Loading...
01-10-90 Minutes10, 1990 Su~rvieors in Att~nd~eee Mr. C. F. C~rrin~ Jr., Chairman Mr. M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mr. Harry ~. Daniel Mr. Jesse J. Mayas Mr. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Ms. ~nny Davis, Asst. to Ce. Admin. Mrs, Doris DeHart, Asst- Co. Admin., Legis. ~vcs. and I~tergovern. Affairu Clerk to the Board Chief gobez~ Eanes, Fire D~Dartment Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. ~illlam H. Dir., Gen. Services Dir. of Planning Ms. Mary Lon Lylm, D~r. of Accounting Mr. Robert Masde~, Deputy CO. Admin.; ~uman ~ervieee ~r. Richard McElfish, Dir. of ~nv. Eng. Mrs. M, Arllne McGuire, Treasurer's Office Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. o~ ~ews/Info, Services col. Joseph Pittman, Chief of Police ~r. Riuhar~ Sale, Development Mr. Jay Ste<[mai~r, ~r. R. D. Stith, Jr., Dir. of Par~s & Rec. Mr. David W~lchons, Dir. o~ Utilities Hr. Frederick Willis, Dir. of H~an Mr. Ramsay called the regularly schsduled meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. (EST}. 1. I~OCATION Mr. Ramsay introduced Dr. Jame~ MoKin~etl~ Pastor of chesterfield Church of =he ~re%hren, who gave the invocation. 2. PLEDGE OF ~LL~IANCE TO '£~ FLAG OF 'r~ UNITED STATES OF Mr. Applegate led tha Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the united States Of America. 90-1 1/10/g0 3.A. ~L~CTION OF CHAIRF~.N AND VICE C~AIRMAN Mr. Ramsay stated the ~irst or~sr of bu~ine~ would be the election of Chairman. Mn. Daniel stated he felt that fox the previous two year~ the Board had festere~ ohang~ within the County which had improved its quality image and hoped such ~ffo~ts would continue. He stated he had discussed the Chairmanship with Mr. Cnrr~n an~ after discussion with him felt he could support him in that position and pledged his support for his nomination. Mr. May~ expressed appreciation for Mr. £urrin's dis=nssien with him cf his desire to be elected Chairman of the Board; stated many of hi~ con~titnent~ had approached hi~ with questions regarding the criteria by which the selection cf lead,rs is determined annually, the qualifications, etc., and etate~ he felt the constituency is snti~led to know what the basis is upon which the Board makes itu ~electiOn5 and that euoh information S~ould bm made a part of the record. ~r. Daniel nominated Mr. currin for chairman for I990. Applegate seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations for Chairman. ~r. Applegate made a motion~ seconded by Mr. Sullivan, that nominations b~ Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin was elected Chairman, Mr. Currin expressed appreciation %o the Board for the hoper and trust bestowed upon him: stated that he had only considered the Chairmanship after being approached by other Board members to do ~o; ~tat~d h~ felt the pr~vio~ y~ar had ~en very productive but anticipated the upcoming year would bring forth more ha~ony and cohesive efforts; and indicated, as one of his ~irst actions as chai~an, he intended to establish a recycling cedi%tee to study the issue and establish Chesterfield County recycling. Mr. Currin stated nominations were open for Vice Chairman. Mr. Daniel nominated Mr. Sullivan a~ Vice Chairman for I990. Vote: Unanimous It ~as no%ed a motion closing nominations had not been made. Mr. Currin apologized ior closing nomination~ and opened the floor for any other nominations. There being no ~urther nominations, it was o~ motion of Mr. Applegatu, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, re~olv%d that nomination~ b~ On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board made the following appoint~ent~ and/or r~affirmation~ of Capita! Area Training ~r. Currin (Unspecified tezm) ~aymont Mr. Sullivan (Unspecified t~rm an~ ne~d~ Board member} ABIDCO Hr. ~aye~ (Board reDre~entative) {9/90) ~r. Curxin (~usinessman r~pr~sentative) Nr. Apple~ate, ~r. Deniel and Mr. Sntliv&n ~. La~y Belch~ (~lanniag Coi~mission), Mr. Ray (citizen) and Mr, Dick Sale (~l~ernat~) i12/31/91) Mr. Mayes (Unspecified Mr. Applegate and Mr. Currin (Unspecified term} ~r. curxin, ~r. ~ayes, ~r. ~amsey {unspecified ~r. ~ayes (Unspeclfie~ Mr. Currin {6/30/92) Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate Er. John McCracken (Voting)~ Mr. Dick ~al~ (Alternate) and Mr. Jim Banks (Alternate] (Unspecified term) Crater Plamn~ Er. Mayes, Mr. Currln and ~r. Willie J. Bradley (12/31/91) Mr. Dick Sale {Alternate) Chairman and County Administrator {UnspeQifie~ term) ~C ~eratinq C~itt~ Mr. Dodd ~t ~ A~it ~r. ~ayes and ~r. Sullivan (Unspecified Study for L~e Mr. Dani%t and Mr. Sultivan (Un~pecifisd te~) Capital Region Alert Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel [4/30/92) ~Dppl_~d Lj%~gA.g~ittee - Budget Mr. Currin and Mr. Sullivan (Unspscified t~rm) ~r. ~ayes an~ ~r. Sullivan (Unspecified Mr. Mayes (Unspecified term) Mr. Currin and Mr. Mayes (Unspecified ~r. ~ayes (U~p~cifie~ ~erm) Mr. S~llivan (Unspecified te~) ' Mr. Sullivan and Mr. ~ayee (Unspecified term~ appointment of Mr. Applegste to serve on the Metropolitan ~conomic Development Council (M~DC). Mr. Daniel requested tha~ Mr. Currin reconsider his appointment to MEDC and permit him to he would pledge no= to seek reappolntment next year. Mr. Mayas a~pointmen~s. ~s. eulliva~ stated he did not support One h~ did support the prerogative of the Chairman to appoint the respect ~o not supporting ode individual v~r~u~ another ~or a committee appointment and that ha did ~uppor~ the prerogative of the chairman to appoint the individual h~ deemed appropriate appointments muuh consideration, that ke was attempting to be that the Chairmanship was rote=ed an~ no matter who was appointed, the Chairmanship would b~ held by the Chesterfield appointee. The vote was called on the appointment o~' Mr. Daniel to the The vote was called' on the appointment of Mr. Applegate to th, Metropolitan Economic Develo~ent Council. Nays: Mr. Daniel and Mx. ~ay~s. Mr. Sullivan ma~e a moUlon to de,er consideration of the until J~nuary 24, t990. When a~k~d, Mr. Micas stnte~ ~r. Daniel ~ould continue =o s=rve that perhaps the matter could be brought back during the evening session of the m~tlng i~ time p~rmitte4. Mr. b~n'i~'l (Appoi'n~ed by VACO) '-- Effective Government Policy - Mr. Daniel Transportation - Mr. Naye$ Education Policy Ccmmitte~ ~ M~. Sullivan Nr. Daniel (Appointed by private greed as citizen representa- Mr. Mayas (Appointed by Museum Committee) (Unspecified Mr. Currin (Board representative} (12/31/90) and Mr. Dodd (citizen) (12/31/92) [Both appointed by ~enricus Foundation) ~r. Daniel stated he wished the record to reflect that he had resigned from the Carpenter Center Board due ~o competitiveness for hi~ ti~e. 3.C. SET DATES OF R~ULAR ME,TING8 FOE 1990 m~Bing da~s of March ~, 1990, at 12:99 Noon and April 4, public hea~ing oD April 4, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the BeRrd set 9:00 a.m. of ~ach month fur Board meeting~, with the esception fha fourth Wednesday at 9:00 a.m.' and December when only one meeting will be scheduled for the second Wednesday at a.m., as follows: January !0, 1990 a~ 9=00 a.m. January 2~, 1990 'aa 9:00 February 14, 1990 at 7~00 p.m. February 28~ 1990 at 9:00 ~arch 14, 1990 at 7~00 March 28, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. A~ril 1t, 1990 at 7:00 April 25, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. May 9, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. May ~S, t990 at 9:00 June 13, 1990 at 7=00 p.m. June ~7, 1990 ~t 9:00 a.m. July 25, 1990 at 9~00 Work Session (July-August} August 22, 1990 at 9:90 a.m. Septe~er 12~ I990 ut 7:00 p.m. Septem~e~ 26, 1990 ac 9:00 a.m. october 10~ 1990 at 7:00 October 24, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. November 14, 1990 at 7:0~ p.m. November 28, 1990 at 9~00 December 12, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. And fur=her, the Beard deferred consideration for ~ttinq the date for a public hearing ~o consider candidates for the ~idlothian District School Board Representative until January 24, 1990 at which time a recommended dale would be brought forth to the Boa~d by t~e Diutrict Supervisor, we~ueeday of each month at 2:00 p.m., or as neo~ary~ with a dacisions/ismues that must be determined by the Board to be provided by the County Aclministrator. 3.D. CO~SIDEP~ATION OF ADOPTION OF 1990 PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCT CE MEETINGS OF T~E BOARD OP 8UB~EVISON$ On motion of Mr. May~g, ~eoon0ed by ~r. Sullivan, the ~oar8 adopted the 1990 Procedures for Conduct o~ Meeting~ Of ~he Board of 2up~rvi~or~, as ~en~e~. (A copy of which i~ filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) 90-5 1/lO/9o On motion of Mr. $~llivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the ~carg approved ~he minutes of Deoemb~ 13, 19~9, as submitted. VOte: Unanimous 5. COUNT~ADMINIS~RATOR'S Rt. ~amvey welcomed Mr. William Howell, Director of General Service~ upon his return ~rom a recen~ illness, Mr. Howell introduced Nr. Tom Speace, County Fleet Manager, who was recently awsrde~ the distinction of Certified AutOmotive Fleet manager by The Wharton School of Bn~ine~ in e~njunction wi<h tk~ University of Pennsylvania. Ha noted attainment of such oxp!rience and that Mr. spen~e is one 0f 47 fleet manageas ~n the United 5~atea and Canada %o hav~ attained such distinction. Duo to ~-he anticipated length of the mee:ing~ the Board generally agreed te dispense with Board Conunlttee Reports at this time. 0n me,ion of ~r. ~utlivan, seconded by ~r. Applegate, the Board received a revi~ed version of Item 11.C., Public ~aring to Consider %ha ~nac~eut, Purcuant to Section 15.I-239~ Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~nded, of an ordinanu~ Entitled "An ordinance to Establish the R~ut~ 10 Sewer Assessment District, to Construct certain Sewerage Facilities Therein, and to Impose Certain Taxes or Assessm~nt~ Upon the Owners of Property Locate~ Therein" and Set Public Hearing Date ~o Authorize Issuance of Revenue Bonds and to Appropriate Bond Proceeds and to Approve Interim Loan from Sewer Fund ~alance~ added Item 12.F.6., John nolle ~arkway Public ~earing Statement7 deferred until 7:00 p.m. should %he Board still b~ in s=usion, 12,G.i.R.~ Publlu Rearing ~o Con~id~r the Conveyance Right-of-Way Owned by the County Along Rou~e I0 to the Virginia DeFerment of Transportation and %~em 12.¢.1.b., Public Hearing To Con~ider the Conveyance of o Variable Width Right-of-Way for the Relocation of a Per%ion of Lori Roa~ tO the Department of Tran~portatlon; added Item 12~L., Resolution Reaffirming the County's Pogiticn on the Constru=~ion o~ a Transmission Line from the Midlothian Substation 50 the Trabne SubstatiOn by Virginia Electric an~ Power Company to be heard after Item l~.F.6.; moved out of s~mnc% Item ll.A., Public Hearin~ To Consider the Conveyance o~ Alt thak Certai~ Traot ~arcel cf Land Located on Reycan Road in th% Bale Magisterial District, Chest~rfi~Id County, Virginia, containin~ 6,854 Acres, More or Less, a~ ghown on a Preliminary Sit~ DevelopmMnt Plan Dated tl-3-89, by Draper Aden Associates to Alfit ~eric~, a~ ~ended. CERTAIM TRACT OR PARC=L OF LAND LOCATED ON R~YCAN ROAD THE DA~E ~ikGISTERIAL D!STRICT~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, CONTAINING 6.054 ACRES, NOR~ OR LESS, AS SHOWN ON A PRELIMINARY SITE DEVELO~M~ET PLAN DATED 1I-3-89, BY DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES TO ALTIT AMERICA Mr. Micas ~tated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance cf a 6.054 + ucr~ tract of land on Reycan Road at the kirport Industrial P~rk to Alfit America. Mr. Robert L. Bolbeare, representing Alfit America, presented a brief summary of the facility's pla~s for the manufacturing and assembly plant with business office and storage facilities which intend~ to produce mechanical drawer runners. No One came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. Mr. Daniel noted this company was one of many which th~ County contacted during its European economic development trip and he f~l~ tha~ ha~ not a personal contaut been established very early with this firm the County would not hav~ been successful in having th~m locate iD %he County. On mO%iOn of Mr. Applega=e, sesonded by ~r. Mayes, the Board approved the oonveyan~ of a 6.054 acre pare~l of land on of $~5~000.00 per acre, to Alflt America, a subsidiary of Alfit $chubladen-fuhrungen Gm.b.a., Gctsls, Austria and authorized the Chairman of the Board and Couuty Administrator to execute all necessary documenta to complete said conveyance. (A copy of ~aid plat is iiled with the papers of this Board.~ Vote: Unanimou~ Mr. Sullivan noted that at a recent real estate show a= which it was indicated that industrial property, such as that being discussed, currently has a market value of $6~,000.00 per acre in the Richmond metropolitan area, ntat~d he fel~ the county was below the current market range and asked tha~ :he Ada~inlstratlon review the County's current purchase prices of property at the Airport Industrial Park. ~r. Currin concurred but stated that h~ ~nderstood the current COUnty prices are ~uch because the Economic Development Department is attempting to bring in a more substantial tax base to the County. Mr. Currln requested the rules be suspended to add an item to the agenda. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by MM. Sullivan, the Board ~uspended it~ rules bo add Item ~.E., ~esolution Recognizing Mr. Geoffrey ~. Applegatc, ChaizT~an, Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. Vote= Unan/r~uu$ M. RESOLUTION8 ~ SPECI~L ~COGNITIONS 8.E. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MRi GEOFFR~¥ E. APPLEGATE, C~AIRMA~, CHeSTeRFIeLD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion of Mr. Currin, ~eeonded hy Mr. Sullivan~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Geoffrey N. Appl~gate, Supervisor representing Clover ~ill District, served as Chairman cf the Board of Supervisors in 19R8 and 1~89~ demonstrated ex,platy leader- ship, courage and insight in dealing with issue~ of growth facing the County, was responsive to the needs of its citizen~ while maintaining the quality of life at an ~COnOmicalty acceptable level and dmdleation of the highest caliber to promoting Chemterfietd as a progres~iv~ and well managed 90-7 1/10/90 governmental entity throuqhout the Reqion, State and Nation; and WSE~L~A~, Mr. Applegate's dependability, integrity and expertise have been recognized not only ~y thc ~oard, the Administration and County residents but also Stats and National official~, through his active involvement and coa~itment to such groups ag the Capital Re,ion Airport Commission, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission, the Courts Committee and the Virginia Municipal League Legislative Committee, ae ~{ell as others; and during this time he has promoted regional cooperation us evidenced by the Water Agreement and the Library ExpanSiOn Agreement with the City of Richmond, the Regional Public Safety Traininq Center and others; and W~EREAS, Under Mr. A~lega~e's Chairmanship, the County confronted challenges and demand~ placed upon it by obtaining ~hs highest municipal bond rating of AAa f~om Moody's ~atlng Service and appointed th~ Futures Co~iEtee; the implementation of quality standards for debris landfil!s--tke £i~sb locality to have such iD Uirginia; initiated comprehensive overhaul of the c0~e~cial, office an~ industrial sections of ~he Zoning Ordinane~ d~Ei~ned to establish quality ~nifo~ ~tandards; initialed neighborhood level plannin~ efforts the construction of Route 288 and his economic initiatives resulted i~ ~any new bu~fn~ lccatlng in tho County. Japanese b~sf~esse~ brought three new firm~ to the County wi~h an announced combined investment of $40,00S,000 and 305 jeb~. The Eurupean ma~ketinq effort brought results as well as a $134,000,000 electric Go-ggn~ration power station; th~ e~abli~hmant of the first local Uroup home in the the DARE Program at %ha School System and initiated comprehensive study of drug abuse services, publi~ and private, resource~ in the fight against d~gs~ led a delegatiQn of local elected officials and ~enrlcus Foundation members to ~he White ~ou~e for ceremonies he,ted by President George x~uognizi~g s~ch creative progz~ a~ part of the Tak~ Pride i~ ~erica Program; and most importantly, ~he successful passage of ~h~ ~gS~ Bond R~f~r~nd~ Projec~, totalling NOW, TH~FO~ BE IT ~SOLVED, that the the untiring efforts au~ co~ifmsnt of ~xcellence displayed ~y its 1988-89 Chateau who al~o ~erved in this capacity as the fir~= Chairman under the new Co~nty Charter. AND, ~ IT FURTEER ~SOLVED, that the ~oard of does hereby p~esent G~offrey ~. Applegate with a plaque inscribed a~ follows: GEOFFREY ~nn BOARD OF SUPERV~SO~ CMESTERFIELD COUMT~ JANUARY, 19~ TO DECEMBER, 1989 Abstention: Mr. M~. Currin presented the executed resolution, an engraved plaque an~ pen to ~r. kpplegate and co--ended him for his outstanding service to the County. Mr. Applegate expressed his appreciation for the cooperation an~ uptlrlng ~fert~ of the County's professional staff wi~h whom he had worked over th~ in the resolution. MR. MICHAEL J. KELLY. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COM~IMMION On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted~ WEER~AS, Mr. Michael J. Kelly has served as a member of the Chesterfield County Planning Commission from 1988 to December 31, 1959; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kelly served on the Corm~ission during a time of ever increasing citizen participatiou in the development mitigate the impacts ~rom ~evelopment; and ex-officio member of the aidlothian Village and Courthouse Road W~ER~AS, The Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors and Kelly's contrfbution~ fO the Board; and W~R~S, The ~oard co~end~ Mr. Kelly for ~he ~ime and effort he ~p~nt towards improving %h~ ~ality of life within Ch~rfleld County. appreciation to Mr. Michael J. Kelty for his out,tending doe~ h~reby ~xtend to him its best wishes in his f~ture co--ended him for his untiring efforts and excellent service THOMAS DALE HIGH SC~O©L FOOTH~tL TFA~ UPON ATTAINING ~GIONAL CMAMPIONSEIP On motien of the Board, th~ following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Participation in high scheol ~pOrts has long an integral part of Chesterfield County's educational physical and s~cticnal development ~er ~tudents; and WHEREAS, The 1989 Thomas DaI~ High School Football Team, known as the Themes Dale Knights, achieved first place in Triple A Central District with a 9-1 Sea,on and advanced to become Regional Champions for ~he Central Region; and WHEREAS, The citizens of Chesterfield County oontinue to support our high ~ehoel football t~ams. NOW~ ?~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County ~oard of Supervisors does hereby recognize the Thomas Dale High School Football Team for it~ ou~$~anding tion of Chesterfield County. AND, ~ IT PuRTH=~ ~$OLVED, that the Board of Super- visors, on behalf of the citizenn of Chesterfield County, hereby cor~end the Thomas Dais Knfghts for their splendid continued success. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Currin presented the executa~ resolution te Ceaeh Vic Williams and captains James Dent, Wilt ~ritckard, William outstanding achievement and representation oi the County and recognized Assistant Coaches and other members of the football team who were present. 8.C. MRS. YVETTE B. RIDLEY, COF/~UEITY SERVICES BOARD On motion of the Board, ~he following ra~olutlon was adopted: WHEREASr Mrs. Yvette B. Ridle~ representing the Matoaca NagisteriaI District, has served as a dedicated and faithiul member o~ the Chesterfield Co~t~unity Services Board since her appointment in December, 1992; and WMEBZA$, Mrs. Ridtey has served with distinction as Chairman For two terms dnrin~ her appointment and is no longer eligiDle for reappeinta~ent tQ the Con, unity Services Board; and WHEREA~, Mrs. Eidley has for a number of y~rs been an active volunteer and concerned citizen of Chesterfield County~ serving in various capacities on a n~mber of mental health related boards, co~tsslons and as$oclation~ both local and state-wide; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Ridley is recognized as a prominent co~u~nlty leader and art~eulat~ spokespermon for all ~uman NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that khe Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby expresse~ it~ ~ineere gratitude and appreciation to Mrs. Yvette B. Rfdley for her dedicated commitment and significant contributions in the provision cf quality mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse servlues to the citizens Of Chesterfield County. AND~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolu- tion ~e preeente~ to ~rs. Ridley and that this resolution be gupervi~orz of Chesterfield Ccnnty~ virginia. vote~ Unanimous Mr, Mayas and Mr. Applegat~ presented the executed re~olution to Mrs. Ridley, comm~nded hut for her d~dicated ~ervice and c0mmicment to the County and recognized family members who were B.P. WR. OLIVER C. GPJ%V~, JR, UPON E~$ RETIREMENT on motion of th~ Board~ th~ follominq resolution wa~ adopted: WHEREAS, Olive~ C. Grav~ Jr. began his la~ enforcement career in 1956 as a charter member of chesterfieid County's Civil Defense; and W~EREA~, In 1967, thi~ organization became Chesterfield County Special Pollee Fore~ and through his commitment to the principal~ of th~ Force, hi~ dedication to citizen~ of Chester- ~ield County and his understandin~ o~ the needs o~ the law enforcement community, Oliver C. Graves, Jr. has ri~en to the ranks of Lieutenant; and served to protect the Chesterfield County Board of Supervigor~, Administrative s~aff and citizens during the Board of Super- visors meetings through his unwavering diligence and loyalty to Chesterfield County's governing body and its legislative WREREAS~ On January 23, retire as a velunteer from Police Force. NOW, TE~P~FOR~ B~ IT 1990, Oliver C. Gr~ves, Jr. will the Chesterfield County Sp%cial RgSOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of supervisors recognizes Oliver C. Graves, Jr. for his thirty-three years of outuUanding service ~o his County~ his co,unity, end his fellow officers. AND, BE IT FURTHER P~SOLUED, that the Chesterfield County Bo~rd of Supervi~or~ recognizes the ~elflesa an~ generou~ contribution~ of ti~e~ energy and service that Oliver C. Graves, Jr. has made throughou~ the years and that he continues to ~et forth the example that will serve as a challenge for all of us. Mr. Currin ~tated the execufed resolution would he presented to Mr. Graves a~ a retirement dinner in his honer on January 23, 1990. 9. HKARIN~OF CITIZENS ON ~NSC~.~,D~ATT~$ OR CL~tTMS Ther~ were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or claims. 10. DEFERRED 10.A. JOHNSON*S CREEK DRAINAGE DIgTRICT Mr. Currin disclosed that he OWns property in th~ Creek Drainage B~sin, declared a conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest ~ct relative to Items 10.A., $ohnson?e Creek Drainage District, and 10.B., Approval o9 Financing for the Johnson's Creek Drainage Project and Setting a Public Hearing Date to Impose a Drainage Service District on e Portio~ of the JOhnson's Creek Development District, and excused himself from the meetiny. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred consideration of the Johnson Creak Drainage District pending a meeting with citizens affected by the proposed Di~rict. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. 10.B. APPROVAL O~ FINANCING FOE THE JOHNSON'S CREEK DRAINAGE PROJECT AND SBTTING A PUBLIC HEARING DAT~ TO I~PQSE A DRAINAGE SERVICE DISTRICT ON A PORTION OF TMB JOHNSON~S CF~EK DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT On motion of Mr. Daniel, secoDded by Mr, Applegate, the Board deferred consideration of approval of financinq for the Johnson's Creek Drainage Project and setting of a public hearing date to impo~e a Drainage Service District on a portion 90-11 1/10/90 Cf the Johnson's Creek Development District, pendin~ a meeting with ~itizsns affected by the ~roposed District. Ayssz Mr. sullivan, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. Mr. Applegate suggested that, since Mr. Cnrrin has a conflict of interest regarding both Johnson's Creek Drainage Di~trick and Approval of Financing for the Johnson's Creek Drainage Project and Setting of a Public Hearing Date to Impose a Drainage Service District on a Portion of the Johnson's Creek Development District, tha~ Mr. Sale schedule a meeting with Mr. Sullivan and those affected by the proposed District to obtain thu necessary information/input. 10.C. AUgHORIZATIQ~ TO ACQuIR/~ ADDITIONAL PRQP~RT~ FOR ~ATOACk ~ARK Mr. Masde~ stated at it~ Nove_mber 22, 1989 meeting %he Beard deferred consideration of the request for authorization to acquire additional property for Matoaca Park in order for staff to reevaluate information provided relative to the monetary differences in th~ market valu~ requested by the property owner versus the appraised value by the County and an independent appraiser. B~ stated staff has Completed that process and is now recont~ending the amount of $65,916 he expended for the property as said price is considered equitable aAd ia available ~rom the 1988 Parka Improvement Bond Program funding. Questions and discussion ensued relative to the s~atus of requested information regarding the price per acre being in excess cf the appraised price; the o~iqinal appraisal being on the entire tract as opposed to only the acquisition of ecrus needed fur future expansion cf Mutoaca Park: negotiation Mr. ~ullivan stated he was neither in favor of nor a~ainst the fiscal responsibility to its citizens ~or the expenditure cf thought there had been general agreement among the Board for the acquisition of the additional property; that the Board had which had keen accomplished; and thai he felt the Board shoal4 time during the meeting so that the requested iDfo~etlen could be provided. On motion of Mr. ApDisqate, seconded by M~. Sullivan, the Board approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of street lights at the intersection of N. Arch Roe~ an~ Re,bridge RQ~, Clover ~ill Di~triet_ Vote: Unanimous 10.E. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion of Mr. Applegats, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board deferred until March 14, 1990, approval of street light in~talt~tion cost eppreval~ for th~ following locations in the Clover Bill District: 90-t2 Adkins Rca0 and Ronaldton Road, $841.00; Cherylann Road and Francil Drivm, $1,195.DD; 3, Francil Drive and Kayvee Road, $2,905.00; and 4. Cherylann Eoad an~ Vickilee Road, $712.60. Vote: Unanimous 10,F. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC N~ARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15.1 UP THE COD~ 0r T~ COUNTY 0E C~ST~R- FIELD, 1978, AS A~ENDED~ BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15.1-32 R~LATTNG TO THE PROHIBITION OF ~0LkCITATZQN FOg PNQSTITU- TION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board adopted tbs following ordinance on an emergency basis and Set the date c~ February 14, 19~0~ at 7:00 p.m., for a public hearing to oensids~ adoption of said ordinanoo o~ a permanent AN O~DINA~CET0~q~DCHA~R 15.1 ~ ~ED, BY ~DIN~ A ~ S~CTION 15.1-]2 ~TING T0 T~ PROH~TIOR OF SOLICITATI~ FOR P~STI~ION BE IT ORDAINED by ~he BOar~ of Supervi~or~ of ch~terfiel~ County that ~e Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as ~ended, is amended by adding a new S~ction ~.1-31 as fOllQWS: Sec. t5.1-31. Solicitation for Prostitution, etc~ It shall be nnlawfnl for any person, within th~ limits cf the County, to solicit another by word, sign or ge~tu~e~ to tam, nit any act which is lewd, lageiviou$~ Or in,scent, or ~e solicit for the purpose of prostitution. Any person, upon conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a class one misdemeanor. t8.2-346. VOte: Unanimnus Mr. Daniel referenced see Code of Virginia ~ec=ion action taken b~ the City of R~chmond to control such illegal acti¥i~ies and requested that information be provided to the Board. PUBLIC HEkRIN~S (coatin~ed) public hearing to consider amandments to th~ County Charter. ~e added tha=, in conversations with Delegate Watkins, he has indicated that he do~s not support Item 9 as revi~d r~lating ~o refunds for personal property taxes and prefers tn intredue~ the original proposal on refunds submitted by th~ Traasuxe~. Ee stated, in addition, Senator Russell has requested that tho Board hold a public hearing on January ~4, 1990 to consider a Charter a~endment authorizing the Beard to impo~e an impact fee for education and road capital is%provements subject to a $1.00 cap. ~e stated that, although Charter amundmxnt biI]s must be introduced on January 1~, 1990, a public hearing scheduled for January 24, 1990 would be prior to active ~ensideration of an impact fee chaxter amendment by the General Assembly. 90-I3 1110/90 Mr. Currin 5ugqested the Board consider approval of the Charter amon~tments, excluding impact foes. There being no one to speak in favor of or against the proposed ~endm~nts, the public hearing was closed. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved th~ Charter am~ndment~ as follow~ o o o Section 2.5. Livestock and poultr¥ claims. The County shale n~ be required to compensate t_he owner of liYustock or poultry which are ki'll~d by a dog, notwithstanding the prev~sions of Cestion 3.1-796.11~, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or any similar statute. Section 6.6. Department of budget and management and de~arfnnent o~ accounting. director of budget and management and the director c~ accounting shall collectively be responsible for carrying out the fiscal a~ financial affairs of the county ae defined by the board of Supervisors and the Code of Virginia. The treasurer shall be %he c~s~odian of all public moneys o~ the county and shall have such powers and duties as are provided by She Censeieueion and general law, ~e shall pezform such other duties as m~y be assigned by th~ board not inconsistent with his responsibilities under tho Constitu:ion and g~noral laws of th~ Commonwealth. The commissioner Of revenue shall per£Orm s~eh d~ties regarding the a~ses~ment of property and licensee and collection of oth~r tuxes as provided by the Constitution and ~eneral laws of the Commonwealth. He shall psr~orm such duties as m~y be assigne~ by the boar~ not incousistent with his responsibilities under the Constitution and general laws of budgeting and financial responsibilities as are required by code of =he Coun=y of Chesterfield, ~978, as amended, and am directed by the county administrato~ sc long as such responsibilities are not in conflic~ wi~h general l~w. · he director of accounting shall perform such aceouDting and financial responsibilities as are required by tho Code of th~ County of Chesterfield, 1978, au amended and as directed by the cOUnty administ~ator~ So long a~ ~ueh ~e~pon~ibilities are not in conflict with general law, Th8 county treasurer, commissioner of rev~nns, director of budget and management and the director of accounting shall meet periodically but not less than four times a year to coordinate the fiDan¢ial needs of the county and each such officer shall cooperate f~lly with the other fiscal o~ficers to efficiently and effectively perform the duties placed on such officer. Bection 6~7. Department of police. The police d~partment shall be compo~ of a chief of police and such officers, patrolmen and other employees as the board of s~pervisors may determine. Th~ powers and duties set forth in Section I5.1-t$8 of the Code of Virginia shall apply to the police force. The chief o£ police shall be rssp0nsibla fo/ the i~ediats direction and control of the department. The chief shall solely, within his discretion and subject to the other provisions hereinr sel~ct~ employ, promote, and t~zminats such cf£icers, patrolmen and employees. ~e may adopt rules and regulations for the police department in the same manner as rules and regulations are adopted for other departments. The Board being poll~, the note was as follows: ~r. Daniel Aye. Mr. Mayas Mr. Appleqa%e Aye. Mr. Sullivan Aye. Mr. Currin Aye. (It is noted a copy of said Charter amendments is the papers of this filed with There was brief discussion relative to the 1990 Legislative Program regarding Section III~ Finance and Taxation, Item 9., Amend Section 58.1-3516 to provide that when a per,on move~ withi~ the Commonwealth to a prere~in~ locality and t~ades for another vehicle during the same tax year, ta~s paid to the nonprorating locality shall be credited against the assessmen~ of the new vehicle by the prorating locality; that the revision was initiated in order to eliminate cumbersome paperwork; etc. On motion of Mr. Snlti~an, YeccDded by ~r. Daniel, the Board agreed that those it, s, as amended~ Were specifically agreed upon by the Board and readcpted as the 1990 Legislative Program to be presented to the Gene~at Assembly for approval eo include the following: "A~nd Section ~.1-~516 to provide the: when a p~fson mo~es within %he Co~onwsalth to a prorating locality and trades for another vehisle during the same tax year, taxes paid to ~he n~nprorating locallty 8hall be oredits~ against the assessment of the new vehicle by the prorating locality." Vote; Unanimous Disuussion ensued relative to Senator Russell's request thst the Board conduct ~ public hearing on January 24, i990 to consider a Charter amendment authorizing the Board to impose an impact fee for education and road capital improvements subject Mr. Sullivan noted that, at the time the Board discussed impact fees during its ~ecember 13, 1999 ~eeting, it was his understanding that there was somewha{ ~¢neral ~greem~nt that th~ Board had dae~d~d to ~tili~e ~ha general law process ~cr impact ~e~s becaus~ it woul~ ~equire only a majority vote for approval a$ Opposed to a Char~er a~endmmnt which requires a two/thirds vote. ~e ~tatedr hOWever, $~nator Russell is off t-he opinion that the ~oard should utilize the Charter amendment process through the p%Lblic hearing process on January 24, 1990 with which he concurred and ad, ed that he felt Delegate Watkins' request to support transfer tax should al~o be Nr. Sullivan ~ade a ~otion to ~et the date of January 24, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to s0nsider a Charter amendment authorizing th~ Board to impose an impact fee for education and road capita/ improvements subject to a $1.00 cap; and f~rther~ that the date of January 24, 1990, at 9:08 be set for a public hearing to consider transfer fees. Mr, Daniel stated he had discussed this matter wi~h Senator Russell and had be~n advised ~hat each item could ~e ~dverti~e~ for the same date and hims but should be considere~ Separately and that the broadest form of language as possible should be u~ed to allow total flexibility. He suggested that the advertisement should state that "a public hearing has been scheduled on January 24, 1990, at 9~00 a.m., to consider Charter amendment authorizing the Board to impos~ an impact fee" and then after public input mere definitive Ianquage could be added, sr. App!egate ezpressed concern that no definitive language wa~ a~ailable for the Board to review and stated he had understood the motion to relate to the use of impact fees for education end road capital improvements. Mr. Sullivan amended hi~ motion to sat the date of January 24, 2990, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to consider a Charter a~ndm~nt authorizing %he Boand to impose impact fee~. Mr. Appleqate ut&tud~ in hi~ discussions with Senator he had un~er~teod that Senator Russell wished to submit the amendment r~qu~mting impact fees for education purposes us he if it were specific to ~ducation. H~ sCa%ed he had conveyed to senator Russell his de, ire =hat impact fees be used for general purposes. ~s expressed concern as to what would happen ho transportation capital needs if the amendment were submitted only for educational purposes. ~r. Hayes stated in his dizcu~ion~ with Senator Russell h~ had under,toed that impact fees were to be used to pay for n~w growth. Mr. Sullivan stated he felt that, as Mr. Daniel ~ugge~t~d, the language for advertisement of impact fees and transfer taxes needed to be as broad as possible and that any amendments could be added a~ter the public hearing process had been completed. Nr. Sullivan re,tared his motion to set the date of January 24, t990, st 9:00 a,m., for a public hearing to oon~ider a charter amendment authorizing the Board tc impose impact fees. Mr. Daniel seconded the motion. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr, Sullivan, secondeO by Mr. Daniel, the Board set the date of January 24, 1990, at 9:00 a.m., for a public h~arlng %O ~ongider ~mposlng transfer fees. Ayes: Mr. Currin, ar. Sullivan, Mr. Danlel and Mr, ~ayes. ~ays: Mr. A~plegate. II.C. TO CONSIDER THE ENACTMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1~239~ CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950r AS AMENDED, OE AN ORDIWANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE TO EBTA~LIS~ THE ROUTE l0 SEWER A~EESSNN~T BISTRICT~ TO CONSTRUCT CERTAIN SEWERAGE FACILITIES' THEREIN, A~D TO IMPOSE CERTAIN TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS UPON THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED THEREIN" Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board that he owns property that lies within the Route 10 Sewer Assessment District, d~clared a conflict of inter,st pursuant te the Virginia Comp=ehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting, 90-16 1/t0/90 Mr. Parthemos, Assistaat Go~nty Attorney, presented a stunmary of the proposed Route 10 ~ewer As~e~nt District~ indicating that developers are surrently exhibiting an ineneased interest in con~nerclal development for the area of the County a~cng Route 10 from Lewis Road eastward to Ecoff Avenue~ th~ majority of the area is zoned Agrisul~ural (A)~ that in urder adeguately serve the area~ it would he necessary to construct gravity sewer trunk lines and a pump etation~ and if the utility lines were installed, it im reconmended that the sewer pu~p station and gravity sewer lines be financed tArouGh the establishment of a Sewer Assessment District. Mr. George Beadles voiced oDposition to the proposed assessment district being paid for by the County and stated he felt the develoDer ~hculd beer the burden of the expense to provide wastewa~er flow and public sewer. Nr. William R. Warren, representing the Parkland Corporations owners of approximately 31 acres wiabin the proposed District~ stated he only became awar~ of this proposed ordinance just recently and expressed concern that if this ordinance were enacted his company would be required to ~xpend approximately $150,000 plu~ interest over a 10 year period to provide water and sewer facilities to his property for which development is not even being considered at this time. Nr. Daniel stated he d~d not usually vote on a proposal such as this without s~ing a cash flow statement including computed interest and the payback over a certain number of yea~ and ~ngge$%ed th~ matter be deferred until such information was available. Mr. Mayas expressed concern that the same process ~beuld be used for providing public wa:er and sewer for ~ubdivi~ionn as is ~sed for oont~ercial development. There was ~urther discussion a~ to the designation in current plan ~or development in the ~ubj~ct corridor; that if approved~ whether or not sewer for co~rcial use would sized for any residential d~velopment locatmd conti~uou~ tQ appropriate notification to property Oeners within the A~men~ Di~%ric~; the absence of Mr. Warren from any meetings pertaining to ~he establishment of the Diserlct; Mr. Sullivan ~ugges~d consideration of the ordinance establish the Rout~ 10 Se~er Assessment District until a later time during %he meetin~ in order the obtain the information Daniel requested. Mr. Ramsay suggested that ~ce there i~ a property owner that ha~ raised questions regarding the ordinance it may be appropriate to defer the maater for %w~ weeks in order that mtaff meet with him eo $~%i~fy his co~=erns. Mr. Daniel suggested that certified letterm be sent ordinance. On me,ion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes~ the Board continued the public hearing until January 24, 1990, a~ 9;00 a.m., =o Conmider an OrdinanCe to Establish the Ro~te 10 Sewer and to Approv~ the Interim L~n from the S~w~r Fu~d ~alance, that may provide technical financial data for the review: and i~$%~uc~ ~taff to schmdule a meeting with Mr. Warren regarding hi~ ~on~rn~ and to send certified letters all property owners that may be affected by the of the proposed Rout~ 10 Sewer District along Route 10 from Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate, sr. Daniel and Mr. Absent: Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin r~turned %o the meeting. 90-17 1/10/90 NEW Bq3SIN~SS 12.A. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE CREATION OF A RIVER- SIDE ~GIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY There was discussion of %he creation of a Riverside Regional Jell Authority; the State iunding available for the facitity~ ulazification ef the language regarding funds pledged under a Service Agreement; the entering into a Service Agreement prio~ to the issuance cT the ~onds; thc capacity and payment for capacity and how fee~ would b~ paid for its use; that the capital portion of the expenditure be considered in the Capital Improvement Projects as a long-te~l] commitment~ the responsi- bility of the Authority for the total amount of $25Q,QQ0 and ensuring that it is paid to the host locality~ etc. Mr. sullivan stated he felt this concept wa~ an out~tandlng example of regional cooperation for the mutual benefit of those involved in %he project. On motion o~ the Board, the following resolution w~$ adopt~d~ WHeReAS, Preliminary needs assessments prepared by Virginia Department of Corrections recognize a need for additional jail facilities to ~erve the Cities of Colonial Heights, Bopewell and Petersburg and the Counties of Charles City, Ch~eterfield, Prince Geergs and Surry {the "Participating J~risdictions"); and WH~A$, The Participating Jurisdictions formed a Regional Jail Planning committee (the ~'Planning Committee") to study the feasibility of establishing a regional jail facility to meet their collective need for additional jail ~acillties; and WHEREAS, The Planning Co~mittee has r~cemmanded that an independent Authority oompo~ed of one member appointed by the governin~ bodies of each of tho Partiaipatinq Jnrisdictiens be created to construct, own and opQrate a regional ~ail facility of approximately six hundred (600} beds te m~et the collestiYe need uf the Participating Jurisdictions for additional jail facilities. NOW, THEP~EPOP~E, BE IT RESOLVED, by th~ Board of Super~i$or~ of the County of Ches~arfiold~ Virginia, that the Board agrees in principle ~ith the recenkmendetion of the Regional Jail Planning Committee. AND; ~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that ~he ~oard cf Superviscr~ directs that an Act creating a political subdivision of the Com~nonweelth of Virginia tc b~ known aS ~he Aiverside Regional Sail Authority and defining its powers and duties, in ~ub~tantially the sams form as exhibit 1 hereto, be included in the County*s Legislative Packet for 1998; ~.~D, ~ I~ EURTNRR RESOLVED~ that the Board of Supervi~or~ endorses the Biting of a regional jail facility by the Riverside Regional Jail Authority in Prince George County adjacent to th~ Petersburg Federal Correctional Institute on property presently owned by the S~ate of virginia~ A2{D, BE IT ~URT~R k~g0LVED, that the Hoar~ of Supervisors endorses the creation of a park in Prince George ~ounty along the Appomattox River; AND~ B~ IT FURTEER RESOLVED, that the Board of requests tha~ the Virginia Board of Corrections (the "Corrections Board"} approve in concept a regienal jail facility to serve ~he Participating Jurisdictions to be constructed, owned and operated by an independent Authority be known as the Riverside Regional Jail Authority and further that the Corrections Board support reimbursement of the of construction of ~uch facility as provided by State law~ 90-18 1/10/90 contingent ripen approval of the construction plan~ and ~p~cifi~ati~n~ by ~he Cerr~tions ~oard and s~bjeet to review of reimbursement requests nnder the Corrections Board's Vote: Unanimous 12.B. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SB1U68 AND HR2437 ~J~CARD%NG CABLE TELEVISION RATE REGULATION AND PROGRAM CONTROL On motion o~ the Buard, the following resolution wa~ adopted: WHEREAS, On December 13, t989~ the Board of Suparvigofs of Che~terfleld County expressed their unanimous displeasure with the 14 percent rate increase imposed on Chesterfield COunty ~ubscribers by Stor~r Communications; and WNEREAS, The Cab~ Communications ~olicy Act of 1954 eliminated the County's ability to regulate programming and increases an~ service~; and transmission of cable television available through telephone County for cable ~elevision services; and Communications is a non-exclusive franchise whioh permits provide the legi~la~ioD tha~ permits phone companies to provide regulation and programming control ts local government. Supsrvizor~ of Chsst~rfisld COunty that th~ Board, by this resolu=ion, supports the passage of Senate Bill 1868 and House Resolution 2437, and, that auch support be communicated by the 10.C. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIP~ ADDITIONAL PROPERTY FOR ~%~©ACA PARK (continued) Nr. ~asden preeented additional background information relative to the subject parcel the purchas~ price =hree years ago; the recent certified appraisal completed in March, ]989; the original proposal wax ~or 57 acres of a ~ acre parcel and insu~flcient funding which necessitated negotiations to ~alt the additional amount would be permitted by ~h~ Courts for 90-19 1/1~/90 receiving approximately $5,000 p~r acre for oo~%ain portions Of the same property; etc. ~r. Sullivan raised questions relative to the value of the uubject property; the portion of the property under consideratiun ~er purchase by the County; wh~then on not the County is committed eo pnrchssing this property; the current ~oning on the subject property; etc. Mr. Mayas stated he felt staff had prov±de~ the information necessary and that the purchase price appears te bs fair and equitable, On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board contract for the purchase of & 13.73 ac~e parcel of land of additional property for future expansion of zatoaoa Park from Mr. Carroll Poster in the amonnf of $65,916 with fund~ to be expended from the 19~8 Parks Bond Improvement Program; authorized the County Administrator to accept, on behalf of the board, a deed of conveyance for said parcel; and authorized the County Administrator to execute any other necessary clo~ing ~ocuments, subject to approval as to form by the County Attorney. Mr. Sullivan stated h~ was not convinced, per the information presented, that the acquisition of ~his property was equitable but the principle is important as tho Board has a fiscal responsibility to the citizens c~ the County; the price being paid for the subject property is not a responsible ao~ and h~ would not support the motion. Mr. Daniel stated he felt that since this was a bond referendum expanded and there appeared to be no beater alternatives. Ayes: Mr. Currin, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Nays: Mr. sullivan. Mr, Cu~rin s{a{ed he felt a work session on the full scope of the Park System would be beneficial to the Board and requested ~ha~ $~aff schedule same a% an appropriate future date. 12.C. AI~ARD OF CONTRACT FOR ARCHITECtURaL SERVICRS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY ACADEMIC B~ILDING On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board ~war~e~ e contract f~r architecture! and engineering services to the Moeeley Group for the design of the Public Safety Academic Building, for use by the Police, Fire and Sheriff's Departments, in an amount not to exceed $558,000 ~hioh funding Vote: Unanin%ouu 12.D. APPOiNtmENTS 12.D.1. JA~ES RIVER CERTIFIED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION On motion of Mr. Apple~ate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board suspended its rules to a~ow ~im~ltaneous nomination/appointment cf Mr. Benjamin Baker; III to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Carol W. Youngkin. 90-20 On motion of Mi. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr~ Benjamin Baker, III to serve on the James River Certified Development Corporation, whose term is e££=ctiVe iK~ediat~ly and will expire June 3~, 1990, 12.D.2. PERSONNSL APPEALS BOARD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board suspended its rules to allow simultaneous nomination/appoint- ment ot e representative to serve on the Personnel Appeals Board. Vote; Unanimou~ ~r. Mayas nominated Mrs. Barbara Jernigan. ~r. Applegate nominated Ms. Linde B. Lafoon and stated she had indicated a willingness to s~rv~. There were no other nominations. Mr. Mayas stated he had not discussed the nomi:ati~n with Mrs. Jernigan and therefore withdrew her name from nomination. On motioa of Mr. Applugate, seconded b7 Mr. Sullivan, the Board ~imultaneously nominated/appointed Ms. Linde ~. ~afeen to serve on the Personn%l Appeals Board, whoe~ term is effective imu]ediately and will expire December ~l, 1992. Vots: Unanimous The Board requssted that a resolution commending Mr. Robert Allen'~ service during hi~ tenure with the 9er~onnel Appeals 12.E. CONSENT ITEMS 12.~.1. STAT~ ROAD ACCEPTANCN This day the Connty ~nvironmental ~nglneer, in accordanc~ with directions ~ro~ th~s Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Saffron Lane and Nortanya Drive in MOOSt Blaneo, Section 9, Bermuda District. Upon coneideratlcn whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved tha~ Saffron Lane and Norlanya Drive in Mount Blanco~ Section 9, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be i% further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby ie ~equested to take into the Secondary System, Saff£o~ Lane, beginning at the eastern end of e×i~ting Saffron Lan~; State Route 2498, and going northeast- srly 0.05 mile ~o the intersection with Norlanya urive; and Norlanya Drive, beginning ut the intersection wi~ Sa~ron Lane and going northerly 0.08 mile to end in ~ cul-de-sac. Again Norlanya Drive, beginning ut the intersection with ~affron Lane and going easterly O.ll mile to en~ in a eel-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Tran~pOrtatioa drainage These roads g~rve 11 A~d be it f~rther resolved; that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department cf Transportation a 50' right-of-way for Norlanya Drive and a 68' right-of-way for Saffron Lane. This section of Moun~ Blanco is Section ~. P~at Book 42, Pa~ea 21, 22, and 25, December 22, 1982. Yhis day the county Environmental ~ngin~er, in accordance with dlructions from this Board, made report in writing upe~ his examination o~ ~hatham Grove Lariat Horsetail Lane, Wind Place and Carriage House Court in Fernb/ook, Chatham Grove Phases II and III, and a portion of Fernbrook, section Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and om motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that Chatham Gfeve Lane, of Fernbrook, Section D, Clover Hill District, be and they And be it fur%her re~olved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby ~ reqne~ted to take into the Chatham Grove Lane, State Route 3245, and going northerly 0.08 turning and going northerly 0.02 mile to the intersection with Wind Pla~e, then ~ontinuing northerly 0.03 milo to the i~ter- mile, then turning and going northwesterly 0.07 mile the intersection with Rabbit Foot Lane, State Route 3~41; Wind Place, beginning at the intersection with Chatham Grove Lane and going westerly 0.06 mile, then turning and going north- westerly 0.0~ mile to the intersection with Carriage House and going northerly 0.06 miIe to end in a cul-de-sac; and Carriage HoUse Court, beginning at thc intersection with Wind Place and going ~euthwesterly 0.0~ mil~ %o end i~ a cul-de-sac. This request is incluaive of the adjacent slop~, sight distance These roads serve 58 lot~. right-of-way ~or all e~ these roads. Chatham Crave $~ctioa ~ha~e II. ~la= sock 47, Pages 26, ~?, Th~s ~ay the Connty Environmental Engineer, ~n accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his e~amination of Boones Trail Road~ Landing Circle, Booneeboro Taylors Landing Section Phases II and III~ Clover Hill District. Upo~ consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that Boone~ Trail Road, La~ing Circle, S~unesboro Drive, soonesboro Circle and Boonas- 90-22 1/10/90 bors Court in Fernbrook, Taylors Landing Section Phases II and III, Clover ~ill Dis~ri0t, be and they hereby are e~tabtished as public roads. And De it further resolved, that the virginia Department T~aneportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Boones Trail ~oad, beginning at the inter- eec=ion with Fordham Road, State Route 763, and going north- easterly 0.06 mile to the intersection with Landing Court, then continnin~ northeasterly 0.01 mile to the intersection with Landing Circle, %hen cog=inning northeasterly 0.05 mile~ then tnrnin~ and ~oing northerly 0.07 mil~ to the intersection with Booneeboro Drive, then continuing northeasterly O.0S mile to ~nd at a dead end; ~an~ing Circle, beginning at the inter- section with Scones Trail Road and going northwesterly 0.04 mile, then turning and going northerly 0.0~ mile, then turning and going northwesterl~ 0.03 mile tc end in a cul-de-sac; Roone~boro Drive, b~ginnlng a% the intersection with Bosses Trail Road and going northwesterly O.0~ mile, then turning and qolng northerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Boonesbor~ Circle, then turning end gsln~ northeasterly 0.10 mile to the intersection with Boonesboro Court, then continuing nor~h- easterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac7 Boonesboro Circle, beginning at the intersection with Boonesboro Drive and going westerly 0.03 mile to end in a o~l-du-sac; and Boonesboro Court, beginDing at the intersection with B00ne~buro Drive and going easterly 0.05 mile to end in u cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of TransDortation drainage These roads serve 59 lots. A~d be it fREtheE resolved, that th~ Board of guarantees to the Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation a right-cf-way for all of these roads e×c~pt Boones Trail Road which has a 60' right-o£-way. These ~eotlen$ Of Fernbrook are recorded aa ~ollo~s: Taylore Landing Section Phase II. Plat Book 45, Page 85, May 9, ~984. Taylors Landing Section Phase III. Plat Book 55~ Page 61, December 17, 19e6. This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Beard, made report in writing upon his examination of Ash=on Woods Drive~ Sunset Rnoll Road and Pleasant Ridge Road in Ash=on Woudu North, Section B, Dale Dis~rict. seconded by Mr. ~aye~, it is resolved that Ash=on Woods Drive, Sunset Knoll Eoad and Pl=asant Ridge Romd in Ashton Woods North, section B, Dale Dis=rial, be an~ they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia D~pa~tment of ~ransporta=ion, be and i% hereby is requested to take into the Secondary Syet~, ~shton Woods Drive~ b~ginnlng at the eastern end c~ existing Ash=on Woods Drive, State Route 4000, and going easterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Sunset Eno11 Road, then continuing easterly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Sunset Knoll Road, beginning at the intersection with Ash=on Woods Drive and going -southea~terly 0.14 mile to the. intersection with Pleasant Ridge Road. Again S~nset knell Road, beginning at the inter,es=ion ~ith Ashton Wood~ Drive and going northeasterly 0,11 mile to tko intersection with Sir 90-23 1/10/90 intersection with Sir Dianadan Drive and goin~ southeasterly 0.21 mile te the inter~ecticn with Sunset Knoll Readt Sen costinuing southerly 0.08 mile to tie into existing Pleasant Ridge Roadr State ROUte Number <o be assigned, Ashton Woods North, Section C. Thin request is inclusive cf the adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virqinia Department of Transportation drainage right-of-way fen all of these reads. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Boardt made report in writing upon his examination of Thierry Street and Thierry Court in a portion of Kings Fo~e~t, Section 10, Dale Diutrict. Upon consideration whereof, and on marion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that Thierry Street and Thierry Court in a portion of Kings Forest, Section 10, Dale District, be and they hereby are established as public And be it ~urther resolve~, that the Virginia Department Transportation, be and it hereby ia ieque~ted to take into Sa~endRry System, Thiarry Street, hsq~n~ng at the tion with Manuel Street, Stats Route 3800, an~ going north- eastarly 0,07 mils, then turning and going northerly 0.05 m~la to end at the intersection with Thi~rry Court; and Thierry Court~ beginning at the intersection with Thienry Street and going westerly 0.07 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Thierry Court, beginning at the intersection with Thierry $treet and going easterly 0.06 mile to end in a sul-de-sac. This request is in0tusive of the adjacent ~lope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage And be it ~urther resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virgini~ Department of Transportation a right-of-way ~or Thierry Street and a 40' right-of-way Thierry This section of ~ings Fores~ ia recorded as follows: section 10. Plan Book ~1, ~age 54, November 1~, Vote= Unanimous Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directien~ from thi~ ~oard, made report An wr~tlng upon his examination of Handel Court in Squire Hill Apartments Phas~ 2 and Dedlcatien of a portion of Handel Court, Dale District. Upon oonsideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Danlsl, SeConded by ~I, ~aye$, it is resolved that ~andel Court in Squire Hill Apart~ent~ Phase 2 and Dedication efa portion e~ 90-24 1/10/90 ~andel Court, Dale DiStrict, be a~d it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transportation, he and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Handel Court, beginning at existing Handel Court, State Route 2283, and going easterly 0.12 mil@ to tis into Handel Court, Stats Route Number to be assigned. This request ia inclusive of the adjacen~ elope, eight distance amd designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. This road serves as access to cemmarclal prspert~. And be it fnrthe~ resolved, that t~e ~oard of Supervisors ~uarantees to the Virginia Department cf Transportation a right~a£-way for this road. Squire Bill Apartments and portio~ of Handel Court is recorded as follows: Phase 2. Plat Book 6~, Page 20, $~ptember Vot~: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Enqineer, in accordance with directions from thi~ Board, mad~ report in writing upen his examination of Tamworth Road in Great 0aka, 8action 3 and a portion of Sec~ioD l, Na~o~ca District. UpOn ~onsi~er~tloq whar~of, and on motion of Mt. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, it is resolved that T~erth Road in Great Oaks, Section 3 and a portion of $~otion 1, ~atoaca Dietrict~ be and it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resolved, that th~ Virginia Department of Secondary System, Tamworth Read~ beginning at the intersec- easterl~ 0.04 mile, then turning and going easterly 0.07 mile ~o an~ in a cul-de-sac. ·his request is inclusive of thc adjacent slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage Thi~ road sazve~ 17 lo~s. And ~e it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisor~ guarantees to the Virginia Department of Tran~partatloa a ~0' right-of-way for this road. Section 3. Plat Book 46, Paqe ~7, July 26, 1984. ~ection t. Plat Book 9~ Pa~ 90,.Aug~$t ~$, 1979. Vote; Unanimou~ 12.E.2~ REQUESTS FOR BI~O/RAFPLE On motion of ~. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, th~ Board approved requssts for bingo/raffle permits far the organizations for the calendar year 1990: ORGANIZATIONS Monaean High School PTSA Raffle 1/10/90 Bun Air Rotary Club Raffle Vote: Unanimous BLE~iENTARY SCHOOL On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. MayeE, the Board transferred $1,900 from t~he Dale Distric~ Three Cent Road Funds to the Parks and Recreation Department's Beulah Elementary School project account for the installation of security fencing along the property of an adjacent 12.F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 12.F.1. APPROPRIATION OF THREE CENT ROAD FUNDS/OMO ROAD B~AI~AG~ PAOJECT On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Sound appropriate~ $I1,000 from the Dale District Three Cent Road Fund to Omo Road Drainage Project to purchase materials for the in~tallation of a storm sewer to the r~ar of the residence between 5~2 and 60OO Omo Road. 12.p.2. AGREEMENT FOR ST©~M ~ATRR ~A~hG~T FOR ~UDCI~ ~ARDEN CENTER On morion of M~. Mayer, ~eeonded by M~. Applegete, the Beard Gamden Canter, with the County's only involvement b~ing fo assure That the owner complies with said agreement. Vote: Unanimou~ 12.F.3. STP~ET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Maya~, seconded by Mr. Currin, the Board appzov~ the co~t ~oz ~tr~et ~ight installation at the intersection of ~ampten Avenue and Steve Avenue w~th ~unds in the amount ef $142.00 to be expended from the Matoaca Distric~ Vote~ Unanimous On me,ion of ~r. Mayas, seconde~ by Mr. Cu~rin, tho ~0ard approved obtaining a cost ~stimate for th~ installation of e street light at =ha intersection of Sunfield brive and Walnut Bollow Court in the Matoaca Magisterial District. Vote: Unanimous 12.F.5. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND T5~ COD~ OF TE~ COUNTY OF C~ST~IELD, 1978, AS ~4ENDED, BY A~ENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-39, 21-40 AND 21.1-~12 R~LATI~G TO HEIGht ~$~RICTION~ FOR On motion of M~. Sullivan~ seconded by M~. DanieI~ the Board set the dat~ of February 14, 1990~ at 7:00 p.m., for a public l hearing to consider an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, relating the height restrictions for structures neat airports. 12.P.6. JOh%~ ROLFE PARKWAY PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Sullivan stated the Board's past and current positions are tha~ an eastern Route 288 ccrride~ is unacceptable to Chest~r- field County aS well as %he John ~olfe Parkway/Robions Road co~octer. On motion of the Beard, the following resolufion was adopted: ~EREAS, The Virginia Depar~ent of Tran~pofta%icn bas proposed a location for the John Rolls Parkway; and WHEREAS, The Parkway would oonnec~ 1-295/1-64 in Hcnrico County to th~ proposed Route 288 north of the Jam~ River Gooohland County; and ~REA~, VDOT'S proposed location for the J~hn Rolls Parkway is outside of the boundaries of Ch~Sterfleld Co=n~y; end WHEREAS, In 195E, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved %he location for Route ~88 between thm Powhit~ Parkway Extension in Chesterfield and 1-64 in Goochland~ and ~EREAS, In 1989 the Co~onwealth Tran~por~a~i6n ~AS, Rests 2~8 as approved by ~he Co~onwealth Transportation Boa~d addresses Chest~rfield's current and future transportation n~ed~; and location ha~ the unanimous support of the Chesterfield County W~E~AS, A road connecting VDOT's proposed John Rolls Parkway ~o Robious Road in Chest:rfield Connty would be inconsistent with Chesterfi~ld's Land Use and Transportation Plan, would no6 ~rve Ch~sterfiel~'s tran~portatlon needs and would severely di~rup~ e~tablished, r~id~ntial in Chescurfield. ~OW, THE~FO~, BE tT RESOLED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors i~ opposed to any road German=lng VDOT*s John Rolls Parkway with R~bious Road in Che~teTfi~ld Vote; Unanimous 12.L. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING COUNTY POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF TRABUE SUBSTATION BY VIRGINIA RLECTRIC AND Peter COMPANY Mr. Sullivan requested that a re~olution be forwarded to the State Corporation Co~unission and virginia Power reaffirming Chesterfield County's ~upport for an underground d~ign alternative for the prop0~ed =ransmission line from Coalfield Road to tho Tr~buu Stution. He stated he felt any other design alternative for the proposed transmission line would have an adverse impact on that portion of the County, its hi~torlcal sites as well as any development planned ~or the area. On motion of the Beard, the following resolution wam ad~pte~: 90-27 1/10/90 WHeReAS, Virginia ~leotric and Power Company {"VNPCO"} has applied to the State Corporation Co--lesion to amend certificate of sonvenience and necessity to authorize construction and operation of a single-circuit 230kV transmission line from the sidlo~hian ~ubstation to proposed Trabue Substation; and WNE~d~AS, VEPCO proposes to construct euch transmission line as an overhead facility; and WEEP~AS, Construction of an overhead transmission line in the proponed new right-of-way from Coalflel~ Road to th~ Trabue Substation will have significant adveree impact on the County's development planned for the area_ NOW, THEREF©P~, BE IT RE$OL1rED, by the Bo~rd Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, that the Board, om behalf of the citizens of the County, reaffirms its suppor~ fei an underground design alternative for the proposed transmission line from Coalfield Road to the Trabue Substation, and requests that the State Corporation Commission approve this portion of the line as an underqround facility when the Commission renders its decision in Case ~o. PU~$~0071. 32.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS ]2.~.2. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PRIMACY FOR TEE VIRGINIA DBPARTNENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH On mo%ion Of M~+ Daniel, eeeonded by Mr~ Sullivan, the Board adopted the following resolutien: W~A$, The U.S. Congress in 1974 passed the first National Safe Drinkinq Water Act (SDWA) public law 93-523 ~ith enforcement authority given Protection Agency (EPA); and W~EREAS, Virginia applied awarded primary in 1977, and Virginia Department of ~ealth, 1977; WHERRAS~ The U,S. Con~reSe to the U.S. Environmental for primacy in 1976 and wam th~ Commonwealth, through ~e ha~ maintained primacy $inc~ tho Safe Drinking Water Act and mandated standards for 83 specified contaminants~ and WHEREAS# Virginia's concern for its citizens and its desire to address its own problems and concerns has be~n a standards with the application of State judgement; and WH~R~A~, I= is in the best interes= of the citizens of the Co~onwealth of Virginia that the COmmOnWealth xetai~ primary October 25, 1989, supporting primacy and supp0rttDg an assessment on water $~pplier$ to pay the naceeeary additional cost associated with retaining pti_many. (1) Urge~ ~he Commonwealth of Virginia to retain primary enforcement authority, through the Virginia Department u~ Eealth~ and {2) Forward copies of this resolution to the Chesterfield County Delegation in the General Assembly urging their support to ensure that proper resources will be suthorized to make certain the Commonwealth can retain primacy. 12.~.3. SEWRR AND WATER ITEMS 19.G.3.a. $~T ~U~LIC HEARING DATE TO CORSID~R AN ~34~NDMENT TO T~ WATER AND SEXIER ORDiNAnCE On motion of ~r. ~ullivan, Seconded by Mr. Appl~gate, th~ Board set ~he date of February 14, 1990, at ?:00 p.m., for a public hearing to consider an amend~en~ to Secti0~s 20-39.3 and 20-71.3 of %he Water and Sewer Ordinance. Vote~ Unanimous 12.G.3.b. CONSID~RATIO~ OF R~QUEST FROM DEVELOPER OF A CON- VENIEMCE CENTER LOCATED AT TARRIS LA~E AND MARROWGATR ROAD TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A PRIVATE SEWAG~ PUMP- ING STATION AND FORCE MAIN ~0 $~V~ THEIR DEVELOPSL~NT ~r. Currin disclosed to th~ Boerd that hs owns the subject property, declared a eonflie~ of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of ~nterest Act and e~Oused himself from the meeting. Discussion, questions and comments ensued r~lative to ~he use of pre, ate ~ewage pumping ~ta~ions and ~oroe mains for subdivisions, the devsloDer's responsibility fo~ operation and/or maintenance of said facility, whether or net the pump station wil~ adversely affect ~_he County's ability ~o serve ~hs area by gravity in the futur~, approval of prsvie~$ similar requests by developers, eec. on motion of Mr. Nayes~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, the ~oard approved a request from Community ~roeery Trust, Oliver D. R~dy, Trustee, to construct and Operat~ ~ private sewage pumping station an~ force main locate~ at Tetris Lane and Rarrowg~te Road to ~rve their development, ~ubjeet to the Developer adhering %o tko following condition~ and auehorlzed the County Administrator to ~×~cute the necessary documents, on behalf of %h~ County~ 1. The property owner/developer a~ree~ to abandon the use of a private wastewater pump ~tatlon and eennec~ tn a p~blic gravity wast~watar sys%om at the property owner's expanse southwest property line or participate in an Assessment District if e~tablished for the area. 2. The costs associated with the design, construction, and malntena~o~ of %he pump ~tation and force main to be borne in its entirety by the property Owner/developer. The property owner/developer agrees to own! operate and main=ain the wastewa=er pump station an~ to execute an agreement to guarantee maintenance, An agreement for main=thence must be approved to fo~ b~ the County A~torne~'s Office and recorded by the County's Clerk of Court prior to connection to the public sewer ~t10190 4. The property owner/developer agrees to design and construct the necessary dry relief line from the pump station to the property line which Will align with the fu%u~ off$it~ relief line~ In addition, the property owner agree~ to dedicate sufficient onsite easements for offsit~ relief llne is located properly and will allow for future extensions to serve drainage area. necessary permits and approvals from the lo,al and/or State Health Department, Virginia Department of Transportation, etc. 6. Detailed plans for the force main connection to the e~stlng manhole along w~th a detailed hy~ra~l~ analysis verifying that the existing sewer lines have sufficient reserve capacity tc handle the proposed development are ~u be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas. Absent: Mr. Currin. Nr. Currin returned to th~ mee~int. 12.~.4.a. APEROUAL OF CONTRACT FOR UTILITIES LOCATION CON- TRACTOR On motion of Mr. ApDlegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved a contract between Chesterfield County and Bo-Deep Ins., a professional locating contractor, for two (2) y~ars, on as "as needed" b~$i~ with payment for ~ervice from project ~pprOpriation$~ for the purpose of provld~ng as accurate information as possible QD the location of utilitie~ for design of water and was,ewe,er prc~ect~ and authorized the Ceunty Adminis~raqcr to execute said contract upon approval by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 12.G.4.b. ~%?EEOVAL OF WAST~WATER CONTRACT FOR ~ATE~ PROPERTY - approved ~hs following was,ewe,ar ccc,tact and authorls~ %he County Admlnistratcr to execute any necessary documents: Bates ~roperty - Offslte Was,ewe,er Line, Project No. 87-70~5: Develcpsr: R.L. and Emily M. Bates Contractor A~ount~ Estimated Total Total Estimate~ County Ce~t~ ~astewater |Overaizing) (Refund thru connections) Was~ewater (offsits) (Refund thru connections) Cods: (oversising) (Offsit~) Vote: Unanimou~ ~ $172.~01.80 - $ 52,027.08 $107~385.73 5P-58350-~90733 APPROVAL OP UTILITIES CONTP~ACT FOR ~LGRADE ELANTA- POLO AND ~ROMENADE PARKWAYS of Robious and ~qnenot Road adjacent to the Pitness Center and inquired if his properly would benefit by this line. Mr. Welchon~ stated it would not. On motion of ~r+ Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved the following Utilities contract and authorized the Water (Ovorsizing) $ 6,397.78 {Refund thru connections) E~timated D~veloper Cost: $212,405.39 Code: (0v~rslzlng) 5N-58350-$90732 Vote: Unanimeu~ 12.G.4.d. APPROVAL OF WATER CONTRACT FOR FOXCROPT ~UBDIVISlO~, On motion of ~r. Applugate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved the follOwln~ water contract and authoriE~d the County Administrator to execute any necessary dooumentz~ Foxcroft Subdivision, Sections I and II, Projeo~ No. 89-0789~ E@veloper: D~lmarVa Prcpertie~, Incorporsted Con~ractor: Lyttle Utilities Contract ~a~ount: Estimated Total $508,323.95 Total Estimated County Cost: ~ater (Over~izing) - $ 49,146.00 (Refund thru connesticns) Estimated Developer Cost: $459,177.95 Code: {Over~izing} 5H-58350-890732 12.G.4.e. CONVEYANCE OF A T~MP0RARy. ¢0N~TEUCTIOW EASEMent. TO VIRGINIA DEPABTMB~T OF TRANSPORTATION AT MIDLOT~T~N On motion of Mr. Applegate, ~econded by ~r. sullivan, the Board authorLzed the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute th~ temporary construction easement alonq Route 60 in front of Midlothian Middl% school to the Virginia D~p~rtment of Tranzportatiun in order to cen~truct and maintain cut and fill ~lope~ in front of said ~cheul. (A copy of ~aid plat is filed with r. he papers of =his ~oard.) 12.G.4.f. CONVEYANCE CT AN EASENi~NT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND ~O~7ER COMPANY FOR P©CONO PUMP S~ATION On motion of Mr. Applegate~ seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Board authorized the Chairman o~ the ~oard and the County AdminisLra~ ton to execute an easement agreement between Chesterfield County and Virginia Electric an~ Power Company for the in~tallatien of an overhead cable within a Variabl~ width easement off Midlothian Turnpike for ~e¢ono Btl~Ding Station. (A copy of said plat ia ciled with the papers of this Board.} Vote~ Unanimous 90-31 1/10/90 12.G.4.q. CONVEY..A~_.C.~..OF..AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY ADJACENT TO SCOFF ROAD AT COYNF PARK On motion of Mr. Apptegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan~ the Board authorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Chssterfield Connty and Vir~±nia Electric and Power Company for %he installation of an overhead cable w~thin ~ varla~le width easement adjacent to Scoff Road at Go~n~ Park which relocation for Ecoff Elementary School. 12.G.4.h. R~QUEST FROM BERMUDA DQuAa~ ASsOCIATeS FOR BE~/~I~ON TO ENCROACH ON EXISTING 16 ~OOT WAT~I~LINE RAS~/~NT AT BE~4UDA SQUAB= ~HOBPING CENTEE On me,ion of Mr. Applugate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board approved a license a~eement be%ween Chesterfield County and ~ermuda Square A~seeiates, L.P., A Delaware Limited Partner- uhip, to allow various encroachments on an existing 16 foot waterline easement located on 1~.991 acres ~t the southeast corner of Stat% Route 1 and 301 and State Rout~ iD (~er~uda Square Shopping center) and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary document~ for ~aid agr*~m*nt. (A copy of said plat is ~iled with the papers c~ this Board.) 12.G.4.i. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG SIR DINNADAN DRIVE BRD~ STBPBE~ M. AND KAP~EN L. YURASE On motion of Mr. Applegate, aaconded bF Mr. Sullivan, the Board accepted, on bohalf ef the County, th~ conv~yanc~ o£ a variable width parcel of land along Sir Dinnadan Drive from Mr. M. and Ms. Karen L. Yuhase, and authorized th~ County Administrator to execute the necessary deed of dedication. copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) 52,~.~,~. REQUEST TO QUITCSAI~ A ~©BTI©~ O~ A 16 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY OF CHARLES R. ALLEN ON EAST On motion of Mr. Applegats~ $~eon~ed by ~r. Sullivan, the Boar~ approved a requeet from Balzer and A~aoeiates, In~. to quit- claim a portion of a I6 foot drainage easement across property owned by Mr. Charles R. Allen, known as Tax Map 15-6 (1) Parcel 10 and authorlze~ the Chairman of the ~oard and County A~inis~rat~ to execute %3~s necessary Quitclaim dasd for said vacation. {A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) 12.G.4.ko REQUEST ~0 QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A VARIABLE WIDTH SOUTHGATE AESOCIATES~ ADJACENT TO ARBOP~ETUM PARKWAY On motion O~ Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board of a variable width water and sewer easement across property owned by South~ate Associates, adjacent ~o Ar~oxetum Barkw~y and authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to ~xeout~ the necessary Qui~!aim deed for said vacation. (A copy of said plat is filed with ~he paper~ of this Board.) I2.G.4.1. REQUEST FROM CROSS CREEK ASSOCIATES FOR ~ERMISSION TO INSTALL A 24 FOOT S~ORM $~W~R SYSTEM IN A PORTION OF EXISTING 90 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, t~ Board approved a license agreement between Cheaterfield County and Crees Crock ~$so¢iate$ to allow the installation of a 24' storm sewer ~y~te~ within a portion of an e~istinq 90' unimproved ri~h~ o~ way ~o serve proposed townkoeses and apartments and authorized ~he County Administrator to execute any necessary documen%s fo~ said agreement. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous 12~G.4.m, R~QU~ST TO QUTT¢SAIM RA$~M~ FOR %~GRESS/~GR~SS A~D PUMP STATION SITES ACHOSS PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN ~ANKY, JR., WATC~ RUN SUBDIVISION On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the ~oard approved a requeat from Mr. John J. Sanky, Jr. to Quitclaim easements for ingress/stroBe an~ pump ~tation ~ites across property he owns in Watch Run Subdivision, Section 4, Lot 13, Block G and authoriaed th~ chairman o~ the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary Quitclaim de~d for ~aid vacation. {A ~opy of said plat is filed with the papers of thi~ Board.) Vote: Unanimou~ 12.G.4.n. ACCePTAnCE OF D~B OF DgDICAT!ON ALONG COUR~HOUSE ROAD FROM COURT~OUSE/360 LIMITED PARTNBRS~I~ On me,ion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Boa~d accepted~ on behalf of the County~ the conveyance of a variable width strip of land along Courthouse goad from Courthou$~/3~ Limited Partnership and a~thorized the County Administrator to ~he papers of this Board.) 12.~.5. P~PORT$ ~r. Sale preso~tsd the Board with a report on the developer water and ~ewer contracts executed by the County Administrator, 12.H. REPORTS Mr. R~zasey presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, ~ensr~l Fund Belance, Road Reservm Funds, District Road and Street Liqht ~und~, Z~as~ ~urshasas, School Boar~ Agenda and the Board ~f Supervisors' ~ublic Bearing Schedule. Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has formally notific~ the County of the acceptance of tko fo%lowin~ reade into the State Secondary System: 90-33 1/10/90 ~%DDITION$ OLD BUCKINGHAM FOREST ~ SECTION 4 (Effective 1-2-90) 1232 to 0~0A mile West Route 1267. Route 3553 (Sandba9 Way) - From Routs 1258 to North Route 3554 (Sandbag Terrace} - ~rom Route 1268 to South cul-de-sac. Route 3555 ($andba~ Circle) - From Route 3554 to West cul-de-sac. 0,09 0.05 0.1~ 0.04 Mr. Applegate statsd Ealey ~ontlac, inc. had forwarded a check in the amount of $2~500 to be used in conjunction with County's Drug Abuss Resistance Education (DA~k~) Program which he pre,sated to Mr. Ramsay. It was generally agreed that Beard resolution recognizing Haley ~ontiac, Inc.'s ~ontribution would be prepared ~or presentation at a future meeting. The Beard recessed at 12:1~ p.m. Cafe for lunch. (EST} to travel to the Sunset 12.J. REQUESTS ROE ~O~LE HOME PEP~ITS In Bermuda Magisterial Diatr~st, ~0WARD T. AND NANCY mobile home on property fronting the nerthea~t lin~ of Av~nu~ at its nOrtheaStern terminus, and b~tter known as 2600 Burgess Avenue. Tax Map 136-2 (2} Bome Acres~ Block 9~ Lot~ lA, 2, and 2A (Sheet 43). The ~irst permit was issued February 27~ 1980. Mr. Jacobsen stated ~taff linde that this request appears to be in character with the neighborhood at the present time, that the mobile home will be occupied by the owner's son, and as such condition 1 shoul~ be amended to reIlect that the mobile home shall be occupied only by %h~ owner's ~on and his immediate family. Ee stated ~taff, tharefore~ recommende~ approval Cf Ce$~ SPSNO440. Mrs. Wancy Eridger stated the recommended conditions mere acceptable. There was no Opposition present. On motion of Mr. Ceftin, seconded by Mr. sullivan, the Board approved Case 89SN0~0 for seven (7) years~ subject Standard Conditions 2 through 7 and amended Condition 1, aa Bellows= 1. The applicont~ shall be the owners of th~ mobile home. The mobile home shall be occupied by Prank Weaver, son of the applicants, and hi~ i~mediat~ family only. 2. NO 10t or parcel may be rented or leased for use as mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one It) mobile home shall be permitted to be ~arked on an individual let or parcel. 3. The mlnlm~m let size, yard setbacks, requira~ front yard, and othe~ zoning requirements of ~h~ applicable zoning diatrict shall be co~plied with! except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. Vote: Ne additional permanent-type living space may be ad~e~ onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall nut be plaee~ un a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall ba used. Upon being ~ant~d & Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be dune prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for In Mateaca Magisterial Dietric~, ROBERT L..I~N'KINS ~equ~ted Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile hume on property fronting the north line of Mansion Drive lnnimD~ov~d}, appro×imately 200 feet east o£ Arrowfisld Street, and located in the vicinity of 2508 Mansion Drive, Ta~ Map 163-7 (3) Kovac Acres, Lots 119 through 1~4 (Sheet 49), Mr. Jacobsen stated the request appears tu be in character with the neighborhood at the present time and that since the property fruats on aa unimproved road, staff recommends two additional conditions be imposed On the request. He r~f~rence~ one letter of opposition received regarding this mobile home request but stated staff recommended approval of Case Mr. Eobert L. Jenkins stated the recorm~endod conditions were acseptable. There wa~ no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegafe, the Board approved Case 89SN0441 ~or maven (7) y~ar$, subject ~o the following conditions: 1. The apDlloant shall he the owner and occupant Of the 2. Mo lot or parcel may be reDted or leased for use as a mobile homo site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (t) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual let or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size~ yard setbacks, r~quirod front yard, and otter zoning requiremeata of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, ~xcept that no mobile hume shall b~ lucat=d cluser than 20 feet to any existing 4. NO additional permanent-typ~ living space may bo onto a mobile home. All mobile hemes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on u permanent foundation. 5. Wher~ public (County) watmr and/or sewer are availablm, they ahall be 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building official. Thi~ shall be done prior to the installatiun or relocation of the mobile ho~e. 7. Any vielatlon of the above conditions ~hall be grounds for revooation of the Mobile Home Permit. Within the fifty (50] foot wide right of way, a twenty (20) foot wide roadway shall be conmtructed to all-weather 90-35 1/10/90 roa~ standards with a minimum aggregate base of six inch%s. The atl~eather road shall have five (5) to six (6) foot sloping shoulders with a well-defined ditch for adequate drainage. Number 21 or 21k $~QPe shall be over a compacted subbase. Thia construction ~hall he southwest, from Pine Forest Reed to fifty (50) feet west Of the eastern boundary line of the s~bject property. all-weather ro~ shall be completed prior to occupancy cf the proposed dwelling~ Further, when the applicant appli~ ~or a building permit, he shall provide a written stipulation that the OWnar or subsequent owner of the subject property, shall be responsible for maintaining the right cf ~ay for th~ purpose of adequate access by emergency The house number shall be instu]~e~ on the nailbox or a pole and loc&ted at the driveway entrance. The house number shall be displayed in at least four (4) inch high nurabers. Vote: Unanimous 12.K. REQUESTS FOR REZONING Landmark designation for YELLOW BOUSE. Located in Bermuda ~aqlsterlal bi,trier on property frontiDg the south lln~ of We~t Hnndred Road, and better knoNn aS 3001 WeSt H~ndred Road. Tax Sap 116-5 Il) Parcel 36. Mr. Jacobsen sta~8~ th~ Planning CoF~ission and Preservation Co~ittee reco~3nended approval of Landmnrk Designation for the quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation will cause no significant adverse effect on the future development of th~ County. On motion cf Sr. Currin, seconded by ~r. Applogats, ~hs ~0ard approved ~istoric Landmark DesignatiOn for Yellow Rnuee~ described as follows: well as the land known as Tax Map 116-5 (1) Parcel 36. 89R~427 Landmark designation for ~R~SIC HILL. Located ~n Matoaca ~agis%erial District on property fronting the n~rtheast line of Physic Hill Road, an~ better known a~ 14300 Physic Hill Road· Tax ~ap I09-5 (4) Physic ~i11, Section C, ~lock F, Lot I0. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Plannin~ Co--lesion and Preservatiom Conu~ittee recommended approval of Landmark Designation for the Physic Rill, based on ~he following findings: 1. This is a distinguished building of high architectural quality and historic interest; and 2. This designation ~ill cause no significant adverse effect opposition present. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Applegat~ the ~oard approved Historic Landmark Designation for Physic Hill, described as follows: well as the land, known as Tax Map 109-5 (4) Physic ~ill, Vote: UnAnimous 88SN0257 (Amended} In Midlothian Magisterial District, JAY ROWE reque~te~ meet tQ Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 83S115} relative to master plan approval, road improvements, access, buffers, lighting, setbacks, landscaping, ~igns, uses, and building heights in an Office Business (0) District. This request lies on a 6.0 acrs parcel fronting approximately 510 feet on the north line of North Providence Road, al~o fronting approximately ~00 feet on the west line of Buford Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the inter~ection roads. Tax Map 18-15 {1} Parcels i~, 46, 48, ~9, and 53 and Tax Map 18-16 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 8). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant r~quested a sixty I~0) day deferral. Mr. Jay Rowe ~tated he currently has a contract on a portion of the subject property for a day care center and a deferral is needed in order for Planning staff to review the site plan for con~ente/recommendations. He noted tha~ he anticipates the withdrawal of a request for office/warehouse use on the subject deferral. deferred Case $8SN02~7 un,il March 25, 1~90. Vote: Unanimous 89SN0317 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GLENN M. HILL AND JO~N A, ~AUN requested rezoning from Agricultural (Ap to Residential A single family residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 3?.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 566 feet on the north line of Thurston Road, ~pprc~imately feet east of Hopkins Road. Tax Map 81-I0 (2) Sq~arefield Park Farms, Lot 31 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen mCa%ed th~ appli¢~nt h~s requested a thirty (30} day deferral of Case 89SN0317. Mr. John Dodson, representing the applicants, stated a thirty {30) day deferral is requested in crAer to mee= wi=h opposition to this case to discuss their concerns. ~e ~tated he has contacted Mrs. Campbell, who represents ~he opposition, and scheduled a meeting on February 1~ 1990. Mr. Dodson stated ~rs. Campbell did no~ anticipate attending the meetinq but she had requested that he represent her desire to the Board. There was no opposition to the request for a deferral. On motion of Mr. Currin, see0nd~d by ~r. Sullivan, the Board deferred Case 89SN0317 until February 28, 1990. Vote: Unanimous 1/10/90 Mr, Currin requested that staf~ notify Mrs. Campbell of the February ~8, I990 meeting date to which the case had been deferred. In Clover Hill Ma~iste~ieI Dietrictr C2~ROLL FOSTERr INC. requested rezoning fiem Agriculture1 {A) to Residential (R-9) . A single f~ily residential subdivision is planned. This request lies on a 6.0 acre parcel Eying apprexlmately feet off the north line of Hull Street Rcad~ measured from point approximately 100 feet east of Winterpock Road. Tax Map 61-14 (1) Parcel 3 and Tax Map 75-2 (1) Parcel S (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cool,sion recommended approval of RssldentiaI (R-12), subject to a ~ingle condition and acceptance cf the applicant's proffered conditions. Mr. Jim Hsyes~ representing the applicant, stated the applicant epplled for Residential (R-9) re~oning but has agreed Residential (R-12) rezcnin~ becanee the p~op~ty, fronting along Swift Creak Reservoir, is very ~a]uable and the proposed lots will be developed to a size larger than R-9. A citizen voiced concern relative to drainage and protection of the creek. Mr. Currin stated since there was a citizen preeent who wished to express ~oneerns regarding the case, it would h~ placed in In Matoaca Magisterial District, ~NON ~, T~%~R~%DE, ~1~. quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-25) on recreational facility 0n 5.s acres of this tract. A single f~ily residential subdivision with an outdoor recreational center i~ 91armed. Thi~ r%qu~% f~ont~ approximately 968 on the west line of ~x~er ~ill Road, approximately 1,~05 feet mouth of Trmnts Bridge Road. Tax ~ap 170 (1) Parcels 65, 66, and 67 (shes~ Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Cu~i~iun rsco~nded approval of Case 89SN0342, subject to the certain conditions Mr. Vernon ~. LaPrade~ Jr., representing the request, ~tated the r~cc~ended conditlon~ were acceptable. Mr. Sullivan expressed concerns regarding the ~ubject request. ~r. Currin $~a~e~ that ~ince ~here were concerns expressed relative to th~ agenda. 89S~0350 ~n Matea~a Magisterial District, B ~ C A$~OC~AT~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Reeiden=ial (R-~8}. A single f~J~ily residential s~bdivision is planned. This rsqu%st li~s on a 64.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 120.7 feet on the we~t Iin~ Of ~lkc Road, approximately 2,960 feet north of Woodpecker Read. Tax Map 162 (1) Parcel 29 (Sheet 491. ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission racnmmende~ ~r. ~avi~ Warriner, representing ~he applicant, stated the recommendation wa~ acceptable. There was ne opposition present. When asked, Mr. Warriner stated public water would be extended to ~erve the p~0p~rt~ that septic systems would b~ used at the present time, however, the applicant intends to dedicate eaeement~ for public sewer when it become~ available in the area; and indicated that approximately 20-25 lots will be developed. Mr. Mayas stated that~ a~ much as he opposed septic system uso for subdivisions, it appeared the applicant i~ in compliance with the exi~hin~ p~ticy; therefore, he would recoFalend approval. On motion Of Mr. Mayas, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved Case 89~NQ350. Vote: Unanimous In Matoaca Magisterial Dietrich, W. CO~TNEY W~.~ AND JAMES y. D~/~i~ requested rezomlng from Agricultural (A) to Re~identlal {R-12). A ~ingle f~ily residential subdivision is planned. Thi~ request lies on two (2) parcels totalling 90.3 acre~ fronting in two (2) places ~or a total of approxima~oly 1,155 feet on the eas~ line of Earrowga~e aoad, approximately 1,060 feet southeast of Sycamor~ Street. Tax Map 133-1~ ()} Garden City Heiqhts~ Lots 49 ~hrough 51 and Part of 52; Tax Map 148-4 {2) Garden City ~eiqh~, Lots 42, 44, and 46; an~ Tax Map 149-I {2) Garden City Eeights, Lot 48 {Sheet 41). Mr. Jacobsen sta~ed the Planning Co~ission race,ended approval of Case SgSN0356, subject to a single condition and acceptance of ~e applicant's proffered conditions. H~ noted the construction of an ~ast/west ~rterial road conneetin~ Harruwgate Road and Happy Hill Road. Mr. Courtn~y W~lls ~%a~ed the race--ended condition was Sr. ~ayes ma~e a motion to approve Ca~e 89SN0356, subject to · he following condition: A fifty (50) foot buffer ~trip, exolusiv~ of ~asements and required yards~ shall be established 144). The area o~ this buffer ~tri~ shall either be left in its natural stat~, if sufficient vegetation exists to provide adegnate screening; or be planted and/or be~ed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the Planning Depar~ent, adequate screening. Prior t~ approval O~ ~n~ final shall flaq this buffer strip for ~nspectlon, and shall post a bond tO OOv~r ~e implements=ion o~ tau land~cape plan, if such a plan i~ r~qulr~d. access shall be p~rmlt~ed ~rouqh this buffer strig. r~cordation plats. The Planning Cold, lesion or the birec~u: of Planning may modify this condition at the tim~ of tentative subdivision review. (~&T) further, the Hoard accepted the following proffered And conditions~ A ninety arterial {90) foot wide right of way for the ~ast/we~t shall be dedicated to Chesterfield Connty free 90-39 1/10/90 end unrestricsad through the $ubject property. At the time of tentative subdivision review, the Planning Com- mispion may reduce th~ width of this right of way dedica- Lien. The developer' shall construct, at minimu/~, two lanes of the east/west arterial from ~arrow~ate Road to Happy Hill Road. 2. Sixty |60) feat cf right of ~ey measured from the center- line of ~errowga~e Road shall be dedicated ~o Chesterfield county free and unrestricted. Mr. 8~llivan stated he had ooncern~ reqarding the requ~. ~r. Currin stated that since there were ~onoarns expresse~ relative to the req~esL, it would be placed in its regular sequence on the agenda. 89S~0375 In Clover Hill Magisterial Dis~rict~ RIC~ ~TA~LE¥ AUtO BODY, ~C. requested amendment to Conditional Use Planne~ Developmen~ ~torage in a Light Industrial (M-l) District. This request lies on a 1.6 acre parcel lying approximately 135 feet off west line of specks Drive, approximately 700 f~t north of Hull Street Road. Tax Map 49-10 (4) 360 Commercial Park West, Lot 5 (sheet ~r. Jacobsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Case 89S~037~, eu~jec~ to certain oondi~ione. ~r. Dan Balfour, r~pr~nting the applicant, ~tated the recommended condition~ wer~ acceptable. There wa~ on motion of Mr. Appleqac~, seoonde~ by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved Case 89SN0375, ~ubjact to the following ~onditio~ 1. The following conditions no~withstanding, %h~ plan 2, Ouhsid~ ~torage areag for vehicle~ having body which ar~ awaltin~ repair ~hall be screened ~rom view adjacent properties and puSlic rights of way in accordance with section~ 21.1-226 (b), 21.1-227 [~) and 21.1-228 (NOTE: Approval o~ this requeet will not pe~i~ ontside storage of dismantled or demolished vehicles parts thereof or me,or vehicles ~hat ar~ inoperable and economically i~practical t~ make operative.) Vote: Unsnlmous ~9~N0387 In Matoaoa Magf~t~rial District, BRAND~P~dILL ASSOCIATES r~quested amendment to Conditional Us~ (Cns~ Conditional Use to pe~it an outdoor recreational facility an additional 0.5 acre. Expansio~ cE an existing recreational facility is planned. ~his request lie~ in a Residential Dis~ric~ on a to%al of ~.4 acres lying approximately 1,740 off %he west line o~ Harrowgate Road, measured from a point approxima=ely 100 feet south of Tetris Lane. Tax Map 132-15 (2) Garden City H~iqht~, Part of Lot 110 and Tax Map 132~15 (7} Greyfield Place, Sec~ion 3, Lo% 20 [Sheet 41~. 90-40 1/lo/~O Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~is~ion approval of Case 89~N02~7, subject ~o certain condltion~. Mr, David ~arriner, representing the applicant, stated the recommended cauditions were acceptable. There was no Opposition present. When asked, Mr. Warrinar indicated public water and ~ewer fasilities were available onsite. On motion of ~r. Mayas, ~conded by Mr. Apple~ate, the Board approved Case 8~SN0387, subject to the following conditions: 1. The followin~ conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Charles C, Towne$ and Associa~es~ P.C., dated July lS, 1989, shall be considered the plan. (P) (NOTE~ This condition supersedes Condition 87S152.) 2. A thirty-fiv~ (35) foot building setback and b~ffer strip, exclusive of eaaements, parking areas, and reoreakion facilities nhall b~ established and maintained along all property line~ of the ~ite. The area within the buffer strip ~hatl be left in its natural state, or supplemented with be~m~, planting, o~ ornamental fenc~, in with tbs landscape plan Ieee Condition 7, Ca~e 87S152(. No access shall be permitted through this buffer, uxcupt for ~wo (21 eatranoe driveways and pedestrian and bicycle path~ a~ ~hall be required by the landscape plan (see Con~itlen 7, Ca~e 87S152). (P) (~OTE: This condition supersedes Condition 8 of Case 87S152.) 3. Ail other conditions of Case 875~2 shall apply to the expansion area. (NOTE: Except as noted herein, all other eoeditions of Case 87S152 remain in effect and also apply to the ex- Vote: Unaeimou~ 89SN0404 · n Midlothian Magisterial District, I~O~]DO~SE~/~Y CO~XON r~- guested amen~eat to Conditional Use Plunn~ Development (Case related e~ipment and s~pplies i~ planned. This re~e~t li~ east line of Euguenot Road, approximately 118 fe~t north of Feathersto~ Drive. Tax sap 8-16 (1) Parc=l 12 {Sheet 2). Mr. Jacobsen stated th~ Planning Co~issicn reco~en~d approval of Case 89SN0404, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Frank Cowan, representing the applicant, stated the opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr, kppl~gate, %he Soard approved Ca~e $9~N0404, ~ubject to the following conditions: In addition to the uses permitted by Case 87S004, music, dance, business, eo~rc~al, t~ade, vocational and training schools, not %o exceed an aggregate ar~a of 5,500 maxim~ of twenty-five {25) percent of gross floor area m~y be used for the display of goods and artioles for sale in conjunction with any ~ch0ol use. 9G-41 1/10/90 (~OT~: This condition is in addition to Condition 16 of Case 87S004.) A meven (7) pa~kin~ space exception %0 the minimum 111 parking space requirement shall be granted for the school use only. Ail activities associated with school use shall be located A. conditions of zoning approval for Case B, Except as noted herein, all conditions of xoning approval for Ca~ $95N0405 In Midlcthian Magisterial District, GOOD S~P~E~D (~T$~T~%~ D~Y CARE P~ND PREMCMOOL requested re~onin~ from Convenisnc~ Business (~-1) %0 Neighborhood Business (C-2), Expansion of an existing child da~ car~ facility i$ planned. This request lies on s 0.46 asr~ parcel fronting approximately 1OO fee~ on thc west linm of Buford Road, approximately 330 feet south of North Providence Roa~. Tax Map IS-15 {1) Parcel 4~ (sheet g). Mr. Jacobsen ~tated the Planning Commission rscemmended approval of Case 89SN0405. Ms. Carolyn Wright, representing the applicant, ~tat@d the recommendation was acceptable. There was ne opposition 0~ moPicD c~ Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the BOard approved Case 89SN0405. Vote: Unanimous 895N0407 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ~u%DI~X X~;~NTZ, ~TD. requested rezoning fro~ Agricultural (A} and To~nhouPe Resi- dential ~R-TH) to Noighborheed ~usiness (C-2) of 12.0 acre~, with Conditional Us~ on 4.8 acres of this tract tO permit a fast food restaurant. A commercial complex is planned. This r~qu~t fronts approximately 980 feet On ~he north line of Kull Street Road, across ~rcm W~nterpcc~ Road. Tax MuD 75-2 (1} Parcel 2 ~Dd T~x ~p 75-1 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 20). ~r, Jacobsen sta~ed the Planning Commission r~commended approval of Cass 89SN0407, subject to a single condition and acceptance of the applicant's proffered conditions. ~e noted that the proffered conditions add,ess concerns relative to land use compatibility, quality of development an~ zaintaining the water quality of Swift Creek Reservoir ~hich are consistent with "best management ~ractices" in conjunction with the Uppe~ ~wift Creek Plan. ~r. Oliver Rudy, representing th~ applicant~ pt&ted the recommended Condition Was acceptable, There was no opposition present. ~hen asked, Mr, Jacobsen stated that the ~eighborhood BuSine~ (C-2) classification is more restrictive relative te psrmit~ed uses than th~ previous ~usiness (B-2) classification. 90-42 1/10/90 m m On motion of Mr. Applegate~ SecOnded by Mr. ~uilivan, the Bea~ approved Case ~9~N0407, subject to the following condition: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Plan of Development for the acre Conditional Us~ tract. And further, the Board accepted the following conditions: I. Unless the adopted Upper Swift Creek Plan requires less open specs, s minimu~ of forty '(40) percent of the gross acreage~ exclusive of floodplains/w~tland$ along tributarie~ and any exls~ing bodies of water, shall be maintained in undisturbed natural open space, unless the Planninq Com~i$$1eD through schematic plan approval or the Planning Co~f~ion/Planning scuff throuqh site plan approval allows disturbance for u~itity or landscaping improvements. Further, n~ more than forty (~0) porcent cf the gross acreage exclusive of floodplains/wetlands along major ~rib~ta~ies or any existing bodle~ of w~ter shall be devoted to impervious surfaces. Imperviou~ areas include building footprints~ all pavement and i~pervious gravel areas for automobiles, an~ pedestrian er bicycle pavement other than lineal Required ~etbacks and buffer~ an~ ~uy passive recreation ar~as may he credited toward the percentage of undisturbed natural open Space, provided landscape improvements are plantings which ars indigenous to the Upper s~ift Basin. 2. Prior to any land disturbing activity, a drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted te~ an~ approved by, Environmental Engineering. The plan shall include measure~ to minimize the impact o~ surfac~ ~unoff on th~ water quality of Swift Creek R~er~oir. The drainage plan shall include the institution of "best management practices" as specified i~ ~he final repor~ prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee for the Up,er ~wift Creek Area Natersbeds, unless less $~rlngent standards ar~ specified in the adopted Upper Swif{ Creek Plan in which case th~ less stringent ~tandard$ ~ha!l apply. Further, the "beat managemen~ praceices" shall include, b~t shall not he limited to, the use of wet d~tention basins/p~rmanent pool(s) for the conarol of nutrient loadings on the watershed for the Swift Creek Reservoir. The erosion control and drainage plan shall as~ure~ to the maximum extent possible, that the development of the sit~ will not contribute =o any water quality and sedimentation problems in the re~e~=oir watershed. 3. Within the Conditional Us~ area~ a maximum of one (1) fast 4. Pedestrian and vehi=ul=r access shall be provided to the adjacent to%n~house project. At the lime of the schematic plan or first site plan review, an overall access plan depictin~ this requirement shaII be submitted approved by, the Transportation and Planning Departments. 5. suildinqs shall have architectural styles and incorporate materials that are similar and compl~/~entar~ to the adjacent ~ownhouee p~Oject. Franchise-type outparcels shall conform to the architectural styles which pre- dominate in the development. Architectural plans shall be submitted for approval in conjunction with site plan review. 90-43 1/10/90 6. The public wastewater system shall be used. 7. Prior to issuance Of a building permi~ one hundred (100) feet of right of way measured from the centerllne of Route 360 shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. S, To provide for an adequate roadway ayetem at the time of the cumplete development of the proposed projsGt, the ~eveloper will be responsible for the following: for the entire frontage of the property re- quested to be ~esened C-2 as we11 as tn the proposed entrance to the adjacent R-TH property (The Lake~) to provide a right turn lane at each proposed entrance/exit, b. Additional pavement along eastbound Route 360 at the Winterpock Road/Site access intersection to provide a left turn lane. the Winte~pock Road/~ute 360/Site access intersection. 9. The Developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement] required for the improvements identified above. lO. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, phasing plan for required road improvements may be submit- ted to the Transportation Department for approval. ll. Acces~ from this 9r0perty to Route 360 shall be limited one entrance/exit that aligns Wint~rpock Road and additional entrance/exit located towards the western property l~n~ as g~n~rally depicted on the Mas%er 91an. 89SN0~13 In Matoaca Magisterial District, FIP~T COLONIA3~ FINANCiaL COP~POP~TiON requested amen~%ent to Conditional Use Planned Development {cane 84S172) S=lativu tu signs. This request lies in a ~esident~al {R-7} D~s~rict On a 1.3 a~re parcel frontin~ approximately 145 f~t on the west lin~ of Iron Bridg~ Read, (1) Parcel 20 (Sheet Mr. Jacobsen stated the Plannlnq Co--lesion r~co~ended denial of ~endm~n= to Condition 6 o~ Case 84B172 to permit an increase in overall square footage of the signage ~rom thirty-nine (39) square fee: :o ~ine=y-five (95) square feet (i.e.~ fifty-five (55) square feet Of building-m0unted siqnage and forty {40) square feet of freestanding ~ignage} for she First Colonial Savings Bank but r~co~ended approval ~f an adopted ~oning Ordinanc~ in Emerging Growth Areas, s~bject certain adjacent to First Colonial Savings Bank, declared a conflict interest pursuant to ~e virginia Comprehensive Conflict Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. ~hat confo~s ~o ~he recently adopted Zoning 0zdinance 90-4~ 1/10/9~ Emerging Growth Ar~ae, is acceptable and stated that he would request and additional condition be imposed requiring freestanding sign to be toca~ed no more than fifty-one (51) ie~t from the northern property llne to address concesns of ad3eining property owners. A citizen stated he was not in opposition to the proposed request provided the additional condition was in¢luded~ On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate~ the Board approved Ca~e 89SN0~13~ subject to the following conditions~ 1. signs shall comply with ~he requirement~ of ~he Zoning O~dinance, Section~ 21.1-2~5, 21.l-266, 21.1-268, and 21.1-269. (NOTE: This condition ~uper~des ~ondition 6 of Case ~4S172 for the request property only. 2. The fre6standing sign ps=mitted by Condition i shall be located no more than fifty-one (5~} f~et from the norther~ property line. (NOTES: A. Except as noted herein, all conditions of zoning approval fo~ C~se $4S172 remain in B. Prior to erection of any si~n~, a ~i~n permit mn$~ be obtained. c. Tt ~ay be necessary to amend %he approved ~gn package.) Ayes: MT. Sullivan, Mr. Appleqate, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Absent; Mr. Currin. Mr. Currin r@~urn~O to the me,ting. In Bermuda ~a~isterial District, WAV~FcLY ~. STAR~ requ~t~d Conditional Use to permit a dwelling separated from the principal dwstling in an Agricultural (A) District on a 7.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 230 feet on the south line of Point of Rocks Road, approxLmately 210 feet wgSt of Spruce Avenue. Tax ~ap 151-4 (3} Rivermont, Lot 8 (Sheet 42). ~r. Jacobsen sta~ed the Planning Co~is~icn recommended approval of Case 89SN0377, subject to certain conditions. acceptable. There was no opposition present. ©n motion of ~r. Currin~ zeconded Dy Mr. Sullivan~ the Board approved Case 89~N0577, subject to the following conditions: 1. Occupancy of either dwelling unit shall b~ limited to guests or family me,ers of the p~operty owner. At time shall either dw~lli~g unit be r~nted or sold ss a separate use, unl~ and until the lot is rezoned permit SUCh z~n%ing or sale. (PI 2, ~xlor to issuance of an occupancy p~r~it, the appli0ant shall recOrO a ~eed restriction indicating th9 r~quirement in Condition 1. 3. P~lic water shall be used. 4. The property owner shall not re,est a ~parate driveway connection ~or th~ proposed ~econd dwelling unit. 90-45 The existing one and on,-half (1 1/2) ~tory frame house as show~ on the plan titled, "Plat Shewing Improvements on Lot 8, Rivermont," prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., dated June 5, 1989, shall be removed from the eub~eot p~operty no later than sixty (6Q) days following the issuance of the eerti£1cate of occupancy for the proposed new single family dwelling. Vote: Unanimous 895~0Z20 In Dale Magieterial D~strict, RiDGBWA~ DEVEI, O~NT requested r~zoning fzom Residential (R-15) to R~i~en~iaI Multi-family (R-~F) of 3Q.5 acres to Neighborhood (C-2) of ~0 corps, a~ =o Corpora%e~0ffice {0-2) of 9.5 with Conditional Use Planned Develo~ent to permit e~cep%ions. A mixed use multi~f~ily, co~rciat, and office dev~l'opmen% is planned. This request li~ on a 48.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 3,050 feet on the nor=h line Chipp~nham Parkway, al~o f~on~inq approki~ately 2,Q00 fe~% the we~t line of Iron ~ri~gs Road, and located ~n the northwest Cuadrant of the ihtersection of these roads. Tax M~p ~1-13 ~arcel ~0; Tax ~ap 41-14 (1) Parcels 5 and 6~ and Tax Map 41-14 (5~ Royal Oak, Section A, Block A, Lots 2 through 5 (Sheet 15). Mr. Jacobsen presented a s~ary of the request; stated a mixed permit drive-in e~tablis~ents within the C-2 tract. Ee seated staff reconm~ended approval of Case 89SN0110 ba~ed on the fact that the proposed r~oning and land uses conform %o th~ C~ntral Area Lan0 Use and Transportation Plan which d~signates the reques~ property for mi~ed use development~ tha~ the Master proper land use transition and compatibility between existing and future area lan0 uses and quality developmen%~ and ~ha% the intensity and design of the us~s will bu regulated so the proposed co~ercial uses along the Route 10 frontage do not a precedent for intense development on the east side of Route 10 in th~ ~iclmlty of Garland ~ight~; however, the Planning Co~ission reco~nd~d denial ba~ed on the concerns of ~he opposition. M~. John Coqbitl, IeDre~enting the applicants, su~arized the proposed develo~ent; presented the Bo~rd with resumes outlinin~ the pro~e~sionaI background/expertis~ of thOSe individuals ~socx~ed with the proposed development; pre~nt~d slide~ of variou~ projects previously con,trotted by the applicants or i~ no~ constructed by the applicmnts, they represented ~he quality ~tandards proposed by the applicants; portion of which was read into the record; stated h~ fel~ proposed usu was the highest and best use of the property and the proposed development woul~ meet a demand rOI affordable housinq in th~ County; addressed concerns r~lative to compatibiti=y, existing r=uurvoir conditions, impact on letter fro~ ar. stan Bald~r~on r~ardin~ ~nvironmen~a! ~ion measures; and stated the applicant had complied with the Board~s ins~rnctlons to address concerns relative to a reduc- tion in the residential density to a level no greatsr than the Woolfolk tract~ raviginq the mixed u~a for an increase in office development in order to ~e more consistent with ths land use plan~ reviewing the traffic analysis in detail for a level ne greater than tbs Woolfotk tract~ and reviewing ~e environ- mental i~u~ previously discu~ed~ and stated he felt the pzcposad pr~jecn r~pre~en%ed a planned, high quality, organize4 development for th~ C~unty and wou~d prove economically bsnsficiaI to the County. 90-46 1/1Q/90 Mr. Will Carries voiced support for the proposed develepment as he felt it was the most appr0priata use for the property in the were defeated due to concerns regarding thm environmental reconsider other develoDments along ~his and other ~eSerVoi~ and upgrade s~andards and take action to preserve ~he subject area es wilderness; and further that h~ felt that muttifamily and/or a m~xed use development would be the highest and best use of the subject property. Mr. Harold Landis, President of the Meadowbrook West/Garlend asights Civic Association; Mr. Mark Anderson and Mr. David League voiced opposition to the proposed ~e¥~lopment as they felt it would adversely impact the quality of life in ~heir community by affecting schools, traffic, property values; and the group presented ~lidem depicting the life cycle end condition of rssldential investment properties as ¢o~pared to residential properties where there is pride of ownership; pointed out problems rslatlve to soil stabilization, erosioD of drainage ditches; exhibits of stored waste material, discarded appliances, etc., d~mped in and/or stored in improper locations or under nn~a~s conditions; silt basins; exhibited slides depicting ot/~er area~ in the Connty wher~ there ~re erosion problems dme to s~milar types of development as requested; etc. It was generally agreed to recess for five {5} minnt~s. Mrs. Virginia Macy; Mr. Edward Wetdon, President of Brookbury Civic Association; Mr. ~ne~t Ellis, representing Rockspring Farms and Maadewbrook Farms; Mr. Bill Packard; Ms. Jane Delany; Mr~ W~yne PatterseD; MS. ~orraine ~rittle; and Mr. Joe Kastner ¢o~c~r~s regarding the impact of the proposed development on the quality of life in thsic community by affecting schools, ~raffic, property values; the impact of development on slopes steepe~ than 15%: comparison of the proposed project to the Woolfolk tract; denuded land; lake debris; pride of ownership; soil stabilization, erosion of drainage dltch~s; silt basins; that %he Dale District ~as becoming the "apartment district" of in other Districts; and requested the Board deny the ~eqneet. When asked, approximately 2~0 per~ons mto0a to indicate their opposition to the request. Mr. John cogbill addressed concerns a~ expressed by each of the speakers and stated he f~lt th~ developer has exhibited a commlt~ent to the County and its re~idents for ~ high-quality, upscaled development which is in conformance with the Central the County. When askedr approximately =weary-five (~) persons Cogbill ~ef~i~nced a petition of approximately 140 signatures closed. the configuration of the subject property and development of slopes steeper =has 15%; etc. when asked, Mr. McElfish stated he was comfortable with the project ~ubject bo the required developmsn~ standards and the applicant's proffered conditions. Bm noted that it is extremely importaDt that erosion cuntrol devices be installed and maintained properly by the contacted. 90-47 1/10/90 Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to the many individuals who were present regarding the proposed rezon~nq reguest; stated this particula~ ease had been very controversial and very difficult ~or him; declared that ss a resident of Meadowbrook We~t~ he had consulted with the County Attorney to determine if he could participate in a decision on th~s case and stated that living at least 1/2 mile from the subject site, he did DOt feel that personally his home would benefit or lose from the propos- ed zoning; and had consu~ed much time, energy end e~o~ion fro~ all those involved with it. He stated there are eleven lsgaI 1) the proposed use is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan which designates the property for office use; 2) use of the property for other than single-family residences may adversely affect the value of adjacent p~operty c~nerS north of Chippenham Parkway; 3) approval of co~ercial uses will set a Chipped-ham Parkway in the vicinity oZ existing single-~amily development; 4) the Route 10/Chippenham Parkway interchange weuld generate less traffic than a more intense mixed use development; 5) the public water system may n~t adequately serve the fire flow and domestic ne~ds of the project; 6) to steep slopes and local flooding; 7} the densities and proposed mixed u~es ~re incompatible with the existing predominantly single-f~mily uses north of Chippenham Parkway; 8) Chippenham Parkway is and has been an appropriate divi~ing line between commercial uses on the southern side and residential uses to the north: 9) adequate functioning of the proposed traffic plan is dependent cn future restrictive zoning to the east which can not be predicted or assumed; development deneity i9 incompatible with the eonfi~uration of the parcel; and 11) strip shopping centers are not appropriate within ~uoh close proximity and visibility of existing residential neighborhoods. ~e further submitted a copy of a uses; reviswe~ statistics relative to size, ~ensity, square between the Royal Oaks ~svelcpmsnt an~ the Winchester appropriateness of the propoeed use, ~eneitiee, th~ Biological sontinu±ty of zoning, drainage, comparative statistioe hibited a copy of the Royal Oaks ~astar Land Use Plan depiating the amount of land available fsr development if develotTM of the applicant presented good arguments %o sustain his case felt the opposition had also provided equally and, in soma tha~ no single silt basin was su~fiuient to oentrO1 runoff from the proposed project, whic ha asked b~ made a part of the zoning, that approval of the request would set a dangerous the Davi~ tract and, at the appropriate time, would move denial. Mr. Mayas commended those individuals involved in the evolution of this project for their efforts, ideas and opinion~. He stated he felt Mr. Cogbii1 And presented good arguments to presented an outstanding case also. He stated he believes in the free enterprise systmm and the development of property to 1/10/90 he would be in favor of the be~t interest and welfare oX the community. Mr. Applegate comm~eded ell ~he individuals involved in this project for their efforts; stated the U~p~r Swift Creek ~lan ~s only in itc preliminary ~taqe$ and, as such, thsre really is no plan that this request could be compared to ac this time; stated he felt there had been compromis~ on this project; that he had reviewed the data r~garding this case from a land use perspective7 statsd thatc attheugh Mr. Lyttle ham miqnificaDtly contributed =e the betterment of the County, the Beard could not judge a zoning request based on a develOper'~ contributions to the Co~nty; and that he could not muppert a motion for d%nial of ~he r~quemt. Mr. Sullivan stated he had met with area residents to discuss their concerns re~arding this request; had also met with the developers and their attorney~ to discuss the matter; had pro~ided relative to the densities, eremion, school enrollment, this cas~ was remanded to the Planning Commission for further for mixed u~ d~velopm~nt an~ that the project would be beneficial to the come, unity; and ~tated he could not supporh n ~r. Curtis expressed his appreciation for the patience of those traffic congestion, growth in the corridor, etc; and etate~ he r~view%d thi~ project a~ beinq isolated, buffered to the maximum, believed the conditions as outlined in the Request Analy~i~ and tho~e proffered by the applicant wars sufficient ho p~0teot the reservoir, =hat the project is bordered by two major arterial roads and that it should not adversely impact ~xi~ting ~r~f£ic to make it any worse than it already i~ and hhat he eenld support the project. Mr. Daniel mad~ a motion, s~conded by ~r. Mayas, to deny Cam~ 89SN0120. ~ays: Mr. kpplegate, Mr. Currin and Mr. ~ullivan. Mr, Daniel made a motion to deny rezoning to Neighborhood Bu~ine~ (C-2) and ~o approve ~e~onlng to Multi-family (R-MF} and Corporate office [0-2), sub,eot to following conditions~ 1. A maximum of 260 multi-family units shall be permitted. (BOS) 2, The Planning COat, lesion uhall approv~ the maxim~ squar~ footage of offics use at the time of schematic plan review provided the traffic for ~he offices and apartments does net e~ceed e maximam of ~,700 average ~aily A single access shall be permitted to the sige onto Ronte 10. ~he acce~ closest to Shoremeade Read shall b~ eliminated. 4. Office buildings shall be constructed of brick and shall 5. Unless approved by ~nvironmental Engineering, there shall be no slearinq of slopea having a grade of fifteen (15) percent or greater. 6. All existing tree~ along ROUte 10 between elevations 186 and 191 shall be preserved. (BOS) 90-49 lflO/~O ~ guard house shall ba installed and maintained at the entrance to the apartment project. (BOS) The apartJ~ents shall be comparable in ~iz¢ ~nd quality to The Timbers. Discussion~ quastions and co--ants ensued re%ative to the conditions M~. Daniel wished to impose on the raquest; a statement of commitment from th~ developer regarding s~are footage and quality of development equivalent to the Timbers Projact and the applicant's willingness to do so; etc. There was nQ second to the motion and Mr. Daniel withdrew it. Nr. Daniel made a ~otion, seconded by Mr. Mayas, to defer case ~9s~012~ until January 14, 1990, in order To mae= with the de,eloper to revie~ details of additional conditions for approval. ~r. Sullivan stated he felt i~ inappropria~ tQ continue to defer a case which had been on-gein~ in the public hearing process for such a tsngthy period of tlms. ~r. A~pl~gate concurred. Mr. Daniel withdrew his motion for deferral. Sr. Danlsl made a motion, seconded by Mr, Mayas, to deny ~ezoning to ~eighborhcOd Business (C-2) and to approve rezoning to Residential Multi-family (R-MF) and Corporate O~ice subject to the following condi~ion~: t. A maximum of 240 multl-family units shall be permitted. (~OS) 2. Th~ Planning Commission shall approve the maximum square footagm of offic~ use at the time of schemmtio plan review provided the traffic for the offieem and apartments does not exceed a maximum of 6,700 average daily trips. (MOS) A single access shall be permitted to the si~s onto Route 10. The access closest to Shoremeade Road shall be eliminated. 4. Office buildings zhall be aons~ru~ed of hri~k and shall b~ compatible with ~rea residences. 5. Unlass approved by Environmental Engineering, %her~ shall be no clearing of slopes having a grade of fifteen p~rcent or grmater. 6. All mxi~ting tr~em along Route 10 between ~leva%ions 186 and 191 shall be preserved. (BOS) 7. A guard house shall he installed and maintained at the entrance %o the apartment pzoject, The apartments shall be comparable in size and quali=y to The Timbers. Mr. Mayoe stated he seconded the motion but felt the Distric{ ~upervlsor should have been extended the courtesy of a d~f~rral in order to resolve issues with the developer. Mr. Sullivan stated it appeared that adequate time had been provided to resolve the issues and chat no compromise could be reached. Mr. Sullivan made a substitute mo%ion to approve Case subject to the following conditions: 90-50 1/10/90 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan prepared by Clow~r and Associates, Inc., dats~ Suly 20, 1989, and the Textual Statement, revised October 30, ]989, shall he considered the Master Plan. {~) 2. Ail buildings within th~ project shall be similar or complimentary in architectural ~tyle and meterial~. Franchise-type eot-parcel buildings shall conform to the architectural etyle~ which predominate in the development. The overall quality of non-r~sidential develo~ent shall be at least equal to "che~terfisld ~eadows'~ and '~Stony Point." (NOTZ: Thi~ cenditio~ is in addition to the Textual Statement, 4.~_ -~Pre'ect,. _Descri~ti°n;. 5,.0 ~en~ral-- Condi- ~ion~, ~.16; ~.Q Zeu~um Dens~ty Reszdentzal, 6.6~ 7.~ Re--~%~l; and 8.00fiice Uses.) 3. Prior to submittal of any schematic or overall plan of the proposed water distribution and waste- water collection system for the development ~hall submitted to %he Depar%ment of Utilities, Planning Section for review and approval. The plan shall r~flec% the of lines, identify points of futur~ connectiQn for ad- accompanied by appropriate supportive design data. This shall include a statement acknowledging the Fire Depart- ment~ approval of the fire protection wa~er flows and pressures proposed for the development. All approved easement locatiOnS for use by adjacent properties shall dedicated to the County prior to approval of any sitm plans. (NOTZ: This condition supersedes the T~xtual 5.0 General Conditions, 5.7.) 4. Prior to any clearinq or grading, the developer shall pro~id~ the County information from a qualified wa=er quality engineer on the ekistin~, status of the Falling Creek Re~ervelr. This informatioa shall be utilized to e~bablish baseline information on the water quality of Falling Creek Reservoir. Upon completion of each phase of COnStrnetfon, testing shall b~ performed at each outfalt to determine if ~he water quality has been worsened by development. (NOTE: This condition is in addition %o Te×tDaI State- ment, 5.0 General Conditions, ~. When the lake is low, or in conjunction with installation the storm sewer line and D~t$ ~hall be dug at the edge cf the lake where the eutfall enters the lake s~oh that silt pit~ ~nd ~et ~e carried farther ou~ in:o the bad of the periodic maintenance of the pits %o ensure that the pits (NOTE~ Th~$ ¢on~itlon supersedes Proffered CnnditiOn I0 6. The Outer limits of the fifty (5~) foot buffer adjacent Falling Creek Reservoir shall be delineated by a bright colored fence ~o a~ to identify to equipment operators and construction personnel the po~ti0n of the property that is not to b~ disturbed by construction ~ctlvity. (NOTE: ?his condition supersedes Proffered Condition lg boundary of Falling Creek R~r~oir, $hall be maintained. Unless approved b7 the Planning Department and Environ- mental Engineering, there shall be no cl~ariDg or grading within this buffer. Other than underbrush, existing vegetation within this buffer shall be maintained. Other than passive recreational uses, additional vegetation, utilities as permitted herein and pedestrian access, there shall be no facilities located within the buffer. Utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer shall be pernitted; however, upon approval by the Planning D~partment, Environmental Engineering, end the Department of Utilities, ut~l~t~ee ma~ be located parallel in the buffer pro~ided adequate measures~ as determined by the departments ~tated h~rein, can he taken to protect Falling Creek from erosion and sedimentation. The Planning Commission may, at the time of ~chematic plan review, modify buffer requirements to allow other uses within the buffer. (NOTE: This condition supe~eedes the Textual Statement, 5.0 General Conditions, (Note: Prior to obtaining final si~e pla~ approval or building permits, an overall schematic plan mu~t be ~ubmitted to, and approved by, the Planning Commission.) And further, the Beard accepted the following p~offered oonditlo~s~ 1. ~rior to issuane~ of a building permit, 100 feat of right of way m~a~nred from the centerllne of Ch~Dpenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and restricted. If ~eque~ted by the Transportation Department for the widening of Chippenham 9arkway, up to an addi- tional 50 feet of right of w~y along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. Ail buffer areas an~ setbacks for the Project ~hall be calculated from th~ 100 f~ot right of way as measured from the oente~line of Chippenham Parkway. 2. Specific roadway improvement~ set forth in these trans- portation proffers are to be constructed in accordance w~th the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. The D~veloper shall provide the Transporta- tion Department with addieional traffic studies co~pletfon of each phase i~ requested. ~oadway provements shall be increased or decreased by the Developer as required by the Transportation Department if these s~udigs demonstrate that traffic generation rates and di~t~ibution~ ~elely b~ the development are materla~ly different as det~rmln~d by %be Transportation Department from projzctlen~ ~et forth in the traffic study prepared by Kellerco dated Decanter 14, 19§~, and updated by letter dated September 22, 19~9~ If ~ati~factory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible den~itie~ to the ex~ent that acceptable levels of s~rv~ce are provided as determined by the Transporta- tion D~partment. To provi~ for an adequate roadway system at the time of the complete development of the proposed Project, ~he Developer will be responsible for the following: (a) The site access road shall have a ~inimum four lane within th~ development (i.e., two inbound and two outbound lanes). (b) One lane of pavement on the west side of southbound Route 10 from th~ site driveway through the transi- tion section cf the existing r~uup to Chipp~nham Parkway westbound. (c) Additional pavement along northbound ~oute lO at its intersection with the site access road to provid~ a left turn lane as generally depicted on Exhibit 7 of the December 14, 1988, T~affic Analysis prepared by Eellerco. In addition, a raised barrier along northbound Route 10 to preclude left turns at the (d) Additional pavement along northbound Route t0 at the full turn lane and 200 foot taper. (f) Full cost of a traffic ~fgnal at the site access (g) The Developer shall provide a bond satisfactory to the County for the full cost of the raised harriet and the traffic signal described above to qua~an%e~ the completion of th~ improvements. Such bond shall expire on the fifth anniversary of th~ "Completion date" of th~ ~ro~ect. The completion shal~ be the occupancy for ninety perca~t (90%) of the total the Director of Planning for the completion date, from the Project), the bond shall expire and the Developer shall have no further obligation to pay for Sated December 14, 1988, and ~dated by letter dated September 22, I9S9. In conjunction with tb~ ~irst schematic plan submission, a phasing plan for required roa~ improvements, with support- ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Transportation Department. Within any designated sound at=en~ation area adjacent to Chippenham Parkway. Prior to i~uance of any building permits, a noise impact s~dy shall be submitted to, and approved by, ~he Transportation Department. The study shall identify the Chippenha~ Parkway in accordance with Federal ~ighway Administration noia~ prediction crtt~rla with mediIica- tions approved by the Transportation Department. The developer shall be responsible for' implementing any phasing plan approved hy the Transportation Department. 90-~3 1/10/90 8. Access to Route 10 ehnll bm limited to the site access road and o~e additional access to tko north of the site access read intersection as generally depictmd on 9. The maximum densities for the project will be as follows: Office Space 60tO00 square feet Bank Space 5,000 ~quare feat Retail space 71,600 square feet Apartment Units 260 units ~rior to any land di~turbing activity, a drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by Environmental ~ngin~ring. TO minimize the impact of surface runoff on Felling Creek Re~rvoir~ the drainaqe plan shall include the following "best management (a) Each phase of development will be lined with a silt fence on t_he low side of that phase of development during all con,traction periods. (b) A silt basin will b~ located at each of the three swales running through the projec~ to interrupt runoff befor~ that r~noff can reach ~alling Cre~k Disturbed aroma will be seeded and stra~-mulched immediately upon fine grading. Temporary seeding will be performed on the embankment of the silt ba~in~ and oth~r major ~lopen within 1~ days of completion. {d) There will b~ careful maintenance Of all erosion control measures in order to ensure that Chess measures continue to perform their function proper/y. (%) Drop inlets constructed in the commercial and office areas will he constructed with "deed bottoms" allow sediment that drains into the drop inlets to filter down below the eutfelI from the drop inlets into the storm drainage system. To the extent that water can he drained from those drop inlets directly into th~ ground, it will b~ done by providing openings in the ~ottem of the drop inlets that will permit water to 4raln directly back in~o the ~oil, as opposed to being carried off the property. Drop inlet ~tructureu will bu protected by silt fences and gravel to prevent sediment from entering the inlet before stabili~=ion of the drainage site. (f) willow faseines will be in,tailed to trap sediments in regrad~d slopes a~ directed by consultants and approved by Environmental Engineer- lng. Erosion control blankets, as w~ll as willow and alder bruzh mat~rmsses wi~h uheok da~as shall also be installed in 'drainaqe areas as designated Developer's consul:an=s and apprcve~ by Enqin%~ring. II. The retail portion of the property will be swept With Mr. Daniel asked if Mr. Sullivan would amend his motion include condition~ for the installation of a guard house at entrance to the apartment complex and that said project be comparable to The Timbers. There was no seoomd and rezoning to ~eighborhood Business (C-2) and to approve rezening to Residential Multi-family (R-M~I and Corporate Office subject to the following sonditions; 1. A maximum of 240 multi-family units shall be permitted. footags of office use at the time of schematic plan review provided the traffic for the offices and apar~msn=s does not exceed a maximum of 6,700 average daily trips. (BOS) 10. The acces~ ~los~t tO ~horemeade Road shall be eliminated. Office buildings shall be constructed of brlck and shall Unless appreve~ by =nvironmental Engineering, there shall be no clearinq of $1opos having a grade of fifteen (15) perco~t or greater. All e~isting trees along Route 10 b~tween elevations 186 and 191 shall be preserved. (BOS) A guard house shall be' installed and maintai~d at the antranu~ ~o the a~nrtment project. The apartments shall be comparable in sise and qumlity to The Timb~r~. Mr. Currin~ ~r. sullivan and Mr. Ayes: ~ays: ~r. ~ulllvan restated hi~ substitute metioD to approve Case 895N0~2O, subject to the fo/lowing ~onditions: The ~o~lowing conditions notwithstanding, the Master Plan prepared by Clower and Assocla~es, Inc., dated J~ly 20, 1989, ted the Textual Statement, revised October 30, 1989, ~hall b~ 00n~iderod the Master Pla~. ~. All buildings within the p:eject shall be similar or cOmplimentary in architectural style and Franchise-type out-paruul buildings shall conform to architectural styles which predominate in the The overall quali~y of non-residential development ~halI be at least equal to "Chesterfield Meadows" ~D~ "$~ony (NOT~: This condition is in a~iticn to the Textual statement, 4.0 project Descrip~ioD; D.0 General Condi- tions, 5.1~; 6.G ~d£um Density R~sidential, 6.6; 7,0 Retail: and 8.0 Office Uses.] 3. Prior to ~ubmittal of any sQh~matlc or ei~e plans, an overall plan o~ th~ proposed water distribution and waste- water collection system for tho development shall be submitted to %he Department of Utilities, Planning S~ction for review and approval. Iho plan shall reflect th~ routing and sizing of both on-~ite and off-site extensions of lines, identify points of future connection for ad- jacent properties by shOWing ~asement locations and accompanied by appropriate supportive design data, This shall include a ~tate~ent acknowledging the Fire D~part- ment's approval of ~he fire pro%series water flows end pressures proposed for the development. All approved easement locations for use by adjacent properties ~hall be 90-$5 dedicated te the County prior to approval of ney ~ite pla~s. (U) (NOT~: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 5.0 General Conditions, 5.7.) Prior to any clearing or grading, the developer shall provide the County information from a qualified water quality engineer on the existing status of the Falling establish baseline information on the water q~ality of Falling Creek Reservoir. Upon completion of each phase of construction, tenting ~hai1 be performed at each outfall to determine i~ the water quality has been worsened by d~v~lopment. {NO?E: This condition is in addition to Textual State- ~ent~ 5.0 General Conditien~ When the lake is low, or in conjunction with installation of erosion control measures, the developer shall install the ~term ~ewer line and pits shall be dug at the edge of the lake where the uutfall enters the lake such that silt that comes from the property continues to filter into the pits and not be carried far,her out into the b~d of lake. In addition, temporary silt fences shall be in- stalled in the reservoir aroun~ those pits to further rsduce the amount of silt that might otherwise be pushed oat farther into the bed of the lake and there shall be periodic maintenance of the pits to ensure that th~ pits continue to ~unetien properly. (NOTE= This condition supersedes Proffered condition 10 The outer limits of th~ fifty {50) Falling Creek Reservoir shall be colored fence so as ~o identify to foot buffer adjacent to delineated by a bright equipment operator~ and con~trnction personnel the portion of the property that is no= to be disturbed by construction activity. (NOTE~ This condition supersedss Proffered Condition (g) -) 7. A fifty (50) foot buffer, measured from the floodplain boundary of Falling Creek Reservoir, shall be maintained. Unless approve~ by ths ~anning D~partmen~ and Envlr~n- mental Engineering, there shall be ne cl~asln~ or grading within this buffer. Other than underbrush, ~xisting vegetation within this b~ffer ~hell be maintained, other than passive recreational uses, additional vegetation, utilities es permitted h~rein and pedestrian access, =here shall be no facili=ie= locatud within the buffer. Utilitie~ which run g~neralt~ perpendicular through the buffer shall be permitted; however, upe~ ~pproval by the Planning Depar~:~ent, EnVlrenmental ~ngine~ring, and the Department o£ Utilities, u~ilities may be located parallel in the buffer provided adequate mea~ure~t a~ determined by the departments stated herein, can be taken to Planning COmmission may, at the time of schematic plan within the buffer. (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 5.0 ~en~ral C©ndition~, 5.12.) 8. k guard house shall be installed ~ad ~aintained at the entrance to the apartment pr0~eet. (Boa} The Timbers. (Nots: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval building permits, a~ overall schematic plan mutt be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Co--lesion.) And further, th~ Board accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Prior to issuance efa building permit, 100 feet of right cf way measured from the c~nterline of Chippenham Parkway shall ba dedioated to Che~terffeld County free and un- restricted. If requested by the Transportation for the widening of Chippenham Parkway, up to an addi- tional ~O feet of right of way along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County tree and unrestricted. All buffer area~ and setbacks for the Project shall be calculated from the 100 foot right of way as measured from th~ c~nt~rtine of Chippenham Farkway. 2. ~pecific r~adway Lmprovements set forth in these trans- portation proffers are to he tOe,trusted in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transpor=atio~ Department. The Develop~r shatl provide the Transporta- tion Department will additional traffic scudi~ upon 0ompletion of each phase if requested. Roadway im- provements shall be increased or ~cr~a~ed by the D~veloper am required b~ the Transportation Department th~se studies d~onstrate ~at traffic generation rateE and distributions solely by th~ development are materially different as datelined by the Transportation Departmen~ from projections met forth in the traffio study prepared by Kellerco dated December 1~, 1988, and updated by latter dated S~pt~er 22, 1989. If satisfactory improvements camno= ~ previded, the Planning Cc~imsion may reduce the permissible densitie~ to the extent that acceptable of service are provided as determined Dy the Transporta- tion Department. 3. To provide ~or an adequate roadway sys~ at ~he time of the complete development of the proposed Pro3ect, the The s~t~ ~cc~ss road shall have a minimum fou~ lane ~ypical ~e~tion f~om Route 10 to a logical terminus within the development (i.e., =wu inbound and two outbound (b) One lane of pavement on th~ we~t side of southbound Route 10 fr~ the site driveway through the transi- tion section o~ ~h% ~xi~klng ramp to Chippenh~ Parkway w~tbound. (c) Additional pavement along northbound Route 10 at inter~ection with the site acce~ roa~ ~o provide a Kell~rc~. In addition, a rai~ed barrier along northbound Route 10 ~o preclude l~ft t~rns at the site access road from the northbound Route 10 r~p of th~ Ron~e 10/Route 1~0 Interchange. (d) Additional pavement along northbound Rou~m iQ at ~xistinq cross-over that ~rves Sh0remeade Road provide a l~ft t~rn lane for a length of 200 foot full turn lane and 200 foe{ taper. (e) Right turn lance on ROu~e t0 southbound (f) Full cost of a traffic signal road/Route 10 Intersection. at both at the site access 90-57 1/10/90 The Developer shall provide a bond satisfactory to the County for the full cost of the rai~ed barrier and the traffic signal described above to guarantee the completion of the impro~omeDts. ~uch bond shall expire on the fifth anniversary of thc "completion date" of the Project. The completion shall be the date of the issuane~ of a final certificate of occupancy for ninety percent (90%) of the total building deneity for the Project, as depicted on the then current Master Plan, or The date determined by the Director o~ Planning for the completion date, whichever first occurs. If the improvements are not th~n r~quired (based upon traffic volumes generated from the Project}, the bond shall expire and the D~veloper ~hall have no further obligation ~o pay for or censtr~ct such improvements. 4. The Developer will dedicate to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right Si way easement) required for the improvements identified above, and in the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by dated December 14, 1988, and updated by letter dated September 2~, 1959. 5. In conjunction with the first ~ehematie plan ~ubmi~sion, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with support- ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Tra~$p0rtation Department, shall be ~ubmitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. within any designated sound attenuation area adjacent to Chippenham Parkway, all r~sidential units will be designed and coast:acted su0h that activity area~ (but not inoI~d- ins parking areas) shall be generally orlentat~d away from Chippenbam Parkway. study ~hall be submitted to, and approved by, the Trans- portation Department. The study shall identify the need for noise attenuation in the development sdjasant to Chippenham Parkwa~ in accordance with Federal ~ighway Administration norse prediction criteria with modifica- tions approved bF the Transportation Department. The developsr shall be responsible for implementing any ~equired mitigation measures ;'in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Dmpartment. 8. Aucess to Route tO shall be limited tc th~ Sits access road and one additional access to the north of th~ site a~eess road intersection as generally depicted on the Master Plan. 9. The maximum densities for the project will be as follows: Office Space 60,000 square feet Bank Space 5,000 square feet R~tail Spa~ 71,600 ~qu~re feet Apartment Units 260 units Prior to any land disturbing activity, a drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by Environmental Engineering. TO minimi2e the impact of surfac~ runoff on Palling Czeek Reservoir, ~he drainage plan shall includa the following "best management (a) Each phase of development will bs lined with a silt fence on the low side. of that pha~e of development during all ucnstruction periods. (b) A silt basin will be located at each of the three swales running throuqh the project to interrupt r~neff before that runoff can reach Falling Creek Reservoir. (c) Di~turb~ ar~a~ will be seeded and straw-mulched immediately upon fine grading. Temporary ~eeding will be performed Qn the smbankment e~ the milt basins and other major slopes within 14 days of =ompletion. (d) There will be careful maintenance of all eroeion (e) Drop inlets constructed in the commercial and office areas will be conshrUCte~ with "deep bottoms" to a~low ~adlment that drains into the drop inlets to filter down below th~ outfall from the drop into the graund, it will be done by providing openings in the b~ttom of th~ drop in%ets ~ha~ will opposed to being carried off the property. Drop 9~vel to pxevent sediment from entering the intst in xegraded slopes as ~irected by Developer's i~talled in drainage areas as designated by Engineering. 11. The retail portion of the property will ~e swept with a Mr. Daniel asked if Mr. Sullivan would amend his motion to Case 89~N0120~ subject to the following conditions: 1. The following condition~ not~iths~anding, the Master 19~9, and fha Textual ~tatement, revised October 30, ~hall be considered the Master Plan. 2. All buildings within the project shall be similar or complimentary in architectural style and materiels. Franchise-type out-parcel b~ildings shall conform tO the architectural stylsa which predominate in the development. Point." (P) (~OTE= This condition i~ in addition to the Textual Statement, 4.0 ~KR~ect Description; 5.0 General Co~di- %iena~ 5.I6: 6.0 ~edium Density Residential, 6,6: Ketail? and 8.0 Office Prior to submittal of any schematic or site plans, an overall plan cf the proposed water distribution and waste~ submitted to the Department of Utilities, Planning Sactio~ for review and approval. Th~ plan shall reflect the routing and sizing of both on-site and off-site extensions of lines, identify points of future corm%erich for ad- 90-59 1/I0/90 jacent properties by showing easement locefions and be accompanied by appropriate supportive design data. This shall include a ~tate~ent acknowledging the Fire Depart- ment's approval of the fire protection water flews and pressures proposed for the~ development. All approved easement locations for use by adjacent properties shall be dedicated to the County prior to approval cf any site plans. (U) (NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual statement, P~ior to any elear~nq or grading, the developer shall provide the County information from a qualified water quality engineer on the 'existing ~tafu~ of the Falling Creek Reservoir. This information shall be ut~lise~ to establish baseline in~ormatleu on the water quality of Falling Creek Reservoir. Upon completion of each phase of construction, testing shall be periermed st each outfall to determine if the water quality ha~ been worsened by development. (~OT=: This condition is in addition to Textual State- ment, 5.0 General Conditions, 5.13.) 5. When the leks is low, o~ in conjunction with installstion of erosion control measures, the developer shall install the storm sewer line and plt~ ~hall be dug at the edge of fhat come~ from the propert~ continues to filter into the pits ~nd not be carried ~arther out into the bed of the lake. In addition, temporary milt f~nces shall be sfalled in the reservoir around those pits to further redues the amount of silt ~haf might otherwise be pushed cut farther into the bed o~ the lake and there shall be periodic maintenance of tho pits to ~n~ure that the pits continus to function properly. (NOTE: This condition ~uper~ede~ Proffered C~ndition (f) .) 6. The cuter limlts of the fifty (50) foot buffer adjacent to Falling Creek Reservoir ~hall be delineated by a bright colored fence so as to identify to squlpment operators and construction personnel the portion of the property that is net to ba disturbed by construction activity. (NOTE~ This condition supersedes Proffered Condition k fifty (50) foot buffer, measured from the floodplain beundar~ of Falling Creek Reservoir, ~halI be maintained. Unless approved by the Planning Depar~ent and Rnviron- mental Enqinee~in~ there shall be no clearing or grading within this buffer. 0thor than underbrush, existing vegetation within thim buffer ~hall be maintained. Other than passive recreational uses, additional v~getation, utilities as permitted herein and pedestrian access, there shall be no facilities located within the buffer. Utilities which run generally perpendicular thronqh the buffer shall be permitted; however, upon approval by 91~nning Department, Environmental Engineering, and the Department of Utilities, utilities may be located parallel in the buffer provided ad~quate measures, as determined by the ~epar~ments stated herein, can be taken to Falling Creek from erosion and ~dimentafion. The Planning Commission ~ay, at the time cf schematic review, modify buffer requirements to allow other uses within the buffer. (NOTE: This condi=ion supersedes the Textual Statsmen~ 5.~ General ¢ondition~, ~.1~.) 8. A guard house shall be installed and maintained at the entrance ts the apartment project. (BOg) 9. The apartments shall be comparable in quality to The Timbers. 10. The Planning COEU~iSs~Qn shall review access onto touts 10 near Shoremeade Road at the time cf schematic plan roview. The Commission may delete this access if %hey feel it will have an adverse impact on residents along Shor~m~ade Road. {NOTE: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval er building permits, an overall schematic plan mu~t be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Commission.) conditions: i. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 100 feet of right of way measured from tho sontorline cf Chippenham Parkway shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and un- restricted, if requested by the Transportation Department for the widening et Chippenham Parkway, up to an ~di- tional ~0 feet o~ right of way along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free ~n~ unrestricted. All ~uffsr areas and setbacks for the Pro3eat ~hall be calculated from the 100 foot right O~ way as measured from the oentsrllne of Chippenham Parkway. porte,ion proffers ara to be constructed in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. The Developer shall provide the Transporta- tion Department with additional traffic studies upon completion of each phase if requested. Roadway im- provements shall be increased or decreased by D~veloper an required by the Transportation Department if and distributions solely ~y the development are matsrially diffeUent am deterwmin~d by the Transportation Department from projections set .forth in the traffic study prepared by Kellereo daeed December 14, 1988, an~ updated by letter ~ated September 22, '1989. If ~atisfactory cannot bc provided, the Planning Commission may rednoe the permissible densities to the eztent that acceptable levels of servic~ are provided es determined by th~ Transporta- tion Department. $. To provide for an adequate roadway ~yate~ at the time of the complete development of the propose~ ~roject, the Developer will be responsible for the.relieving: (a) The site access road shall have a minimum fou~ lane typical section £rom Route 10 to a logical =erminus within the development (i.e., two inbound and two outbound lanes). (b) One lane of pavement on the wes~ side of Route 10 from the site driveway through the transi- Parkway westbound. (e) Additional pavement along northbound Rout~ 1~ at its intersection with the sits access road to provide left turn lane as generally depicted on ~xhibit 7 of the December 14, 1985, Traffic Analysis prepared by Kellerco. In addition, a raised barrier northbound Routs 10 ~o preclude left turns at the site access ro&~ from the northbound Route 10 ramp of the Routs 10/Koute 1~0 Interchange. 90-61 1110190 (d) Additional pavement along northbound Route 10 at the existing cross-over that ssrvea Shorem~ade Road to provide a left ~urn lane for a length of lO0 foot full turn lane and 200 foot taper. (e) Right turn lanes on Route 10 southbound at both entrances fo the ~ite. (f) Full cost of a traffic signal at the site access ~oad/Routc lO Intersection. Ths Developer ~hall provide a bond satisfactory to th~ County for the full cost of the raised barrier and the traffic signal described shove to guarantee th~ completion of the improv~msnts. Such bond shall expire on The fifth anniversary of the "completion dat~" of th~ Project. The completion sh~ll be t=he date of the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for niDety percent {~0%~ of the ~otal buildinq density for the Project, as depicted on the then current ~aster Plan, or the da~e determined by the Director of Planning for the completion date, whichever firs% occurs. If the improvements are not then required (ba~ed upon traffic volume~ generated from the Project), the bond shall expire and the Developer shall have nO further obligation to pay for 4. The Developer will ~edicate to thc County o~ Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for ~h~ improvements identified above, and in the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Kellerco dated December 14, 19~$, and updated by letter dated 5. In conjunction with the first sohe~natic plan submission, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with support- ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department~ shall be submitted to:and approved by the Transportation Department. 6. Within any deaignaesd sound ae~nuatlon area adjacent to Chippenham Park~ay~ all re,idea%iai unit~ will be designed an4 con~ruc=~ ~uch that activi=y arem~ (but no= inclu~- Ckippenham Parkway. 7. Prior to issuance of any building pe~mits, a no,ge imDac~ ~%udy shall be submitted to, an~ approved by, the Trans- required mitigation measures in accordance with th~ phasing 91an approved by =he Transportation Department. road a~d uae additional acceus to the north of the site access road intersection as genemally depicted on the Master Plan. Office Space 60,080 square feet Bank Spaoe 5,000 square f~et Apartment Units 260 units 10. Prior to any land disturbing activity, ~ drainage and erosion control plan shall be submit%ed to and approved by 9~-62 Z/lQ/DO Environmental Eagineering. TO minimize the impact of surface runoff on Falling Creek R~servoir, the drainage plan shall include the following '~be~t management practices": (a) Eech phase of development will be lined with a silt fence on the low side of that phase of development durinq all construction periods. (b) A silt basi~ will be located at each of the three swales running ~hrough the pro,eot to interrupt runoff before that runoff can reach Falling Creek Reservoir. (c) Disturbed areas will be seeded and straw-mulched immediately upon fine grading. Temporary seeding will be performed on the en~ank~ent of the ~ilt ba$i~$ ~D~ Other major slopes within t4 days of (d) There will k~ Oa~eful maintenance of all erosion control measures in order to ensure that these measures continue to perform their function properly. (e) Drop inlets constructed in the commercial and office areas will be constructed with "deep bottoms'~ to allow sediment that drains into the drop ~nlst~ to filter down bslow the outfall from the drop inlets into the storm drainag~ ~yst~m. TO the exten~ ~hat water can be ~rained from those drop inlets directly into the ground, it will be done by providing openings in the bottom of the drop inlet~ that will permit water to drain ~ireetly back into the soi~, as opposed to being carried off the property. Drop inlet structures will be protected by ~ilt £~nces an~ gravel to prevent sediment from entering the inlet before stabilization of the drainage site. (f) Willow fascin~ will b~ in$%~lle4 to trap sediments in regraded slopes as directed by Developer's consultan~ and app~ov~O by ~nvironmental E~gineer- in~. Erosion control blankets, ~ wuli as willow and alder brush mattresses with check dams shell also be installed in drainage areas as designate~ by Developer's consultants and approvu~ by ~nv~ronmental Engineering, 11. The retail portion cf the property will be swept with a commercial sweeper on a regular basis, not less than once per month. include abe screening of Garland Heights along Route I0+ Mr. Jacobsen stated if ~u Soard should desiIe, the Doard could request that ~lanning Co~ission review the vi~nal i~pact of a buffer on the adjacent neighborhood at ~he time of site plan review. Mr. S~Ilivan em~nded his motion to approvs Case ~9S~0120, subject to the following conditions~ 1. The ~ollowinq conditions notwith~tanding~ the ~aster Plan prepared by Clow~ and Associates, Inc., dated July 20, 1989, and the Textual Statement, revised October 30, 1989r shall be considered the ~aster Plan, (P) 2. All buildings within the project shall be similar or complimentary in architectura~ style and material~, Franchise-type out-parcel buildings shall conform to the architectural styles which predominate in the d~velopment. The overall quality of nan-residential development shall 90~63 1/10/90 Point." (~0T~: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement, 4.0 ~e~n; 5.0 General Condi- tions, 5.16; 6.0 Medium Density ~ssidenti~, ~.~ 7~ Retail~ and 8.0 Office Uses.) overall plan of the proposed waker distribution and waste- submitted to the Department Of utilities, Planning for review and approval. Th~ plan shall reflect the routing and sizing of both on-site and off-site extensions of lines, identify points of future connection for ~aoent properties by showing easement locations and be ao¢o~panip~ by appropriate suppsrtlve design data. This shall include a statement acknowledging the Fire Depart- pressures proposed for the development. All approved dedicated to the County prior tc approval of any site plans. (U) (NOT~: This condition supersedes th~ Textual Statement, 5.~ Gemeral Conditions, 4. Prior to any clearing er grading, the developer shall provid~ the County information from a qualified water qualify engineer cn the existing status of the Felling Creek Reservoir. This information shall be utilized to establish baseline information on %he water quality Falling Creek Reservoir. Upon eemple~ion Qf each phase of construction, te~tinq ~hall be performed a% each outfall to determine if the water quality has been worsened by development. INOTE~ Thi~ condition is in addition to Textual State- ment~ 5,0 General Conditions, ~.13.) 5. When the lake ie low, or in conjunction with installation of erosion control measures, th~ developer sh~ll install the etor~ sewer line and pitm shall he dug at the edge of the lake where the eutfall enters the lak~ ~uch that silt that cOm~s from th~ property continues to filter into the pits and not be carried farther out into the bed of the lake. In additiun~ temporary silt fences shall be i~ stalled in the reservoir aroun~ those pits to further red, ce the amount of silt that might otherwise be pushed out farther into %he bed of the lake and there shall be periodic maintenance of the pits to ensure that the pits continue to function properly. (~) {NOTE; This condition supersedes Proffered Condition {f) .) 6. The outer liraite of the fifty (50) foot buffer adjacent to Falling Creek Reservoir shall be delineats~ by a bright colored fence so a~ to i~entify to equipment operators and construction personnel the portion of the property that is not to be disturbed by construction activity. (NOTE: Th~ condition supersedes Proffered Condition 10 (g) .) 7. A fifty {50) foot buffer~ ~easured from the floodplain boundary of Falling Creek Reservoir, shall be maintained. Unless approved' by the Pl~nnimg Department and Environ- mental Engineering~ there shall be no clearing or grading within this buffer. Other than underbrush, existing vegetation within this buffer shell be maintained. 90-64 1/10/90 utilities as permitted herein and pedestrian access, there shall be no facilities located within the buffer_ Utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer shall be p~rmitted; however, upon approval by the ~lanning Depar%mont, ~nvironmental Engineering, and the Department of Utilities, utilities may be located parallel in the buffer provided adequate measures, as determined by %he departments stated herein, can be taken to protect Falling Creek from erosion and ~edimentation. The Planning Commission may, at %he time of schematic plan review, modify buffer requirements to allow ether uses within the buffer. (NOT~; This condition supersedes the Textual State~ent, 5.0 General Conditions, $.12.] 8. A guard house shall be installed and maintained a~ ~ntrance to the apartment project. ' (~05) The apartments shall be comparable in quality to The Timb~$. 10. The Plannin~ Commission shall review access onto Rout~ t0 near Shoremeade Road e= the time cf schematic plan review. The Commission may delete this access if they f~el it wilt have an adverse impac= on residents along Shoremeade Road. 11. As part of the schematic plan review, the Commission shall consider the visual impact this pro,eot will have on the residents of Garland ~elghts and, if necessary, shall require a mitigation plan. {NOTE: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or building permits~ an overall schematic plan must be submitted to, and approved by~ the Planning Commission.) And ~urther, the ~eard accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 100 feat of right of wa~ measured from the eent~rline of Chippenhom Parkway shall b~ dedicated to Chesterfield County free and un- reetrict~d. If requested by the Transportation Department for th~ widening of Chippenh~m Parkway, up to an add~ tional 50 feet of right of ~ay along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. All buffer areas and setbacks for the Project shall b~ .calculated from the I0~ fnot right of way as measure~ from the centarlise of Chippenham Parkw, y. Specific roadway improvements set forth in these poxtation prQffexs are to be constructed in accordance ,~ith the phasing plan approved by th~ Transportation Department. The Developer shall provide the Transporta- tion Department w~th ~ddition~l traffic studies upon comp%~tioa, of each phase if requeeted. Roadway im- provements shall be increased Or d~creased by the Developer as.required by the Transportation Department if ' thes~ studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates , and distributions sotel~ by the d~velopment are materially different as detmrmined by the Transportation Department from grcject~cns set forth in th~ traffic stud~ prepared by Kelierco dated December 1~, 1988, and update~ by letter dated September 22~ 1989. If ~tisfactory improvements cannot b~ provided, the Planning Commission may reduce the permissible densities t0 the ext~nt that acceptable l~v~lm of service are provided as determined by the Transporta- tion Department. 3. To provide for an adequate roadway ~ymtem at the ~ime of the ¢omplet~ development of the prnpo~ed Project, the 90-65 1/10/90 Developer will be responsible for the following: (a) The site access road shall have a minimum four lane typical section from Route l0 to a logical terminu~ within the development (i.e., two inbound and two outbound lanes). One lane of pavement on the weBt ~ide of southbound ROUte 10 from the site driveway through the transi- tion section of the existing r~mp to Chipp~nham P~rkway westbound. (c) Additional pavement along northbound ROUte 10 at its i~te~sectlOn with the site ac6sss road to provid~ m left turn lane as generally depisted on ~hibit 7 of the DeCember I4, 1988, Traffic Analysis prepared by Kall~rco. In addition, a raised barrier along northbound Route l0 tc preclude left turns at the site access roa~ from the northbound Route 10 ramp of the Route 10/Route 150 Interchange. (d) Additional pavement along northbound Routs 10 at the existing cross-over that serves shor~msade Road to provide a left turn lan~ for a l~Dgth of ~00 fOOt full turn lane and 200 foot taper. (e) Right turn lanes on Route l0 southbound at both entrances tO the site. (f) Full cost of a traffic signal at the site access road/Route 10 Intersecfion. The DeVelOper shall provide u bond s~tisfactory to the County for the full cost Of th~ raised barrier and the traffic ~ignal d~scribed above to guarantee the ccr0pletion of the improvements. Such bond shall e×pir= on the fifth anniversary of the '~compl~tion date" of the Project. The completion shall be the data of the issuance of ~ final certificate of Occupancy for ninety percent (90~) of the total building d~nsity for the Rr~ject, as depicted on the then current ~astsr Plan, or the date determined by the Director of Planning for the ¢Omplg%ion dat~, whichever first occurs. If the improvements are not then required (based upon traffic volumes generated from the Project) ~ the bond shall expire and the De.eloper shall have no further obligation to pay for or construct such improvements. The Developer will dedicate to Lhe County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any =ddltional right uf ~ay (or easement) required for the ~mprovement~ identifie~ above, an~ in ~he Traffic Impact study, prepared by Kellerce dated December 14~ 1988, and updated by letter dated September 22, 1989. In oenjunc~ion with the first schematic plan submission, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with support- ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, ~hall b~ ~ubmitte~ %0 an~ approved by the Transportation Department. Within any desiqnated ~eund attenuation area adjacent to Chippeaham Parkway, all residential units will be designed and co.bisected s~ch that activity araau [but not including parking areas) shall be generally orientated away from Chippenhem Parkway. ~ricr to issuance of any building ps.mits, a noise impact utudy shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Trans- portation Depar~ent. Th~ study shall identify the need for noise attenuation in the development adjacent to 90-66 10. 11. Chippenham Parkway in accordance with Federal Highway Ad~inistratio~ noise prediction criteria with modifica- tions approved by the Transportation Department. The develope~ shall bu responsibl~ for implementing any required mitigation measures in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. Access to Route 10 shall be limited to the cite access read and one additional accecs to the north of the site access mead intersection as generally depicted on the Master Plan. The maximum densities for the pro,eot will be a~ follows: Office Space Rank ~paee Retail Space Prior to any 60,000 squar~ feet 5,000 square feet 71,600 ~quare feet 2~O unit~ disturbing activity, e drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by Eo¥1ro~%ental ~ngineering, TO minimize the impact of shrface Sunoff on Falling Creek Reservoir, the drainage ~lan shall include the following "be~t ~anagement practices": (a) Each phase of development will be lined with a silt fence on the low side of that phase of development doting all con,traction periods. (b) A silt basin will be located at each of :he :hree swales running through the project to interrupt runoff before that xunoff can reach Falling Creek Reservoir. (e) Disturbed areas will be seeded and straw-mulched immediately upon fine qradlng. Temporary seeding will be performed on the embankment of the silt basins and other ~ajor ~lopes within 14 day~ cf completion. There will be Careful maintenance of all erosion (e) Drop inlets constructed in the commercial and office areas will be oonstzuotad with "deep bottoms" to allow sediment that drains into the drop inlets fQ filler down below the outfall from the drop inlets into the cream drainage system. TG the extent that water can be drained from tho~e drop inlets directly into the ground, it will b~ done by providing op~nlngs in the bottom cf the drop inlets that will p~rmit water to drain dlreotly back into the soil, as opposed to being carried off the property. Drop inlet structures wall be pro,acted by silt fences and gravel to prevent ~ediment from entering the inlet before stabilization of the drainage site. (f) Willow fasclnes will be installed to trap sedlmants in regraded slepee a~ directed by Developer's consultants and approved by ~nvixonmental ~ngineer- lng. Erosion control blanket~ a~ well as willow and alder brush mattresses with check dams ~hall also he ~nstalled in drainage areas as designated by Developer's consultants an~ approved by Environmental Engineering. The retail portion of the property will be swept with a commercial sweeper on a regular basis, not les~ than once per month. 90-67 1/10/90 There was brief discussion regarding the 15% $1op~ factor in tho development of ~he project. Mr. Jacobsen stated the Board could request that the Planning Co~ission address concerns maximize the preservation of the slopes during site plan ~eview. Mr. McElfish stated the only way in which this could be addressed was through the conditions of zoning. Mr. Applegate seconded the motion. For the purpose of clarification, Mr+ Sullivan restated his motio~, seconded by Mr. Applegate, for approval of Case OPEN0120, subject to the followinq conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, thc Master Plan prepared by Clewer end Associates, Inc., dated July 20, 1989, end the Textual Statement, revised October 30, 1989, shall be eonsideEed the ~aoter Plan. 2. All buildings within the project shall be similar or complimentary in architectural style and materials. Franchise-type out-parcel buildings shall conform to architectural styles which predominate in the development. The overall quality of non-residential development shall be a% least equa~ to "Chesterfield Meadows" and "Stony Point. '~ (NOTE: This condition is in addition to the Textual Statement, 4.0 Project Description: 5.0 GenaraI Condi- tions, 5.16; 6.0 Medium Density Residential, 6.6~ 7.0 Re,ail; and ~.0 0flies 3. Prior to submittal of any schematic or site plans, an overall plan of the proposed water distribution and waste- water col!ec=ion system for the development shall be submitted to the Department of Utilities, Planning S~ction for review and approval. The plan shall re~lect the routing and sizing of both on-site and off-site extensions of lines, ide~ti~y points of future connection ~or jac~nt properties ~y showing easement locations and be aceom~anie~ by appropriate supportive design d~ta. This shall include a statement acknowledging the Fire Depart- ment's approval of the fire protection water flows and pressures proposed for th~ d~v~lot~ment. All approved easement locations for use by adjacent properties shell be dedicated to the County prior %o approval oi any sits plans. ~NOTE: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 5.0 General Canditions, 5.7.) 4. Prior to any clearing or grading, the developer shall provide the County information from a qualified water quality engineer on =he existing s~atns of the ~alling Creek Ressrvotr~ This information ~all b~ utilized to establish baseline information on the water quality of Falling Creek Reservoir. Upon completion of each phase of construction, testing shall be performed at each ontfalt to determine if the water quality has been worsened by development. (NOTE= This condition is in addition to Textual State- ment, 5.0 General Conditions, 5.I3.1 When the lake i~ iow, or in conjunction with installation of erosion control m~osures, ~bs developer sh~ll install the ~torm sower line and pits shall be dug at the edge of ~he lake where th~ outfatl enters ~he lake such that silt ~hat comes from the property continues to filter into pits and not be carried farther out into the bed of the lake. In addiaion, temporary silt fences shall be in- ,tailed in the reservoir around those pits to further reduce the amount of silt that might otherwise be pushed 90-68 1/10/90 out farther into the bed Of the lake and there shall be periodic maintenance of the pits to en~ure that the pits continua to function properly. (NOTE: This condition supersedes Proffered Condition l0 (fl .) 6. The cuter limits cf the fifty (50} foot buffer adjacent to Falling Creak Reservoir shall be delineated by a bright colored fence $o as to identify to equipment operators and construction ~areennel the portion of the property that is net to be disturbed by construction activity. (~OTE: This condition supersedes Proffered Condition (g) .) 7. A fifty (50) fo~% buffer, measured from th@ flcodplaln boundary of Falling Creek Reservoir, shall ba maintained. Unless approved by the Planning bapartment and Environ- mental Engineering, there shall be no clearing or grading within this buffer. Other than underbrush, existing Vegetation within this buffer shall be maintained. Other than pas~iv~ recreational uses, additional utilities as permitted he~ein an~ pedestrian ac~, ~hall be no facilities located within the buffer. Utilities which run generally perpendicular through buffer ~hall be p~rmitte~; however, upon approval by the Planning Department, Environmental Engineering~ and the Departm~et of Utilities, utilities may be located parallel in the buffer provided adequate measures, as determined by the depsrtmenbs stated herein, can be taken %o protect Falling Creek from erosion and e~dimentation. The ~lanning Commission ma~, at the time of schematic plan review, modify buffer requirements to allow other uses within ~he bu~fe~. (~QT~: This condition supersedes the Textual Statement, 5.0 ~eneral Conditio93, 8. A guard hOus~ shall be installed and maintained at the 9. The apart2~ents shall be ccmper&bl~ in quality to The Timbers. 10. The Planning Commission shall review access onto ~oute 10 near ~hcremeade Road at the time of ~chematie plan review. The Commission may delete thi~ access if they feel it will have an adverse impact on re~ident~ along Shoramaad~ Road. (BOS) 11. As part of the sThem~tic plan review, the Con%mission shall consider the visual impact this project will have on the r~sidents of Garland ~eighte and, if necessary, shall requite a mitigation plan. (BOS} (NOTE: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or building permits, an overall schsmatic plan mu~t be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Commission.} And further~ the Board accepted the followinq proffered conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit~ 100 £eef of right of way measured from the c~nterllne of ChiDDenham Parkway eta1! be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and r~sfricted. If requested by the T/ansportaticn Depar~ent for ~he widening of Chippenham Parkway, up ac an tional 50 feet of righ~ of way along Chippenham shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and ~nre~t~icte~. All buffer area~ and ~etbacks for %he Project shall be 90-69 1/10/90 calculated from tho 100 feet ri~h~ of wa~ as measured fram the canterline of Chippenham Parkway. Specific roadway improvements set forth in these trans- portation proffers are to be constructed in accordance with the phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. The Developer shall provide the Transporta- tion Department with additional traffic studies upon provs~ents shall be increased er decreased by the Developer as required by the Transportation Department if these studies demonstrate that traffic generation rates and distributions solely by the development are materially different as determined by the Transportation Department from projections set forth in the traffic study prepared by KellurcO dated December 14~ 1988, and updated by letter dated september 22, 1989. If satisfactory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commission may red,ce the permissible densities %0 the axten~ tha~ acteD%able levels of service are provided a~ determined by the Transporta- tion Department. To provide for an adequate roadway system at ~ho time of th9 complete d~veloument of the proposed Project, the Developer will be responsible for the following= The site acees~ road shall have a minimum four lane typical section from Route t0 to a ~ogical t~rminus within the development (i.e., two inbound and two eutb0und lanes). Cb) 0n~ lane of pavement on the w~st ~ide of southbound Route 10 from the site driveway through the transi- tion section of the existing ra~p to Cbippenham Parkway westbound. Additional pavement along northbound Route 10 at i~s intersection with the site access road to provide a left turn lane as generally dspictud un Exhibit 7 of the December 14, 19~8, ?raffle Analysis prepared by ~ellerco. In addition, a raised barrier along northboun~ Route 10 to praclu4a left turns ab the site &coeds road from the northbound Route 10 ramp of (d) Additional pavement alon~ northbound Ro~te 10 at t-he existing s~oss-over that serves Shor~maadc Road he 'provide a loft turn lane for a length of 200 foo~ full turn lane and 200 foot taper. Right turn lanes on Route 10 southbound at both entranco~ to the site. Cf} Full cost of a t~.fflc signal et the airs access road/Route l0 Intersection. The Developer shall pro,ida a bond sa~isfac=ory to the County for the full co~t of the raised barrier and the traffic signal described above to guarantee th~ completion of th~ improvements. Sush bond uhall expire on the ~ifth anniversary of the "completion ~&te" of the Project. The completion shall b~ the date of the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for ninety percent C90%) of the total building density for the Project~ as depicted on the then current Master Plan, or the date determined by the Director of Planning for the completion dste, whichever first occurs. If the improvements are not then required (based upon traffic volUmes generated from the Project), ~ha bond shall expire add the Developer ~hall have nO further obligation to pay for 90~70 1/10/~0 4. The D~v~loper will dedicate to the County oX Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or casement) required for the improvements identified above, and in the Traffic Impact Study~ prepared by dated December 14, 1958, and updated by letter dated September 22, 1989. 5. In conjunction with the first ~chemattc plan submission, a phasing plan for required road improvements, with Support- ing traffic analysis, if requested by the Transportation Department, shall be submitted to and approved by Transportation Department, 6. Within any designated sound attenuation area adjacent to Chlppsnham Parkway~ all residential units will be desiqn~d and constructed such that activity areas (but not ing parking areas} shall be qenerally orientated away from Chipp~nham Parkway, 7. Prior to i~uanc~ cf aDy building permits, a noise impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Trans- portation Department. The study shall ide~tlfy the for noise attenuation in the development adjacent to Chipp~nham Parkway in aQcerdance with Fsderal Highway Administration noi~e prediction criteria with modifica- tions appxovsd by the Tranaportaticn Department. The developer shell be rempenmihl~ for implementing any required mitigation measures in accordance with the phasinq plan approved by the Transportation Department, Access to Route 10 shall be limited to the site access road and one additional acce~ to the north of the sits Master Plan. 9. The maximum densities Zor the project will be as Office Space 60,000 square feet Bank Spac~ 5,000 square feet Retail Space 71,600 square fe~t Apartment Units 160 units 10. 9flor to any land disburbing activity, a drainage and erosion control plan shall be SUhnitted to and approved by Environmental ~ngf~eering. To minimize the impsct cf plan shall include the following "best management (a) Each pha~e of development will he lined with a ~ilt f~nce on the low side of that phase Of dsvelopment during all construction periods. A silt basin ~ill be locotmd at e~¢h of the three swales rnnninq through the propect to interrupt runoff before that runoff can reach ~alllng Creek (u) Disturbe~ areas will be seeded and Straw-mulched immediately upon fine grading. Temporary seeding will be Derf0rmed oR the e~bankmant of the silt basins and other major slopes within 14 days cf onmpletien. (d} There will be careful maintenance of ali measures continue to perform: their function properly. Drop inlets constructed in the COmmercial and office ar~as w~ll be constructed with "deep bottoms" to allow ~ediment that drains into the drop inlet~ to 1/10/90 ~ilt~r down below the ~ut£~ll fro~ the drop i~l~t~ into the storm drainage system. To the extent that water can be drained from those drop inlets directly into the ground, it will be done by providing op~ning~ in the bottom of the drop inlets that will permit water te drain directly back into the soil, as opposed to being carried off the property. Drop inlet structures will hs prctect=d by silt %encee and gravel to prevent se0imea~ from entering the inlet before stabilization of the drainage site. (f) Willow f~scines will be installed to trap sediments in zegraded slopes as directed by Developer'~ consultants ekd approved by Environmental Engineer- ing. Erosion control blankets, as well as willow and alder brush mattreSPe9 with check dans shall also he installed in d~ainage area~ as ~esign~ted hy De~eloper'~ consultants and approved by Environmental ~ngineering. 11, The retail portion c~ the p:oper%y will be swept with a commercial sweeper on a refuter ba~i~, net less than once per month. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Mr. Daniel Mr. Mayes Mr. Applega~u Mr. Sullivan Mr. Currin Mr. Daniel Abstention, as he felt both the applicant and citizens were rendered a disservice. Aye. Na~ · It was generally agreed to recess for ten minutes. 89~N0174 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, H~TRY H. MARRISAND/OR SIGNS r=quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Busines~ (0) with Conditional Use Planned Development to p~rmit use exceptlon~. A mixed ~se ~evelopment with office, commercial, and light industrial uses is planned. ~hls request lies on an 11.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on the east line of Bfanohway Road, approximately 180 feet south of $outhlake Boulevard. Tax Map ~7-13 {1} ~arcel 12 {~heet Mr. Jacobsen stated ~he Planning Commission approval of Office Business (0) with Conditional Use Planned Development for a depth fr~ Branchway Road equal to the Office Bu$in~$~ (O) zoning on adjacent property ~o the south approximately 550 feet from Branchway Roa~} uubject to certain con~ition$ and r~co~ended denial of %h~ rezoning and Condieional U~e Planned Development on the remalnd~r of ~he p/openly. ~e noted that ~taff did not feel that Conditlo~ cout~ b~ modified to include offlce/warehous~ and l~ited retail development an~ that Condition 9 could be ~liminated Mr. Buddy sowers stated %he applicant generally agrees with the is adjacent to off,ce and Light Indus=rial uses but that ~elt that approval of retching to 0ffica Bu~ine~ {0) for 90-72 1/10/90 would ultimately be developed for the same typ* n~es. Me gubmltted a prepared copy of suggested conditions w~ich he felt addressed consern~ relative to use~, compatibility and architectural style cf development, buffering, restriction of development to a depth of 1,200 feet from Brancbway Road, and that development of the remainder of the property would cooer only after the receipt of a bona fide purchase offer from an adjacent Eou%hport pxoperty owner, who shall be required to appear b~fore th~ Planning Commission and Board of to request removal of the existing buffer between the request parcel and Southport, otc Mr, RUSSell Gulley, President of $moketree Association and Vice PresidEnt of CRRESTT, voiced opposition to the proposed re=chins because it would set a preceden: for similar requests on other agriculturally zoned propertie~ to the SOuth fronting Courthouse Road; if such a precedent were set and torchings were to be granted it could negate the decisions of th~ Board for potential commercial ~op~ent; that if adjacent property would be availablg for purchase; and stated recomm~ndatiou but would like to see Conditions $ and 9 imposed suDport the road extension but did support the Planning ~he subject property. Ne stated GD Paekage/Maohlu~ry i~ an Italian firm which selected Chesterfield County a~ the Io~ation corporate neighbor; however, once thi~ r~queEt is approved they however, their working relationship is not boss/subordinate further that GD Package/Machinery i~ a Supplier of machinery for hi~ o~nployer but he currently has no direct relationship with that fi~; however~ he would abstain from Mr. Applegate stated that efforts had been made in previous gouthpor% which ul=imate!y resulted in the utosing of Branchway design process for the widening of Courthouse Road is available, he did not feel %hat ~e proposed requ~s~ Road; that his constituents in Stonehenge Subdivision would b~ Mr. Apple~ate inquir~ if th~ applicant w~r~ ~reeab!e 90-7~ %hat would be asceptable. On motion of Mr. Applegata, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board approved Ca~e 89SN0174, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstandinq, the plan prE- pared by McAllister Architecture, P.C., dated January 11, 1989, and the Textual Statement submitted with the appli- cat£un shall be cunsidered tho ~aster Plan. 2. There shall be nc tractor trailer deliveries permitted. Loadin~ areas shall be slab on grade (i.~., there shall be no raised loading docks]. Setbacks ehall conform to the requirements of the Office easiness (o] District, as oatlined in the bose Ordinance. Except as noted herein, the development shall conform to the Emerging Growth standards. a. ?hi~ condition is in addition to the Textual Sta£ement, Exhibit A, Conditions (2.], relative to architectural treatment. b, This condition will require a fifty foot buffer along the eastern bOUndary of the Office Business (0] tract.) 4. The public wastewater system shall be used. (NOTE: USe of public water ~equired by ordinance.] 5. All runoff shall be direoted to storm water managemen= detention and/or retention basin(s] which shall approved by Environmental Enqineering. At a minimum, the fifty (50) year post-developed runoff shall be s~cred rate. (EE) 6. Prio~ tO any land disturbing activity, an erosion control and drainage plan shall be mubmitte~ tc Environmental ~ngineering for approval. 7. Additional pavement, curb, and gutter shall be provided along Branchway Road for the entir~ property {T) 8. The uses permitted ~hall be limited to the ~ollowlng: a, Business and professional offices (includin~ medical an~ dental) b. Messenger or telegraph services ¢_ Medical laboratories d. Medical clinics f. Photography studio. g, office/warehouse plus a maximum of thirty individual uae may bo u~ed fez display of goods and article~ for sal~ in conjunction with cf~ce/werehouee us~. 9. S~te and architectural plans shall be submit=ad %c the Planning Commission for approval. (CPC) 10. Development of the parcel shall be restricted to a depth o~ 1,25~ feet from Branchway Road. 11. A 150 foot buffer will be required adjacent to Hylton Park subdivision. The bs££ur shall remain natural e~¢ept for utilit~ extensiou~. Replanting and screening shall be provided, as approved by the ~lanning Department, if 90-74 1/I0190 required utility extensions penetrate or disturb the buffer. (BOS] 12. A fifty {50] foot buffer shall be recruited along the southern property line adjacent to Agricultural (A) zoning. This buffer shall be provided aeeordlng to tko requirements ~f -Article 4, sfvlsion 4 of the ~oninq Ordinance (Chapter 2~.11. (BOS} Ayes: M~. Coffin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Hayes. Absten~£on: Mr. Daniel. 895N0267 (Amended) In Matoaca Magisterial Di~triet~ ~ C. ¥~C~ ~ JOHNSO~ requested rascning from Agriculfural (A) to A ~in~le f~ily residential ~ubdf~ision is planned. This request lies on two (2) parcels for a total of 41 acres ~nq approximately 4~7 ~eet on the ~ast lin~ of Branders Bridge Road, approximately 950 feet north of K~lmarbi ~oad, als0 ~rontlng in two (2] places for a total of approximately 827 foot on the south llne of Whitehouse Aoa~, approximately 610 feet east of Beuchwood Avenue. Tax ~ap 163-9 (1} 9arcelg 6, 4~, and 44 (Skee~ 49). Mr. Jacobsen stated the Planning Co~ission race--ended approval of Case 89SN0267, subject to a ~ingle condition and acceptance of %h~ appllcan~'s proffered con~iticn~. Mr. David Wazriner, representing the applicant, stated th~ race--ended condition is acceptable. Mr. Thomas Ban=~ un adjacent property owner across from proposed request sits, voiced opposition t0 the request a~ he felt it could possibly generate drainag~ probl~s for his property, r~is~ his tax assessment and adversely impact the area road conditions. Nr. Warriner stated th~ propo~d development's drainage flow~ away from MT. Bane's property and the applicant in,ends construct single family homes in tho low $100,000 rang~. stated the applicant is experiencin~ problems regarding marketinq with th~ City of Colonial Heights and th~ outcom~ of tha~ sltua%ion wo~ld directly influence th~ type of housing %hat can be developed in the area. On motio~ of Mr. ~ayes~ seconded by ~r. Coffin, the Board approved Case ~9SN8267, sub,eot to the f~llowing condition: A fifty (50) fOOt buffer strip, exclusive of easements and required yards, ~hall be established and maintained adjacent to Branders Bridge Road (~oute ~25) and Whi=ehous~ Road (Route 1129). The area ~f this b~ffer strip ~hall either be left in tc provide adequate scre~nlng; or b~ plantod and/or be~ed in a~0rdance with a landscape plan approved by th~ Planning Depar~ent, if Eufficlent to approval of any final ~ite pled ou reco~da%,ion of any 91=t, 2he ~eveloper shall flag thi~ buffer for ~mpl~mentation o~ the land~eape ~lan, if such plan is r~quired. Except for approved public road buffer strip. This building setback and buffer strip shall be noted on any final~site plans, and any final check and recordation plats. The Planning cu~ission or the Director of Planning may modify this condition at ~e t~e o~ tentative subdivision review. 90-75 1/10/9~ I. 2. further, the ~oazd accepted fha following proffered Public sewer shall be u~ed. The average lot size on the ~-12 portion (tax map parcels 42 & 44) will be ]4,000 sqnare feet. All foundations to be brick. The tentative subdivision review process will be submitted through the Planning Commission fel public hearing. 89SN~322 In Bermuda Magisterial District, (~STER MOOSE LODGE ~1980 re- quested rezoninq from Residential IR-?) to Community ~usin~ss (C-3). A fraternal organization is planned. This request lies on a 3.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 435 f~st on the west line of Pam~ Avenue, approximately 400 fe~t north of Willis Road. Tax Map 81-8 (2) Kingsland Heights, Lot 8 (Sheet 23). Mr. ~0ole presented a su~h~ary Qf %he proposed request and stated the Planning Co,mission rescmmended approval and acceptance of the applicant's pre,fared conditions. that Planning staff recommended denial because the request parcel lies within the boundaries of the Central Area Land U~e and TranSportation Plan which designates the request parcel and surrounding area to the north and wes~ for medium density residential use; the proffered conditions fuil to adequately address ¢0neern~ relative to land ~$e compatibility and transition; and that rezoning for a less intense co~ercial or office usa may be appropriate with proper ~esign crt=erie to insure transition and land use cempatibiliby. Mr. Dean ~awkins, representing the applicant, stated rezoning ~rem Residential (R-?) to Community Business {C-3} is requested for the dmvelopment of a fraternal organization. Be stated the' applicant has submitted proffered =onditions which he feels will provide protection to the residents along ~orcliff Road; the area is in transition except for the small residential por~icn of ~orcliff Road and will nltimately become commercially zoned in the future: referenced letters from Mr. Amain and M~. Charles Haley who were not in opposition to request; presented slides depicting the area development; and stated he felt the propoaud use was appropriate for ~he subject ~ite. 97hen askedt approximately fifteen (15) persons stood in support of the request. Mrs. Da/len~ Allen, Mr. Leo ~yers, and ~s. Katherine Dobbins voiced opposition to the proposed request as it represented oommerolal enc~caohment into and devalued stable single family r~siden%iai nmighhorhood, the hours of operation typically associated with fraternal usam could hmve an adverse impact upon area neighborhoods, the proposed use represents overdevelopment o~ the subjecf parcel, that it woul~ generate ex=~sivu noise and intrude into their privacy and requested that the Board deny the request. Reference was made to a pefition in opposition to the request, the Request Analysis and Recommendation indicating staff's reco~undation fo~ reasons for same, newspaper clippings indicating problems fraternal organizations experience and ~informatien from the County Police Department pertaining to the Moose Lodge located at 9500 Jefferson Davis ~ighway, which information was submitted to the ~oard for their perusal. 90-76 1/10/90 Mr. Hawkins addressed tho oo~oerns e~pressed by tko opposition and stated the applicant has submitted proffered conditions which should adequately addres~ those concerns. Mr. Daniel stated he did not envision the propo~md request being an appropriate use for the subject location and could not support the request. Mr. Hayes stated he supported the District supervisor as he was more aware of the details regarding this request. Mr. Sullivan concurred with Mr, Daniel. Mr. Currin stated he fel= this particular area could be developed as light industrial u~e$ in the futur~, that if he and Mr. Perkins could he of assistance to the Moose Ledge in locating a suitable site they would be happy to ~uppcrt the applisant'~ endeavors if possible; however, he mould not support the regues~ as presented. On motion of Mr. Currin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board dsnie~ Case 8~$N0322 89S~0337 In Clover ~ill Magisterial D~triot, ~tR~/)~ FOS~E~, re,nested rezonlng from Agricultural (A) to Residential A ~ingle family residential subdivision is planned. This request lles on a 6.0 acr~ parcel lying approximately 1,550 feet off the north llne of Hull Street Road, meesure~ from point approximately 100 feet east of winte~poek ~oad. Tax Map 61-14 (1) Parcel ~ and Tax Map 75-2 {1) ~arcel 6 (sheet 20), ~r. Pools stated tko ~lanning Cor~isslon recommended approval of Residential {R-I2}, subject to a single conditioD and acceptance cf the applicant'~ proffered conditions. ~r. Jim Rayes, representing the applicant, addressed the concern of Mrs. Myers, a resident of Lands ~nd, regardin~ ~rainage ~nd protection cf the creek, in~icatlng the property location of the existing sewer lines, very little, if any, noted that it would be impossible to provide a boiler in this dev=lapmen% potential of the s~bjecf property, he did not feel require tentative an~ ~inaI ~ubdlvlsion approval af which tim~ Mrs. Myers would have an opportunity to address her concerns ~rs. Phylt~s Myers stated ~he did not oppos~ th~ R~idential {R-1R) rezoning but was requesting that a t00 fcc= buffer to the east uf the subject ~it~ be provided for an adequate transition from one (1) acre lots in La, ds End to the proposed the creek that borders Lands End and =he subject property. She left in it~ natural stat~ or require plantings to protect for any type of easement which would necessitate clearing for sewer or other utilities. sewer line from Harbour Points Road to the r~ar of the subject setback r~quirements; buffering of I00 feet rendering the property useless; the posting ~f a ~bdivision sign within the 90-77 1/10/90 residents of the submlttal of subdlvislon plans on the subject property; etc. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied Eeaidential (R-9) ruzoning and approved Residential (R-12) rezoning, subject to the following condition: A I00 foot buffer exclusive of easements, lot area and required yard~ ~hall be established and maintained horizontally above the 178.00 foot contour line along the northern boundary of the Reservoir. Th~ area of this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural state, if sufficient vegstst£on exists to provid~ adequate ser~en~ng~ or be planted and/er harmed in accordance with a land,cape plan approved by the Plann%ng Department, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. This plan shall also incorporate pedestrian and bicycle path~ tc provide the greatest possible safety and convenience from the subject property fo the proposed residential d~v~lo~ment (Ca~e ~3S182) to the West. Prior to 'approval of any ~inal site plan or recordation of any plat~ the developer shall flag this buffer for inspection, and shall post a bond tO cover th~ implementation of th® landscape plan, if such plan ia required. Except for approved public road acc=ss(es}, pedestrian and bicycl~ ~aths, no access shall be permitte~ through =his buffer ~=rip. This building setback and buffer strip shall bs noted on any ~inal site plans and any final check or retarda- tion plats. And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condition~ ~ntes~ the adopted U~pe~ift Creek Plan allows grea~er density, a maximum of 1.ol to 2.50 units per acre shall be maintained in conjunction with the development of %he reqneat site. Prior to any land ~i~turbing activity, e drainage and erosion control plan shall he ~ubmitted =o, and approved by, Environmental Engineerinq, The plan shall include measures %0 minimize %he impact of surface runoff on ~he water quality of S~ift Crook Reservoir. The drainage plan shall include the institution of "best management practice~" as specified in the final r~pcrt prepared by ~atersheds, unless less stringent standards are specified in the adopted U~er Swift Creek Plan in which case the le~ ~tringent standard~ ~hall apply. Purther, the "best manaqemen= prat%ices" shall include, but shall not be limited to, the u~e of wet detention basins/pormanen~ poo!(s) for the don=rd! of nutrient loadings on the watershed for the swift Creek Reservoir. The erosion control and drainage plan ehall assure, ~e the maximum extent possible, that the development of th= site will no% contribute ~o any wa%er quality and ~dimenta%ion problda~s in th~ ~es~voir Watershed. Vote: Unanimous M~. Applegats stated he would be willing to assist area residents during the subdivision approval process if they wished him to do so, 90-78 1/10/90 In ~ateaca ~a~i~te~ial District, WEll. ON ~. LAPRADE, que~ed r~zoninq from Aqr~euI~ural (A) ~o ~esidmn~ial 123.1 acras, with Conditional Use to permi~ an outdoor r~cr~a[ional facili~y on ~.8 acres of this %race. A f~ily residential ~ubdivi~ion with an outdoor ~snter is planned. This request fron~s approximately 968 feet south of Trents Bridge Road. Tax Map 170 (1) Parcels 65, 66, an~ 67 {Sheet approval of Cas~ 39SN034~, subject to certain ~ondit~on~ and acceptance of the applicant's proffered Mr. Vernon E. LaPrade, Jr.~ representing the request, on the same financial institution board bu~ h~ did no~ o~ any proper~y involved in ~his request and had not discussed thi~ request in any manner with him and he, therefore, ~i~ no~ have impact the water resource o9 Lake Chesdin. Mr. LaPrade stated that the proffered condition~ are d~signed ~o ensure the protection of groundwater quality throngh the implementation "bm~t management practices" in ~he critically sensitive Appomattox River/Lake Chesdin water~hed. ~. Jacobsen in~ic~te~ =hat staff, when revimwing this request, worked with the water quality con~ultan~ who i~ ~Yking wi~h staff on the U~mr Swift Creek Plan as well as S=ate officials in ~erms of along the reservoir and =hose individuals advised ~%at the ~hirty (~0) days. septic systems, prior to thi~ request, that front along the along Lake Che~din that ar~ utilizinq ~ptie tank systems; the new regulation~ regarding water quality. Mr. Sullivan ~tated he did no~ ~eel ~hirty {38) dayu would be '~ufficient tim~ to obtain the assurance/c~r=ifica~ions that were re~ested ~r. LaFra~e stated he woul~ be wiilin~ to d~fer the re,est for sixty (60) days if the Board so desired. d~fsr Ca~e 89~N0342 un=il ~arch 28, 1990. mr. Apptegate ~%ated he felt the Board ~honld apologize 5o th~ applicant for his having to wait $o long only to hav~ hi~ expressed ~he first timm %he c$$~ was called on the agenda. ~0-79 t110/90 Mr. Daniel stated he felt the consent agenda prccess should be reviewed for modification to prevent these types of delays, if posBibls. Mr. Currin stated h~ did not disagree with the motion but felt that applicants should be informed of ongoing ~tudle$ in certain areas of the County if [he~e studie~ were ~oin~ to impac%/~elay their rszoning request. Hr. Hayes apologlsed tc 89S~8356 DANIEL~ requested rezoning from A~rioulturaI (A) %o Residential (R-12). A single family r~sidential subdivision is This request lies on two (2) parcels totalling 90.3 acres fronting in two (2) places for a total of approxLmately 1,155 feet on the east line of Marrcw~ate Road, approzimately 1,060 {2) Garden City Heighkm, Lok~ 4!, ~4, and ~ and Tax Map 149-t (2) Garden City Heights, Lot 48 (Sheet 41). approval of Case 89s~0356, subject to a single condition and acceptance of ~he applicant's proffered conditions. ~e noted for the Soard's information ~hat the applicant has proffered the construction of an east;wa~% arterial road connecting water and ~ew~r ar~ r~quired by ordinance far the subject acceptable. He stated he had met with area residents discuss any concerns they may have and ~tated there did not Mr. Daniel stated he wished the record to re~lect that he and Mr. James V. Daniels, the applicant, are not related. Ca~e 899~0356~ ~jeot to the following condi{ion: A fifty (50) foe% buffer strip, exclusive of and maintained adjacent to ~arrowgate Road (Route 144). The area of this buffer ~trip shall si=her be l~ft in its natural state, if or be planted and/or be~ed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by ~e Planning Depar~ent, if ~uffioi~nt vegetation do~ not exist to adequate screening. Prior to approval of an~ final shall flaq thf~ buffer ~trip for inspection, and The landmcape plan, if such a plan is re~ired. E~oept for approved public road acc~s~(es), no access shall be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted on final cheuk and feco~dation plat~. The Planning Co~ission or th~ Director of Planning may modify thi~ condition the time o~ tentative subdivision review. And further, th~ Board accepted the following proffered condition~ 1. A ninety (Po} foot wide right of way fen the east/west arterial shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County ~ree and unrestricted through the ~uhject property. At the time of tentativ~ subdivision review, the Planning Com- mission 'may reduce the width of this right of way dedica- tion. The developer shall construct, at minimum, two lanes of the east/west arterial from Harrowgate Road to ~eppy H£11 Road. Sixty [60] feet of right of way measured from the center- line of Harrowgate Road shall b~ dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. ~r. Sullivan expressed concerns rslatlve to the impact cf this development on area school~, poor visibility along Happy Hill Road and the lack of road improvements to Happy ~ill Road. Mr. Daniels stated that the applicant has proffered the construction of an east/west arterial roa~ coalescing Harrow~ate Road a~ ~appy ~ill Road to alleviate traffic on Happy Eill Road such as traffic from Mistwood Fere~t and ether develepments te the north and added that the subject parcel i~ only 80 acres and will be developed a~ large lots so the project should not p/ace a burden on the ~chool ~y~tem. Vote: Unanimous $9SN0405 In Bermuda Magisterial Distrio=, WIALIAM B. DU~AL requested amendment to Conditional U~ Planned Development (Case to permit truck trailer sales, service, repair and rental and to reduce s required buffe~. This request lies in a General Industrial (M-2) District on a ~.9 acrs parcel lying approxi- mately 320 feet cfi the east line of Expresm Lane, from a point approximately 700 feet north o~ Reymet Road. Tax Map S2-9 (1) Pact of Parcel 7 (Sheet Mr. Peele ~resented a summary of th~ proposed request and stated the Planning CoR~isslnn recommended approval of the amendment %o Conditional Use Planned D~v~lopm~nt (Case $58051) to permi~ use exceptions in a General Industrial {M-2) District and not only recoau~ended denial of a reduction of a buff~ along the southern property line but ~eco~end~d that the existing 50 foot buffer be increased tc a 75 foot buffer which Industrial site (I-2) and adjacent residential Mr. John G. "Chip" Dicks~ TTI, representing the a~plican=. stated the teen--ended conditions ~ith th~ exe~ption property owner~ to di~c~s$ their concern~ ~egarding the r~placement mn~/cr maintenance of the existing buffer and they hav~ agreed tO the modification of Condition 2 from a 75 foot buffer to a 50 foot buffer. Mr. MtCl~ntie ~at~d a fifty (50) foot bu~er would acceptable if i% were plan~ed with evergraen~ to screen Outdoor repair services shall be r~stricted to between ~00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no Saturday or Sunday outdoor r~pair services. (~) (MOTE: This condition applie~ only to the r~pair Opera- trailers.) 90-$1 1/10/90 2. A f±ffy (50) foot haf~er shall be maintained along the eouthern boundary adjacent to Agricultural (A} zoning. ~itkin this buffer, a ~inglo raw of materials shall be installed to screen hhi~ use from adjacent residences to the south. The buffer may be installed in conjunction with the phasing of ~he develop- m~nt. Prior to any clearing or ~ra~ing, the buffer shall be flagged an~ the Planning Department contacted to inspect th~ burrer. Within sixty (60) days of roug~ clearing and grading~ a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted =o the ~Ianning Department for approval if it is deemed that existing vegetation is inadequat~ to INOT=: This condition is in addition to Cnn~iticn Case 85S081 for the tractor trailer sales, ~efvice, repair, and rental facility only. If this use, which is the subject cf this application, is not developed but rather a use permitted by Case SSS0~I is developed, buffer condition Outlined in Case S$$081 shall be applic- able,) noted herein, remain in effect for the request property.) Vote: Unanlmons 12.G. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS (continu~dl 12.G.1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 12.G.l.a. TO CONSIDER THE CONVEYANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNED BY COUNTY ALONG ROU9~ 10 TO T~E VIrgiNiA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Sale stated this date and tim~ had b~n advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of right-of-way owned by the County along Route 10 to the Virginia Departmenh of Transportation. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved the conveyuace of County owned rlght-of-w~y and the necessary easements lonated along Route i0 acfO~b from the Dale Fire Station sits to the Virginia Department of Transpor~{tion for road improvements along Route lO and authorized the chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute necessary deed upon approual by the County Attorney'S Office. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papera of this Vote: Unanimous 12.G.l.b. TO CONSIDER TEE CONVEYANCE OF A VARIABLE WIDTH RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR THE RELOCATION OF A PORTION OF LORI ROAD TO TRF VIRGINIA D~P~TM~NT OF TRAN$~ORTATIO~ Mr. Sale stated this da~e an~ time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of a variable width right-of-way for the r~looation of a portion of L~ri Ro~d to the Virginia Department of Transportation. No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Appleqate, the ~oard approved ~hs conveyance of County owned variable width right-of-way to the Virginia Department o~ Tran~port~t~on for the relocation of a portion of ~ori Roa~ and au=horized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the i i necessary deed upon approval by ~he County Attorney's Office. (A copy of said plat is filed with the papers of this ~o~zd.) After a brief discussion, it was generally aqreed that further discussion of Board Committee appointments relative to Metropolitan Economic Development Council would be oon%inued to the January 24, 1990 meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT On motion o~ Mr. Appleqate, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, +~h~ Board adjourned at 9:30 p.m. (EST) until 9:00 a.m. (EST) on January 24, 1990. Lahe B. Ramsay County Ad~ini~%rato~ 90-83 ~ P.~Cuzzin,' Jr. Chairman ~/10/90