 89-247