Loading...
03-28-90 MinutesSup~rvi~or~ in Attendance: Mr, M. B. Sullivan, Vice Chairman Mr, G. H. Applegate Mr, Harry G. Daniel County Administrato~ Staff in Attendance: Ac=lng Exec. Assist. to the Co. Admin. Mra. Doris DeBart, ASS%. Co. Admin., Legis. Svus. and Intergovern. Affairs Ms. Joan Dolezal, Cl~rk to the Board Chief Robert ~anes, Fire D~par~ent Mr. ~radford $. Hammer, D~puty Co. Admin., Management Services Mr, William ~. Bowell, Dir., Gen. ~r. Thomas ~. Dir. of Planning ~s. Mary Lou LyIe, Dir. of Accounting Mr. Robert Maeden, Deputy Co. Admin., M~. R. J. McCracken~ Transp. Director Mr. Richard ~cElfish, Dir. of ~nv. Eng. Mrs. M. Arline McGuir¢, ~reasurer'~ Office Mr. Gary McLaren, Dir, of Economic Developmt. M~. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Rrs. Pauline Di~. of New~Info. Services Sheriff W. J. Minten~ shnriff's Department Dr. William Nelson, Di~,, Health Dept. Col. Josaph Pittman, chie~ of Relice Mr. Glen R~ter$cn~ Dir., tiv% Program Mr. Richard Sale, beputy Co. Ad~in.~ Development ~s, Jean Smith, Dir. of Social Services Dir. of Budget Mr. ~, D. Stith, Jr., Pit. of Parks &Rec. Mr. David Dir. of Utilities ~r. Frederick Willis, Dir. of Resource Management Mr, H. Louis Zammett~ Dir. of Internal kudi~ 90-259 3125190 Currin called the regularly ~oh~duled meeting to order at a.m. Nr. Currin introduced Revsrend Nell Wheeler, Pastor of chester Christian Church, who gave the invocation. 2. P?.~,G~ OF ALLEGIANCE TO T~ WL~ 0~ ~'~s ~Ni'£~U -~TAT~S OF Mrs. Doris DeHart, Assistant County A~ministrater for ~egislative Servises and Intergovernmental Affairs, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. 3. APPI~OVALOF MI19~PI~8 3.A. NLARCH 14, 1990 On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the minutes of March 14, 1990, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Nr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the minutes of March 2t, 199~, as amended. Vote~ Unanimous Nr. ~amsey introduced Dr. wesley ~cClure, President of Virginia State University, who presented the Board with a from the University's Boar~ of Visitors conveying itu appreciation for the Co~n%y's support cf +-he University's $cbelarskip ~regram. Ha stated V~rginis State university is committed to b~ing a good corporate cltlz~n in the forward progress of tke County and to bringing di~tinttlon to the County wherever po~ible. Mr. Currin e~pr~$~e~ appreciation for the recognition. Nr. Nasden introduced Mr. Glen Peter~on~ Director of the Community Diversion Program, whose depert~ment recently achieved a 1~0% compliance rating in an intensive snpervisory/certifica- tlon audit conducted by the Virginia Department Of Corre0tions, which ra=in~ has never been achieved by any othe~ program in the region in the history Of certification audits. 5. ~ CO~ITTEE ~PORT8 Governor Douglas Wilderrs effioe where the Governor ~igned a Drnclamatlen commemeratinq the "Year of the Airborne" at which Brigadier G~neral Richard E. Tim~nons, U. S. Army, Assistant Division Commandar~ Oper&tionst 82nd Airborne Division, Brags, ~orth Carolina, was pressn= to receive said proclama- tion. He COmmended Battalion Chief D. L. Rubln, ~raining Officer of Fire Training Administration, for an outstanding job in the coordination of the service~ pr0vlde~ for General Timmons to the Governor's 0ffiee. Mr. Applega~e raper%ed he stbended the Capital Region Airport Committee meeting at which it was ~eported that enplanements and ~argo traffic had increased during tko last month, which statistics he felt were enCOuraging. Mr. Sntliven reported he ~ttended the Water Resourc~ Task Forc~ which is continuing its efforts toward a plan for water supply and water transportation in the Richmond region through the ~ichmond Regional Planning Dia=ric~ Gommission~ and he an~ Currin met with the School Board Liaison Commltt~ to discuss the currant fiscal year and E~i budget as well as other pending matters. ~e stated he felt that the ~choot Board Ziaison Committee meeting were becoming more productive and he felt th~ public should be aware, since there was past concern, that the two Boards~ relationship has ameliorated over the previous two years. Committes m~sting and concurred wit~ Mr. Sullivan's remarks regarding the relationship of the two Boards and its accomplishments; noted that~ at his request, he and Chief Eanes recently began a tour of the County's Fire Departments where he mat many firefighters who he found to be enthusiastic and Sprouse o~ the Bufor~ g~re Department {Company ~9] who, upon his own initiative and a= no e~pense to the County, repairs fi~e engine uozzle~ in his repair shop which he maintain~ that station; recognized Firefigh=er Ken Myriok of =he Wagstaff Fire Department (Company %t0) who, upon his own initiative and at no eapensa to the County, operates his own sewing shop repairs canvass protective clothing, bags, etc., for the department. He stated he felt the entire department is providing exemplary service to the citizens of the County not only from a safety aspect but also from an individual aspect and saving the County money and felt those ~ffor%~ ~hould be recognized and commended. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board received revised Item 10., Public Rearing to Consider an Amendment to the Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions /or the chesterfield Airport Indus=rial Park; added Itsm 11.~.3.i., Request eo Quitclaim a Portion of a 16' Drainage Easement Across Property Ownsd by Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee; changed the recorm~ended date of April 25, 1990, at 9~OO a.m, to April 11~ 1990~ at 7~0 p.m. on Item Set Date for Public Eearlng to Con~ider th~ Conveyance of Property a~ tho Airpore Industrial Perk to Alfi= ~meriea, Ino.~ amended Item ll.F.2.e.~ Approval of Agreement for the Vacation and Rededication of Sewer Easement Across Property of Bread Rock Club~ Tnt. in Lake ~eorge Hamle~ to state Approval of Agreement for the Vacation and Red,dice=ion of Sewer Easement Route 288; and adopted the agenda, as amended. VOte: Unanimous 7. R~SOL~TIONS AND S~ECIAL ~DOGNITIONS 7.A. MS. LOIS B. CARPENTER~ COMMISSIONER O~ REVENUE'S OFFICE On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted: WH~R~S, Ms. Lois ~. Carpenter retired from the C0~issioner o~ Revenue'~ Of~ioe~ Chesterfield County, on Maroh 1, 1990~ WHEKEAS, Ms. Carpenter has provided tw~nty-thre~ years Of quality $~rvice to the citizens of chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, chesterfield County, the Board of Supervimorm and the Commissioner of Revenum'm Office will miss Mz. Carpenter's diligent service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Carpenter %ss monitored and assessed values of aatemobi!es~ trucks and motorcycles located in Chesterfield Connty and from which w~alth of knowledge th~ County has greatly benefitted; and WMEP~AS, Ms. Carpenter's calm, friendly manner with the citizens of Chesterfield has influenced h~r co-workers ~n~ supervisor~ ~like; and WH~AM, The Commissioner of Revenue's Office will mor~ly mi$~ Ms. Carpenter's loyalty, dedication and frlendlinem~. NOW! T~EP~RFOP~ H~ tT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly reeoqnizes Ms. Lois C~rpent~r and extends on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciaefon for her service the County. ANDr BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, kha~ a copy of this resolution be presented to Ms. Carpenter and that ~his resolution be permanently recorded among the p~psrs of this Beard of Supervisors of Chesterfield Co~nty, virginia. Vcte~ Unanimous Mr. Curtis presented the executed resoleticn to ~r. N. Everette Carmichee!, Commissioner of Revenue, who accepted on behalf of Ms. Lois Ca, pester as she was unable Eo attend the meeting. 7,B~ D~CRARIN~ APRI5, 1990 A~ "CHILD ABUSE PREVENTIO~ AND RECOGNIZING CMILB PROTECTIVE SERVICES On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was WHEREAS, Child abuse and n~qlect is a reality that touches all segments of the co~u~unlty e~ Chesterfield County; and WM~REA~, The Chesturfiel~ County Board o~ Supervisors believes that children are best served in their own homes that factors that create child mistreatment can be addressed citizees have joined hands to ~trengthen the families' ability I990 be proclaimed "Child Abus~ Prevention Month." extended to the Child ~rotective Services Workers for their dedication to working with fo~ilies and that thi~ r~solution be called to the attention of all citizens. Fl~ming and s~aff from the Child PrOtectiv~ Services Division of Social Services and commended the~ for their dedication and 90-262 diligent efforts to resolve the issue of 0hild abuse and neglect in the co.unity. Ns. ~leming presmnbad th~ Board with buttons conveying the theme of Child Abuse Prevention ~onth, the Mental Health/Mental Retardation/Substance Abuse 7.C. R~COGNIZiNG APRIL AS THE ~LARCS OF DIMES ~WALKAMERICA ~ONTH" ~D APRIL 29, 1990 AS "WAL~A~i~ICA DAY" On motion of'the ~eard, the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Birth defects thrsaten the health and well-being ef %h~ children of our Nation and County; and ~ER~A$, Birth defects are the can~ for the unacceptable number of infant deaths in the Nation and in the Ceunty; and WHEREAS, One out of every ninety-eight babies torn in Virginia dies before its first birthday as a resul£ of birth defects; and WHEREAS, The March of Di~es Birth Defects Foundation continues its effcrt~ against b~r~h defects and infant mortality in the County and throughout America; and WHEREAS, There ~ill be over forty WalkAmerica ~vents held in Virginia this year involving Q~er fifty 5housand partici- W~ER~AS, W~l~eric~ ~isus 9ignifican~ fund~ for remearch, medical Services and education for the p~evention of blrtb ~efect~ and in~ant mortality. ~OW, TH~R~F0~ B~ IT ~OLVED, that th~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does h~reby ~eclar~ April as M~rch o~ Dimes "Wal~erica MQD~h" and April 29, 1990 a~ "Wal~erica Day" in the County of Chesterfield and calls attention to ~he ~ignifioance of the oont:ibutlons of those citiz~n~ who are working tO p~evenc birth defect~ and reduce infant mortality in the County of Ches=erfield. Vote: Unanimous Mr, Currin presented th~ executed re~olueion %0 Ns. Francinu Young of the ~rch of Dimes Task For~ and co--ended those citizens involved in the continued effort to prevent hirsh defec~ and r~duce infant mortality. There ~ere no hea~inq~ of citizens on unscheduled claims. 9. D~FERi%ED IT~ 9,A. CONSIDER I~EQUBST FROM ~R. AND MRS. WESLEY K. SEIV~ED TO DISTRICT IN AShlEY GRO~r~ s6B- DIVISION Mr. Sale ~tat~d that, at the regular meeting of the Board of S~parvisors on February 28, 1990, th~ Board directed staff to poll ~itional property owners in Ashley Grovs Subdivision in th~ area of Mr. Wesley K. Selverd~s residence to determine thsir inbersst in publi= sewer s~rvice via the establishment of a sewer Assessment Diatrict? in~icatsd that, as a result of s~af~'s survey, none wars interested in funding the project lOW as $4,000; and stated that ~taff is recommendin~ at this which he requested be e part of the record, indicating that the builder declined to financially participate in the selutlen to the Selverds' problem. Mr. Apptegate stated he had eontacted/ccrrezpended with most of the residents in Ashley Grovs gtzbdivieion affected by this presented the Board with petitions from the affected residents stated that, in view of the results of the survey conducted, problem~ ~he legal ramifications of implementing alternative seiverds' property is the pertinsnt factor at this point and the ~×p~n~ for ~ush $olUtlcD, which has not been determined, stated~ for the zecord, ~hat the septic system was authorized ~y the Beard of Supervisors' approval of th~ rezoning and was installed under the specifications a~proved by ~h6 Health er ineuru every house constructed or septic system installed possible remedies, each aa mounding, that may be viable l~gal action against the County by the Seiverd~ wag underway. that con~i~ezation of Mr. and Mrs. Wesley K. Selv~rd'~ r~qu~s~ Ayes: Mr. Currln, Mr. s~llivan, Mr. Applegata and Mr. Daniel 9.B. APPOINTMENTS 9.B.i. HISTORIC PRESERVATIOW CO~L~ITTEE MEMBERS on motion of Mr. Daniel; seconded by ~r. Sulliven~ the Board r~appointed the following persons to eerv~ on the chesterfield immediately and will ~xpir~ on ~arch 11, ~993: M~, Mary Ellen Howe Mr. Bryan Walker Ms. Donna Schneider Mr. Cazl Morris Mr. Zane Davim Mr. Jim Daniels M:. Steve ~ryant 90-264 ~/2s/9e 9.B.2. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE T0 THE CE~TMAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIP~CTORS On motion of Mr. Apple~ate~ SeCOnded by Mr. Sullivan, the Beard appointed Mr. Bradford S. Hammer as the Chesterfield County alternate representative to the Central Virginia Waste Manage- men~ Authority Board of Directors, for a term to commence on the date of issuanc~ of %he Certificate Of Incorporation by the State Corporation Commission for a term of four (4} years. 9.B.3. RECYCLING COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Apptmgat~, seconded ~y Mr. Mayas, the Board suspended the rules to allow the Clover Hill District nominees to be ginultaneou~l¥ nominated/appointed to the Recycling Committee. On motion of Mr. kpplegate, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the ~oard simultaneously nominated/appointed the following citimen representatives from the Clever Hill Dis%riot and appointed the othe~ District representatives, to serve on the R~cycling Committee, whose terms are efCective immediately and will expire on December 31, 1991: Clover Hill District - Dr. Bedford Berry Mr. Hank Myer Matoaca bi,trier - Mr. Willimm Mr. ~orac~ bale histriot - Mr. Ray Cash Mr. John Vogt Midlothian District - Ms. Marie Streak Bermuda District ~ Mr. Steve Shoesmith Mr. Currin indioated for ~he reoord that Mr. Sullivan an~ 9.C. REQUEST POR AMENDMENT TO T~E BINGO;RAFFLE PEP~IT FOR RICHMOND AREA MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION TO CHANG= DATES FOR GA~ES Mr. Mica~ presented a brief seminary of the request for un amendmen~ te the bingo/raffia permi~ for ~he ~ichmund ~rea Mental Health Association to chan~e the dates of operation for their bingo ga~es from Tuesday and Satnrday to Thursday and Saturday. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to the size e~ the subject operation as compared to ethezs within the County~ location of the subject facility; controversy surrounding the organization's previous operation in the City of Richmond; whether er not the organization would serve all localities or only the City of Richmond; financial data relative to the operation cf the facility; etc. 90-265 3/28/9Q i It was generally agreed to defer until the end of the agenda consideration of the request for an amendment to the existing bingo permit for the Eich~on~ Ar~a Mental ~ealth Association ("ILAMH") to change the dates of operation for their bingo gamem from Tuesday and Saturday to Thursday and Saturday an that staff could provide appropriate financial data for the Boa~d to Mr. Applegate returned %o the meeting. 10. PUBLIC O TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND ~ESTRZCTIONS FOR THE CHESTERFIELD AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PAPJ~ Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been aOvertised for a public hearing to oonsi~er an amendment to the Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park. He noted a revised copy of the amendment had been distributed to the Board at th~ onset of the meeting. No one ca~e ~nrward to speak in favor or or against the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded By Mr. Sullivan, the soard adopted an amendment ~0 the Protective Covenants, Conditions and Re~tri~tions for the Chesterfield County Airport Industrial Park by replacing the word "foot" with "inch" in describing the standards for parking lot pavemenE, ssction C., Parking Requirements, paragraph 4. lit is noted a copy of %he amend- ~ent to said AirpoYt Ccven&nt~ is filed with the papers of this Board.) iI.A. AUTHORIZATION TO H~BCUTE A24ENDME~T TO THE CAPITAL REGION On motion of Mr. Applegafe, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Boar~ approved and authorized the County Administrator to ~ecute a Tripartite Agreement between Cha~terfiel~ County, the Capital Region Airport Commission |CRACk, the City Of R~chmond and the Counties of ~anoYer and N~nrlco, subject to approval of the Capital Region A~rport Commission legal counsel~ to permit refunding of its $28,660,Q00 Airpor~ ~evenue/Morai Obligation Bonds, Series of 1984. (It ie note~ a copy of said agreement is filed with the papers oi this Board.) Vote: Unanimous ll.B. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR INSTALLATION OF TELEVISION Arraignment System (~VAS) for the new Courts Building; s~curity and safety benefits of the project; lea~e purchase of the ~ystem versus appropriation of funds from the General Fund to undertake the project~ efficiency of the system; staffing requirements; crossing training of existing gher%ff ~epartment staff to operate the system; etc. On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, the Board appropriated $115,000 from the Gene=al Fund Undesignated Fun~ Balance for the installation of a Television Arraignment System 90-266 3/28/90 prieoner~ to be arraigned in the Jail by tranamit~ing an interactive televieion di~la~ to the appropriate Court in the new Courts Building. Il.C, A~POTNTM~NTS - ~BALTBCAR~ S~BC0~4ITT~ On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, th~ Boa~d appointed Mr. C. P. Curtis, Jr. and Mr. Maurice B. Sullivan to serve on the Health Care Subcommittee (a Subcommittee of the School Board Liaison Committee} to review staff proposals and recommendations regarding health care, issues, coverages and strategic i~sue~ fo~ future eonsideratien~ alon~ with the representatives appointed by the ~ohool Board. Vole= Unanimous ll.D. CONSENT ITEMS ll.D.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of ~irethorne ~ane in Kingstand Auras, section Dale District. ~pon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~r. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it ie resolve~ that Firethorne Lane in Kingsland Acres, Section 5, Dale District, be an~ it hereby is established as a public road. And be it further resotved~ that the Virginia Department of Traneportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, FiruthOrne Lane, beginning at the so~thern end of existing Fire,heine Lane, State Route 1~, an4 going southerly 0.17 mil~ to tie into proposed Pirethorne Lane, $quare~ield Par~ subdivision. Thie request is inclusive of the adjacent ~iepe, ~ight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation eaeements. This road ~erves 22 lot~. And be it ~urther rosotved~ that the ~oard o~ Superviscre guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a riqht-of-way for thi~ road. This suction of Ringsland Acres i~ recorded aa fellows: Section 5. Plat Hook 52, Page 2U, February 5, 1986. Thie day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance wi~h direetioDs from thi~ Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Ironbridge Parkway, Ironkri~ge ~oulevard and Ircnbridge Place in a Dedication of Ironbridge Parkway, Iron- bridge Boulevard, section 1 and Dedication of Irnnbrid~e Parkway, !ronbridge Place and Associated ~asements, Section 2, Matoaca District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of M~, sullivan, seconded by ~r. ~pplegata, it ia resolved ~hat Ironbri~ge Parkway, Ironbridge Boulevard end Irer~ridqe Place in a Dedication of Ironbridge Parkway, Ironbridge Boulevard, Sectio~ 90-267 3/28/90 I and Dedication of Ironbridge ~arkway, Ironbridge Place and Assoclate~ Easements, Section 2, Matoaca District, be and they h~reby ar~ ~%ablished as public roads. And be it further re~olved, that the Virginia Department o~ Transportation, bs and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Ironbridge Parkway, beginning ab the inter- section with Iron Bridqe Road, State Route 10, and going easterly 0.39 mile to the intersection with Ironbridge Boulevard, then continuing easterly 8.54 mile, then turning and going southerly 0.42 mile, then turning and going southwesterly O.59 mile to the intersection with Ironb~idge Place, then turning and gc£ng southerly 0.05 mile to the intereection with IrOn Bridge Road, State Route 1O; Ironbridg~ Boulevard, beginninq at the intersection with Iron ~ridqe Road, State Rout~ 10, and going northerly 0.08 mile to the intersection wi~h Ironbridge Place, then continuing northerly 0.32 mils to the intereection with %ronbridge Parkway; and Ironbridg~ Place, beqinning at the intersection with Ironbridqe Boulevard and going easterly 0_17 mile to the intersection with Ironbridge Thee requeet ~e inclueive o~ the adjacent elope, sight distance and desigaated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads ~erve as access to commercial properties. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 60' right-of-way for Iroubridge Place, a 90' ~iqht-o£-way for Ironbridge Boulevard and a variable width 50'-100' right-of-way for tronbridge Parkway. Those sections of Ironbridge Parkway, Ironbridge Boulevard and Ironbridge Place are recorded as follows: ~edieation of Ironbrldge ~arkway, Ironhridge Boulevard, Se=tiaa 1. Pl~t BOO~ 59~ Pages 25-28, November I0, 1987. Dedication of Ironbridge Parkway, lrcnbridge ~lace and Associated Easements, ~c=ien 2. Plat Moo~ 60, P~gee 77 and 78, March 3Q, 19~8. Vote: Unanimous This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directioas from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Timbe~ Trail Drive, Campbellridge Drive~ Campbellridg~ Court and Timber Trail Court in Timhermill, Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, i% is resolved ~hat Timber Trail Drive, Car~pbellridge Drive, Ca~tpbell~idge Court and Timber Trail Court in TimbeImill, Mahomet District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further re~olvsd, that tho Virginia Department of Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Timber Trail Drive, beginning ut th~ int~r- ~ection with Bailey Bridge Road, State Re=be 6~4, an~ going northwesterly 0.03 mile to the intersection with Campbellridge Drive, then eon~inuing northwesterly 0.04 mile, than turning and going weeterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Timber Trail Court, then continuing weeterIy 0.06 mile to end at existing Timber Trail Drive, Glen Tara Se=tiaa DA; Ca~pbell- ridge Drive, b~ginning at the intersection with Timber Trail Drive and going northeasterly 0.05 mile to the intersection with Campbellrid~e Court, then continuing northeasterly 0.84 mile to end in a ¢O1-~-~a¢; C~mpbellridge Court, buginning at 90-268 3/28/90 the interse~hion with C~pbellridge Drive and going north- westerly 0.05 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Timber Trail court, beginning at the intersection with Timbex Trail Drive and going northerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac. This request iq inclusive of the adjacen~ slope, sight distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage These roads serve 30 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of supeTviser~ guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a 50' right-of-way for all of these Goads. Timbe~ill is recorded au follows: Plat Book 65, Page 72, March 16, 1989. ll.D.2. ~EQUESTS FOR HING0/RARFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. App%egate, the Board approved requests for bingo/raffle permits for the following organizations, ag indicated, for calendar year 1~90~ O~gANI~ATIONS TYPE Chesterfield County Employees Association Raffle Grange ~all El~sntary School ~TA Raffle ~ttriek ~lementary ~chool PTA Bingo/Raffle il.D.d.a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CEESTERFIELD~ 197~, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 4-12 OF ARTICLE II RELATING TO PUBLIC DANCE ~A~LS On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded b~ Mr. Applegats, the Board set the date of April 25, 1990, at 9~00 a.m., for a public hearing te co~slder an ordinancs to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield~ 1978, as emended~ by amending Section 4-12 cf Article II relating to public dance halls. Vote: Unanimous ll.D.3.b. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND T~E CODE OF T~E COUNTY OF CNESTE~IELD, 197~, AS AMENDED, BY REPEAL- ING SECTION 12-12~ RELATING TO A LICENSE TAX ON On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by ~r. Applegste, the Board set th= date of May 9, 199~ at 7:80 p.m., for a public ~eafing no con~id~r an ordinanc~ to amend the Code of the County of Chestsrfisld 1978, as amended, by repealing Section 12-120 relating to a license ta~ on distributing houses. Vote: Unanimous 90~269 3/28/90 ll.D.3.c. TO CONSIDER THE CO~"JEYANCE OF EEOPERTY AT TH~ AIR]~ORT I~DUSTRIAL PARK TO ALEIT AFI~RIOA, INC. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the Chairman et the Board and County Administrator to execute all necessary documents to co, plate the conveyance of a 6 acre parcel, fronting on Whitepine Road approx~I~ately 238 feet northwest of ScanCe~ter, in the Airport Industrial Park to Alfit America, Inc.; and further sot =he date of April 11, 1990, at 7:00 p.m.r for a public hearing to consider the conveyance of said parcel. Vote: Unanimous ll.E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS ll.M.1. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Dale, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board approved obtaining cost estimates for the installation of a street lights at +_he intersection of B~ulah Road and ~ilmar ll.E.2. STREET LIGBT INSTALLATION COST APPROVALS On motion cf Mr. Apple~ate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved the cost for the instsllatien of street lights at the following locations, with funds to be expended' from the designated District Street Light Fund: Millwood School Parking Lot, Clover Mill District, $1,027; and 2. Intersection of Beulah Roa~ and Brookshire Drive~ Dale District, $188.00. There was b=ief discussion re~arding the length of time that transpired by Virginia Power, relativ, to the location approval ~ate, ~e bring forward the Dale District request with the requested ce~t e~timates. ll,B.3, VIRGINTA DE~ART~E~T OF TRANSPORTATION 1990-91 PRIMARY ALLOCATION HEARING STATF~MENT After brief di~oussion~ it Was On ~otion of M~. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved =o adop~ an amended state~ent to be presented by the Chai~man of the Board of Supervi~or~ at the Virginia D~par~%~at of lransporta~icn I990-91 Primary Allocation Hearing on April 12, 1990, at 10:00 a.m., to b~ hel~ at fh~ Richmond ~iscrict office, relative tu primary allocations and update of the interstate, primary and urban system $1x-¥~ar Improvement Program~ an~ £urthsr approved bhe Priority List for Highway Projects, as submitted, regarding Chesterfield County's primary rca~ constr~etfon needs, a copy of which list and statement are filed w~th th~ papers of this Soard. Mr. Daniel stated he felt that consideration should be given to the provision of more quantitative, substantive data being incorporated into future statement~ that are presented to the 90-270 ~/28/90 Virginia Department of Transportation at Primary Allocation hearings to r~informe the County's position and its needs. Mr. Currin e~cu~ed himself from the meeting. ll.B.4. RUFFIN MILL IRDUETRIAL PARK ACCESS ROAD On motion of Mr. Daniel~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, the hoard adopted the following resolution: WMEREAB, On December 21, I989~ thc Commonwealth Transportation Board approved a $290,000 all~cation from the 19~9~90 Fiscal Year Industrial Access Fun~ to provide access to the proposed Colonial Marble Products, Ltd. and Custom Optics, Inc. facillt~ea in Chemterfiel~ County, Rro~ect 0931-Q20-268, M501; and WHER/~AS, Th~ Transportation ~oard's allocation was contingent upon all right-of-way and utility adj~mLmen~s being provided at no cos~ ~o the Commonwealth an~ contingent u~on Chesterfield County providing evidence that not less than $2,900,000 of capital investment is undmr firm con, facts and WHEREAS, Colonial ~arbls still intends to construct a new facility in Chesterfield but muy not hav~ firm contracts comple=e~ in sufficient time so that the access road can he completed this yeur~ and WHEREAS, Custom Optics no longer intends ~o construct a new facility in Chesterfield but othex qualifying industries are e×pect~d to construct new facilities on the ac%ess road. NOW, T~RRFOR~, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chestsrf£eld County Board of Supervisors requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to reaffir~ its December 21, 1989 allocation with an additional contingency that the County provide evidanc~ that industrial facilities with a con%Dined qualifying industrial investment of hot less than $2,900,0OQ is ~nd~r fir~ contract for the construction and opera,ion of ~heir facilities or that the County provide or cause to be provided a surety er bond, acceptable to and payable {o the Virginia Department Of Transportation. Ayea~ Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applega%~, M~. Daniel and ~r. May%S. Absent: Mr. Cuttle. ll.B.5. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF ROUT~ ~88 On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD TO ~ROCEED ~T~ ALL DUE $~ED TO D~IG~ A~D CONSTRUCT WEBTER~ LEG OF ROUTE 288 FROM TNB POWHITE PAI~KWAY IN C~$TEeEI~LD COU~T¥ TO i~T=~STAT~ 64 IN GOOCHLA~D COUI~TY ~REA~, The commonwealth Transportation Bcar~ has the location of Route 288 between the Powhite ~arkway and In,ers%ate 64, by resolution adopted on August 18, t988, and affirmed on April 20, 19~9; and WHEREAS, This alignment has been supported consistently by Chesterfield and Gooohland Counties in the interest of expeditious construction e£ a facility which meets the transportation needs of those Counties and the region as well; W~R~A$, Chesterfield County has agreed ho fund, jointly with the Virginia Department of Transportation, the design of Ro~te 288 through the County; aud 90-271 3/28/90 WHEREAS, The work of designing Route 288 through Chesterfield County is already in progress, and the design expected to he the subject of a public hearing thio SU~r7 and WHEREAS, Goochland County ~tands ready to contract with the Virginia Department of Transportation for the provision of significant engineering and design services, and 4o aeqq/ire much of the necessary right-of-way To construct Route 288 through Goochland County; amd WRER~A~, I~nedlat~ construction of this l~g cf Route 288 would provide a much-needed western route for northbound and southbound traffic in the Richmond area, and would relieve traffic congestion in Chesterfield and Henrico Counties, in the City Of RiChmOnd, as well as on Ja~es River bridges, particu- larly the Edward E. Willey and ~u~uenot Bridge~; and WREREAS, I~edi~te construction of the western leg of Route 288 would facilitate developmen% of a complimentary, efficient, regional transportation network. NOW, THEREFORE, B~ IT R~$OLVED that th~ Ch~terfiel~ County Board of ~upervisors requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to provide immediate fundlng for expeditious full ~evalopment o~ Route 288 frc~ the Powhiee Parkway to Interstate 64, including d~$1gn, enginearing~ right-of-way acquisition and construction. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegate~ Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayer. Absent: ~r. Currin. Mr. Currin returned to the meeting. ll.F. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITE4HS I1.F.1. PUBLIC ~EARING TO CONSIDER TB~ CONVEYANCE OF A PARCel Mr. Sal~ ~at~ this ~ate ~n4 ~ime had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the conve~anc~ of a parcel of land known as ~esam~ Street off 01d Farm Road. Mr. Richar~ ~all, representing Central Virginia Educational Telecommunications Corporation, was present. There was nO opposition present. On motion of ~. Applegate, secondsd by Mr. Daniel~ the Boar~ approved a request from Central Virginia Education Telecommunications Corporation to vacate Sesame Street off 01d Farm Road and authorized the Chairman of The Deard and County Administrator to exscute a ~uitclaim deed to convey said p~rcel. Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegete, Mr. Daniel and ~r. ~ayes. Absent: Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Eurrin returned to the meeting. ll.F~2. AUTHORIZATION TO ~X~RCISE EMINENT DOMAIN PeR THE ACQUISITION OF A WATER TANK SITE ON WTNTEP30CN ROAD %~ROSS ~O~ERTY OF MR. AND ~$. ~NOM2~S J, SMITH AND Mr. Sale stated ~taff is requesting the Board to authorize the Connty Attorney to exercise eminen~ ~emain for the acquisition of a Water tank site from Mr. Thomas J. and M~ Eathryn C. Smith and ~a. Frances S. Mann; however, the affected property owners have requested n deferral for further n~getiations. 90-272 ~/28/90 Mr. Mayas made a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to defer until Hay 23, 1990, consideration of authorization tO exercise eminent domain for the acquisition of a water tank site on Winterpock Road. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that backgronnd information on this matter indicates that if thi~ tank is not constructed, fire protection and peak demands for the area will be dependent on the temporary primping Station along Winterpock Road wi%hour elevated storage baokup~ which will affect the .safety and welfare of the residents in the area and stated he felt there was not s:ffioient jnstifioation presented bo defer the matter. until April 25, 1990, consideration of authorization to sit~ on Wi~terpock Road. There was 4isoussion relative to the number o~ water tanks anticipated ~or construction in the Couuty~ compliance with the Zoning Ordinance relative to strategic 91ann~nq for and govern- ing of the location of Water tanks; what could be accomplished by deferring the matter for thirty days; etc. When asked, Mr. Wetohcns indicated that if a major fir~ w~r~ to occur im the subject area, the water supply for fire protection would be inadequate. Ms. Mann stated both price and propem~y are concerns and she felt a thirty day deferral would resolve those Ayes: ~r. Cummin, Nm. Applegate, Mr. Daniel and ~r. Mayas. Nays~ Sr. Sullivan. ll.F.3. CONSENT ITEMS ll.F.3.a. AP~R©VAL OF A QUITCLAI~ DEED FOR A PORTION OF A 16 FOOT WATER EASEMENT ACROSS A PARCEL OWNER BY SHELL OIL COMPANY LOCATED OFF OF SNELL ROAD On motion of ~r. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved and authorize~ the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute a Quitclaim Deed to vacate a portion of a 16' water easement aero~ a pares~ ewn~ by Oil Company, A Delawar~ Corporation, located off of Shell Road. (A copy o~ said plat i~ flied with the papers ei this Vote: Unanimous ,ll.P.3.b. R~QUEST TO QUITCLAIM A 16 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASE- ~ENT ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED E~ ~S~a$. WILLIAM E. AND GENE H. DUVAL IN DEER RUN, SECTION 1 approved and authorized th~ Chairman uf the Eoard and County Gene E. DaVe!. {A copy of said plat is ~iled with the papers of this Board. I Vote: Unanimous ll.F.3.O. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A 16 FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS PROPE~T¥ OWNED ~ rEEDY CREEK SOUTH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, EAST OF JEFFERSON DAVIS NIGHWAY On motie~ of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr, May~s~ th~ Board approved and authorized the Chairman u~ the Beard and County Aclministrator to execute a Quitclaim Deed to vacate a portion of a 16~ sewer easement across property ew~e~ by Reedy Creek 90-273 3/28/90 south Limited Partnership, A Virginia Limited Partnership, known as tax parcel 133-15-(1)-34. IA copy of said plat is filed with the pape~ of this Board.) lI.F.3.d. ACCEPTANCE ~F DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY AND DP~WRy'S BLUFF ROAD FROM MR. AND MRS. TBOFiAS F. BECK, JR. On motion of Nr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board accepted, on behalf cf the Ceunty, the conveyance ef a 10' strip Q£ la~d along Jefferson Davis ~ighway and a 15' strip of land along Drewry's Bluff Road from Mr, Thomas F. Beck, Jr. and Ns. Josephine F. Beck, and authorized the County Administrator to ex*cute th~ necessary d~d. (A copy of said plat is filed ll.F.3.e, kPPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR T~E VAC~TION AND KEDED!CA= TZON OF SEWER EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY OP BROAD ROCK CBUB, INC, ADJACENT TO ~RE~0RY'~ On me,ion of Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayss, the Boar~ approved the ~acation and re-dedication ef a ~e~ aTrOs~ property of ~road Rock Club, Inc., A Virginia Corporation! ad)scent to Greqory'~ Pond and authorized th~ Chairman of the Board and County Administrator eo extents the easement agreement. (A copy ef ~aid plat is filed with papers of this Board.) Vote~ Unanimons ll.F.S.f. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OP DEDICATION FROM bg~OC~ATEM~ TN TH~ VICINITY OF EUREKA DRZV~ AND BOULDERS VIEW DRIVE On motion of Mr. Sullivant ~conded by Mr. Mayas, the Board accepted, on b~half of ths County, the conveyano~ of a 0.125 acme parcel between the southern right-of-way line of Eureka Drive and the northern right-of-way line Of Beulder~ View Driv~ from Sigma C.J. Asseciabas, A Virginia L~it~d ~aztnership and authorized the County Administrator to execute the necessary d~ed. (A CoDy of said plat is filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous APPROVAL OF CONTF~kCT FOR RBY2~OOR DR~vE ~A~TAEY SEWER LINE EXTENSION FROM EDENBERRY ROAD TO FAR,AM DRIVE On motion of Mr, Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, th~ Board awarded Contract Numbe~ $9-0857 fox the construction nf an $" sanitary sewer line along Red, hoer Drive from Edenh~rry Drive %o Farnha~% Drive ~o T & E Construction in the amoun~ of $77,382,25 to provide ~ervic~ to R~y-moor Drive remid~nts and authorized th~ County Administrator to execute any necessary do~Ttment~. {It i~ noted the projsct is funded in current appropriations.) ll.F.3.h. AWARD OF CONTP~CT FOR SEWER ~TME ROU~ ~ CORRIDQB BETWEEN OSBORNE ROAD AND ROUTE On motion of Mr. sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayer, the Board 90-274 3/28/9~ awarded Contract Nttmber SS-0251 for the construction of an 8" 12", 15" and 19" sanitary sewer line within the Route 1/901 Osborno Road Corridor between Osborno Road and Routo 10 Lyttle Utilities in the amount cf $262,732.4§ and authorized the County Administrator to execute uny necessary documents. (It is noted the project will be funded by current appropria- ll.F.3.i. REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A 16' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS PROP~RTY OWNED BY OLIVER D. RUD¥, TRUSTRE On motion of Mr. ~ullivan, seconded by Mr. Mayas, the Board approved a request from Charles C. Townos & Associates, ~.C., to vacate a portion of a I8' drainage easement acrose property owned by Oliver D. Rudy, Trustee and authorized the Chairman of the Beard and County Administrator tu ex, cute the Quitclaim Dsed. (A COpy of ~aid plat is filed ~ith the papers of this Board.} Vote~ Unanimous ll,F.4. REPORTS Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the dev~!oper water and sewer confractE ex~cuted by the County Administrator. ll.G. REPORTS Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a status report on the General Fund Contingency Account, G~neral Fund Balanee~ Reserve for Futura Capital Projects, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease Purchases, School Board Agenda and the Board's Public Searing Schodulo and Dinner Meetings. Mr. Ramse~ statod ~ho Virginia Dopar~mant of ~ransportatien has fe~all7 notified the County of the accsptanO~ of th~ following read8 into the State Secondary Syst~m~ PROVIDENCE FO~ST - Route 1369 (Providence Forest Court} - From Rout~ 678 to east cul-de-sac. Route 995 I~estoz Road) - From Route 6SS t~ South cul-de-sac [Effective 3/9/90}. g.23 Mi. 0.31 Mi. Mr. Applegate requestod that, in th~ future, staff provide the Board in their Agenda Packets additional data relative to the project s~at~, the ~ffect of the change order and the projection if the project will como within ~udgat re~arding School projects. Ther~ was brief discussfon relativ~ to a tentatively scheduled mac%lng on April 11~ 1~90, at 5:00 p.m.~ with the Co~fttoo on the Future. The Board directod staff to contact Mr. Paul Cox, Chairman of tho Cemmittos on tho Future, to determine the appropriate amount of time necessar~ for the briefin~ and to advis~ the Board ~o that ~aid me~tin~ could be scheduled. 90-275 3/28/90 LUNCH The Board recessed at 10:55 a.m. IEST~ ko tour the new Courts Building Facility from which they would travel to the Half-Way Mouse Restaurant for m luncheon meeting with reprmmentatives cf the Rishmond Convention a~d Visitors Bureau. Reounvening: ll.I. R~QU~STS FOR REZ©NING 90SN0112 In Matoaca Magisterial Dietrict~ J~d~E8 F~a_p~L GAT~IS requested rezoninq from Community Business (B-2) to Neighborhood {C-2) on a 0.7 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet the east line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 140 feet on the $ou~h line of Arrowfield Road, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 163-1t (1} Parcel ? (Sheet 49). ~r. Jac0bs0n stated the applicant requested a thirt~ (30] deferral, Mr. Da¥1d Warrinsr, representing the applicant, stated a thirty day deferral is desirable. There was no opposition to the deferral. on motion of Mr. Mayas, seconded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board deferred Case 9QSNQll2 u~til April 25, Votu: Unanimous $9SN04~9 In Pals Maq~ster~a~ Distr~ct, /%~NOLD ~, BEC~ r~quested rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Community ~usiness (B-2) to Cor~Aunity Business (C-3). A commercial complex is planned. This request lies on a 4.5 aer~ parsel fronting app=oxi~ately 59~ ~eet on the southeast line of Iron Bridge Houd, approximately 630 feet south O£ Irongate Drive. Tax Map 66-1 (~) Parcel ? (Sheet 22}. ~r. Jacobsen presented a summary of Ca~e 89SN0429 and stated the Planning Co~unission recommended approval of the request and ~cceptance of the proffered conditions. Be noted transporta- tion and fire proffer~ had been addressed and wer~ included in the addendum distributed to the Board. ~r. John Dod$on, represen=ing tho applicant, ~tated On motion of Mr. Daniel, s~conded by Mr. Applegate~ the Board approved CaSe 89SN04~ and accepted the following proffered conditions as outlined in the addendum~ 1. Prior to issuance of a building p~rmit, 100 feet of righ: cf way, measured from th~ the cenherlins of Iron Bridge Road, shall be dedication to Chesterfield County~ frae and unrestricted provided, however~ that on that portion of the property currently zoned B-2, such dedication need not utilize the existing building for i~$ preeen~ u~es. Prior ~o the issuance of any occupancy permits, additional pavement, curb and gutter, shall be provided along Iron Bridge Road for the entire property frontage and further Xngress and egress to ReuSe 10 for the parcel shall be 90-276 3/2~/~0 limited to One (1) access. The location of that access shall be approved by the Transportation Department. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following shall be accumpliuhed for fire protection: A. For building permits obtained on or before June 30, 1991, the ewn~r/d~velcper shall pay to the County $150 per 10Q0 square feet cf gross floor area. Ii the building permit is obtained after Jun~ 30~ 1991~ the amount of the required pa~gment shall bs adjusted upward or downward by the ~ame percentage that the Marshall Swift With the approval of the County's Fire Chief, th~ own~r/d~veloper shall receive a credit ~ire suppression system not otherwise required by law which is included a~ a part of the development. OR B. The owner/developer shall provide a fire which the County's Fire Chief determines sub- ties otherwise necessary for fire protection. 90SN~104 In Dale Magisterial District, B~CE COS~IE~ requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (I-l). Thin request lies on a 38.1 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the ~ozth line of Ce~rthous= Road, approximutuly 1,7U0 feat west of Shawonodasee Road, also fronting approximately 1,36~ feet on the south line of Route 288. Tax Map 79-10 (1) Part of Parcel 3 (Sheet ~r. Jacobsen presented a sun,mary of ca~e 90sN0104 and th~ Planning Con~issicn recommended approval subject to single condition and asceptance of the applicant's proffered oon~iti0ns. '~e note~ transportation and ~ire pro~fers are addressed in the eddendtun distributed to the Board. Hr. John Cogbill~ representing the applicant~ stated the recommended condition wa~ a~ceptable. There was no opposition prmsent. When asked, Mr. Cogbill briefly e~plain~d roa~ improvements to Courthouse Ro~d. approved Case 90S~0104~ ~ubject to the following condition; The required setback along Courthous~ Road shall ~e maintained as a burper. In addition to the Iandscaplnq and the tree preservation require- ~mnts within the setback along Courthouse a~ditional lan~caping and/or other feature~ may be red,red at the t~me o~ site plan review to minimize the vi~ibillty of the develop- ment from area residences. And fu~ther~ the Beard accepted the following proffered 1. Development shall be oriented toward an internal public 90-277 3/28/90 Prior to issuance of the building permit, forty-five {45] feet of right of way, measured from the existing eenterline of Courthouse Read, shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, but subject tO existing easements and right of ways, insofar as the same may effect the property. Prior to the issuance of any certi£1cates of occupancy for buildings constructed on the property, additional pavement shall be constructed along Courthouse Road to provide left- and right-turn lanes. In addition, th~ ditch line shall be relocated and adequate shoulders provided along Courthouse Road for the. entire property frontage as th~ property is developed in accordance with a phasing plan approved by the Transportation Department. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following sba!l be accomplisked for fire pretectlcn: A. The developer shall pay $150 per 1,000 square feet of grOS~ floor area through June 30, 1991. If th~ building permit is not obtained by June 30, 1991, the rate shall be adjusted upward or downward by the same percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index is increased or dscrease~ between June ~0, 1991, and the da~e ~uch each proffers are paid. The developer shall re~eive a credit for the cash specified above, up to the amount mpecified above, for the cost of a fir~ ~upp~esslon system if the fire suppression system i~ in excess of the BOCA Code, amd is approved by the Fire Department; 5. The developer shall provide a fire suppression system no= otherwise required by law which the County'~ Fire Chief determines substantially red~¢es the need for County facilities otherwise necessary for fir~ protection. 90SN0132 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ~IN~I,a3~D ~;%~ ~equested re~oninq f~om Co~unlty sueiness (B-2) to Corporate Office (0-2] . This request lie~ on a 2.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 410 feet on ~he soa~h line of Noruliff Road, almo fronting approximately 245 feet on the west lin~ of Davis Highway, and approximately ~$5 feet on the east line of Perrymont Road, and located at the in%~rsectlon of these roads. Tax Map 81-4 (1) Parcel ll and Tax Map 91-8 (1) Parcels 21 and 22 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobson presented a summary of Case 90S~0132 and the Planaing Cont~ission recommended approval. ~r. Gecil Carter, representing the applicant, accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition. When asked, Mr. McCrack~n stated ~/]~ church would not donate additional rlqht-of-way. On notion of Mr. Currin~ seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved Case Vote: Unanimous 90-27~ 312~/90 90SN01~5 In Matoaca ~a~£sterial District, TEXACO/STAR ENTERPRISE re- ~u~te~ re~oning ~rom General ~in~s (~-~) ~o Co,unity Businuss ~C-3). This request Iie~ on a 0.9 acre parcel front- Road, also fronting approximately 205 f~et on the east line of Co~onwealeh C~D%re ~arkway, and located in ~he southeast quadrant of 5h~ intef~ectic~ of these roads. Tax Map 62-5 the Planning Co~ission reco~nded approval of th~ request and acceptance of ~he applicant~ proffered conditions. He noted transportation and fir~ protection cash proffers were not ~e~est~d Qn :h~ subject r~u~st because the property currently ~on~d ~ene~al Business ~B-3) and there is no incrsasa in the intensity of the zoning. Mr. Mike Hall, rspresentin~ the applicant, stated the reco~ndation wa~ acceptable. There was no oDposition pr%sen=. When a~ke~ Mr. Hall indicated public water and woul~ facilitate the project. approved Case 90SN0135 and accepted the following proifered All struc~urss shall ~mploy hippsd roofs having fiber- qlass, asphalt or similar ~hinqles~ 2. Mullions shall b~ used in windows. 3. Buildings shall employ brick in the facad~n~ 4. Architectural plan~ ~ball be ~ubmlthed to th~ 9~annlng Depar~ent for approval in conjunction with ~ite plan review. 5. Prior to the issuance of a buildinq permit, one hundred (100) feet of right-of-way, measured from ~he centerline of Route 360, shall be dedicated %c Chesterfield County free and ~nre~tricted. VOte: Unanimous 90SN0137 In Matoaca ~agistcrial District, J. B. C-~2~PBE~L, ET AL re- quested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case $4S093) ~o permit a fe~t food ~ataurant in e Community Business (B-i) Di~trlct. Thi~ request li~ on a 1.9 aer~ DarceI frontin~ approximately 250 feet on the 9nuth line of Hull Street Road, aisc fronelng approxlm~tely ~55 f~et en the east llne of Commonwealth Centr~ Parkway, approximately 205 feet seat Cf the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 62-10 (1) Part of Parcel I (Sheet 20). Mr, Jacebson presented a summary of Case 90SN0137 and s~ated the Planning Commission reccmmsnded approval subject :o certain conditions and acceptance of thc &~plicant's ~roffcr~d c~ndi%ion. ~e noted ~taff originally recommended an addihional condition 2(c) but in order to be consistent ~taff recommends that the Planning Cc~misslcn's recommended 2(c~ be accepted. He further noted that ~ransportati0n and fire protection cash proffers ware net rcqueste~ because the property was previously Mr. ~dward Will%y, Jr., representinq the applicant, accepted the ~lenning Commission's re¢0mmendeO conditions and noted public water and n~wer would b~ utilized. There was brief discussion relative to shared acc!ss with the adjacont Texaco property, M~. li!ley inaicated the subjec~ property shares access with er!star property to the aa~%. When asked, Mr. NcCracksn state~ staff, when reviewing %he Texaco site, attempted to isolate acce~ to %ha% ~ite to minimize ingress/ag,ess; that since the ~ub~ect property i~ located at the intersection, ~ffo~ts are being made to obtain shared access with adjacent property and the Commonwealth Center development; that he envisioned the Route 360/Cow~onwealth Center Parkway entrance beinq a ma~or intersection with a four-lanE, boulevard type entrance with dual Left turn lanes in =he future. There was no ~pposition present. On motion cC Mr. Msyes, seconded by M~. Sullivan, the Board approva~ Ca$~ 905N0137, subject to the following conditions: 1. Tko fellowlng conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pa,ad by MCDOnald'S COrporation, dated Decsmber 5, 1989, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) 2. Except as stated herein, the arohitecturaI t~eat~nent o~ th~ building shall bx similar to that depicted on Eh~ elevations submitted with tho application: a. Architectural treatment shall comply with Section 21.1-248 of the Zoning Ordinance. b. Mullions shall be used in windows to br~s~ up the expanses of ~late glass. c. The building shall employ brick in the facades. d. Roof access shall be completely enclosed within the building to pr!stud~ the vlaibility of ladders and eliminate the need to b~eak the .collins to e. Architectural pleas shell be submitted to the Planning Depert~en£ for approval. (P) And further~ the Board accepted the following proffered Prior ~o the issuance of an occupancy permit, 100 feet o~ right of way measured from the cent~rtine of acute 360 shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. (NOTE: Except as noted h~rein~ all conditions of zonin~ a~proval ior Case $4S093 remain in effect.) Vote: Unanimous 90SN0148 In Bermuda Magisterial 5i~triat~ C0~IX OF ~,I(]PK)HD re- quested rezcning ~rom General Industrial (~-21 to Heavy Industrial (I-3) wi~h Conditional Use to permit an electric power ~eneration plant, Thi~ request lies on a 39.7 acre parcel lying at ~he eastern terminus of Station Road, also fronting approximately 1,463 f~et on the west lln~ of Inter- state 95, and approximately 331 feet on the south line of Chippenha~n Parkway, and located in %he southwest quadrant of th~ intersection of ~hese roa~s. Tax Map 53-8 (1} Part of Parcel 2 and Tax Map 53-12 (1) Parcel 1 Mr. Jacobsen presented a e~ary of Case 90~N01~8 and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request, 90-280 subject tu certain conditions. ~e noted Mr. Robert Beasley, Director or %h~ Richmond Regional 0ilice of the Air Pollubion Control Board, to answer q~astio~e relative to his agency's approval of permits for the sub,eot plant. Ha further noted transportation and ~i:e protection pro~fers were ~obmitted and are outlined in the addendum distributed %0 the Mr. Currin disclosed to the Board tk~t a subsidiary of Cogentrix of Richmond approached hi~ cc~pany regarding fill-dirt for the subject projec~ which he feels has no impa~t on ~his regUeSt aa he owns none of the subject ~roperty, none of the property from which the fill-dirt will be obtained and he did net intend to contribute financially tc the ~ubj~ct request; therefore, he did not feel there was a conflict of interest. ~e further noted he had discussed this request with r~pr~$entatives Of Bensley Village and Mr. Jim Luwe, the applicant's representative, and after diecus~inq ~he matter with them, ~he citizens indicated to him they feel they have not been treated fairly because thie request has fast-tracked this case without their input. ~e briefly explained the fast-track proce~ that %h~ Cogentrix applicants had requested such a process be used when they applied for rezoning; deceive ~hom or not allow their input on the requeet~ and stated that he, after further discussion with Mr. Lowe, in~icata~ to him that he intended to request a deferral of the cas~ during which time he planned to m~t with repr~$entativ~ from ~en~ley and Coqentrie to d±scus~ concerns reqardinq the Mr. Currin madm a motion to defer Case 905M0148 until April 25, 1990. When esked~ approximately 150 persons from th~ Bensley community stood. Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel and Mr. Mayas expressed concern that so mnny people were present to hear the cage presented; that not tc hear the ease would he an inconvenience to ~eny of fhem; and concurred that the case should be presented so those present could express their When amked, Mr, ~ohne©n stated area residents had not had sufficient time to become familiar with the proposal or to notify all reeidents that would be affected by it. Me stated they were prepared to address their concerns today but could be better prepared if the cas~ were d~ferred for thirty ~ay$. Lowe stated he was prepared eo praaent the requeet at ilia time. Mr. Currin stated he would allow public comment at this time and continue the public hearing until the next meeting. ~r. Mayas ~tated bm felt the Board should consider Mr. JOhn$cn'~ remarks that the residents could present a more subetantiv~ ease i£ there was u ~hirty day deferral. Mr. Mioae stated kh~ cam~ could be heard at this time, that the public hearing nut be clcmed and then continue the request until April 25, 1990. ~r. Lowe concurred with the thlrk~ day When caked, Mr. George Beadles indicated his opposition to a deferral of Case 9~SN0148 until April 25, with area residents to continue negotiations regarding Ca~e meeting with both the applicant and %he residents. When asked, ~r. Lewe indicated deferral of the case would impact his meeting a require4 deadline set by Virginia Power and weald for failure ~o mmet the deadline; however, he would concur with the d~ferral in order to have the case come before the Board only one time as opposed to having multiple d~ferrals, ge stated ths~e was extensive media coverage, meet~ng~, various funetione~ eta., and, even though he had no direct contact with with the proposed project. When asked, Mr. Ramsay indicated the proposed project is a very strong effort of the County's economic development program. Mr. Lowe indicated his invest- menC is approximately $220,000,000. Mr. sullivan stated it appeared this project received substantial media coverage; area reslden%e should have been aware of it~ and he felt if the Board should choose to defer the case it should bm for the appropriate reason, net because a certain faction of residents state they wer~ not aware until recently of the proposed project. Mr. Daniel suggested the matter be deferred for weeks to $11ow for a meeting of theme involved %0 re~elve their concerns. Mr. Micas indicated the continuation of zoning cases requirmm readv~rtisemmnt and a two week ~eferral would be an insufficient timeframe within which ~0 accomplish Chat; there- fore, the case must be deferred for thirty days. Mr. Cnrrin remtatmd his motion, smooD~e~ by Mr. Daniel, to defer Case 98SN0148 until ADril 25, 1990, to include the necessary public h~arlng with th~ stipulation tha~ ~ meeting of those concerned be arranged to review all the ramifications of the eubj~ct came. Mr. Sullivan stated h@ felt th~ recfuest should be heard at this time as he ~as unaware of what the ~oneerns are or if ceul~ he resolved at this level and that failure to consider it at thi~ time wnuld have not. only an adverse financial impace on the applicant but also poseibly jeopardize the entire 9roject; that it is the Board'~ policy to fo~ter ~cOnOmic development in an offer% increase =he commercial tax base ra%i0 which affects all the citixens of the County; that it appeared to him that pass up this opportunity would not only have a negative impact on the area residents but also all ©~her reslden~s in the County and would not enhance the County's position with prospective development clients and that he could ~e= support deferral. ~r. Currin stated he did not wi~h to cnnv~y that he is opposed to increasing the Couney's coK~er¢ial tax ratio basis by net attracting valuable industry to the County; however, he had discussed the cas~ with both the constituents and ~r. Lowe and that they had co~ tn this meeting with the understanding that a deferral would b~ recorm~nded an~ surfed with that. He stated he was not informed by anyone from the Economic Development Department or Cogentrix that ~here was an immediate timeframe within which this project needed to be completed, that a substantial penalty would result for failure to meet that deadline or that the project would 5e in jeopardy and if he had been aware ef that he would have conveyed that information to the Ben~ley area residents so that they would not be in this quandary ~t this time. Mr. Daniel e=ated i~ was ~nclsar to h~m as to how a land ~se decision today, that not be decided until April ~, 1990, affec%e the end timing of a project of this magnitude which is scheduled to go on-line two years from now; and that he had mot heard any comment that ~he thirty day deferral would net b= beneficial to all con- cerned, when asked, ~r. Lowe indicated a penalty of in excess of $315,000 per month could be. i~possd for failure to comply with hie deadline and that it was not outside the realm of reason that his contract with Virginia Power could be cancelled. When a~ked, ~r. Lowe indicated FAA aDDrovel on the smoke~tac~s had not been r~ceived. Mr. Currin indicated ~hose present attended the meeting with the ~nderstanding ~here would be motion for a thirty day deferral and h~ f~lt it was possible to negotiate with Virginia Powe~ to circumvent any possible financial difficulties and ~till maintain hie contract. Mr. Currin called for the ~uestion. Mr. Mayas offered a substitute motion to defer Case 90SN0148 ~ntil April 25, 1990 and that ~he public hearing be continued until that time. It was noted that th~ s=bstitute motion was 90-282 3/28/90 withdrew his motion. Mr. Currin ro~tat~d his motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, to defer Case 90SN0148 until April 25, 1990, to include the necessary public hearing with the understanding that a meeting of those concerned be arranged to review all the ramifications of the snbjec~ case. Nays: Mr. SUllivan. It was generally agreed to recess for five (5) minutes. 88S'ROZ57 (amended) In Midlothian Magisterial District, JAY ROE requested a~end- meat to Conditional Use Planned Development {Case 83SllD} relative to master plan approval, road improvements, access, buffers, lighting, ~etback~, land,taping, signs, u~o~, and building heights in an Office Business (O) District. This request Ii~$ on a 6.0 acre parcel fronting approximately ~10 feet on the no,th lin~ of North Prcvidenc~ Road, also fronting approximately 200 feet on the west line ol Buford Road, end located in the northwest quadrant of th~ inter~eetion of the~e roads. Tax Map lC-15 (1) Paruele 18, 46, 48, 49, and 53 and Tax Map 18-16 (I} Parcel 3 {~hee% B). Mr. Jucobson presented a smnmary of Case 88~257 and s~ated the Planning Commission reconmsn~e~ approval of the request subject to certain conditions. He noted that, in the addendum distributed, the applicant has requested withdrawal of a portion of the original request in tho northwestern quadrant of the tract, specifically the app]icant'a amended request would auw encompass Tax Map 18-15 {1) Parcel 49 and Part of Parcels 18 and 55 and Ta~ ~ap 18-16 (1} Part of Parcel 3. Mr. Jay Rowe stated th~ recommended eendifions a~e a~eeptable and requested that tbs thirty (30) foo~ buffer recommended by the Planning Commission be imposed as opposed to the fifty {50) foot buffer as recomumended by staff. When asked, Mr. Rowe stated the original zoning included conditions for a thirty (30) foot bu£~er; that the high ~aneity uses requested for the subject site cannot occur within 200 fa~% ef %h~ property to the no,th so the only ~hln~ he can use ia the Office senlng unless other adjacent property owners rezone their property for will not be any buffer; and he feel~ that he would be penalized and lose the engineering e~pen~es if he were required to Mr. Jacobsen stated ~taff recommended a fifty (50) foot buffer to comply wi~h the newly adopted Zoning Ordinance and which ~equlrement is being achieved County-wide in areas where there is a transition from office uses to single-family uses. Mr. Rowe stated that ~he Planning Commission offered, on behalf of the County, to rezone ~r. Eull'z property to offer a zoning opportuni~y~ however, Mr. ~ull declined due to concerns regard- There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Sullivan, secoDde~ by ~r. ~ppiegat~! %he Board accepted withdrawal of a portion of the ~ubje¢~ request located in th~ northwest quadrant of the subjec~ $ite~ and further approved case 88SN0257 on Tax Map 18-15 (1) Parcel ~9 and Part of Parcels 18 and 55 and Tax Map I8-16 (1) Part of ~arcel 3, i subject to the following conditions: The following conditicn~ notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Balzor and Associate~, Inc. and the Textual Statement, submitted with the application, shall bs con- sidormd the Master Plan. 2. Public watem and wastewater systems shall be used. (U) The downptream ponds shall be analyzed to determine capac- ity for stormwater runoff, Depending on the results of this analysis, either on-site retention shall be employed c~ off-site easements acquired and drain&ge improvements accomplished. 4. All uses located within 200 feet of the northern boundary shall b~ limited to those uses permitted in the Office Business (0} District. Use~ permitted cn the r~maininq portion of the property shall be limited to the following: a. All uses permitted ~n the Office easiness District. b. Art school, gallmry, Qr museums. c. Banks and savin~s and l~an aesociations provided per,ion of the property b~tw~en the Road access and Twinrldge Lane. d. Barber ~hep. e. ~eauty shop. f. Brokerage. g. Medical clinics provided such uses are not designed to accon~odate ambulance traffic. h. Messenger or telegraph service. i. Nursery schools, child or adult ~ay care cen- ters, and kindergartens. j. 0pt~metri~ts sales and $~rvlsss provided that the sales and servicing of eye-ear is done by an opecmetrist as an accessory use in conjunction flfteen (13} percent of the gross floor area iD m. Co~t~unioatien studios and stations (not towers). n. Laboratories--medical and don=al. loading docks or %racier %taller traffic no ~ore than thirty (30) percent of any office/warehonse accessory us~. (~) (NOTE: Conditions 5 and 10 r~quire gcrP~ning of from ar~a residences and public rights of way.) to tho Corride: Overlay Dietrict standards. the principal building. Solid waete sto~age areas located within 1,000 feet of any proper~y zoned residentially or any property used for residential purpose~ shall not be ~ervieed b~twe~n the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:0Q o.m, (P} Parking sp~ces for nursery schools or nhild/adnlt care centers ~hall be provided ba~ed On a ratio of one space for each twenty (20) enroller~ np to a maxim~r~ of six (6} spaces, plu~ one (1) for ~ach ~mploye~. 90-284 3/28/90 $. Stacking space shall be provided for any use having drive-through facilitiee or areas kaviDg drop-off and pick-up areas. Stacking spaces shall have a minlm~ length of eighteen (18) feet. Stacking spaces shall conferm to ~he parking setback. Stacking spaces shall be designed so as not to impad~ on and off-site traffic movements or movement~ into and out e~ parking spaces. Stacking spaces shall be separated from other internal driveways with raised medians, as deemed necessary for traffi~ movement or ~afety, by the Director of Steckin~ space~ ~hall Be provided a~ followel a. Bank~ or other financial inetitutions with drive-in windows: four (4) stacking spaces for the first drive-in window plus two (2} stacking spae~$ for each additional window, areas and driveways for nursery ~chools end 0hild/adult care activities shall be designed to provide an area for drop-off and pick-u~o ·his area shall be connected to the ma~n building by a ~idewalk to preclude the need for children to cross any driveway. Drivewa~s~ entrances and exits should be designed to maximize pedestrian safe~y. Fur- the~, a sidewalk shall bm provided item the buildin~ to an approved school bus pick-up and drop-off ar.a. (P) 9. Parking spaces shall have a minimum size of nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet, Parkin~ areas shall be land,caped in accordance with Corridor Overlay District standards. 10. A minimum thirty {301 foot buffer shall be maintained adjacent to residentially soned properties. This buffer shall bc designed to provide a horizontal dlstanc= end open space bmtween ~he projee~ a~d adjacent residenses~ pre~erve v~etation; provide ~ransition and ~eparation: reduce nois~ and glare; and/or maintain privacy. The buffer shall provide intermittent visual separation be- e. Existing mature vegetation located within th~ required buffer shall be maintained unless during schematic plan approval. Further, pre- required landscaping materials upon approval ~uring $~h~matfo plan approval. b. Th~ buffe~ shall provide complete visual ehall 5e lan~caDin~ and screonin~ as permitted permit signs; security fencing; access and through the buffer; pedestrian walkways; or similar uses provided the spirit and intent of d. The requirements for buffers and screening may be waived and/or modified by the Planning Com- mission during schematic review and approval 90-285 3/28/9~ 11. 12. i~ the ad~acent property has beer zoned for a similar use. ~. At a minimum, th~ buffer shall be planted at 1.5 times the density of Corridor Overlay District ~tandard$, Perimeter Landscaping C. £. At the time of schematic plan review, the Plan- ninq Co~i~sien may reqhire additional land,cap- ins and/or ssrosninq devices as deemed necessary co provide adequate screening. At the time of first schematic plan review, e conceptual land- soaping plan for the entire buffer ~hell be submitted to the Planning commission for ap- proval. A detailed landscaping plan for the entire buSfer shall be ~obmitte~ to the Planning Department for r~view and approval within thirty (30) days of rough clearirg and grading for any sits. The detailed plan shall in¢l~ds the general location of existing vegetation to be retained, the location of proposed landscaping and/e~ fencing, and section~ through the buffer depic%ing how buffering/screening of the project Prior ~o release of any further occupancy mit, the eastern buffer and %h~ northern buffer lying ~atwsen the eastern ~u~fer and the re- tention pond~ a~ depie~ed on the Master Plan, shall bs i~s%allsd. The r~maining portion of the b~ff~r between the retention pond and Ruford Road shall be installed in conjunction with development adjacent to that portion of the buffer unless required earlier through site plan review. {CPC) No structnre~ within 180 feet of any residential district shall exceed a keight of two (2) sterle~ or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less. Howaver~ if there is an existing dwelling mots than two {2) stories in height within 100 feet of the property, the height of the structure may be incrsased to the height of the dwelling. Signs. a. except ss noted herein, signs shall comply with the requirements of the Special Sign District. h. Design A unified system of signags an~ graphfos shall be desiqned. The letter style, graphic display, and color of all signage and graphics within the development shall be consistent. Signage concepts shell be considered during the design of buildings, so that signage and ~raphics are teetotally incorporated into those build- ings ~ the site they inhabit. Size~ height, location, material~ and color shall be compatibl~ with building~ and site design. [2) Freestanding signs shall be encased a structure that is architecturally ~elated to and cempatlbl~ wihh the main building(s) an~ overall architectnral design of the development. P~lon signs shall be prohibited. Landscaping shall be integrated wi~h each individual freestanding sign. Clu~tering of plant~ zhatl b~ required to provid~ a 90-256 3/28/90 mix of vegetation. The landscaping required by this condition shall he depicted on site plans. (4) Illumination. a. EEtefnal lighting shall bs limited to light fiEtures using white, not colored, lighting and shall not be blinking, fluctuating, or moving. External lighting shall only be per- mltted if the sign face is constructed of natural materials such as wood or stone or man-made materials such as plasti~ or metal having the appearance of natural materials. External light- ing shall be provided by concealed and/or screened spots or floods and shall be arranged and installed se that direct or reflected illumination does net exceed 0.5 foot- candles above b&ckg~ound measured at thc lot line of any adjoining residential, tewnheus~ residential, or multi-family Of Way. b. Internal lightinq shall be limited to internal light contained within t~ans- lucent letters and/or loges and in- ~ernally illuminated mien boxes, provided the background or field on which the copy and/or loges are pieced, is opaque. The area illu- minated is restricted to the ei~n ~sce only. The direct or refl~ch~d illu- ~inatien shall not exceed 8.5 footcandle~ abov~ background meagured ~t the let line of any adjoining res- idential, townheuse resi4ential, or multl-fa~ily residential diEtrfct or boards shall only be permitted when incorporated into the principal sign. Changeable copy boards may have a comprehensive sign pa~kaee shall h~ ~uh~ mitred to the Plannin~ Department for approval. The sign package shall provide detailed renderings to include oolor~, sixes, lighting, location, etc. for all siqns within an~ development. Interchangeable copy signs shall b~ allowed only if integrated into a permltte~ freestanding or buitdinq-mounted identifies%ion siqn~ Unless otherwise specified, no ~iqn ~hall exceed a height of ten {10) feet. Directional signs indicauing location of Lruck ~ntranc~$, ~mployee parking, shippinq and re- ceiving, and similar activities shall be al- lowed, provided that all such sign~ ar~ located on the property of the businsss and no ~uch ~ign ~xeeed~ five (5) feet in height and eight ($) square feet in ar~a. Directional signs may include business names or loges; howevsr~ nc more than two {2) such directional 13. 14. 15. signs displaying a business name or logo be legible from a public righ~ of way. f_ ©ne (1) sign no~ exeeedin~ lO0 square f~et in area and twenty (20) feet in height, identifying the development and announcing only the nam~ or location of development and b~$iness names of tenants therein, shall be allowed. All individual business signs shall bs attached to the main building or major appendage includ- ing, but not limited to conopi~s, marguees and awnings; however, businesses located on indi- vidual parcels within the project which front on internal public rights of way and/or private accesses shall he permitted e single lng individual business sign not exceeding ~uare f~t in area and a height cf fifteen (15) feet, provided such signs are no~ legible to external public right~ of way. Further, busi- nesses located on individual parcels which front on external public rights of way shall be permitted on~ (1) freestanding business sign not e×ceedinq twenty (20) square feet in area and a height Of eight ($) feet. h. Where the side or rear lot llne adjoins a res- idential~ townhoupe r~ideneiaI Or multi-family residential district, :he exterior signs shall be attacked flat against the building and ~hall not face the adjaeenu lot in such district(s) unle*~ such 9iqn is located at lea~t 150 feat £rom such dis~riet(s). No sign ~hall project more than eighteen (18] inches from the building or major The aggregate area of all business signs for any ~ne (1) business shall not exceed one (1) foo~ for each two (2) feet of ~uilding frontage provided thaa a minimum of twenty (20) s~uare Iee: and a maximum of 150 s~uer~ feet ~hall be permitted. · he required thirty (30) foot building se~aok along Providence and Buford Roads may he r~duced to twenty-five (2~) f~% with the provlsloD of landscaping in accerdans~ with Perimeter Landscaping B, of the Corridor Ovsrlay Dintriet ~tandar~s~ At the tlm~ of schematic plan review, a conceptual landscaping plan for the Setback shall be submitted to ihs ~launlng Co~mission for approval. A detailed land~caping plan shall be ~ub~ibted to the Plan- ~ing Departmen~ £Qr review and approval within thirty d3y~ of rough clearing and ~radin~. The detailed plan shall inetnde the general location of existing ve~etmtion to be retained, the location of proposed landscaping and/or fencing. The entire property shall ~e conzidered one (1~ develop- ment for the purpose~ of det~rmlnlng parking and building setbacks. (P) (~0TE: This condition would require that setbacks for individual uses be measured from propmrty boundarie~ only.) PMior to issuance of a building permit, thirty-five feet of right of way, measured from the centerline North Providence Road and Buford Road shall be to and for Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. 90-288 3128190 (NOTES: Vote: Unanimous (a) Conditinns 1 through 15 supersede all previously i~Do~ed sonditions of Case 835115 ior the subject sits only. {b) Prior to obtaining sit~ plan approval or building permits, schematic plans must be submitted to th~ }lannimg CoRtr~iSsion for approval. (s) At the time of schematic plan review~ the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions to insnre land uss compatibility and transition. Required parking for any non-office use approved with this ~equest must be lo0ated on that portion of the property zoned for the use.) In Matoaea MagisteriaI District, FIRST COLONIAL FINANCIAL COI{~ORATION requested Conditional Us~ to p~rmit a bank and an office building in an Agricultural (A) District on a 5.0 acre parcel ~rentinq approximmtely 830 feet on the northeast line of Harrowgate Road, also fronting approximately 886 feet on the southwest line of ~appy Hill Road, and located at the inter- section of these roads. Tax Map 132-11 {2} Garden City ~eights, Lots ~ and ~A (Sheet 4t). Mr. Jacobsen pxesented a summary of Case 895~0263 and s~ated the Planning commission recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. He noted staff recommended denial of the requuut au the request parcel lies within the boundaries c~ the Southern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, ~he amendment of which plan is incomplete but will address the appropriate- ness of allowing small scale, neigh~orhcod-or~ente~, commercial us~s at specific intersections and along designated corridors bass~ upon area ~evelo~r~ent; and further that approval of the subject request could set a precedent for ~imilar requests on the Other three corners of the intersection of Happy ~ill and ~arrowgate Roads. Hu further noted that oomplutlon of the southern Area Land Use and Transportation Planis not scheduled untT1 late 1990. M~. John G, Dicks, III, representing the request, s~sted he and the applicant met previously with area residents to address/re- solve concerns which was accomplished and noted area residents affected by the proposed project favor its approval. Mr. would be difficulties in developing that parcel under the ou=rent plan and one of the options staff is reviewing is the appropriateness of allowing small souls, neighborhood-oriented, ¢omm~sial uses at speoi£i¢ intersections an~ along designated corridors based upon area development. When asked, no one indicated opposition to the proposed request. Ms. Phyllis Bass stated that area residents are in favor of approval of the gnbj~c% request ag th~r~ ar~ other uses in the area other than residential sc the area is in transition and area residents itel the proposed use is appropriate. MS. Joan Cole also voiced support fO~ the proposed request. ~r. ~ayes made a motion, seconded by Mr, Applegate, to approve Case 89SN0263, subject to the following conditions: EXcept as ~tated hereiu, the plan dated November 15, 1988, shall bs considered the Master Plan. (CPC) 90-289 3/28/90 2. Us~s ~hell be limited to business, governmental, medical or profeesional offices; libraries; brokerages; ohurch~s or sunday schools; travel agen~i~ to iR~lude travel arranging and tTanBportation ticket services; optometrist sales and ~rvice provided that the sales and ssrviclng of eyewear i~ done by an optometrist as an accessory use in conjunction with the medical practice and not moro ths~ 15% of the gros~ iloor area may be dedicated to such ~ales and service; one (1} bank er savings end loan association with or without an public address system and wit~ or without drive-in windows. (CPC~ 3. Except as stated h~rein, development sh~ll comply wi~h the development and aauess requirements of Chapter 21.1 for Neighborhood Office {O-1) Di~%ric~s in Emerging Growth A~eas. site plans shall ~e submitted to th~ Planning Co--lesion for approval. (CPC) (NOTE: In addition to other requirement~ of th~ Dietrio~, this condition req~i~es that loading docks and drive-in loading doors shall he prohibited,) With the exception of chu~uhe$~ Sund~y schools or automat- ic teller machines (ATM) no use ~hall be Opened to the public h~twe~n 9~00 p.m, and 6:00 a.m. (C~C) 5. No more than two (2) structures shall be developed. ~he bank or mavings and lean building shall not ~xeeed a gross iloor area of 1900 square feet. Any other building shall net exceed ~000 square feet of gros~ floor erda. Struc- tures shall have brick foundations and cedar shake roofs. All structures shall have an architectural style compati- ble with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Com- patibility may be ashieved through the use of similar building massing, ma~erials, scale or other architectural features. (CPC) 6. Except as noted herein, signs shall comply with the re- qulrements of Chapter 21.1, Neighborhood Office (0-1) Districts in ~m~rging Growth Areas. A maximum of one business freestanding sign, to b~ located in the vicinity of the Harrowgste Road Access, not to exceed an aggregate area o~ fifty (50} square feet ~halt be permitted to identify this development. (C~C) 7. The public wastewater system ~hall be used. (CPC) ~rior to the issuance cf a building permit~ forty-five (~5) feet of right of way~ measured from ~he csnterline of ~appy ~ill Road and sixty {60) feet of riqh~ of way, measured from the centerlino of Hsrrowgat~ Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (CPC) 9. Prior to the i~suanoe of an OCcupancy permit, a~ditional age along Eappy Hill and Earrewgate Roads. (CPC) 10. A thirty-five (35) foot buffe~ shall be maintained along the ~onthern property line. Except £or u=ilities which r%n generally perpendicular through the buffer, landscap- ing, other screenin~ features ~nd accem~, as approved by the Planning and T~ansportation Department~, there shall be nc facilities permitted in the buffer. (CPC) There was discussion relative to transition development in the affected area; compatibility of ~ve~upment in the area; the cost of tko ongoin~ am=ndment to the existing plan; the maintaining of consistency in approval of pending rezoninq casss where there are revised Plan~ involved: that consid%ra- 90-290 3128/90 ties should be given to obtaining public input on the amendment of %h~ Southern Area Plan; %h~t the sase should be deferred until s~h time as the ananded Plan is completed; etc. Mr. Mayas stated that the Planning Co--sion recon~mended approval of tbs case; that the County Attorney had stated previously that Plans are guides; that it has been suggested that the subject parcel may not be suitable for residential development; and he ~elt the request should be approved. Mr. Daniel mad~ a substi=u~e motion, S~son~ed by ~r. Sullivan, to defer Case 89SN0263 until such time az the amended Southern Area Plan is There was further discussion relative to the length of time this caea ha~ been pending on the dockst~ the legal consequenoes/raraificatiena of not approvinq the euhjeot request within twelve months; whether or not it would be appropriate to obtain direction from the Advisory committee on this particular area of th~ Plan prior to September 26, ~990, without es=ire Plan being considered; =he potential for full build~oH% On ~e ~ubject parcel2 approval of othpr more in~ense u~es when the amended Plan comes fo~ard; Nhen action to emend the Plan was initiated, who inlti~t~d sai~ action and i~s correla%iun to the timeframe of the applicant's subject requ%zt~ etc. Mr. Daniel ~nd~d his motion, seconded by Mr, Sullivan~ as the ~end~d So~thern Area Plan is adopted~ whicheve~ first. Mr. Daniel noted that he had not made a motion to deny the subject request, o~ly that he wished to defer tko matter until such time as the Board has available info~a=ion a~ to the context of the amended land u~ plan. Mr. Daniel restated his merles, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, defer Case ~9SN0263 unt~ Sept~er 26, 1990 or nntil such as the amended Southern Area Plan is adopted, whichever occurs Ayes: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Appleqate, ~r. Daniel a~d Mr. Mayer. Nays: Mr. Currin. 89SN0317 In ~ermuda ~agisterial District, ~LENNH. HII~L ~ JO~l~ A. requested rszoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential A ~in~le family residential subdivision is planned. This request lie~ on a ~7.0 a~ parc~% ~ronting approximately 566 feet On the north line of Thurshon Road, approximately 1,600 feet east of Hopkinm Road. Tax ~ap ~l-t0 (2) Squarefietd Park Farms, Lot 31 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen presented a s~arv of Case 89SN0317 and stated race--ended approval o~ the request, subject to certain ~ondition~, because the request ~ould be compatible with ~he smaller loss in Kings/and Acres %o the wes= and woul~ provide a transition to the larger lots to the south and east. Hu stated th~ request is in conformance with the Central Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. John Dod~on, representing th~ applicant, stat~d ~taff'~ compromised r~lative to lot and house sizes7 and that effort~ project Would utilize public water and sewer and that apRl~cant had proffered conditions to address residents concerns which would includ~ the prohibition o~ satellite dishes. 90-291 3/28/90 When asked; appro×imat~ly twenty-five (25) residents indicat~ opposition to the proposed reguest. Mr. Michael Hamilton, representing area residents, voiced oppogltlon to the proposed request and expressed concerns relative to the density of the proposed development, it~ impact on schools and traf£1c, size and architectural ~tandards of the hemes, compatibility and quality; etc. Ms. Robin wilson stated she did not feel the proffers addressed the conoennm of the residents, were considered misleading and reqaested the case be denied. Discussion, questions and comments ensued relative to adequate buffering, land use transition, transportation and fire protection sash proffers, density of the proposed development, its impact on schools and traffic, size and architectural ~tandard~ of the homes, compatibility and quality$ the fact that the application was filed prior to July 1, 19S9 and did not require cash proffers; etc. The Board expressed concerns relative to disparity in ~he size of the pro~os~d homes: that roads were inadequate t~ handle traffic; that the ~oard has a rsspoasibility to the people who move into the area to ensure that there are adequate reade and, if not, the burden for that expense would he placed on other taxpayers cf the County; that the information on the ~chool enrollmen~ projections was underestimated and additional statistics ware needed; that the request should be r~manded to tho Planning Coi~isslon fQr further consideration; that if this case were denied, the road conditions wo~ld not he i~prove~ as there is no plan to correct the existing road ~ituatien in this neighborhood; that it is the r, sponsibility o£ the Virginia Department of Transportation to correct the poor road conditions; Mr. Currin stated this request had been a most un, seal one; that the existin~ road oonditi0~$ in %he area are inadeguate but are the responsibility of the Virqinia Depar~en~ of Transpor- tation~ and that he had worked diligently with ali concerned parties~ howe~er, he f~lt the ease was not really at a point of' compromise at this time. On motion of Mr. Currin, ~eoonded by ~r. Sullivan, the Board Ayes: ~r. Cu~rin, ~r. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel an~ ~r. Nays: Mr. Applegate. 89SN0335 In Bermuda Magisterial District, GEORGE EMERSON rezoning from General Industrial (~-2) to R~sidential (R~It) of 321.4 acres plus amendment to Conditional Use 'Planned m~nt (Case 87S174) to permit use ~xeeptions on 56.1 acres. mixed use development with residential, re~reationaI~ and co~unercial useg is plann~. This request lies on a 377.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 635 feet on the east llne of Ruffin Mill Road, approximately 3,000 feet southwest of Walthall Drive. Tax Map 150-3 (1) Part of Parcel 11 and Tax Mr. C~rrin advised the Board that he has no ownershi~ involvement in the subject peOpert~ but because the applicant i$ a business partner in other projects he has requested a rnlin~ f~em the COunty Attorney and Co~monwealth'e Attorney to determine whether or not he may vet9 on ~he request. He stated ~il s~ch time as he has b~n advised as to whether or not conflict of interest exists, he would declare a potential ~onflict 0f interest pursuant to the Virginia Conflict of Interest A~t and e~Guse himself from the meeting. 90-292 Mr. Jacobsen presented a seam%any of Ca~e B9SN0335 and stated the Planning Commission recommended ~eniel of Case 89S~0~5 as the proposed request is considered incompatible with exi~tinq zoning as well as emerging industrial development in the area and the proposed coning and land uses do not conform to the Muffin Mill Area Plan. Mr. oliver D. audy, representing the applicant, req~emt~d ~hat Came 89SNQ335 be remanded to the Planning Commission so that thc applicant may amend his application and asked to bm permitted rebuttal if the Board were to decide not to render a favorable decision regarding thc applicant's request. K~ suba~itted copies of letters sent to the Board relative to the case and a Sits Specific Industrial Analysis to relating to economic issues of the case to he filed with the papers of the Beard. Mr. Bob Walker, representing Reslyn Farms corporation, voiced opposition tO the request a~ h~ had not been able to ~evi%w the applicant's amended plan; questioned the applicant's co,eats regarding the validity of marketability of the subject sit~; r~ferenced a letter he submitted to the Board regarding appropriate buffers, access to Ruffin Mill Read, additional traffic, e~s.; r~quested that the ~nbject area remain industrially zoned and %hat the applicant's request be ~enied. ~r. Jim Logan referenced a letter submitted to th~ Board on January 22, ]990 ~ndioeting concerns relative to additieaal ~raffic on Ruffin ~ill Road and itu ability to accommodate said traffic; and requested t~at the residents in the ar~a be per~itte~ to review the plans for the request. ~r. Chris Milton~ President of the Enen Civic Association, expressed concerns relative to conditions imposed ~n the p~operty; reiterated that the citizenry would veay much like to hay6 a mestlng with the applicaDts to dlscu~ the property to sec %~hat is being proposed but did not object to the case being remanded to the Planning Cc~nission. Mr. Bill Hastings stated h~ did not object to the sase being remanded to the Planning Commission but he did wish to request that concerns relative to ~oints of Rocks park be considered when the Planning Commission reviews the case. After a brief ~iscnssion, ie was on motion o~ Mr. Daniel, ~sconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board remande~ Case ~9SN0335 to tho Planning Commission ~o allc~ the applicant to amend his application. Ayes: Mr, Sullivan, Rr. Applugatu~ Mr, Daniel and Mr. Maya~. Ab~ent~ Mr. Ceftin. Mr. Cunrin returned to the meeting, In Matoaca Magi;serial District, VERNON ;. ~A~RADE, JR. r~- quested re=oning from Agricultural (Al tO Residential (R-25) on 123.1 acres, with Conditional Use to permit an outdoer recrea- tional facility un 5.8 ac~es of this tract. A s~ngle family reald=ntial subdivision with an out,ocr recreational center is planned. This request fronts approximately 96~ feet on west line cf Ester Mill Road, approximately 1,105 feet so%th of Treats Bridge Road. Tax Map 17Q (1) Parcels 65, 66, and 67 (Sheet the Planning Commission recommended approval, suh3ect to certain conditions and acceptant8 of thc applicant's proffered conditions. Ee referenced material that was distributed relative to Rt. Mayas' request for data at the January 10, 1990 meeting regarding assurances or certifications fro~ the H~alth Department as to the safety of utilizing septic systems, particularly information provided by Ca~p, Presser and 90-293 3/28/90 regarding water quality-related proffered conditions which were conveyed to the applicant but to which there had been no response to date. Nr. La~rade stated he was not aware of any recommended proffer changes but he had met with Mr. Sullivan, Mr. John MeCracken and Mr. Jim Danks regarding road improvements for which additional proffers were submitted. He stated he understood that he was in compliance with =11 State and County requirements regarding septic systems and the water authority. Mr. Jacobsen indicated that the referenced Camp, Dresser and McKee information wag communicated by staff to him and/or his engineer. Mr. LaPrade stated he was not sure he could agree to proffers if "bust management practices" were subject to change without sufficient n0=ification. There was discussion relative to transportation improvements for said project; whether or not an east/weSt corridor traverses the subject property; the dedication of righ%-of-way and construction of lanes of pavement; ihs application cf "best management practices'~ relative to the installation of ~eptic systems being implemented on a case by case basis; ~hs use o~ Mr. Mayes eEpreesed concern that the doeumentation distributed ~y st~ff had not be~D reviewed ~y ~he a~plicant; %ha~ ~aid doc~entation did not ~uarantee ~at the installation o~ septic systems in the Appomattox River/Lake Chesdin wat=rshed would not pollute the reservoir and, until h~ could obtain such a guarantee, he could not support the request. when a~ked, no on~ indicated opposition to the proposed re,est. Mr. LaPrade noted that the proffered conditions wer~ designed to ensure the protection of groundwater quality through the implementation of "best management practices" in this reviewing this request, worked with the wa~er quality consultant who i$ working on ~he Upper Swift Creek Plan as well as State officials in terms of wha~ would be the be~t ~tandard~ adopted by the Board and the proffered condltion~ were adequate to protect the quality of th~ water supply. was a request for the installation of 81 septic system unit~ un~il such time as he received documentation]assuran=as fram adversely ~mpac~ the watershed; however, he would be willing de,er the request to pe~it the applicant an opportunity review the data provided by staff r=lative to the proffers. further no,ed that no wh~re in the c~rtification material in~eallatlon of septic systems would not adversely imp~ut the watershed~ referenced ~he S~iv~rd case in which there was failed ~eptlc system that had serious repercussions and indicated if the~e is no provision available for dealing with failed septic systems, then h~ fel~ those affected w~r~ systems. Mr. Sullivan state~ the Board had discussed the i~u~ of septic systems =horouqhly nn~ there was a difference of ~pinion those issues; he f~lt it was clear %hat with the precautions indicate~ in the ~oo~mentat~on provided thet all the necessary ~af~guafdS that ar~ reasonable are in plac~ that ~r. LaPrade had satisfied required transpqrtation needs; and that he could s~pporC the request. 90-294 3/28/90 Mr. Mayas shewed he did not feel the request was in an appropriate posture to be voted upon at this time becaug~ the information brought forward to the Board was not provided to the applicant, the information wes not distributed a~ a part of for installation by the applicant were not imcluded in the report, an~ the certification for the pre=action of the health and safety of those individuals utilizing well water had not been given any consideration. After further discussion, Mr. ~ayes made a ~otion to defer Case 89SN0342 until April 25, 1990, until certain el~m~nt¢ coul~ be r~solve~. There was ne second. ~r. Mayas made a motion to deny Case 89SN0342. There was no second. Mr. Micas stated %h~ mo~ien died for lack of a When asked, Mr. Jacobsen in~iceted lots would be one acre in size and septic system~ would be required to meet the criteria of the County's current ssptlc sysCsm policy. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Applegate, to approve Case 89SN8342 for rezoning from Agricultural (Al to Residential (R-2~} with Conditional Usa ~o permit an outdeor recreational facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. A thirty-five (35} foot buffer strip, exclusive of %asa- meats and required yards, shall be estahlishe~ end main- tained adjacent to Exter Mill Road (Route 636). The area o~ this buffer strip shall either be left in its natural ~tater if ~uffieient vegetation e~ists to provide adequate screening; or be planted and/or bsrmed in accordance with a landscape plan approved by the 91arming D~partment, if sufficient vegetation does not exist to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final ~it~ plan or recordation of any plat, the developer ~hall flag this buffer ~trip for inspeCtiOn, and shall po~t a bond cover ~he i~plementation of %he landscape plan, if plan is required. Excep~ for approved public road access(es), no access ~hall be permitted through thi~ buffer strip. This buffer strip ~hall be noted on any final ~ite pla~, and any ileal check and recordation plate. 2. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre- pared by Ports and Mint~ Professional Land Surveyor~ revised October 24, i~SP, shall be considered %be plan for th. indoor/outdoor r~cr~ntional facilities. Public water shall be used. (U) 4. Eours of operation ~hall be Iimit~d from 8z00 a.m. ll:O0 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; and from 8:90 a.m. to 12~00 midnight, Friday and Saturday. $. Lan4scaping shall be provided for surface parking areas in accordance with Bastion 21.1-2~5 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. (NOT~: All off-street parking areas mue~ also comply ~ith all &~plicsble requirements of Division 2. ("Parking") of the Chesterfield county zoning ordinance with particular attention being given to Sections 21.1-217 (e), 2t.t-218, and 21.1-219.) 5. All exterior lights shall be arranqad and installed so 0.5 foo~ candles above background measured at the lot line of any adjoining rasident£al parcel. Light standards shall be of a directional-type capable of shielding the light source from direct view from any a~joining parcel or 90-295 3I~190 public right of way. Further, no exterior lighting shall be higher than twenty (20) feet. ~P) 7. one {l) sign, not to exceed sight (S) ~quare feet in area, shall be permitted at the entrance to the recreational area. Lighting for the sign ehaI] comply with ~ection 21.1-266 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance and illumination ~hall be permitted Only during normal hours of operation. A rendering of this sign shall be ~mitted to the Planning Department fe~ approval prior to erection, 8. There shall be no outside public address system or speakers, (P) 9, In conjunction with final site plan review and prior to the release of building permits, a detailed landscape plan for the site shall be submitted to the ~lanning DeparT/~ent ~or approval in accordance with Section 21.1-228 (a) (2) of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. This plan shall incorporate pedestrian and bicycle paths to provide the greatest possible safety and convenience ~rem sur- rounding residential development, {P) 10. A thirty-five (35) foot buffer shall b~ established and maintained along the northern, southern, and eastern property lines of the site. The area within th~ buffer strip ~hall be left in its natural state or supplemented in accordance with the land,cape plan (see Condition 9}. NO access shall be permittud Phrnugh this buffer~ except for the entrance driveways pedestrian and bkcycle paths, as required by the landscape plan. 11. In conjunction wiTt% site plan an~ tentative subdivision approval, the developer shall identify the exact geo- graphical location of the proposed 100 foot buffer strip that shall be established and maintained along ~he western boundary of the site adjacent to the limits of Lake Chesdin (Appomatto~ River Water Authority property). area of this buffer strip shall be exclusive of easements and Zequirud yards and shall either be left in its natural s~ate, if suffielsnt vegetation e~ists to provide screening, or be planted and/or harmed in accordance the landscape plan (see Condition 9} approved by the Planning Department, if ~uffislenC vega%etlon dees net axis= to provide adequate screening. Prior to approval of any final site plan or recordation ef any plat, the developer shall flag this buffer for inspection, and ~halt pout a bond to co~r She implementation of the landscape plan, if such plan i~ required. Except for the proposed access drive and boa~ ra~p and pedestrian ~nd bicycle pa=he as required by the land,cape plan, no access ~hali be permitted through this buffer strip. This buffer strip shall be noted on any final site plans, and any final check an~ recordation plats. The ~lanning Co~mission may modify this condition at the time of tentative subdivision (NOT~: This condition supersedes ?ferreted Condition 2 only a~ it applies to the 100 foot buffer located within bonndarles Of ~he proposed recreational facility adjacent to Lake Chesdin.~ 12. Prior to any vugatutive disturbance or approvals beyond the zoning of %he p=eperty, the Engineering Department shall be provided With documentation (permits) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or any other applicable Federal, State, er local agencies tha~ the proposed deYelopalent activities are pel~mitted with respect to any w~tlande (a~ defined by the U.$. Army Corps of Engineers) that may b~ located on the site of the proposed recreational facility. 9D-296 3/28/90 13. Prior to approval cf any final site plan, recordation of Rny plat or the issuance of any building permits by Chesterfield County for the recreation facility, the Planning Department shall be provided with docmentation (p~rmits} from the Appomattox River Water Authority Or any other applicable Federal, Stste~ er local agencies that the proposed boat ramp and boat slips may be constructe~ an Authority property. IP & ARWA) And further, the Board accepted the following proffered condltlcns: 1. The road and drainage plans shall show the location of home sites and septic tank drainfield sites for all lots Adjacent to the lake and the tributaries of the. lake. An drainage plans for these lets and must encompass the primary drainfield. 2. A 10O foot wide buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to the limits of the A.R.W,A. {Lake Chesdin}. No trees six (6) inches or greater in diameter shall be remeved unless the tree is diseased er dead. This shall not be intended to prevent the clearing cf underbrush nor the sowing of seed within the buffer area. A ~ifty (50) foot wide buffer shall be centered on the channels of tributaries draining into the lake. Drainage improvements shall be allowed in this buffer a~ approved by EnvironmentAl ~nginsering. 4. ~o septic lines can be installed within the 100 foot bu£far along th~ lake and SQ foot buffer along the channels feeding into the lake. 5. Any development area that uses fertilization on a continuous basis, such as a recreation ar~a~ shall submit a fertilization plan that includss application rates and mixtures to the Environmental Engineering Department for review by County Extension personnel. 6. The typical road crosz~seetion shall be such that the hard s~r~Ace will be at the minimum allowable width ~ith the shoulders being grass with a minimum width of six feet. 7. The q~oSs density shall not exceed one (1)' unit per acrs. NO gra~ing er clearing shall bs permitted un steeper than 15~ without prior written approval of Environmental Engineering. 9. In conjunction with ~ubdlvision review, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to Environmental ~nglneering for approval and shall include measures to minimize the impact of surface runoff on the Appomattox River Water Authority (Lake Chesdln} water quality. This plan shall he approved by ~nvironmenta~ ~ngine~rlng prior to any clearing or grading_ The erosion control and drainage plan shall assure, to the maximum extent possible, that the development of the site will not contribut~ to any water quality and sedimentation prebl~ms in the AppomAttox River o~ Lake Che~din In con]unction with final subdivision approval, e drainage plan sSall ~e submitted ~o ~nviror~entA1 ~ngineerin~ fox review and approval and shall include he institution of yeco~endations included in the final report prepared by C~ Dresser & McK~e, =i~le~ Watershed Management Lake ~ichie and Little River R~s~rvoir Watersheds, da%ed i i l 12. 13. November 1~8~. Further, the "best ~anagement prsctice~" may include, but shall not be limited tot the ~Se Of Wet ~etention basins/permanent pool(s) for the control of nutrient loadings on the water~h~ for L~ke Chesdin and the Appomattox River. Thirty-five {35) feet of right of way measured from the existing centerline of ~xter ~ill Road shall he dedicated to Chesterfield County free and unrestricted. A seventy (70) foot wide right of way for the east/west collector road (Trents Bridge ~x:ended) shall be dedicated to Chesterfield County free and Unrestricted through the northeast sectie~ of the property. At time of tentative subdivision review, if it is d~termin~ by the Transportation Department that the Trents Brid~e ~xtsnded does not cross the property, this proffered right of way dedication for the east/west collector will not be required. Th~ de,eloper shall be responsible for the following road improvements: ~xter Mill Road to VDOT urban collector road standards from Trents Brid~e Road .to bhe 5ou~hern property llne of the subject property stall Ds submitted to, and approved by, the County'~ ~hell include, a~onq other things, a right-turn lane en Exter Mill Road at the si~e road intersection. Dedication of all right of way n~eeSSary for the reconstruotion of Exter Mill Road as identified in C. Meconstrustion of Exter NilI Rued to UD©T urban collector road standards~ as determined by the Trans~ortatlon Department, from Trent~ Bridge Read to the southern property llne of the property. Such construction shall be in acsordance approved by the Transportation Department fn D. In the event the developer i~ unabI~ %0 a~qulre section of. right of way necessary for the property llne of the subject property to Trents Bridg~ I"off-$1te" right of way), the developer may req~e~t~ in writinq~ the County to acquire such right of way as a public read improvement. All sects associated with th~ acquisition shall be born~ by the dsvmloper. In ~he event the County aequinition of the "eff-sit~" right of way~ the developer shall be relieved of his obligation to acquire th~ "off-site" right cf way and to reconstruct the ~eetion dE Exter Mill Road between and Trents Bridge Road. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Mr. Daniel; Mr. M~yes: Mr Apptegate: Aye. Nay, because he wished to make ~er~aln that those who voted te put these septic tanks in the Appomattox Basin will be ~cceun~ahls for it. Aye. 90-29~ 3/28/9~ Mr. Sullivan: Aye. Mr. Currin: Aye. Mr. Mayos e~cusod himself from tho mseting in o~der ts atten~ tbs Crater Planning District Commission meeting. 905~0125 In Bermuda Magisterial District, C~T~ES ~. ~ST~ GROVER requested rezoninq ~rom Agricultural (A), C~unity Bu¢ine~ (B-i) and Light Industrial (~-1} to General Industrial (I-2) on a 75.5 acre parcel fronting approxima=ety 1,520 feeh on the ~onthea~t line o~ Ware Bo%tom Sp~ing Rond, al~o fronting approximately 110 ~eet on th~ so~th l~ne o~ West Hundred Road and located in the southeast quadrant of the int~f~etion the~e roadz. Also fronting approximately 322 feet on the east line o~ Ra~lewood Drive, approximately 380 feet south of Ware Bottom spring Road. Tax Map 117-9 (1) Psrcel 6 {Sheet 33). M~. B~verly Rogers presented a s~ary of Ca~e 90SN9125 and s~ated th~ 91arming C~ission reco~en~e~ ~pproval and acceptance of ~e applicant's proffered conditions. She noted transportation proffers wore submitted and are outlined in ~h~ addend~, however, fire protection proff~r~ were not submitted. Mr. John Grover, representing the applicant~, stated the re=ommendation was accsptable. Thoro w~ no opposition When a~ked, Mr. Banks ouilined %he proffered road improvements. Messrs. Daniel, sullivan and Applega=e indicated they were ¢~fortable with those improvements. Mr. Currin stutud he appreciative of the appl~cant~ ~forts; however, h~ expIessed concern relative tQ %he feet that the ~ubject application wes submittod after July 1, 1989 and the accompanying proffers waxe based on criteria applicable prior 5o that date and no% the newly adopted cash proffer policy. Mr. Currln expressed concern with regard to the application of the policy determining ~aoh development proposal required mitigating road improv~ents and s%atmd h~ was not ~ot~11y comfortable with this request a~ After furhker discussion, i% wa~ on motion o~ Mr. sullivan, $~conded by Mr. Daniel, resolved to approvo Ca~ 90SN0125 and to accept the following proffered conditions: 1. That portion of the subject property which nat~rally d~ains to the Northern Property Line and is outside of Johnson's Creek Drainage District will hav~ a retention/detention system installed. Thi~ ~ys=em will be ~igned ~o contain ~he po~ d~vuloped condition t~n year =he maximum ~wo year frequoncy d~$uharge for the exls%inq conditions 2. That portion of the subject props~y which is within the Johnson's Cr~e~ Drainage District will hav~ a temporary re%ention~detention ~y~t~m in,tailed. Thi~ ~y~tem will be removed when hh~ ~owns=xe~ construction of the Johnson's Creek Outfall is completed. This temporary retention/detention system will be desigDed to contain rate e~al to the maximum discharge for the 10 year Ches%erfi~l~ by th~ property owner. Tbs purpose of thi~ easem=nt is tO acc~odate ~he completion o~ ~he Johnson's Creek Drainage Di~%rict Improv~m~nt~ across the property. approved by the County of Chesterfield onc~ th~ final Drainage District Plans have ~een approved through this Prior to issuance of any building p~rmit en the subject property, the Property Owner will dedicate additional right of way to the CQunty of Chesterfield free and etc. as atreedy exist. The limits of %hess dedications a~mblewood Drive. Along Ware Bottom spring Road - 30 feet from the The developer shall be responsible for the following road property ~rontage. b) Construction of additional pavement along the Spring Road intersection to provide an adequate c) Construction of additional pavement along the e) Road intersection to provide an adequate left turn lane. One half (I/2} of the cost of installation of a traffic signal at tke War~ Bottom Spring/Route 10 Lntersection, if warranted, as determined by the Transportation Department. Construction cf an additional lane of pavement along Ware Bottom Spring Road at its intersection with Route 10 to pxovide a minimum three l~na typical section. f) Construction of additional pavement along War~ BottOm ~pring Road at the site road intersection to provid~ left and right turn lanes. g) Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along Ware Bottom Spring Road for the entire property frontage. h} If access is approved ~o R~u~blewood .Road, construction of additional pavement to provide left and right turn lanes. In con]unction with the first site plan subm,issipn, a phasing plan for required road imprcve~ent~ m~y be submitted to and approved ~y the Transportation Mr. Coffin, Mr. $~llivan, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Daniel. 8~$N0411 ~n ~ormu~a Magisterial ~istrict, ~ CO~PO~ATION requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Agricultural {Al with 90-300 3/28/90 Conditional Use to permit a machine shop on a 2.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 147 feet on the south lin~ of Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of Shady Lane. Tax Map 53-2 (1) Parcel 27 (Sheet 16). Ms. Rogers presented a summary of Ca~e SPEW0411 and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to certain conditions. She noted the applicant has not offered fire protection proffers. Mr. Jim Hayes~ ~oprusenting the applicant, stated the r~commended conditions are acceptable with the exception of cash proffer9 which ho wished to address. Ee ~tated the applicant feels the recommended transportation improvements and fire protection services, aa outlined in the staff report, are ~equate and %hey have not been able to determine that the subject project necessitates cash proffers. When asked, Mr. ~ayes indicated he was not in a position to indicate that the project could be constructed in such a manner as to require fire suppression system until the building ic degigned and e sprinkler system at this point has not been considered. Mr. Daniel stated that due to ~ke nature of tho requested use it appeared to him that a sprinkler system would have been considered in accordance with th~ County'~ newly adopted fire protection proffer policy; and that, to his knowledge, most of the County's industrial conmtruetlom exceeded Code requiremsnt~ in that re~ar~. Mr. Sullivan ~tated thab, considering the requested u~e for a macaque shop, he fel~ a fire suppression system would be needed, particularly in a Residential IR-7) area; that the lack of such a system, in his opinion, would Dreeent a safety hazard~ the fact that the applicant does not the request, ar. aayes stated they have not been able to determine what the fire protection proffer would be for; that they were only made aware of the transportation and fire protection proffer policy Daniel suggested that an condition be added that "the owner/developer ~hall provide a fire suppreseien syetem not otherwise required by law which the Ceun=y's Fire Chief otherwis~ necessary for fire protection" and would be further discussion as to the nec~smlty for a fire protection proffer and ~r. ~icas suggested that the case be deferred to relstive to anoees to the subject site via Gootsby Avenue were would be minimal eraffle into the site and referenced a letter from adjacent property owners who do ncc object to the project ae they feel it wou~d eliminate mischief/littering that occurs in the area at night. seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved to approve Case subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan dated development. (I-l) Districts in Emerging Crowth Areas. (NOTE: Exsept as noted herein, this condition will setbacks, buffer and landscaping requirements. Alsot this condition would necessitate that any metal or residential properties and public rights oi way.) A forty (40) foot building, parking, and driveway setback shall bs maln%alne~ along the eastern property boundary. This setback shall be maintained as a buffer in compliance with the Zoning ©rdinanae requirements, for fifty (501 foot buffers, Sections 21.I-226 through 21.1-228. {P) (NOTE= This condition will require redesign of the northernmost parking area to aoeo~odate the forty (40) Hours of operation shall be limited %o between 7:00 a.m. and 8:08 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no Sunday operation. ICPCI Prior to any land disturbing activity, ~ito plans shall be approve~ by Environmental Engineering for ~r~nage and ail Uses permitted shell be limited to a machine chop. Except for parking, loading and unloading, all activities and ~ses shall be conducted within the building. (P) Ayes: Mr. Currin and Mr. Appl~te_ ~ays: Mr. Sullivan. Ahstention: Mr. Daniel, an he beli~v~ in the principle and he di~ not think anyone should slip through after the principles have been put in place. 9.C. REQUEST FOR A-~ENDMENT TO THE BINGO/RAFFLE PEPJIIT FOR RICHMOND AREA M~NTAL SMA~T~ ASSOCIATION TO CMANGE DATES FOR ~A/qES (CONTINUED) the sxisting bingo purmi~ for the Richmond Area Mental Health Association to change it~ dates of operation for games including financial data, ~oncerns by several County organizations that conduct bingo/~a~fla games opposing the change, etc. Re n~ted the= the current re,nest is to change the dates of operation from Thursday and Saturday to Wednesday and saturday and that concerns regarding this change in dates appeare~ to be satisfactorily r~mol~e~ although thers was still concern regarding the size of the operation. Mr. Applegate noted the request i~ conditionally approved until July 1, 1990 and will be reviewed again by the Eoa~d at that time. On motion of Mr. Coffin, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved a request from the Richmond Area ~ental Health Assooiatio~ ("P~%MH"} to am=nd their existing bingo p~rmit to change the dates o~ operation from Thursday and saturday to Wednesday and Saturday. Ayes: Mr. Coffin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Applegat~ and Mr, Dsuiel. Absent: Mr. Mayes. tt.D.3.a. TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE T© Ai~END THE CODE OF THE SECTION 4-12 OF ARTICLE II RELATING TO PUBLIC DANCE April 25, 1990, at 9=00 a+m~, on Item 11.D.B.a., Public Hearing Article ti Relating to Public Dance It was generally agreed to ro¢¢ss to fha A~ministratlon Building Conference Room (Room 502} to conduct a work session on ~he County Budget. BeCO~vening: ll,J. WORE SESSION ON COUNTY BUDGET Extensive discussion, questions and comments ensued es the Board addressed individual items relative to th~ ~eneral Fund Gapital Improvement Program itemz and the Board Activities Account Con~unity Contract 5iht {don~tloD~) for E¥91, to which lists the Board suggested amendments and reque~E~d that staff provid~ information relative to several of ~he organizations who receive Connty funding. Nandout material relstive to printing mn~ a4ver=ising e~penses for the Economic Development Department and petitions received by Mr. Applegate regarding the YWCA - Women's-shelter were submitted to be filed with the papers of the Board. The Board generally agreed that the re~aininq Budget (U~ili~iee~ Nursing ~om~, Airpo:t and Capital be deferred until 2:00 p.m. on April 11, 1990 at the regularly scheduled work session. O~ mo~ic~ o~ ~:, ~lega~e, ~econ~d by Er. ~aniel~ ~e Boa~ adjourned at ~:30 p.m. (~ST) until 7:00 ~.~. {~ST~ on March Ayes: ~r. Ceftin, Mr. Sc!liven, Mr. Applegats and ~r. Danie%. Lane B. Ramsay County Administrator Chairman