09-23-1992 MinutesSupervisors im Attendance=
Hr. Harry G. Daniel, chairman
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Ck~m.
Mr. ~dward ~. ~arber
Mr. Whaley M. Colbert
Mr. J, L. McHale, III
County Administrator
staff in Attendance:
~r. J. E~ward Beck,
Utilities Department
Asst. to Co. Adnin.
Asst. CO. Admin.,
Building Official
Fire Department
Dir., Parka and Racraation
~ir., Planning
Ma. Mary Leu Lyle~
Dir., Accounting
Mr. Eobert L, Masden,
Dir., T~ansportation
Mr, Richard M. McElfish,
Mr, ~tevan L. Kicas,
county Attorney
~rs. ~auline A. Mitchell,
Di~., N~W~ & ~ublie
Information services
clerk to the Board
Dir.~ Budget & Managemen~
~r, ~. D. $tith, Jr.,
Acting D~puty Co. Adnin.,
~r. Daniel called the regularly schednled meeting to order at
~:~ p.m.
ar. colbert e~cused himself from the mes~in~.
92-730 9/23/9~
1. ~PPROVAL OF ~I~TE8
On motion of Mr. ~eKale, ~cond~d by Mr. Barbe~, the
approved the minutes of September 9, 1992, as submitted.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Warren, ~r. Barber and Mr. Mc~a!e.
Absent: Mr. Colbert.
Far. Colbert returned to the meeting.
Hr. Ramsay introduced MS. Shirley Hudson~ the 1992 Colonial
Heights/Chesterfield Christmas Mother. Ks. Hudson reviewed the
record their schedule for 1992 and program statistics from 19S7
through 1991. She expressed appraciatien te the Board for their
support threughsut the years of the Program. Mr. Daniel stated
the Board would be contributin~ ~e the Program, ~rpress~d
the County Administrato~ to work with the committee to address
Judy Beach, Director of A=tivitie~ and Day Care, and ~tatad the
Nursing ~ome hue received the D.A. "Woody" Brown Coat, unity
Involvement k~ard fram the Virginia Health Card Assaeiatlon.
Mr. Ramsay th~n r~cogni~d }{r. Stegmaier and stated the
Virginia ~overnment Pinance Officer's Association Award for its
submission of ReWeD~e Forum, which had been developed by Mr.
St~gm~ier.
Hr. D~niel expressed ~ppre¢iation to Mr. Ste~maier and csmmended
him for carrying the County forward during a difficult financial
budget year. Mr. Stegmaier e×pr~d appreciation to ~taff and
citizens who have participated in the budget process.
Mr. Ramsay then introduced Mr. David Bleok~hesr, Executive
Direutor of the Capital ~egion Airport commission. Mr.
would b~ changing drastically an~ the region was net currently
prepared to m~et the challenge. Ee indicated he felt american
companies were making ~11isncas with other countries and nations
presante~ an overview e~ the long-term plan for the Airport
incl~dinq a slide presentation and reviewed tAe future direction
of the Airport by improving air service including striving for
international ~cheduled ~rvlce; inproving klrport facilities;
enhancing economi~ development; and improving air service
Mr. Kevin Hear, Karksting Director of the Capital Region Airport
Commission, reviewed market share by eperatiene inclndin~ daily
crew availability, equipment and airpor~ services; passenger
Campaign to cemmunioate the benefits of flying from an~ coming
to Ric~lmond; the scope of the Airport'~ service area; total air
cargo performance for the past ten years; and progress of air
cargo development including imports and exports and its future
goals.
Mr. ~lackshear then reviewed the ~evelop~e~t of facilities at
the Airport in~luding air~ide and landside development; the
planning needed to address the Airport Masker Plan update, moime
impact analysis, environmental assessments and ~torm water
management plan; improving apron capacity; preserving exi~tlng
facilities; improving taxiway and runway capacity; and improving
:erminal capacity and initial ga~e ~xpan~ion. H~ ~hsn reviewed
the concept for gate expansion at the Airport, the benefits it
would provide and whether the Airport oeuld be expanded in
futur~; the financial potential of the Airport and its econ~ic
impact and whether the Airport should expand in the ~uture and
the pr0¢esm which would occur to accomplish the expansion.
Mr. Daniel expressed appreciation to Mr. Blackshear for the
presentation on the long-term plan for the Airport and stated he
felt every resource should be ~ound to enhance the benefits of
t~e Richmond Imternatio~al Airport.
3, BOA~D ¢OI~II~TEE KEPOKT~
There were ne Board Committee Report~ at this time.
4. REOUEST~ TO POST~ONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS O~
CHANGE~ IN THE ORDER OP
On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the ~oard
deleted Item 6.E.1., Consideration of Waiver of the Industrial
Park Prstectivs covenants Regarding Installation of Chain Lin~
Perimeter Fencing on Property Adjacent to the Industrial Perk
Taxiway; added Item 6.F., Approval of an Agreement
Additional Auditing S~rvie~ fro~ Coop~r~ and Ly~rand to follow
Ite~ 6.E.7., Request for Permission from Mr. Morris F. Robsrtson
to Cunstruet a Driveway within Unimproved Carroll Av~nu~ in
Mamie I. Robertson Subdivision~ and removed Item 6.E.7. from the
consent portion of the agenda and, adopted the agenda, as
amended.
5.A. P~-R~S ~ND ~EC~ATICNMASTEN PLAN
~-r. ~as~en stated the Parks and Recreation Master Plan wa~ the
result of a combined effort of the Park~ and Recreation
Department, the Planning Department, Virginia CoIm~onwealth
University ~taff and others and the standards used wer~ adopted
standards used by the State and federal governments. He
recreation and stated staff wam p~suing management of
historical resources and ~ites, access to water reso~ces and to
developed.
~. Golden stated ~e pu~ose of the Master Plan was to identify
land acquisition and develop~ent prospects and needs for future
facilities and their locations; and cooperation with the ~chool
System when addressing f~oilities~ road improvements and systems
and contributions by private development. He reviewed the
his%cry of ~e Kester Pla~ including th= general pla~, the
bikeway plan and the gr~enway~ plan; th~ available rejoices
incl~di~ ~atural, cultural and historical resources; ~e top
ten recreation activities in Virginia and noted pool swiping
had the greatest participation; and the number of park visitors
for 1991.
There was brief dlscueeion relative to the number of park
visitor~ within the different County parks and at Pocohonta~
state Park.
Mr. Golden then reviewed recreational facilities including major
regional park~, community parks, and special purpose parka; bhe
park ulassificatien system and park land acreage standards;
current facility standards including activity, unit and
unit/population; and 199~ recreation facilities for supply,
demand an~ needs. When asked, he stated there were methods
available ts b~ing a number of the field~ into operatien. Ke
continued to review the Department's mission, goals and
objectives, projections and key concerns. Ee stated staff was
recommending th~ te~ acre standard ~e maintained for acquisition
of park land for every 1,000 residents; identifying and
reserving land for ~uture park ~ites; providing ~uffieient
active and pa~sive recreation facilities; addressing need~ fo=
o~er =yDea of activities not currently offered such as ~wi~in~
peel~, community center~ and golf courses; scheduling provlslo~
o£ Parka and Recreation facilities as needed ba~ed on population
growth; addressing improved access to £ederal/~tate fa~illties
that are available; working with the Planning Department as new
development occur=; management and acquisition US hlatorlo
sites, recreation facilities at schools and assessing the role
currently being provided by the D~ivate marke~; updating
athletic s%%~vey; addressing water resources, the ~reenway Plan
and updating the annual Capital Improvement Pla~ to include
these recommendations; establishing a funding mechanism for
future park land aoquisitien~; and reviewing Parks and
Reoreation budget comparison of localities with national average
as compared to the City of Richnond ~nd the county of H~nriee.
Discussion, eo~msnts and guastlon~ ensued relative to land
acquisition for future years; identifying neighborhood sc~%eol~
for park services; the 195~ Ben~ Referendum as i= related to
park services at schools; competition with the private sector
regarding activities suo~ a~ golfing and ewim~ing; access of
reutrooms and gy~nasi~s in schools for recreational activities;
=~e concep~ £0r utilizatien of community centers; accessibility
of programs and facilities for residents within th~ C$~nty and
cervices being limited to County residents; end whether the new
Ksnchester High School ballflelds would be ready for the spring
and if the fields would be lighted.
Mr. sti~h stated u~r groups were increasing and the Master Plan
would maintain con~ist~nt ~e~vico l~vels as the County
population grows and changes. He further stated park facilities
w~re an incentive for growth in the area of economic
development.
)iT. Jacobsen stated staff was r~co~e~di~g the Master Plan be
~eferred to t/%e ~lanning Commission for consideration and
adoption as part of the Comprehensive Plan. He further m~ated
the Plan would assist in development within the COUnty, provides
the basis for the Capital I~prcve~ent ~rogre~ ~nd i~entifies key
locations ~or fu=ur~ parks in which the Planning Department
currently identities future Mer¥ic~ ~reas.
On motion of Kr. ~arren, seconded by ~r. Colbert, thm Boar~
referred tc the Planning Commission the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan for their review and ume. (It i~ noted a copy of
the Parks and Recreation Kester Plan is filed with the paDerm of
this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
9~-733 ~t~319~
Mr. stith stated the purpose of the work seseion was ts
an ove~-¢i~w on the Mater and ~ast~ater Facilities Plan and,
speei~ieaily, aa it relates to futura planning.
Mr. Daniel excused himself Zrom the meeting.
Mr. nernard $oh~elz~ Engineering supervisor in the utilities
Department, stated he was a member of the management team
responsible %or the preparation of the Plan an~.r~viewed
n~mDer of water and wastewater cu~tomer~ ~erv~R by the Utilltlem
Department; the number of mile~ of water and sewer lines in the
System; the amount of water provided and ~he amouat of
wastewater treated on ~n a~erage day; and the Department ~e±ng
Sully supported threugh user and connection fees without the use
of tax dollars. He further stated the Department of Utilitie~
ha& d~veloped a superior system with excellent reliability in
the distribution of Water, collection of ~a~t~water and
operation o~ faoilitiee an~ was responsible for O6~gtruction of
water lines, w~stewater lines, sto~age tanR~ and
facilities, and t2aei~ efficient and cost effective operation
necemmary to me~t ~ needm of the County and its residents; and
that the Plan looks twenty-five years into the future to
determine the a~equacy of current facilitie~ and to project
future n~d~ of ~he Utility
~. Daniel returned to the meeting.
~. schmalz continued to review the Plan differentiating between
improvements needed for r~liability an4 regulatory compliance
and tho~e improvements neces~a~due to growth; furze growth
i~ relate~ to iacreasem in population an~ emplo~ent;
County's water resources including Swift C~eek Reservoir; bein~
purchase c~pacit~ from the city of Richmond; the deoig~
construction o~ Sacilitias d~signmd to deliver water into the
County from the City of Ric~ond; proposed improvements ~ing
drivan by ~row~h and d~velupm~n= an~ anticipated improv~ents
~edessa~y d~e tc grow~ eithe~ being b~ilt o= financed by
wa~tewater ~y~t~m with wa~tewat~r trea~nt being provided by
Proctors Creek Treatment Plant and ~e Falling Creek Treatment
Peterabur~ Treatment Plant and ~tated proposed ~mprovements were
for growth related items.
Mr. Daniel'stated the Ccunty'~ Utility System wm~ superior and
Mr. Ramsay noted staf~ was planning to proceed with the
reso~endations of the Water an4 Wastewat~r Facilities
and the u~e of that oonoept and development of ~e Plan; peak
u$~ time during the su~er; and the water resources available to
addre~ this situation.
(It is noted a copy of the Water and Waztewater Facilities Plan
92-734 9/22/92
CHaRTeR A~R~MENT
Mr. Stith stated the Crater Planning District Commission was
requesting amendment~ tn the commission's Charte~ ho
zpecifically allow the Commission to provide plan and program
implementatisn services and the amendments would bring the
Commission'~ Charter in linc wi~h the Virginia A~ea D~velopm~nt
On motion of ~r. ~cKale, seconded by Nr. Barber, the Board
endorsed amendments to the Crater Planning D~strict Commission's
Charter. (It i~ noted a copy of the amendments are filed with
the paper~ of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
madm a determination that s proposed County sports complex he
would ~e substantially in aoeord wi~h t~e County's plan and
sin~e the approval, the County has obtained an o~%ion %o
purchase additional property for the complex. ~e further stated
Kr. Warren has ex/oressed concerns abuu~ citizens who might be
to fully participate in ~he ~evaloDment of the project end under
the Board considmr remanding the issue to the Planning
On notion of Mr. Warren, seconded hy ~r. Colbert, the Dcard
Planning commission fo~ an additional publi= h~arXDg pursuant to
F~f. Warren clarified tho matlon did not include directing the
~lanning Conmmiemion to issue it~ substantial Accord
Determination within ninety days as he felt the Commission could
Clov~r ~ill Sports Compl~ oasg to the Planning Co.lesion for
an additional public hearing pursuant to Section 6.6 of the
~ubntantial Aceor~ Polioy.
Vote: Un~l~cus ~' :
6.C, APPOINTMENT~
6,~.~L.,....CR~TER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMTBS!ON
On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~eco~de~ by ~r. Colbert, the Doar~
$us~ended"it'~rulaa to allow simultaneous no~inati0n/appointment
at ~J~ie time of th~ ~onorable Arthur S. Warren to ~erve on the
Crater Planning oistriot Commission.
Vats: Unanimous
0U motion of Mr. HoHale, seconded by Mr. Colbart, the Board
~imul~aneou~ly nominat~d/~pDointed the Honorable Arthur
Warren ~o serve on the Crater Planning District Cemmi~ion,
whose term i~ effective immediately amd will ex, ire December 31,
1995.
On motion of Er~ Barber, ~e¢oDd~d by ~- Colbert~ the Board
appointed the ~enorable J. L. McHale, III, to ~erve on the Board
immediately amd will be in an ex-officio capacity.
Vote: Unanimous
6.D. STREETLIGHT I~STA~LATIO~ COST A~PROVALS
On motion Of Mr. Colbe~ seconded b~ ~. McHale, the ~oard
approved the fo]lowing gtreetlight installation cost app~oval~
in the Matoaca ~agisterial District with said funds tn be
exl~end~d from the Marsala District ~treet Light Account:
Dupuy Road, vicinity of ~406, On pole 9 1~33C
NO cost to in,tall light.
And~ further, the soard deferred the following $treetlight
installation cost approval in the Bermuda Magisterial District
until March ~, 1999:
* Intersection of Tiptoe Circle and Tiptoe Street
Vote: Unanimous
6.E. CONSENT ITEMS
COESTRU~TION, INC. FOR PHASE V OF T~E ROUTE 60~.14.~
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Colbert, th~ Board
appropriated $~1,000 from the Route 40/147 Drainage Di~trlst
Account for the ~netallst~on of drainage improvements at
Dromw~h Drive ~n~ aw~rde~ a construction c~nt~ct to Pearson
Con~tructlon, Inn., i~ an a~o~t ~nt ~e ~xceed $21,000~ for th~
construction cf ~ha~e V of the Route ~0/147 Drainage District.
Vote: Unaninou~
9~.E...S.....REQUE~T8 FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PE~MI?S
On mctlom of Mr. Warren, ~eoonded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
approved requ~uts for bingo/raffle permits for the follewiag
organ~zatlon~ fo~ ~alendar year 1992:
OR~ANI~ATION TYPE
Ettrick Elementary School Raffl~
PTA
Junior F~d~rated Women's Bingo~Raffle
Club of Chester
Vote: Unanincu~
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARIN~ TO CONBY~ER TNB
AB/~WDO~ENT OF A PORTION OF FORT DARLING RO~D
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Colbert, tho Board set
the date of November 12~ 1992 at ?:90 p.m. for a public hearing
to consider the abandonment of a portion Of Fort Darling Road
and authorized p0stin~ and publishing of maid public notice of
the County's in~ent. (~t is noted a cody of the plat is f~led
with the papers of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
APPROVAL OF AME~PDED ~FATER CONTRACT FOR CHIPPEN~4
~CH OF CHRIST
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~r. colbert, the Board
approved ah amended water contract for Chippenham Church of
Christ, Elkhardt Road, CanSzact ~umber ~0-92S5, as follows,
which project inolude~ the e~tes~ion of 69 L.F. of additional
water lines to provide servi~e to adjoining proporty as
re~p/ested'by staff and authorized the County Administrator to
Developer: C~ipperuham Church of ~hris~
Cuntructor: Lyttl~ Utilities, Inc.
Coat,act ~0~=; ~imated Total - $13,580.00
Totul E~timated County Cost:
water (A~ditional Work) - $ 465.00
(Cash)
=~im~e~ D~veloper Cost: -
Coda: (Additional Work) - SB-ST2W0-E4C
District: Clover Hill
Vote: Unanimous
On notion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. colbur~, ~he Board
approved a utilities contract for Hilmar, Section D, Contract
Nun~er ~g-0799, a~ follow~, which project includes the extension
ef 3~5~6 L.F. ! of 8 inch wastewster line~ and 3,970 L.F. ~ of
6 inch, $ inah and ~6 inch water llne~ and authorized =ha County
Administrator to execute any necessary documents:
Dev~Ioper: Pa~ A~soeiutes, LTD.
Contractor: william M. Harmon Contractor
Contract Amount: Estimuted Total - $179,931.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Water (Overmizing) - $ 17,7~1.70
(Refun~ thru connections)
Estimated Developer Cost: - $1~,1A9.~0
Code: ~'~'"':(Overeizlng) - 5B-S72V0~E~C
District: Dale
Vote: Unanimous
FOR PERMISBION FROM MR. MORRI8 F. ROB~RTSON TO
CONSTRUCT A D~XYEWA¥ WITHI~ UNIH~EOYED C~i{KOLL AVENUE
fN MAMIE T. ROBERTSCN ~UBDIVISION ·
~r. Stith state~ staff was requesting the Board grant ~r. Morris
F. Rober~ston permission to construct a driveway within
unimproved Carroll Avenue, subject to the execution of a license
agreement.
M~. Colbert stated two adjacent proDerty owners were Dreeent and
one owner had req~egted to addr~g th~
Mr. Daniel recognized Ms. Delores Ellis, an adjacent property
Ms. Delores Ellis stated she wa~ opposed to the request end
government and the structure in which County issues w~re
addressed.
Discussion! commen~s and questions ensued relative te whether
Carroll Avenue was a State road and whether it could be improved
Carroll Avenu~ in Mamie I, R0berts0n Subdivision, ~ubject tot he
execution of a license agreement. (It im noted a copy of the
vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
vote: Unanimous
~R~R~L.._OF._.~J~R~NT ~ORI~nI~ZOI~m~T~ ~UDZTIN~
· ERVI~ES ~ROM COOPER~ ~ND LYBRAND
operation of the Building Inspection Office be independently
conformance with State law; that the performance audit by
Cooper~ a~d Lybrand wo~ld involve int~i~w~ w~ County
officials, elected officials and cons~ers and would be
so,Dieted within 45-60 day~; that the per~o~ance audit would
with other p~lic inspection progra~a, ~eview of record-keeping
~ont~ol ~tanda~d~ and r~view of th~ ~oo~dlnat~on of the
in~ection prouess with o~r County Departments; an~ th~ report
would include insuring Building Code requirement~ are b~in~ met,
would reco~end chan~es in practices to improve quality in
construction proce~, and would azze~ the adequacy of staffing,
training, evaluation systems, customer relations, problem
improvement.
Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that he is
Morris, USA, does not work with mny auditing groups, and was not
auditing s~rvices and, th~refor~r would not bs affected by
On mu~iun of Mr. McHale, =moon,ed by ~. Warren~ ~e ~oard
authorized the County Administrator to execute an agreement for
a perfo~ance audit of th~ Building Inspection Offlc~, in a sum
not to exceed $5O,000, with =he appToDriatlon from year-end
adjustments %o be funded within the current budge%.
Vot~: Unanimous
7. DE~RRED ITEKS
7.A. APPOINTMENT~
Metropolitan Economic Development Council Operating Committee.
i !
After brief discussion, on motion of Mr. Warren. seconded by Mr.
Colbert, the Board suspended its rules Go allow simultaneous
~o~i~ation/app0intment at this time of Mr. Albsrt Meyer, Jr. to
serve on the Metropolitan ~conomi¢ Developmsn~ Council operating
Committee.
Vote: Unanimous
On notion of Mr. Barber, ~econded by }~r~ Warren, the Board
simultaneously nominated/appointed Mr. Albert Meyer,
Economic D~velopnen~ Council operating Committee, who~e term
effective i~ediately and will ~xpirm F~br~ary 6, 1993.
Vote: Unanimou~
On motion of Mr. Colbert, ascended by ~ Warren, the Board
accepted the resignation of ~. william A. Igel, r~presenting
Matoaoa District, from the Co,mid,ion on 8oils and Foundations.
Mr. Colbert stated he did net feel it was nec%ssnry at this time
to nominate a member to serve a~ the Matsaca District
~ep~e~entatiYe on the Co~is~ion.
DEBRIS ~ANIF~ APPEALS BOARD
On notion of M~. Barber, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board
nominated ~rs. ~s~a $. Link and PLr. Fred Carfares for
reuppointment to the Debris ~anife~tAppeal~ Board, representing
the ~oun~y at-large, whose formal appointments will be
considered ~t ~he October 14, 1992 meeting.
Vote: Unanimou~
After brief dis¢~ssion, Mr. Daniel instructed the County
Administrator to contact the Home Builders Association of
Richmond for a recommendation for a representative to serve on
the Debris Manifest A~peals Board.
Tbe~e wa~ b~ief discussion relative to oppointing the nominated
members at this time.
On motion of Mr. Bar,er, seeonds~ by Mr. Colbert, the Board
suspended its rules and allowed ~imulta~eou~ nomination/
rsappointment st this tame of Mrs. Dona S. Link and ~r. Fred
Carfares, representing the County at-large, to serve on the
Debris Manifest Appeals Board~ whoms term~ are effective October
· ~, ~9~ and wil~ empire October 11, !994.
Vote: Unanimous
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~s~onded by M~. Warren, the Board
~u~pended it~ rule~ to allow simultaneous nomination/
re&Dpoi~t~ent at tAis time of Mr. David K. Hu~t, r~pre~enting
=he County at-large, to serve on the ~iohmond Metropolitan
Authority.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Daniel, ~e¢0nded by Mr. Warrsn, the Board
simultaneously nominatsd/reappointed Mr. David K. Hunt,
representing the County at-large, to serve on tbs aichmsnd
Metropolitan Authority, whose teruz is effective October l, 1992
and will expirs September 30r 1996.
On motion Qf ~r. Ce!be~t, seconded by Nr. Warren, the ~oard
approved the following streetligkt installation co~t approvals
in the Za~saea ~agisterial District with said fun~s to be
e~pended from the Matoaca DistYiet Street Light Account:
Intersection of Lake Bluff Parkway and Timber Bluff Parkway
Cost to install light:
* Intersection of Lake Bluff Parkway and Woodlak~ Village
Parkway
Cost to install light: $1,~92.00.
Int~rme~ticn of Woodlake V~llage Parkway Loop
Cost to install light:
Ve~e: Unanimous
S. H~ARING8 OF ~ITISEN8 ON UNS~REDULED ~hATTERS OR CLAIMS
There w~rs no Ksaring~ of Cit~z~n~ on Un~chsduled Matters or
claims scheduled at ~his time.
9. REPORTS
Mr. Ramsey ~r%~ent~d the Buard with a rsport on the ~eveloper
water and s~wer esntraot~ ~xeou~ed by th~ County Administrator.
Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a status report O~ tAe
General F~nd Balance; Reserve for Future Capital Project~;
School Board Agenda.
Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department of Transportation ha~
focally notified the Co~ty of the acceptance of the follow~ng
roads into the State Secendsry System:
ADDITIONS LEN~T~
ANTLER RIDGE. SECTION 3 (Effective 8-31-92%
Rou=e 4707 (Re=ling Drive] - From Route 4713 ~o 0.09
mile So~th Route 4713 0.09 Mi
Route 4508 (spotted coat Lane) - Prom Rou~e 4713 to
0.04 mile Southeast Route 471~ 0.04 ~i
LUCY CO~ COURT ~Effective ~-3-92~
Route 4795 (Lucy csrr Court) - From Route 2099 ts
0.$6 mile Southeast Route 2099 0.~6 Mi
~RAgC~$ T~AC~, PMA$~ 3 fEffeotive
Route 942 (Pine Orchard Drive} - From Route 655 to
0.13 mile North Rou~e 655 0.13 Mi
92-74~ 9/2~/92
On motion of ~r. Colbert, seconded by F~. Barber, th~ Board
rece~ed at 5:00 p.m. to the Administration Building, Room
Vote: Unanimous
~NVOCATION
Daniel introduced Mr. MeCracken who gave the invocation.
PLB~E CP ~LLEO~NCE TO THE FLA~ o~ T~E UNITED ~TATES OF
AMERICA
Hr. HcElfish led the ~ladge o~ Allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America.
There were ne Resolu~ione and Special Recognitions scheduled at
thim time.
~4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
o TO CON~IDEE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TEE ~ODE OP ~ COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1~78, ~S AM~N~, BY AMENDING AND
Mr. Stith stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to coe~der an ordinance relating generally to
conditional us~ pl~e~ ~ev~lopment use exceptions. He £urth~r
~tated the amendment would a/low, thr0~h Conditional Use
not ~Deoifioally enumerated in the Zoning Ordinance.
When asked, Mr. Jacobsen stated the amendment would allow
aDplicati0n Sot Conditional Use Planned Development where there
ia no other way for the Hoard to consider a propomed ume or
project and would provide nn efficient means for the Board of
~upervisors to consider a creative, uniqu~ o~ u~usual
development proposal not otherwise liated within the Zoning
Ordinance.
There was brief discussion relative to reaoning requeste seeking
mixed u~e and whether the Beard would ~till approve or allow any
Id_r. George Beadles expressed eupport for the Droposed amendment
to allow unanticipated uses through the conditional use
development process.
There being nc one else to address this srdinance, the public
hearing was closed.
92-741 ~/~3/92
!_ : I !._.._1 ...... [ ............... [ ...........
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Er. Colbert, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AI~END THE ~D~ QF~_COUNTY
OF CNESTERFIELD. 1978, AS A~E~DED BY A~ENDING
AND REENACTING SECTION 21.1-10
RELATING GENERALLY TO CONDITIONAL U~
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT USE EXCEPTIONS
BR IT ORD~TNB~ by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
county:
(1) That the Code ef the Countv of Chesterfield, 1978, es
See. 21.1-10. Conditional Use Planned D~Ve!O~eDt~.
(b) Use Exceptions. In the ca~e cf planned developments,
the Planning cemnission may recommend, and the Board of
$~pervisors may authorize, the= ~here be in part of th~ area of
s~eh development and for the d~rati~n of s~ek development,
specific uses, net ~o exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross
acreage of the total project, not permitted by the use
regulatlens of the district in which such development is
located; provided, that the Board of Supervi~or~ shall find:
That the uses permitted by ~u~h exception are
respect to the primary purpose of the
d~velop~ent; and
(2) That the uses permitted by such exception are not of
detrimental influence on the surrounding neighborhood;
and
(3) That the ground area or gross £1oor area of such
development which is devoted to the uses p~rmitted by
such exse~tion i= reasonably needed to apprepria~ely
finish the development.
P~o~ided however, that the ~card of Supervisor~ may
specific uses net permitted by the nee r~gulat~ons of the
district in which such development is located for more than
thirLy (30) percent of the gross acreage of the total project
provided that, in addition to the findings noted above, the
enumerated in thi~ chapter a~ permitte~ by right, with or
without restrlction~, er by Conditional Uae er Special
in any district. ~othlng contained in thi~ section shall be
con,:rued to permit the approval of any use ~pe0ifi0ally
prohibited.
Vote: Unanimou=
In Kidlothian Magisterial District! PAGE EMERSON ~U~HES~ JR. AND
F~T~LEE~MERRy KU~E~ reque~ r~menlng from Light Ia~u~trlal
(M-l) to General Business (C-5). The density of much amendment
will be uontrolled by zoning =onditlons or Ordinance standard~.
T~e Comprehensive Plan designates the property for light
industrial use. This re~ueet li~s un a 1.0 sore paroel fronting
approximately 130 feet en the west line of Seuthlake Boulevard,
al~o fronting approxlmat~ly 35O feet on Southlake Court, and
located in the northwest quadrant cf the intersection of these
road~. Tax Map 17-10 (2) 8ou~hport, Lot 22 (Shsmt 8).
Hr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 92SNDR0~ and ~tat~d the
Planning Commission and staff recommended approval.
Er. E~erson Hughes, representing the applicant, stated the
on motion of ~-~, BarbeF, seconded by ~Lr. Colbert, the Board
Vote: Unanimous
In Clove~ Hill ~agisterial District, ¥. M. C. A. OF
RICHMOND (SOUTH RICB]40~D-~HESTERFIELD BRAEOH) ~equested rezoning
from G~nerul Businesm (B-3) and Residential (R-7] to
~on~roll~d by zaning c0nditi~n~ or 0r~inance standard~. The
Com~ruhensive Plan dmsignata~ the property for public/semi-
public u~. Thi~ request lles ~n 17.~ ac~es fronting
u~proxima=mly 680 feet on ~he north line of Hull Street Road,
Paroels 20 and 21 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen presented a s~ary of Case 93SN010S and stated the
Planning Co~isnion and staff recommended approval subjec~ to
arc.prance of the proffered conditions. He noted the request
conforms4 to the ~rner Road Corridom Lan~ Use Plan.
~r. Don Jones, representing th= a~pllcant, stated the
reco~endation was acceptable. ~e~e was opposition
M~. Daniel s~ated ~inc~ %here was opposition to the request,
would be placed in its regular ~equence on th~ agenda.
87S106 (Amended)
In ~atoaca Ka~istsrlal District, ERNEST L. BELVIN requested
rezoning from A~ricultural (A) and Community Busin=ss (~-2] to
Corporate office (O-2). The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning condltlon~ or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property
corridor. This request l~e~ on $6.~1 acres £=onting On the
south lin~ Of Kidlothian Turnpike in three (3) places for a
tubal of approxinately 1,O~O feet, also fronting approximately
255 feet on the east line of County Line Road, and located at
the southeast quadran= of the intorsoo=ion of these rsad~. Tax
Map 13 (1) Pa~oels 23, 67 and 10S and ~art of Parcels 24 and
(Sheets ~ and
~x. Jacobean presented a sugary of Case 87S106 and stated the
Planning cc~h~ission and mtaff recommended approval
condition and acceptance of the p~offered condlt~ons. ~e noted
the request conformed to the Upper Swift Creek Plan.
Mr. Jim Hubbard~ represenfing th~ applicant, stated they had
attempted to wo~ with staff to decide on the use for the
property~ that they had submitted proffered conditions relative
to road improvemsn=s and utilities; and that they had agreed to
con~tru=t a re~rve dr=infield.
M~. ~ary ~wift ~tated sh~ was an adjacent business owner and
e~pressed concerns regarding he~ d~ai~field ~hich is located on
the request proper~y in an existing easement. She further
stated ~he was concerned a~ to the right-of-way as it r~lated to
Framaway Road; ~hat she was concerned about her property being
ta~e~ if the ~oad ~eeds to be lined up w~th existing ~raneway
Road and she felt the applicant shoul~ give her the proper~y on
the other aide if they needed to take a portion of her property
92-743 ~/~3/9~
to llne up the road; that ~he wa~ concerned a[] to ~uhe traffic
issues; and requested the Board to take all factors into
consideration when deciding t~a request.
Mr. George Beadle~ expressed con,ems regarding prsffered
condition 6,D. relative to construction of an additional
pavement along eastbound lanes of Route 60; that he felt the
he felt the Board should defer the request for thirty days to
provide the applicant an opportunity to address the use of
public utilities.
indicated the applicant had sent her a letter regarding septic
lines running in the field b~hind h~r hous~ and indicmted the
lines did not belong to her.
Mr. A. ~. Tucker stated he was an adjacent property owner, has
resided in the area for the past twenty years and he supported
Mr. ~ubbard stated he was requeeting the opportunity to install
the septic tanks if the property met the necessary standards.
property of the motorcycle shop and the acquisition of
right-of-way related to road improvements aligning with Frameway
Road; the i~pact the improvements could have on the motorcycle
shop; the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the
history surround~nq the request; the requirement~ which would
need to be met relative te the drainflelds and septic system;
and the square footage of the request.
M~. Daniel stated he Was concerned as to th~ aisc of the
building and the uso of drainfields in general and did not feel
he Could support the request.
Mr. Colbert stated he felt staff had adequately addressed the
concerns expressed and, therefore, supported the request.
Discussion, comments and que~tlons ensued relative to Frameway
Ro~d ~nd the prep~r~y in which the motorcycle shop lles$ the
applicant and the property c~ner agreeing to the right-of-way;
wh~ther the Beard ~euld impose a condition re,siring the
applicant to trade property with the owner of the motorcycle
shop if part of that property wa~ needed far,cad improvemant~;
the footers which would affect the location for the proposed
roadway; wh~ther the proffered conditions would place any burden
on the adjacent property owner or the applicant; and the
e~tended period of time that the case has been in existence.
Mr. MeHale stated he was concerned au ~u ~leapfreg~ d~¥alcpment,
whether this request would set a precedent a~d the eencerne
Mr. Colbert made a motion, seconded by~I~. Warren, for the Board
to approve Case 878106 subject to the following condition:
A fifty (50} foot buffer shall be maintained around the
perimeter of th~ property exoep= where a~jacent ts commercially
zoned propertiee and public rights of way. This buffer shall
conform to the requirements of the Zonin~ Ordinance for buf£ers,
section ~1.I-22S through 21,1-2ZS. (P)
And, £ur~er, £er the ~ua=d tc accept the following proffere~
cendition~:
1. No nors than'25,000 square feet shall be developed on
septic tank and drainfield. The d~velopur shall construct
a reserve drainfield, which is acceptable to the Health
Department~ at the time any septic system is constructed.
2. Ail structure~ shall be connected to the public water
system.
Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right
of way on the east side of COUnty Line Road m~a~ured from
the centerline of that part of County Line Road immediately
adjacent to the p~uperty mhall be dedicated, free and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit Of Chesterfield
County.
4. A north/south public road shall be the major access to
Rout~ 60. This north/south road shall align the crossover
to Route 60~ a~ identified in proffered condition 4, is
committed as determined by the Transportation Department.
6. To provide fo~ an adequate roadway system at the tlms of
for the following:
B. Construction of a~ditional pavement along the
intersection to the easternmost property line to
provide an additional through lane (i.e., third
through lane) plu~ a s~parate right turn lane at each
~pprovsd access.
C. Construction of additional pavement along the
lane.
D. Full cost of a traffic signal ~t the north/south
road/Route 60 intersection, if warranted, as
determined by the TranuDertatlcn Department.
~. Constr~ctiun cf the north/south read, as identified in
proffered condition 4, from Route 60 to the southern
property line. The exact location cf this north/south
read shall be approved by th~ Transportation
Department.
eastern property line to the western property line.
D~dlcatlon, fr~m add ~nrestrieted, bo and for the
benefit of Chesterfield County~ any additional right
of way (or easement) required by the improvements
identified above.
7. Prior to mite plan approval~ a phasing plan for required
road improvements identified in proffered condition 5, with
Supporting traffic analysis, if requested by the
Transportation Department, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
$. The owner/developer shall notify al! adjacent property
owners of the entire property which is the subject of this
zoning of site plan submission,
systems which are permitted under certain regulationm and he
felt the Board should readdress thls pclloy in the near future.
There was brief discussion relative to a work session t~ing
~cheduled to address the policy on septic systems.
Fur. Daniel stated the Board could consider deferrml cf the
request in order to provide an Opportunity for the Board to
readdress the County's policy on septic
use for the property and ~hould be approved a~ ~eco~ended.
~. Daniel called for the vote on the mo=ion made by
Colbert, secondsd by Mr. Warren, for the Board to approve Case
87S10~ subject to the following condition:
A fifty (50) foot buffez shall be maintained a~ound
perimeter cZ the ~roper~y excspt where adjacent ~o oo~eroially
zoned propsrties and public ~iq~t~ Of way. This buffe~ shall
confo~to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for buffers,
Section 21.1-226 through 21.1-228.
~d, further, for the Board %o accept the following proffered
condition~:
1. No ~ore than 25,000 square f~t shall be d~veloped on
septic tank and drainfield. ~e developer ~hall construct
a reserve drainfield~ which i~ acceptable to the
Department, at the time any septic $yst~ is oonst~cted.
Ail ~tru~tures shall be connected to the public wate~
of way on the east side of County Line Road measure4 from
the oenterline of =hat part of county Line Read i~e~iately
adjacent to the property shall be ded~ca~e~, ~ee and
unrestricted, to end fo~ the benefit of Chast=rfiuld
County.
4. A north/~outh public read shall be t~e major access to
Route 60. This north/sou~ rood shall aliqn ~e cros~ov%r
that =erve~ Frameway Road, unless o~herwls=
T~an~o~tatiOn Department. Additional access to Route
~. No more than 2~,000 square f~t of qeneral cff~c~
e~ivalent density, as approved by the Tran=portatlon
tO RO~t~ 50, a~ identified in proffered condition 4,
committe~ as det~ned by ~ Transportation Department.
6. TO provide for an a~e~uate roadway system at ~he time of
co~pl~t~ development, the duvolopor ~hall b~
for the following:
A. Construction of an additional lane of pavement along
County Lin~ Road for the entire property frontage,
B. Construotlon of additional pavement along the
eastbound of Route ~0 from the County Line Road
intersection to the easternmost property line to
provide an additional through lane (i.e., =bird
through lane) plus a separate right turn lane at each
approved access.
C, Construction of additional pavement along
we~tbeund lanes of Route 60 at the north/south
road/Route ~0 intersection to provide a left turn
lane.
D. Pull cost of a traffic signal at the north/south
road/Route 60 intcrsection~ if warranted, as
determined by th~ Transportation Department.
E. Construction of the north/south road, as identified in
pro£fered condition 4~ from Reutc 60 to the southern
property linc, The exact location of this north/south
road shall be approved by the
Department.
P. Construction cf an ~ast/we~t public road from
eamtern property line to the western property line.
The exact location of this east/west roa~ shall be
approved by the TransportatiOn Department.
G. Dedication, f~ee and unrestricted, to and for the
benefit of Chesterfield County, any additional right
of way (o~ casement) required by the improvement~
identified above.
?. Prior to ~it~ plan approval, a phasing plan for requ{red
road inprovement~ identified in proffered OoDditien 6, with
supporting traffic analysis, if requested by the
Tran~portatic~ Dep~rtment, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Transportation Department.
8. The owner/deYelop=r shall notify all adjacent property
owners of the entXue propeMty which is the subject of thi~
zening of site plan submission.
The Board being polled the vote was as follows:
~4r, Colbert: Yes.
~4r. Warren:
Mr. McHale:
Mr. Barber: No.
M~. Daniel: NO.
M~. Micas advised since the motion for approval failed~ the
Board needed an alternative motion to deny the
There wa~ brief discussion relative to the work session
scheduled to address the septic syste~ policy. Mr. Daniel
stated the Board could defer the request to provide the Board an
opportunity to review th~ poli~y On Septic systems.
On motion of ~r. Warren, seconded by Mr. KcHale, the Board
deferred Case ST$1O6 until February 24, 1993.
Vote: Ununlmou~
9~SN016? (Amended)
In Midlothian ~agi~terial District, WILLIAMS. A~D ~ENE H.
requested rezonin~ from Agricultural (A) to Residential
Townhouse (R-TH) with Conditional Use Planned Development plus
amendment to a previously granted Conditional Uae Planned
9~-7~7
Development (Case 87S076) on an adjacent Residential Tcwnhouse
(R-TH) parcel. A mixed use development with residential, office
and csmmerolal uses is planned. The density of such a~endment
will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for planned
transition area. This request lisa on ~.~o acres fronting
approximately 722 feet on the east line of Coalfield Road~
acro~s from North and South carriage Lanes. Tax ~ap 15-15
Parcels 3; l0t 11~ 12 and 17 (Sheet ?).
Mr. Pools presented a salutary of Case 925N0167 end stated tl%e
Planning Commission recommended apmroval subject to conditions
and acceptance of the proffered conditions. He further stated
alt_hough the land use request ¢on~ermed to the ~idlut~ian Area
community Land Use and Transportation ~lan, staff recommended
denial due to lack of proffers to mitigate the flecal impact of
the residential rezunlng cn 1.2 acres of this reque=t.
Mr. Andrew Scherzer, representing the applicant, ntated th~
p~opesal was for a mixed use development to include travel
agency office, day care and attach~ and detached r~sidential
uses were planned; that the density had been reduced on the
site; and requested the Boar4 to gi~e £avorabl~ consideration to
the request.
Mr. George Beadles stated ha felt the applicant should be
required to submit cash proffers par each dwelling unit and the
County should receive as much as possible when accepting
proffered conditions in general.
On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~r. ~c~qale, the ~oard
approved Case 9~SW0167 subject to the following conditions:
1. Unless an atternat~ mean~ cf ingress/~gress is provided,
any road(s) that oross(e~) the major drainage channel for
the Village of Midlcthlan shall provide for access based on
a 100-year storm.
2. In conjunction with any site or tentative subdivision plan,
m g~otechnical r~port addressing the locatio~ of any mina
shafts a reclamation procedure and recommendatlone as to
~tbaeks for struotures from any mine shaft shall be
~ubmftted to Environmental Engineering. Upon review of the
geoteohnical rsport, Environmental Engineering shall
establish a reclamation procedure and the zetback~ between
tbs psrimstsr cf any reclaimed shaft and any s~ructurea in
order to protect the safety of persons and the integrity of
such structures. Tho reclamation shall be accomplished and
certified as to compliance with the estahliuh=d proceduru
prior to the release of any building De,mi% or recordation
of any subdivisio~ within any urea which bus bccn
ideDtified as having a mine shaft. Any reclaimed
shall be located on all site plans amd subdivision plats.
3. Ceeditlon !9 of the revised Textual $tatemen~ shall be
~odlfied to delete the reference to "Artlcle lOn and insert
a reference to "Article 3, Division 11."
4. If the property is developed for a mix of detached and
attached dwelling units, all dwelling units shall hav~
compatible architectural designs.
Exsept a~ stated herein, the Textual Statement and
Master Plan, prepared by Balzer and Associatec, dated June
~9, 19~, shall be uonsidered the Master Plan.
And, further,
~ondi~ions:
the Boar~ accepted ~he following proffered
1. Prior to site pla'n approval or in conjunction with
recordation of a subdivision plat, whichever occurs firs~
forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the east aide of
Coalfield Road measured from the c~ntertine of that part of
Coalfield Road i~tmediately adjacent to the property shall
be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit
of Chestsrf~eld County,
(NOTE: This proffered condition supersedes Condition 4 Of
Access to Coalfield Road shall be limited to two (~)
sntrance/exits as generally shown on the ~=hem=tlo site
plan prepared by Balzer and Associate~, Inc., titled
"Sycamore Village" dated ~une 73, 1992. The souther~
access shall be a public road and ~hall align with South
Carriage Lane. The northern access shall alig~ ~orth
Carriage Lane and shall be ds~i~nsd and constructed to be
shared with the adjacent property =Q the north. ~rior to
site plan approval~ an access easement acceptable to the
Transportation Department shall be recorded.
(NOTE: This proffered ¢on~itien supersedes Condition 6 o~
Case 87S076.)
3. To provide for an adequate roadway syste~ at the time cf
complete development of the proposed project, the Developer
mhall be reoponsible for the following:
Construction of additional pavement along Coal£ield
Ro~d to provide left and right turn lanes at each
approved access.
b} Relocation of the ditch along th~ east ~i~e of
Coalfle~d Road to provide an adequate ~hon]der for the
entire property frontage.
Dedieatio~ to the County of Chesterfield, free and
unremtr~ctsd~ any additional right of way (or
easements) required for the improvements identified
(NOTE: This proffered condition supersedes Condition 5 of
Ca~e
4. ~rior to ~ite plan er ~entative subdivision approval,
whichever occur~ first, a pha~in~ plan for the require road
improvoment~ identified in proffers~ condition 3 shall be
~ubmitted to and approved b~he Transportation Department.
5. Prior to obtainin~ a building permit for non-re~identlal
UseS, One ~f the followin~ ~hall De a~complished for fire
p~otectien:
(a) The Owner, De, eloper or assignee(s) shall pay to the
County $150.00 per 1,000 square feet of gro~ floor
area adjusted upward or downward by the ~me
~ercentage that the Marshall swift Building Co~t Index
· ncreases or decreased between June 30, 19~i and the
da=e of paymen=. Wi:h the approval of the County's
Fire Chief, the Owner, Developer, or assignee(s) shall
racsive a credit toward the required payment for the
cost of any flr~ ~uppre~nlon ~y~t~m not otherwise
required by law which is included as a part of the
d~v~lopment.
92-749 9/23/92
(h)
The Owner, Developer or assignee(s) shall provide a
fire ~uppre~ion ~y~tom not otherwise required by law
which the County's Fire Chief determlne~ aubstentlally
reduces the need for County facilities otherwise
necessary for fire protection.
In Midlst~ian ~agisterial District, ~TRANGE'~ ~ORIS~
requested rezonlng from Light Indumtrial (M-l) to Community
~uainess (C-3) wit--h Conditional Use ~e permit outsi~e storage on
~OF2~ISSiOR requests rezonlng from Gen~rs/ Business (~-3)
General Business (C-5) on 7.24 acres. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by sorting conditions or Ordinance
~tandards. The Conprehen~iv~ 91an dQsiqnates th~ property for
general commercial and light industrial uses. These re~Uests
lie on a total of ~.S~ aore~ fronting approximately 627 feet on
the north line of ~idlothian Turnpike aorsae from Tuxford Road,
also lying at the southern t~rminus of Doaaohy Drive. Ta~ Map
1~-13 (1) Part,ia 17~ 25~ 27 and Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet
Mr. Peele pre~nted a summary of Cases 9~$NQ176 and 938N0109 and
stated the Planning Conm%ission reco~-~snded d~nial ~f rezoning
from B-3 to C-5 for a distance of 150 feet from the western
property line and approval of rezoning an~ ¢onditional use for
~e remaining po~tion of the p~ope~ty subjeot to a condition and
acceptance of the proffered conditions and staff reco~ended
approval subj=ct to~e transportation conc~ns being
Mr. James Theobald, r~pre~ntinq the applicant, pre~ented an
overview u~ the pro~sed r~e~ and sta~ed they had
conditions to address the concerns expressed and had worked with
~ re=ident~ of Brighton Sre~n and Shenandoah Civic
Associations; that the re~es% was consistent with the plan;
that the proffered conditions were designed to assure
requ~nt wa~ not d~trimenta~ to the health, ~af~tyan~ welfar~
~e residents; that the request will provide additional 3cbs for
the citizens and was an appropriate u~e for the ~ite; and
requested the Board to give favorable consideration to
request.
Mr. Justin Thomas, Oevelopment Dire=tut for the Brigh~on Green
~ re.est was compatible with the existing neighborhoods;
input into She process; and expresse~ aDpreoiation to ~taf! and
~e applicant for their efforts in developing ~e project.
Ms, Jane Chandler, representing ~e Shenando~ Civic
impact the neighborhoods and ~pecifically supported
proffered coalition addressing %h~ restriction of ~hrough
~ignalizatlon traffic movements sout~ound on to Tuxford Road;
~d expressed apprmciatlon to ~he aDplicant for a~res~ing the
oo~cer~s expressed by%he citizens.
Mr. Barber exprezs~d appreciation tO~e appli=ant and residents
in the area for working together on th~ DroDo~
on motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~r. Warren, th~ Board
d~nied rezoning from B-9 to C-~ for a di~tan~ of ~0 feet
~ western property llne and approved rezonlng and conditional
use, Cases 92SN~176 and 9~SN0t09, for the r~mainlng portion of
CONDITION APPLICABLE TO THE C~3. CONDITIONAL USE. PORTIO~ OF THE
Within the C-3 tract,.out~ide ~torage as accessory to florist
chops, greenhouses, garden centers and plant nurseries shall be
pemltted in excess of ten (1~) percent of the gross floor area
of ~he prlnciDal use; provided, however~ that outside ~turage
areas devoted to non-plant materials shall not exceed an area in
excess of twenty-five (25) percent of the area of any out~ide
$~orage areas devoted to plant materials. 0utsid~ storage areas
far non-plant materials sh~ll be screened from view of any
adjacent residential zoning. The methe~ o~ screening shall.bo
approved by the Planning Department at th~ ti~e of site plan
review. (P)
(NOTE: Within the C-3 tract, outside storage for any usa except
a florist shop, greenhouse, g&~den center and plant nursery must
conform to section 21.1-160 (o) of the Zoning ordinance plus
P~offe~ed Conditions 2 (t} and 4. Outside ~torcge areas for
A~d, Set,her, the Board accepted th~ following proffered
condltion~:
Pursuant to Section 15.1-491.~:/ of the Code of Virginia (19SO
aa a~ended} end th~ 50ning ordinance of Che~tar£ield County,
the property owner and applicant for themselves and =heir
$~oes$0rs or ascigns~ proffer that the development of the
property under consideration will be developed according to ~he
following proffers if, and only if, the requests made in the
Land Use Amendment Applications are grantod aa to ~cth the C-5
and C-3 portions of the property with only tho~e conditions as
have been agreed to by the applicant.
PROFFERED CONDITION A~LICABLE TO
RHE..C-5 PORTION OF THE PRORE~y
1. The followinq uses shall hot be permitted:
Those ~ses first appearing in the I~l District.
b. Residential multi-family and townhsuses.
Hotels or hospitals in excess of three (3) gtorie~.
Made, iai reclamation receiving cent6r~.
~ROFFER~D C~DITIONS APP~ICABL~ TO T~
2. Pernitted ~sec. The following shall be the only use~
permitted on the Property:
(a) flerint shops, greenhouses, gmrdan centers and
nurseries~
(b) rest, nursing and ~onva2escent ho~s,
(c) offices (business, governmental, medical and
professional),
(d) medical facilities or clinics, excluding those
· primarily devoted to drug or alcohol treatment or
'abortions, and provided tha~ neither the business nor
th~ building is designed to accommodate ambulance
(e) pharmacies,
(f) libraries,
92-751 9/23/92
(g) office/warehouses as regulated by Eeotian ~1.1-160 (d)
of the Zoning Ordinance,
(h) schools (commercial, trade, art, vocational and
training, music, danes and bu~iness)~ provided ~ha~
all activity other than £or passive recreation
indoors,
without an outside public address system or with er
(1) veterinary clinics and/er veterinary hospitals without
(m} contractor~' office~ and display room~,
(n) satellite di~hes~ provided that th~ dishes are
accesssry to a permitted use and do no~ exceed twelve
(l~) feet in diameter nor a height of forty-fi~e (~)
feet inclu=ive cf buildin~ height,
(o} underground utility u~ss, sxce~% as provided in
Section 21.1-~3~ (g), when such use~ are located in
easements, or i~ publi~ roads rights of way,
(p) nursery schools,
child or adult day-Care centers and kindergartens,
(r) hotels, excluding nightclubs, provided that all
Green Subdivision, all parking areas are located at
least 200 feet from Brighton Green Subdivision, and
t~at t~e primary access for registration fo= any ~0tel
be located on the southern face of th~ ~uilding away
from Brighton Green Subdivision,
restaurants, not including carry-cut or fast-food
restaurants, provided that all buildings are located
at lea~t ~00 feet from Brighton Green Subdivi~i0n and
all parkln~ areas are laoatnd at leant 200 feet from
~righton Green Subdivision,
(t) outside storage am accemsory to tho uses permitted
above subject to section 21.1-Is0 (e} and as may be
approved an a Conditional Use for a~y florist shop,
(n) oth~r ascessory uses, not otherwise prohibited
customarily accessory and incidental to ~ny permitted
Bnffer. The owner/developer shall not seek to reduoe the
width of the seventy-five (75) foot required minimum buffer
throu~h schematic or sit~ pla~ review.
Out~nor storage setback. In addition to the requirement~
~pecifled h~rein, outdoor storage for plan~ ma~orial~ ~hall
not be permitted within 100 feet of Brighton Green
Subdivision and any resid~ntially-~one~ property Co the
prepared by3. ~. TimmoDn a~d A~oclat~, ~. C., nor within
200 feet of the ~hove properties for non-plant materials.
Parking and building setback. Except ss further restricted
by these proffered conditioni~ all buildings and parking
erea~ shall be set back a minimum e~ 150 feet from Brighton
Green Subdivision and any r~id~ntia!~y-zoned property ts
the east.
Access. There shall be no vehicular or pedestrian access
to the Property via existing ~onachy
7. Height. No structure shall exceed a height of three (3)
stories or forty-five (45) feet, whichever is
8. Hours of Operation. No business shall per, it any loading,
unloading or outdoor retail activity before 7:00 a.m. nor
after 10=00 p.m.
9. Solid Waste storaqe Areas: D~mputers, g=rbag~ cans a~d
trash compactors, if use~ for the disposal of food, shall
not be located within three hundred (300) feet of
r~sidentially-zoned property.
Fencing: If the Property is used for other than a florist
shop, greenhouse, qarden center and/or nursery,
Owner/~eveluper shall construct a fence along the Property
lin~ adjacent to Brighton Green ~ubdivi~ion, the exact
design and lscation of which to be approved by tke Planning
Department at the time of cite plan review; however,
Planning Co~mission may modify or delete the f~nce
requirement consistent with the alternate
compatibility with Brighton Green Subdivision.
11. NO Loud Speakers. Outside loud speaker~ shall be
prohibited. The use of intsroem-~ype sys~sm~ commonly
a~sociated with bank and savings and loan drive-throngb
facilities shall be permitted.
12. Shared Parking. The C-3 9ortlon of the Property shell not
be used to meet Zoning Ordinanc~ parking requirements for
uses conducted on Parcel 15-13-(1)-2 adjacent to the west
unl=ss in conjunction with tbs operation thereon of a
florist shop, gr~=nhou~e~ garden center and/or nursery.
PROFFERED CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO BOTH
C-B A~D C-3 ~QRTIONS OF THE PROPERTY
13. Wotification of Site Plan. The last known presi~en%s of
all property owners adjacent to the entire Property which
is the subject of these proffers shall be notified in
writing by th~ own~r/~eveloper prior to site plan,
architectural plan and landscape plan submission to the
Chesterfield County Plenning Department,
14. Installation of Buffers and Retention Facilities.
buffers and retention facilities shall be installed prior
to or contemporaneously with the initial phase of
portions of the Property.
1§. Traffic Volume. The maximu~ density of this Property shall
hour trips based on the trip generation rates as set fer~_h
in the Institute of 'Transportation Engineers Trip
~eneration ~anusl, ~=h Edition, which density is, byway of
effice, 5,000 s~uara feet of high turnover (sit down)
92-753 9/23/92
16. Access. Provided that a signalized median break continues
to exist at the inter~ection of Route 60 and Tu~£ord Road,
access to Route 60 ~hall be limited to one (1)
entrance/exit wkich shall align Tuxford Road.
17. ~oadway Improvements. TO provide for an adequate roadway
system at the time of complete development of the Property~
the developer shall be responsible for the following:
{a) Construction of additional pavement and curb and
gutter along the westbound lanes of Route 60 to
(b) Construction of additional pavement along the
eaetbo~h~ 15~ee of Route 60 to provide an a~ate
left-t~rn lane a~ the approved m~tm accems.
{c) Con~truetXon of a four-lane typical ~ection (i.e., two
(2) northbound lanes and two (2) southbound lanes) for
the site road at its intersection with Route 60.
Subject to approval by the Virginia D~pa~'tment cf
Transportation or modification by the Planning
commission, the signalization at the site road/To×ford
Road/Route ~0 intersection applicable to traffic
exitin~ the Property shall not permit a through
movement southbound unto Tuxford Road, but shall
pexmit sight and left turn~ only onto Route 60.
(d] Full cost of traffic signal modifications ut th= sit=
road/To,ford Road/Route 60 intersection.
(e) Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free amd
unrestr~ctaa, any additional right of way (or
easement=) on the Property re~u~red for the
improvements identified above.
18. Analysi~ of Dam. Any pond~ ~hall be built ~uch that the
existing homes downstream will not be jeopardized by dam
failure, If re~uire~ by Environmental Engineering, a dam
failure analysis verifying the limits of dam failure shall
be performed and submitted to Environmental Engineering.
19. Drainage to the ~ast. Drainage from the Property to T, he
~a~t ~hall b~ designed to r~l~a~ ~o ~o~e tha~ the existing
two (2) year storm rate and retain water for at least the
~en (10) yea~ pest development rate.
20. Draihage tOWards Donachy Drive. Drainage from the Property
towards Donaehy Drive shall De designed ~o release no mona
fha~ the existing two (2} y~ar storm rata and retain water
for at leas= t~e one-hundred (100} year Post Development
:o the Property to or from Pine=aa Drive.
Vote: Unanimous
93~N0105
In Clove~ Hill Magiste=ial District, Y. M. C. A. OF METROPOLTT~N
~H~D (SOUTH KI~2~O~D--CH~T~FI~LD ~R~2N~] requested rescuing
from G~n~ral Business (B-3) and Re~idontial (R-T) to C~noral
B~in~ (C-~). The density of such amendment will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance staDdard$. ~e
Comprehensive Plan designates th~ pro,arty for publ~c/s~ml-
approximately 680 feet on the north line of Roll street Road,
approximately 65~ feet west of M~Kes~sn D~ive. Tax Map 40-1 (1)
Parcels ~0 and 21
~r. Daniel stated the request had been summarized earlier and
since there had been opposition present, he had placed the
reguest in its regular sequence on the agenda.
Hr. Ralph Lindsey stated he was an adjacent property owner and
was representing ~everal of hi~ naXghbor$; that they were
concerned as to the t~affic in the area; tha~ they supported the
mission of the YMCA but f~lt thsy needed to address the request
Iurthe~. W~e~ asked, he stated he resided in the ar~a of Ive~
Lane and he felt if th~ request was approved, the YMCA should
in,tall e fence for privacy reasons.
being double advertised and stated he felt it should be deferred
in order to provide an opportunity for th~ r~sident~ in the area
%0 meet with the YMCA.
Fir. Dennis walker stated he Was an adjacent property owner; that
location and =~s type of buildings planned and he felt the
F~r. Don Jones, representing the appticant~ stated t~ay ~ad Sent
netid~ to the adjacent property owner$ and ha4 held a meo~i~g
to receive citizen input; that the YMCA ~as planning to install
picnic ~helter= and had to apply for the proper ~szuning; that
wooded area located behind the Y~; ~ha~ the request had been
de~ble advertised in order te expedite the request; that
requirements regarding day care; and that the YMCA would like to
eventually add an additional pool and gT~nasium and at the
appropriate time would do 2o near the existing building.
There wa~ brief discussion relative to the YMCA's request for
outdoor picnic shelters and ~he rezoning ~roce~ and the
e×press~d by the neighbors in the area.
1. Uses ~ermitted on that portion of the property located 40~
feet north of the Rout~ 360 right of way shall be
restricted ~o t/~e following:
B. Office: business, governmental, mediual and
C. Post offices.
group care facilities.
F. Rospitals subject te Section 21.1-153 (f) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Vote:
G. Material reclamation receiving centsrm
to Section 21.1-160 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance.
H. Recreational emtablimh~e~t~, commercial - indoor
within 400 feet of the ~oute ~0 right of way include
all uses permitted by right or permitted with
restrictions in the ¢-~ District.)
Prior to obtaining a Duilding permit, one OS t~e ~ullew~ng
shall be accomplished for flr~ protection:
A. The owner, developer or am~ignee(~) ~hall pay to
%he County $150 per 1,000 =guare feet of gross
floor area adjusted upward or downward by the
mama percentage that the Marshall swift Building
C~st Index increased or decreased between June
3Q, 1991, and t~e date of payment, with the
approval of th~ County's Fire Chief, the owner,
developer or assignee(s) sh~ll receive ~ credit
~toward the required payment for the cost of any
fire ~uppre~ien ~y~tem net 0therwi~e required
by law which is included as a part of the
B. The owner~ developsr or assignee(s] shall
provide a fire suppression system not otherwise
required by lan which the County'~ Fire Chief
determines substantially reduces the need for
County facilitie~ otherwise necessary for fire
development which ~uuld generate e significant increase in
traffic above th~ traffic g~nerat~d by an indoor~out~oor
~esreational facility (i.e., YMCA or e ~imilar facility) as
determined by the Transportation Department, the existing
accens shall be r~looated to align the existing crossover
on Route 360~ end additional pavement ~ell be
alsng the westbound lanes of Route )60 at the approve~
acces~ to provide a right turn lane.
Unanlmou~
On mctlon cf Mr. Barber, seconded by ~, Warre~, the ~oard
~djearned at 9:00 p.m. until September 24, 1992 at 7:15 a.m. to
Kings Korner Reetauran~ for a breakfast mee~in~ with citizen~
for Respon~ibl~ Government.
Lane B.
County
M~rry G~/Danie 1
chairman
9/23/92