Loading...
06-23-93 MinutesMr. Arthur S. Warren, Chairman Mr. Edward B. Barber, Vice Chrm. Mr. Harry G. Daniel Mr. Lane D. Ramsay Ms. Barbara Bennett, Dir., office on Youth Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst. to County Admin. Asst. CO, Admin.~ Legis. Svcs. and P,W. Dolezal, Deputy Chief Hr. William D. Dupler, Building Official Parks and Recreation County Ombudsman Deputy Cler~ to the Mr. William H. Howell, Dir., G~n~ral Dir., Planning Deputy Co. Admin., Mr. $ake Mast, Dir,, Dir., Transportation Mr. Richard ~ ~oEl£ish, Dir., Env. Engineering county Attorney Dir., N~ws & Public Dir., Health Col. J. E. Pittman, Jr., Police DeDartment Dir., Budget & Nanagement ~. E- D. ~tith, Jr., Deputy Co. Admln., Community Development Dir., Utilities ~4~ Le~i~ Wendell, Bit. blt. Frederick Willis, Jr. Dir., ~umae Resource Er. Warren called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at ~3-391 ~/23/93 On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by ~r. Colbert, the Board aD~eved ~ha mi~ut~ of JUne g, 1993, as ~ub~itted. Vote: Unanimou~ R. COUNTY ADMINIBTRATOR~8 COMMENTS ~. Ramsay stated the Board approved the oreatlen of the Health Center Commission to transition the ~ucy Corr Wursing Home and int~odueedMr. Jake Mr. ~ast expressed apprsciatio~ to t~e B0a~d for ~election of the Health Center commissioners and introduced members of the Ce~iesion, whs were present at the meeting. He then introduced Nr. Wayne ~dmands, chairman s£ the Health Center Co~ission, to p~eSent the Cem~i~ion'~ ~epert. Co~iesion~s transihion report and stated the report is the beginning as the Commission moves forward with its charq¢ tO assume operational sontrol of the Lusy Corr Nursing ~ome. He further stated the Commission was appointed by the Board and requested to study issues related to the possible quasi privatlzatlon of the Nursing ~ome; that the Health Center Commission feels the Nursing Hone provides quality care ts ~t~ r~d~nt~; that th~ Comm~±en ~eek~ to maintain and enhance the e~istin~ level of care, to plan for the future, and to position th~ Nursing Home to meet its futuLre health care needs; that the Commission is ready to assume operational control of the ~ur~ing ~om~ and recommends the Board designate July 1, 1993 ~s the effective da~e for the transfer of operational control and ownership of all personal property of the Nursing Home to t~e Cor~ission. He stated the eemmissien requests the transfer of all Nursing ~om~ each on hand and cash on deposit in bank accounts as of July t; the payment or transfer of all amsunt~ due ts the N~rsing Home from the County; and approval of transfers on July 1993, July 1, 1994, and July 1, 1995 sf the full value of COnnty's obligation u~d~r the Hilt/B~rton Grant. He then reviewed the transition time,able for sperational support of the Nursing Home to the Commission including assuming responsibility for all cash processing and accounting; assuming responsibility for purchasing and procurement; January 1, 1994 being the date t~e Nursing Hone employees Brutus will transfer from the County to th~ Commission; the Commission memaining a part of the County's Risk Manaqement Proqrum thrsugh D~cember 31, 1993; the conveyance of u fee simple title ts ~he parcel cf rsul estate o~ ~ix (6) acres on which the Nursing Home i~ located; the ~ransfer of fee simple title ts an additional parcel o~ real estate csnsisting of approximately 1~ acres on which the replacement 288-bed facility will he constructed; and to provide for future development that will be compatible with the Mursinq Home by set~ing aside and desi~natinq t~e remainder of the trust. H= then reviewed the projected coat being $i9 nillion for $onstTuction of the new 288-bed anteing home and a significunt equity contribution being needed from ~e County. He stated t~e Commission will continue %e with the Board in an open partnership and report to th~ Board as necessary sn issusa relating to the Lucy Corr Nursing Home. ~i~ussion, Comments, and questions ensued relative to the cost associated if the County w~ived reimbursement for maintenance, risk management, etc.; clariflcation of an squlty commitment fro~ the County for constr~etio~ Of nursing home facility; requesting the Chesterfield Business 93-3~ 6/23/93 Council for input on CoUnty proposals fo,'new buildinq~ from members in the Building trade; whether a public hearing is r~uired to allow the Commission to assume operation of the Nnr~ing Homo or for the county %o convey the property requested; th~ timeframe in which the public hearing would be held to consider the conveyance of property; and the Commission am~uming operational control of the Nursing home as outlined i~ the budget. ~r. Ramsay clarified atthou~h no action by the Board required at this time, many of the proposed recommendations presented will require further action by the Board and staff will ~ring the next mteps in the public hearing process to the Board at the July 28, 1993 meeting. Discussion, =omments, and questions ensued relative to using Community Development Block Grant funds as the County's equity contribution toward eenmtructlon of the new Nursing Home facility; ~he Current staffing level of the Nursing Home as compared ~o the Richmond ara~7 the financing costs per bed; and MGV having a financial interest in items in~lu~e~ in the proja~te~ ~ursing Home addition. Mr. Warren ~xpre~ed appre=i~tlon to members of the Eealth Center Commission rom their efforts toward this important Mr. Ramsay sta~d a r~pregentatlve of the League of Women Voters would be present this evening to recognize the utilities Department with an award for it~ effort~ in ensuring safe drinking ~ ~Q.A~D COMMITTEE Mr. Barber seated he attended a ground-breaking ceremony for ~heltering Arms Hospital; that ha was one of the guest speakers at the graduation ceremony ~or ~idluthian High SChOOl; that he attended the investiture ceremony for the Ceunty'~ two new Judges -- Cleo Powell and Bonnie Davis; that he attended She funeral of firefighter Tommy Bishop; that he attended a conference with the National Association of ~egional Couneil~ held in ~ortland, Oregon; that he will be addressinq the Walton Park Civic Association on June 24, 1995; and that he will be attending the grand-opening ceremony for the Atrium at Johnston-Willis Hospital cn June Kr. Colbert stated he al~u will bo attending grand-opening ceremony for the Atriu~ at Johnston-Willis ~ospltal and noted he has attended various meetings in th~ ~to~ca Mr. Daniel stated he attended a series of joint between the Metropolitan Economic Development CO~Cil and the chamber on the topic of fostering regional partnering; that he attended a Budget and Audi~ Committee meeting on June 23, 1993 on the ~aDic of year-end balancing; that he was the keynote speaker at the ~rad~ation for Meadowbroek ~igh School; and that he attended the annual masting of the Capital A, rea A~embly which voted to disband the group and noted they also unanimously voted to endorse enabling legislation to allow locali=ies to work closer together. Mr. McHale stated he and FLr. Colbert participated with the ~urroun~ing communities in making the presentation to Bragg Commission when visiting Fort Lee and commended staff he attended meetings and the walk associated with the '*Healing the Hearts of the cities;" that he attended the 93-393 6/23/93 Police Academy's graduation ceremony; and that he was one of the guest ~peakers at tbs graduation ceremony for Thomas Dale High School. Mr. Warren stated he attended the graduation ceremonies for clover Hill High School and Matoaoa High School; that ha attended the investiture ceremony for Judge Bonnie Davis and Judge Cleo Powsll; that he attended a regional pre~ra~, with the Chairman and Mayor of the City of Richmond and the Counties of Hanover and Henricc, on the issue cf crime; and that ho attendo~ the Tri-citio~ Regional meeting u£ tho Chairnan and ~ayor of the City of Petersburg in an effort to Dromote regional oeoDeration in the Richmond area. He noteO the next Tr~-cities Leadership masting will be held in Chesterfield County with leaders in the central virginia area being invited to the meeting. ~ further stated he received a leDter from commanding General samuel Wakefield regarding the County's recent support of Uort Lee and read/submitted a copy cf the letter inte the record. on motion of F~r. colbert~ seconded by Mr. Barber~ the Board replaced Item 5., Work session en the 19s~-94 community Development Block Grunt Program; replaced Item 7.B., Appreval of Consolidation Agreements ~etween the Ce~nty and Schools for the Provision of Warehouse, Storeroom, Internal Dist:ibutiun and ~ostal Services an~ Se~ Da~ for Public Appropriations ~cr tho Consolidation; a~o~ I~em 7.F., Appointment to the Richmond Metropolitan Authority for the $t~tlight Installation Cost Approvals; added Item Conslderat~on ef Adoption of Open Letter to the Citizens of the Richmond Area Expressing the Board of Sup~isor~ ~upport for Continued R=glonal Cooperation to fellow It~ 7.F.~ Item 7.~.20., Waiver of Filing Di~closure for Coon%y-wide Rezoning Conversion Project to follow Item Executive Sea,ion Pursuant to Section 2.1.-~4 (a] (7), Cod~ Of Virginia, l~O, as ~end~d, for Consultation with Legal Co,scl Regarding Countv v. Woodlake, to be heard with Item (a) (3)~ Code of Virginia, 1950, as ~ended, for Discuusion of the ~orthern Area Landfill site; and ~eorde~ed Pages 177 t~ough 179 to follow ~age 184 for It~ i~.A.B.&C., Hearing =o consider the Southern and Western A~ea Plan and R~lated 0rdinanc~ Amendments and, adoDte~ the agenda, o 199~-94 ~O~ITY D~ELOP~LEmT BLOCK G~2~NT PROG~ Mr. Ztlth r~vi~w~d the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) projects currently underway w~ich were adopted in th~ F¥9~-93 Program including Dreliminary wor~ ~eing s=arted at the Harrowgate ElemeHta~ School socc=r field and th~ spading of the community Center in ~tt=i¢~. ~o introduced Mr. Wendell to present an overview on the County ~d~i~i~trator's recommended 1993-94 CD~G Pregram. Mr~ Wondell sta~ed $1.344 million in fedoral Block Grant funds has bee~ allocated from th~ Unite~ States Dep~rtment of 93-394 6/23/93 Housing and Urban Development to Chesterfield County and reviewed the breakdown o~ £ederal £unding. He noted the funding represent~ a 27 percent increase from last year's allocation. He £urther stated staff began putting the 1993- 94 Program together this past April and had sent information paoket~ about the Program to civic associations, non-profit agencies, County departm~nt~, and other i~tere~ted groups; that the County Administrator then appointed a CDBG Review Committee comprised of County staff and two citizen representatives to evaluate the proj~ot~ submitted for consideration under the 199~-94 CDBG Program; that the Committee reviewed ~11 the projects and made recommendations to the County kdmini~trator: that the ~rogram was then put together based on the County Administrator's instructions; ae~ that during the development e~ the Program, staff included Board recommendations made at last year~ C~B~ work session -- including the process for developing the CDBG Program being ~ystematic and including ~pe¢ifi¢ criteria for evaluating projects~ that CDBG fund~ be used for leveraging other Sunding sources, and that whenever appropriate, the funds be used as loan~ ~e allow for r~-oiro~la~ien of the money. ~e then reviewed the criteria used in rating each Discussion, comments, and questions ensued r~lative to indirect ~o~t~ of the ~rogram ~eing consistent with federal guidelines and the amount of money, approximately $454,000 in 1cans, ~eing re-circulated in~o the Program. Mr. Wendell continued to review individual projects oS the Program in the area of Public Improvements including business loans; public improvements inuluding sidewalks, streetlightz, landscaping, and signage; the ~ttrick Community Center; the Bermuda Rescue Squad; and the demolition revolving fund. There was discussion relative to the amount of funds allocated to the Bermuda Rescue Squad project and the impaat the shortfalk in funds would have on ~hs project. Mr. Wendell continued to review individual projects of the Program in the area of Mou~inq including the Interfaith ~cusing Corporation~ elder homes~ and HOME~ Ino.; Public Services including Cares, CARITA$, VITAL, the Utility youth and senior citizens; the establisb~nent cf two revitalization coordinator positions in the arese of County busines~ and r~id~ntial ~ervice~; an area business study for Ettmiok; and an historic resources study for Ettrick. There was b~ief diesussion relative to costs a~sociated with Program administration as it related to the recommended studies. Mr. Wendell continued to review individual projects of the Program including an historic park for Falling Cree.k Ironworks. Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the establlahment of two revitalization coordinators -- one for revitalization coordinator being requested by the Jefferson Davis Association to provide business assistance, code enferoement, and help with implementation of the enterprise zone and business loan program; the role of the residential revitalization coordinator being to coordinate citizen participation, implement code enforcement and residential projects including housing and public improvements; and the responsibilities of the business and residential revitalization coordinators being accomplished with existing staff. 93-395 6/23/93 Mr. Wendell then reviewed indirect costs and administration funding to include ~alarie~ and benefits, material~ and supplies, and office expenses. He then referenced the listing of unfunded pre~ects. Mr. Daniel stated he felt a formula criteria needed to Be developed in addressing some type cf geographical Connty when the ~rogrmn is developed next year. Mr. Warren expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts Mr. MoHale stated the county is receiving a total of approximately $$ million -- $1.$ million in CDBG funds and $3.3 million in matching funds -- which is a ~ignificant benefit for the citizens of the County. On motion of M_r. CalVert, sacond~ by M~. Morale, the Board set the date of ~uly ~S, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. for a public Development Block ~rant {CBD~) Pro,ram. (It is noted a copy cf the proposed 19~3-94 CDBG Program is filmd with the papers of thim Board.) 6. DEF~R~D ITEMS 6.A. APPOINTMEI~TS 6.A.1. BOA~D OF APPEALS FOR VIRGINIA ~NIFO~/5 STATEWIDE BUILDING ~ODE Th~r~ wa~ dicaussiom relative to the reappointment of the current members to the Board; the interest of other citizens in ~erving on the Board; the Board being comprised of ~ev~n members; whether there is a limit on t~e number of terms a member can serve; and the members representing the County geographically. On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board deferred consideration of nominations e~ member~ ~o serve on th~ Beard of ~uildlng Code until July 2S, 1993. Vote: Unanimous C~ntral virginia Waste Management Plan citizen Advisery On motion cf Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Beard nominated ~s. Cynthia Schriber to serve on the Central rspresenting the County et-large, whome formal appointment 6.A.~. INDUSTRIAL DEVELO~NTAUTHORIT~ deferred consideration of ne~ination~ o£ a member to serve o~ the Industrial Develo~meDt Authority, rupreuunting Bermuda District, un~il July ~, 1993. Vote: Unanimous ~r. McHale nominated Mr. ~onathan D~an~ r~presentlng Thoma~ Dale ~igh Sohool, to eerve on the Youth Se~vioes citizen Board. Mr. Daniel nominated Miss Adeola Ashunkentan, repr~¢ntlng Lloyd C. Bird Hig~ SO~OO1, and Miss Sparkle Nicole Williams, representing Meadowbrook ~igh Sehooi, to Serve un the Youth ~onac~n High Sohool~ to serve on the Youth Services citizen ~igh ~ohool; and Mr. t%alph ~olling, Jr., ~ul~ member Citizen Beard. ~r. Barber ~tated he woul~ defer consideretion of nominations nomination/appointment of m~mbers to serve on the Youth appointment of ~$. cynthia schriber be included as sh~ he~ deferred coneideretion of nominations o~ members to se~-~e on the Youth Services Citizen Board, representing Midlothlan District, until July 28, 1993 and s~mul~aneously Youth S~rvices citizen Board, whose terms are effective July 1, 1993 and will expire as indicated: F~. Jonathan Dean Bermuda Mr. Michael ~ellina Clover Hill Far. Jeff Shewalter clo¥~r Hill ~iss Adeole Ashunkentan ~ims Sparkl~ Ui=ol= williams Dale l~ir. Ryan Teten Matoaca ~t~ Ralph Bolling, Jr. Matoaca Vote: Unanimous 6-~0-94 6-30-94 6-30-94 6-~0-94 6-30-94 6-30~94 6-30-94 S-30--96 93-397 ~DVI~ORY COMMITTEE (CONTINUED) On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, tbs Board ~imultaneously nominated/appointed MS. Cynthia smhriber to serve on the central Virginia Waste Management Plan citizen Advisory Board, representing the County at-large, whose term is ~$£ective July 1, 1993 an~ will expire June 3o, 199~, Vote: Unanimcu~ On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Beard affirned the cancellation by virginia Power (and withdrawn by the original requestcr) for the request for streetlight installatlen for the intersection of Roland view D~ive and Roland View Terrace, Bermuda District, and approved the following streetliqht installation eo~t approvals: BERMUDA DISTRICT * Intenmection of Tipton circle and Tipton Street (Due to safety concerns) Cost to install light: $1,265. * vicinity between 145~5 und I4519 Fox Knoll Drive (Due to safe~y concerns) Co~t to in~t~ll light; * Vicinity of l&lO0 ~owlett Line Driv~ (Due to safety concerns) Cost to install light: hnd, ~urth~r, thc Board d~f~rred the following ~treetlight installation cost approvals until January 1~, 1994: BED3K/DA DISTRICT ~ Vicinity of Luckylee Crescent and Clear Springs Place. * Clear Spring~ Place, end of cul-de-sac. CLOVE LL DISTRICT * ACorn ~ill Court and Tall Hickory Drive. vote: Unanimous Ms. Becky Dickecn, Fiscal Impact Analyst, presented an overview on the County's Cash Proffer Policy including a comparison o~ net cost ueluula~ions from FYD3 to F~9~ and a facility cost update of demographic data for 1994. She stated staff recommends increasing the ldo4 fiscal year per lot payment amount up to $4,064 pez lot and noted increase is consistent with the Board's a~cp~ed cash Proffer Policy. Ther~ ~a~ brief discussion relative to the primary reasons for the facility cost decrease from FY93 to FY94o however, he f~lt the Board ~hould develop its own proffer policy and revisit the current Cash Proffer Psliuy. He inquired as to the KershalI swift Buildinq Cost Index inorease for the current year. Ms. Diokson stated the Marshall Swift Building Cost Index increase was calculated from Juty~ 1992 to April, 1993 wh±eh resulted in a $64 increase from the present Mr. Colbert stated he felt the a~ount should remain the same until th~ Caoh Proffer Policy is reviolted by the Beard. Mr. Warren indicated he also felt the Cash Proffer Policy should be revisited. There was brief discussion relative to the timeframe in which the Board could revisit the Cash Proffer Policy. Mr. Mc~ale stated he felt the Board should implement the recommendation by staff altheugk he concurs the Cash Proffer Bolioy should be revisited by the Board. He further stated he has concerns relative to development net psyimq for itself and tho cost being passed to the taxpayer. revisit the Cash Proffer Policy prior to i~ple~emting the increase for FY94. On motion of M~. Daniel, seconded by ~r. ~¢Hale, deferred consideration of dstermining the Cash Proffer payment per lot for F¥94 until August ~, 1993 to allow the Beard to revisit the current Cash Proffer Policy and, if desired, smtahlish its own policy. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel excused himself from %he INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ~ POSTAL SERVIDBS ~Nb SET D~TE On mo~ion o~ Mr. Me,ate, seceaded by ~r. Barber, the Beard approved the consolidation agreements between the County and ~cbeols for the provision ol warehouse, storeroom, internal dimtribution and postal services and set tho dute of July 28, 1PR3 et 7:0G p.m. for a public ~earinq to amend ~he FY94 budget to reflect the ~ppropriations for the consolidation. (It im noted approval of ~hls action will mean a net cost to the ~eneral Fund of $10,00 in FY94. The County Administrator will ~dent~fy soLt~ces to fund thio shortfall by year end.) Ayes: Mr. Warren~ Mr. Barber, Mr. Colbert, and M~ MoHale. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. Mr. ~cHale stated he has recently been informed that the Bragg Commission voted to rs~ove Fort Lee from tbs Base Closure and Rsalignmsnt List. ~ESOCIATB~ ~r. Mike Chernau, Assistant county At~orney~ stated last February, the Board authorised staff to hire a cable consultant to assist in the franchise renewal negotiations with Storer and CTIC Associates has been chosen the ~o~ 93-399 6/2s/93 qualified. On motion of Kr. MoEale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract between t. he County an~ CTIC Associates, in an amount not to exceed $30,000, which consultant will assist in t_he franchise renewal negotiations with storer Cable~ specifically, evaluate Storer~s current technical capabilities and financial condition; assist staff in designing the upgrade specifications for the subscriber network; and a~ess the need and potential uses for an institutional networK. was the intent of the Board to appropriate funds from FY93 Cable TV franchise fees to fund the $26,862 consultant for the new cable law, staff w~ll bring the proposed franchise agreement and erdinance amendments, originally scheduled for the July 2B~ 1993 ~ting, to the Board at the appropriate time -- anticipated to be in early Fall, 1993.) Vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by ~r. Daniel, the Board approve~ the Sollowing streetlight installation cost approvals: BERMUDA DISTRICT * Inter~ection of Clear Springs Lane and Walthall Creek Drive Cost to install ii,bt: $1,015. * Intersection of Deer Springs Run and Fo~ Knoll Drive Cost to install light: $~75~ DALE DISTRICT * Intersection of Belmont Road and Cannock Road Cost to install light: $279. MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT * Inter~e=tlon o~ Kingscross Road and Lady Ashley Bead Cost to install light: $1,824. 7.F. ARPOINTHE~ TO THE RICHMOND HETROPOLITAN AUTHORITY FO~ THE UNEXPIRED TER/( OF )IR. D~F/D RUNT ~r. Ra~y ~tat~d Mr- David ~unt ha~ resigned from the Riohmom~ Metropolitan Authority (P/~A) ~. Warren nominated Mr. Charl~ H. ~osteT, Jr. to s~rve on the Richmond Metropolitan Authority~ representing the County at-large. ~. Warren th~n made a m~tion~ ~econd~d by ~r. Daniel, for simultaneous nomination/appointment of Mr. Charles H. Fo~t~r, Jr. to serv~ on the Ric~ond Metropolitan Authority, representing the County 9~-40$ 6/23/9~ Mr. Barber ex~pre~sed concerns relative to tke Board suspending its rules to allow simultaneous neminatisn/appointment at thio time as he felt the Board should obtain information on tke recommended candidat~e qnalifications, experienoe~ interest, ate. prior to appointment. After brief discussion, tke motion made by Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Daniel, was amended for the Board to nominate Mr. Charles ~. Foster, Jr. to serve on the RichmoNd Metropolitan Authority, whose fermal appointment will be conoldered at the July 28, 1993 mestlng. Vote: Unanimous COOPERATION Mr. Warren stated he felt the CouNty ~hould provid~ u l~ad~rship ro~e in regional cooperation an~ ensure the comfort level of Connty eitiu=nm on issues addressed by th~ ~oard. ~ further ~tated h~ was rsoommending adoption of an opun letter to citizens of the Richmond area expressing ~upport for continued ccopsra~ion. He read into the record o copy of the lettxr. Mr. Daniel stated he onpports adoption of the letter a~d regional cooperation when all benefit from ideas collectively. Mr. McHale indicated he ha~ concerns abo~% adoption cf the letter at this time. ~ furthsr orated he opposes any annexation of Chesterfield County and supports all efforts the Board has undertaken with it~ ~egional partners. Mr. Daniel stated he felt the Board should respond to the negative =omments surrounding this issue. Mr. Warren stated he ha~ received cummen~s inquiring as to the County's position on this issue a~d, therefore, he felt Mr. Barber stated he felt the Board ~as approached this issue in a positive manner and hu supports adoption of the open Far. Warren stated he fult the open lette~ clarifies ~e position of th~ Board to support regional cooperation and d~ines the limitations unde~ which the Board operate~. On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~. Daniel, ~= Board adopted an open letter to ~h~ =iti~ens of the Rio~ond area ~xpressin~ the Beard of Supervisors support fo~ continued filed with ~ paDer~ of thio Board.) Vote: U~ani~o~s 7.E. coNSENT ITEM~ 7.E,1, AME~DHB~ TO RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY On motion of Mr. NcHale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Bo~ approved an amendment to the ssrvics agreement with the Riverside Regional $~il Authority. (I~ is no~e~ a co~y cf 93-401 6123/93 the amendment is filed with the papers of this Vote: Unanimous On motion of F.r. McHale, seconded by F~r. Barber, the Board authorized the write-elf cf delinquent scceunts receivable totaling $125r1~5,42 as follows: 1. utilities - $115,495.95 This debt represents the uncollected accounts of four deceased people, three b~nkrupts, and ~onsumer aocountn that individually are less than $25. The bulk of the delinquent utilities aeoount~ ($113,840.85) uncollected debt totalling .4 ~eroent of the total annual billings of the department, which is well below the utility industry standerd ef I percent fur unc011sotible This debt represents billings for leaf collection which included. 3. Central Library - Represents outstanding fines asse~ed against consumers ~rom 1982 ts 1OS7 which remain unsatisfied. 4. Risk ~anagement - This debt was incurred when Risk Management had to pay officar injured by a perpetrator who wus resisting both delinquents are incarcerated and a~ without YE~R-B~D BUDGET ~DJUSTMENT~ On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board authorized transfers and ap~ru~riations for year-end budget adjustments a~ · State sales t~x for edu=ation is anticipated to be higher ~han budgeted and it ie recomme~de~ that th~ revenue be appropriated and transferred to the Operating Fund. The actual increase in the transfer will depend on actual State sale= ta~ r~v~nue received by the County. Increa~ ~t~te Sales Tax Expenditures: 93-~02 $405,500 Increase Transfer to 2chools Nee Effect on Fund Balance 0 Because Medicaid Sta~e Plan Option fee revenues have exceeded the O~iginal budgeted amount, an appropriation of $79,000 is requested to effset current ex~endlturea: Increase Medicaid ~ev~nue Expenditures: Increa=e M~/MR/SA Appropriation Net Effect on Fund Halancm $79,000 ($V9,000) 0 DUe tO federal funding requiremsnts, the transfer to the Nursing Home will increase, but will bs offse~ by an provided by General Fund departments. Increase Indirect Charqe.m Fro~ Nurming Home $§7,900 Expenditures: increase Transfer ~o Nursing Moms F$57.900% Net Effect on Fund Balance Other Funds Nursin= Home - The Nursing Home Fund needs to be adjusted consistent with th~ ~nmral Fund, appropriating the transfer from the General Fund and the offsetting payment of charges to the Generml Fund. ~xpanditures: Nat Effect on Retained $57,900 0 · A re~erve for a transfer to the School Fund in FY94 of $20,900 iu required to fund the County portion o~ funds expended by schosls ~o facilitate consolidation of the w~ruhouse and storeroom. These expenses w~re for computer hardware, construction of a mailroom~ a unit, and a pallet 9ack. Thi~ item will b= funded using unspent ~unds turned in from General Ftuad dcp~rtments. · The Social Services Department i~ anticipated to ~ave a murplum of ~neral Fund appropriation of $29,000. It recommended thst these fonds be carried forward and reappropriated in FY94 to fund the cost of ~ministrative, eligibility, and investigate ~taff to handle the increased caseload that the Department is expecting. This change ~ill allo~ Social Servi~e~ to addr~ ~ome of the critical addbacks identified by the Social Service~ Boa~d during the budget The Police Department received $~4~,900 in revenu~ fro~ the sale of new vehicles (not yet placed into service) during FY93. Additionally, the Department ha~ postponed $162,600 in expenditures far vehicles in the 1993 budget. Theme funds, totaling $~05,~00, need to be carrie~ 9~-403 6/23/93 for~&rd an~ aDproNri&ted in F¥94 fo~ the ptl~c~aea v~hi~l~. · Construction of the Courts Building ham been completed. Funds in the amount of $?~068 ~er~ not spent and intares~ on the remaining funds in the amount cf $1,975 needz to be appropriated. A total of $79,043 can be transferred back to the debt center in the General Fund to pay for FY93 debt service on the building lease/purchase. This will make funds that had been allocated for debt service available. Of tho $79,04~ staf~ recoi~mends $50,000 be utilized to fund the accommodate relscation of the Vinti~/Witne~s Progra~ to the Court~ Building. Sheriff's 0f£i=e personnel will $~9,043 will increase Gen~ral Fund balance. · The construction of an ~ndu~trial aoo~ road for Willie and Coach Reads has been finished with $2~751 remaining ~nspent, There is also revenue received unappropriated in the amount cf $24,719. Funds is the amount of $24,719 need to be appropriated an~ staff recommends transferring the total amount of $27,~70 to Expenditure interest earnings in capital preject~t funds available. Worker~ Co,pessaries/Retiree Healthcare - Healthcare are budgeted in a summary center Police - Funds are available ~rom vehicle were driven $145,600 Ccmumunicatiuns Center - ~unds are avmilable Participation was greater :ham anticipated. $100,000 County Attorney - Cost of services required by litigation wa~ mor~ :ham amount budgeted. 37,090 Registrar - Thi~ department experienced no turnover during FY93, and funded unanticipat~ postage co~=~ associated with redistricting. 37,900 represents salary, benefits, mhd equipment for a position which was approved during the year. ~taff attempted to get reimbursement £rom the by the State, they need to be covered revenue from o=her funds, this department was allowed to fill vacancieo and, therefore, could not absorb the FY93 salary increaos. Assessor - Shortfall was a result of fillin~ ~h~riff - This shortfall was a r~ult of a minimal Vote: Unanimous AI~ B~4 LiBI~ARy CONSTRUCTION PROJECT On motion of l~r. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Barb~, the Board approved the transfer up t~ $65~O0Q £rum the West Branch ~ibrary continuation Drejes= to the Ben Air Library com~t~otion project to fund the shortfall in the BO~ Air Library construction project. vd=e: unanimous on ~o~ion of ~r. MoHale, seconded b~ Mr. Barber, the Board appropriated $~O,OO0 in federal Substance Ah~e Prevention and Treatment fund~ and increased Mental Health/Mental R~tar~ation and Substance Abuse FMC4 appropriations by $50,000 and approved the e~tablishment of a new E~rvices Supervisor position in the Substance Abuse Services Pro~ra~, which position will develop and supervise ~ervice$ ~ireobed to substance-abusing women. (It is noted thee ~ncrease in appropriation reflects mn increase in the base of the federal allesation. The position will be contingent upon continued future federal allocation. ~o additional County funds are needed.) vote: Unanimous ?.E.6. AP~ROPRIATION/TR~NOFER OF FUNDS ?.E.6.a. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THg ROB~0US ROAD WID~NIN~ On motion of NLT. McKale, seconded by ~[r. Barber, the Board transferred $42,000 from ~ha comple=ed Turner Road Widening Project for the construction of a paved drainage ditch as following resolutlon: W~EREA~, in February, 19~, tb~ Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution supporting the Virginia Road Widening prsjest; and ~roject landscaping on Robious Road~ side~alks on both sides of Robio~s Road, bike la~e~ o~ Cra~beck Road, a~d a paved ditch ~ast 0f Huguenot Park at aeritag~ comnon~ ~ubdivisi0n; and ~EAS, VDOT ha~ info~d th~ County that all of the ~oard's re~es%s will be included in the Robious Road project provided the County participates in the cost of the ditch. NOW~ T~R~POR~ B~ IT R~OLV~D, that th~ ~oard of Supervi=ur= sprees to provlde VDOT up to $42,000 for ~ construction of the paved ditch. Vote: Unanimous FOR DESIGE OF THE ROUTE 360 WIDENING PROJECT BET~EE~ W~BRO RO~ ~/~ l~Bou~ ~o~TE ~kRKWaY 0~ ~OtiO~ Of ~r. MoHalk, ~=conded by Mr. Barber, the Board appropriated $100,000 from anticipat=d Virginia Department of Transportation reimbursements for the design uf the Route 360 Widening Project between Warbro Road and Harbeur Pointe Parkway. vote: Unanimous CONSERVATION A/gD RECREATIONAL TRAIL AC~ ~RANT FOR authorized the County Administrator to make applloatlon to the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for Recreational Trail Act ~unds, in the emcon= of $20,000, which funds will be used to develop a one (1) mile hiking/bicycling trail within =ho County-owned abandoned railway in Chsster and, further, appropriate said funds if approved] and adopted ~he following resolution requesting the Departnent of Conservation and Recreation to approv~ the projeat: ~qqER~AS, in accordance with the Virginia Department cf Conservation and Reureatlon's con~tructlon allocation p~eeedu~es for Recreational Trail ~ct Funds, it is m~ce$$ary that the local governing body request, by resolution, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R=SOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of chesterfield County requests the Department of Conservation end Recreation to e~tabli~h a projPct for th~ Phase I construction of a psdestrian and biking trail fro~ Delavial Avenu~ to ~out~ ~O i~ chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tho'Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost for the planning and construction of this pedestrian and bi~ing t~ail and that if the Board subseqllen~ly elects to cancol this project, the County of chesterfield hereby =groom to reimburse the Department eS Conservation and Reoreatic~ for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through tho date the Department i~ notified of such oancellatlon. (It is noted maintenance cest~ for thi~ facility will be $3,000 $5,O00 per year which =he department will request through the b~dq~t p~oce~s in the next fiscal year. If future funding for Chess costs are not included in the base budget, the department will have to either absorb the cost or eliminate the maintenance services of the facility. The 2~ percent m~tch for th~ construction phase will be ab~urbed by the department through in-kind oorvins~ provided by oxietinq staff.) approved the transfer of a full-time position from the Parks and Recreation Department and transferred $$$,50o from Park~ cover costs associated with the work force deputy ~nsition, 7.E.10. SET DATE FOR PUBLI~ HE~I%ING TO CONSIDER AN O~DINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CK~ST~RFI~LD, 1978, AS AM~0ED. ~Y AN~DI~_AND REENADTIND SEOTION 4-28 REL~TIN~ TO BTN~O ~S AND RAFFLES On motion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by ~ ~arbor, the soard sa~ the dat~ of July 28, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. fo~ a ~blic County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, by amendlnq and On ~otion of Mr. HcHale, oecondsd by ~r. Barber, the Board approved a ra££1a permi~ for Ecoff EIo~entary School PTA for calondar yoa~ 199~- Vote: Unanimous approved a request for a Der~it by th~ Chesterfield County d~play at th~ County ~ai~groun~ on July 4, 1993, which request is s~bject to approval by the Fire Department and the Vote: Unanimous On Notion of ~r. Morale, ~econd~d by Nr. Barber, the Board amended the mlnutes of January 27, 1993 as fallowa: "This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from thig Board, made r~port in writing upon his examination of Summerhurst Drive, Fircrest Place, Springcreek Drive and Bri~rmcor Lane in Ke~d~ Hill, Section B, Midlothian Di~t~ict~ Upon oonsideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Colbert, it is r~solved that ~ummerhurst Drive, Fircrest Place, Springcreek Drive~ and Briarmoor Lane i~ Re,ds Hill, $~ction B, ~idlothian District, be and they hereby are establimhed a~ public And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transporta=ion! be and i= hereby is requested to ~ake into assigned, and going northerly 0.19 mil~ to end in a cul-de- sac; Fircrest Place, beginning at the inter=ec=ion with S~e~h~st Drive and going northeasterly 0.86 mil~ tO ~d a cul-de-sac; Springcre~k Drive, beginning at the inter~ection with Su~erhur=t Drive and going not,westerly 0.1~ mil~ %o ~ie into existing Springor~k Drive, S~at~ Routs 1065. Again, ~pringcre~k Drive, b~ginning at th~ intersection with su~arhurst Drive and g~ing southeasterly at ~ intersection wi~ Sprln~cre~ Drive and goin~ nurth~rly 0.14 mil~ to end in a cul-de-sac. ~i~ request is inclusive of the ~djacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. And b~ it fur=h~r re~olve~, tha~ the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation unr~stricte~ righ=-of-way of ~0' wi=~ necessary ea=emen=s for Se~tio~ B. Plat Book 65, ~age 94, April 3, ~989. Vot~: Unanimous" "~his day the County ~nvironmental Engineer, in accordance with directions ~rom this ~oard, ma~e report in writing B, Kidlothian District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Drive, Fircrest ~lac~, Springcreek Drive, and Bria~oor Lane in Reeds Hill, Section S, ~idlo~ian Di~%rict, be and they hereby are e~tablished as public roads. And be it further resolved~ that the Virginia ~part~nt Transportation, b~ and it hereby is re~ested t~ take int~ the Secondary System, summerhurst Drive, beginning at existing Summerhurst Drive, State Route 3396, and going northerly 0.19 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; Firorest Place, beginning at the intersection with Summerhurst Drive and Springcreek Drive extand~ .17 miles from the intersection of Su~merhurst Drive to the intersection of Route 1065. Again, springcreek Drive, beginning at th~ intersection with Sum~crhuret Drive and going southeasterly 8.13 to end in a cul-de-sac; and Briarmoor Sane, beginning at the intersection with sp~ingcreek Drive and going northerly 0.IA Th%~ request iF inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, cleat zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. And bc it further resolve~, tha~ the ~eerd of Supervisors Vote: Unanimous A~IL 14~ 199~ On motion of FL~. McHale, seconded by ~. Barber, the Board ~mend~d the minutes cf A~ril 14, 1993 as follows: FROM: "This day the County Environmental Englneer~ in accordance ~it~ directions from this Board, sade report in writing upon h~s examination es Oldbury R~ed and Oldbury Court in Buckingham, Section 4, Midlothisn District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of ~. colbert, ~econdcd by ~r. McHale, it is remelved ~ha~ Oldbury Road and O]dbury Court in Buckingham, ~ection 4, Midlothian District, be and they hereby are established as public road~. And b~ it f~Tth~r reeo!ved~ that t~e Virginia Department of Tren=portation, be and Xt hereby is requested to tak~ into tho Secondary system~ Oldbury Road, beginning at s~i~ting Oldbury RO~, State Route 1360, and going southerly 0.0~ mil~ to end in a dead end; and Oldbury Court, b~ginning at the intersection with 01dbury Road and going westerly 0.09 mile to end in e cul-de-sac. This req~es~ is inclusive cf the adjacent slope, sight dis~ancc, clear zone and designate~ Virginia Department of Transportation drainage easements. These roads s~rve 14 lots. And b~ it further resolved, that the Board of Rupervi~or~ guarantees ~e the Virginia DaRartment of Transportation an unrestricted right-of-way of 50' with necessary casements for cuts, fills and drainage for Oldbury Road and a 4D~ ~iq~t-of- way for 01dbury Court. This section of Buckingham is recorded as Section 4, Plat Book 59~ Page CD, December 23, 1987. Vote: Unanimous" "This day t/~e County Environmental ~ngin~er, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon hi~ examination of Oldbury Road and Oldbury court Buckingham, section 4, Midlothian D~strict. Upon consideration whereof, end on motion of ~4r. Colbert~ seconded by F~. McHale, it is resolved that Oldbury Road and Oldbury Court in Buckingham, Section 4, Midlothian Dimtrict, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it further rss01ved, that the virginia oepartmcn~ Transportation, be and it hereby ia requested to tske into the Secondary system, oldbury ~oad extends .06 mile from the end of ge~ticn 4 to the cul-de-sac. Oldbury Court extends .O~ mile from the intersection of Oldb~ry ~ca~ to t~e dui-de- This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope~ sight distance, clear zone and desi~nata~ Virginia Departmsnt Transportation drainaqe easements. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Zupervimors guarantees to the virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted right-cf-way of $0' with n~ce~sary easements for c~t~, fills and drainage for 01dbury Road an~ a 40' right-cf- way for Oldbury Court. Thi~ sention of Buckingham is recorded ~s follows: Section 4, Plat Book 59~ Page 90, December 23, 1987. ?.~.13.b. ~PRI~- 28, 1993 On motion of Mr. ~cHale, seconded by Mr. Barner, t~e Board ~ended the minut~ of April 28, ~993 as follows: "O~ ~otio~ of M~. MoHale, seconded by Mr. B~rb~, ~e Board approved the s~tligh~ installation cos~ approval for ~he inter~ection of Treely Road and Windwurd Drive, in Bermuda ~agistexlal District, and the str~malight installation cost approval for the intersection of ~ucks Lane an~ Spire~ Drive, in ~idlc~hian ~agisa~:ial Dis~rlct. (It i~ noted ~ar~ im n0 cost to in,tall ~ese lights.) Vote: Unanimous" ~On motion of ~r. M~al~, seconded by Mr. Barber, th~ Board approved the ~treetligh= installation cost approval for the intersection of T~eely Road and Windward Drive, in ~er~da Magisterial Dis~ric=, and the stree%li~ht in~tallation cost 93-410 6/23/93 approval £OM the intersec:ion of Lucks Lane and Spirea Drive, in Clover Hill Magisterial District. (It is noted there is no cost to install these llght~.) Vote: Unanimous 7.E.14. ~GREEK~NT FOR i~AINTEN~NC~ OF A STO~MWATE~ DR~IN~ SYSTEM AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRaCTiCE ~ACILITY FO~ ~ENITO MINI STORA~E On me,ion of Mr. MoHala, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Soard authorized the County Adninimtrator to exmcute an Agreement for Maintenanus of a Stor~wa~er Drainage Syste~ end Best ~anagement Practice Facility with ~ordon ~. Bowers Investment Partners ~o~r, the owner/developer of Genito Mi~i Storage, with the County's only involvement being to assure the Maintenance Agreement is followed by the swner as approved by the County Attorney. (It im noted a copy of the vicinity sketch is filed wi~ the pa~ers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous with directions from this Board, made report in writing upo~ him examination of Hcllypark Drive, shadyglen Court, Walton Park, Section S, Nidlothian Di~triok. ~pon consideration whereo~, and on motion of Mr. MoHale, meeonded by Mr. Barber, it is resolved that ~cllypark Drive, Shadyglen Court, Wmlten Ridge Lane, Dannyhill Road and Dannyhill Court in Wulton Park, Section S, Midlothian District, be and ~ey hereby are established as public roads. Transportation, be and it hereby i~ r~qu~$%ed to ~aks in~o the secondary System, Bsllypark Drive extend~ -15 miles from intersection o£ Rt. 13~5 to the cul-de-sac. Walton Rings the dead end. Dannyhill ~ead extends .17 miles from the extends .04 mil~ ~ro~ the intersection u£ Dannyhill Court ts This request is inolusivs of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated virginia Department of And bt it furthe~ resolved, that th~ board 0£ augervissrs guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation an unrestricted ~ight-of-way o~ ~0' with necessary easements for outs, fills and drainage for all of these road~. This section or Walton Park im recorded es follows: 93-4it 6/23/93 TWO EXIBTINO FIFTY FOOT RIGHT8 OF WAY KEOWN AS RIVERVIEW DRIFE kND RIVERVIEW COURT On motion of Mr. McHale, se=onded by Mr. Barber, the ~oard app=oved a request from John C., Jr. and Judy A. Pet~ee to construct an all-weather driveway within two existing fifty foot rights of way for ac=es~ to Lot 59, Cameron Earmm Subdivision, sub~ect to t~e execution oi a license agreement. (It is noted a copy of the vicinity mketch i~ filed with the papers of this Board.} Vote: Unanimous REQUEST TO QUITCLAIE A PORTIO~ OF A VARIABLE WIDT~ DRAINAGE EASEMENT A~D TWO VARIABLE WIDTH TEMPOP~%RY ~0~TESIDE ASSOCIATES. L.F. AND JONATHAN BRYA~_~..IIi On motion of ~r. Mc~ale, ~econded by ~. Barber, the Board authorized ~he Chairman of the Beard and the county Admini~t~ato~ to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a p~r~ion of a variable width drainage easement ana two variable width temporarF construction easements across the prop=rty of Sout~aids Associates, L.P. and Jonathan ~ryan, III. (It is noted a copy of th~ plat i~ filed with tn~ pap~r~ of thi~ POWER COMPANY on not,on of ~%r. HoHale, seconded by ~r. Barber, th~ Board a~thorized the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with virginia Electric and ~ower Company to provide underground service to the new Battle Weaver Elementary Sc~ool. (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Board.) Vote: Unanimous foot wide parcel of land along Harrowgate Road from Grace execute the necessary d~ed. (I% is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of ~his Board.) On motion oS ~r. ~c~ale, ~econdad by ~r, Barber~ the Board accepted, on behalf of the County, th~ conveyance of a 0~O~ acre parcel of land along Ironbridge Road from B & K Land Company and authorized the County Administrator tQ ~xeoate the necessary deed. (It is noted a cody of the plat is filed 95-412 6~23/~3 with the papers of this Beard.) Vote: Unanimous CONVERSION PROJEOT On notlom of Mr. MoEale, seconded hy ~r. Barber, the Board waived disclosure requirements for ~hs County-wide Rezonlng Conversion Project from the "old" to "new" zoning districts. 7.E.7. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS A~D APPROVAL OF TNB UPDAT~n FY94 ENF~uNCEMENT PR~ECT PRIORITY LIST Mr. Daniel state~ he i~ in agreement with tha Powhite Parkway Lundscapin~ Project being included on tbs li~t for th~ FY94 Fnhan~ement Projects; h~wever, h~ indicate~ he fslt Chi~penham Parkway should also ~e included O~ th¢ list. Re inquired as to th~ criteria used in developing the list. Mr. ~cCra~k~n stated the Pewhite Parkway Landscaping Project could be ex~anded to include chippenham Parkway. Mr. Daniel req~ustud stuff to include Chippenham ~arkway in the Powhite Parkway Land,capias Preject and, specifically, thos~ r~sid¢ntial areas abutting Chippenham. There was brief discUSsion relative to whether the cost would n~d to be increased for the Powhlte Parkway Landscaping Project if expanded to include Chipp~nham Parkway. Mr. Daniel made a motion, seconded by Mr. KcKale, for Board to adept the updated the FY94 Enhancement Project Priority Li~t and forwar~ the List to the Richmond ~etropoli=an Planning Organization (NPO) for approval; apprQpria~e $~,000 from the Clovar sill District Three Cent Road Fund and approve the transfer of $9,000 from the County- wide Sidewalk Constru~tio~ Account for the Smuketree bike lanes; approve the transfer of $16,000 from the County-wide Sidewalk Construction Accoun~ for the Pha~e I Route landscaping project; authorize staff to enter into enhane~en~ project construction and/or design agreements with VDOT~ ec~eRltants, and/or contractors subject to approval by the County Attorney,s Office; oo~oine the Chippenham Parkway Landscaping Project with the Parkway Landscaping P~oje¢C in the County's FY94 Enhancement Pro, eot Priorit~ List; and adopt the necessary When asked, Mr. ~cCracken stated thoro is no cost difference in the ~roject i~ Chippenham Parkway i~ included in the Pawhite Parkway Landscaping Project or a segarate There was brief discussion rslatlv~ to changing the cos~ for the Pewhlte Parkway Landscaping Project $500,000 to $] million ~inc~ the project was being expanded to inclu~ chippenham Parkway and ~r. Daniel requested the amount be inorease~ from SS00,000 to $1 million for the Pruject. Mr. Daniel amended his notion, s~eunded by F~r. Mc~ale, for th~ Board to a~opt the updated the F¥9~ ~nhancement Priority List and forward the Li~t to the Richmon~ Metropolitan Planning 0rgani=ation (~0) for approval; appropriate $5,0~0 from the Clover Kill District Thre~ C~nt Road Fund an~ approved the transfer of $9,000 from the County~wide Sidewalk Con,traction Ac=cunt for the 93-413 6/~3/93 bake lanes; approve the transfer of $16,000 from the County- wide $ide~aI~ Construction Account for the Phase I Route lO landscaping project; authorize ~taff to enter into enhancement project constructlen and/or ~e~ign agreements with VDOT~ consultants, and/er contractors subject ts approval by the County Attorney's of£ioe; and combine the chippenham Pa~way Landscaping Project wit~ t~e Powhite Parkway Landmcaping 9reject in the County's FYg~ ~nhanc~m~nt Project Priority List and increase the estimated ocs% to $1 million. vote: Unanimous On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. McHale, the Bo~rd adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) construction allocation procedure~, it necessary that the lo¢~1 governing body request, by re~cl~tion, approval of proposed enhancement pro~eets. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RE~OLVBD, that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County requests the OTB to e~tabli~h a project for the improvement cf the acce~ road to Hsnricus in Chesterfield County. AND~ ~B IT FURTHER RESOLVED~ that the Beard hereby agree~ to pay 20 p~rcent ~f the t~tal estlm~ted cost of $122,000 for plannin~ d~si~n~ right of way~ and construction for the ~enricu~ Access Roa~ improvement project, and that, if the Board ~uh~e~uently elects to cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agre~ to r~imbur~e th~ Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the Department i~ ~otified of s~ch Cancellation. Vote: Unanimous Om ~otion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. McBale, the Board adopted the following resolution: WBEREA$, in accordance w~th Commonwealth Transportation Board (OTB) construction allocation procedures, it is necesmary that ~he local governing bod~ request, by resolution, approval of proposed enhancement project~. ~stabli~h a project to provide bike lane~ on ~moketru~ Drivu. AND, BE IT FURTM~R R~OLV~D, that the ~o~rd h~reby agrees =o pay 20 percent of the total estimated cost of $70~000 for planning, design, right of way, and construction of the Smeketree Bike Lane project, and that, if the Beard subsequently elects to cancel this project, the County of Chesterfield hereby agrees to reimburse the Virqinia Department of Transportation for th~ total amount of the costs e~Dended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of s~ch Cancellation. On ~otion of Er. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, in accordance wigh Commonwealth Transportation Board (OTB} construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that the local governing body request, by 93-414 ~/23/93 resolution, approval of p~oposed enhancement projects. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervlsor~ of Chemt~rfiel~ County requests the CTB to establish a prcjecf to provide pha~e one of landscaping Route l0 from the Courthouse Complex to Chester Road. AND, BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED, that the Board hereby agrees to pay 20 percemt of the total estimated cost of $80,000 for planning, design, right of way, and constru¢kion of phase one of the Route 10 Landscaping p~eje~t f~en the Courthouse Complex to Chester Road, and that, if ~he Dear~ subseguently elects to cancel thi~ prepect, the Ceunty of Chesterfield hereby agrees to reimburse the virginia Department of Transportation for thc total amount Of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation, Vot~: Unanimous 9, REPORTS Mr. Ramsay presented the Beard with ~ report on the developer water and sewer contracts executed ~y 9_he County Administrator. Mr. Ramsay presented the Board with a statu~ report O~ ~h~ General Fund 5alano~; R~serve fur Futur~ Capital Projects; Di~t~iot Road and Street Light Fund~; Lemse Purchases; and School Board Agenda. ~r. Ramsay stated th~ Virginia Department of Transportation has (orally notified the County of the acceptance of the following re=ds info the State Secondary System: ADDITIONS LEN~TR SALISBURY-HAVERFORD - (Effective 6-10-93) Route 380S (Helmsley Court) - From Route 1037 to O.OB mile Southeast Route 1037 0.OS Mi SUNRISE VALLEY, SECTION B - (Effective 6-11-93) 0.11 mile Southeast Route 2522 0.11 Mi Route 3918 (Alders~ead Place) - From Route 2§~1 to 0.06 mile Southwest Routs 2521 0.06 Mi 10,~, EXECUTIVE ~ESBION ~URSU~NT TO ~ECTION ~-~-~44(~)($), ~OD~ OF VIRGINIA, ~950, .~_~ENDED. FOR DI~OU~SlON OF USE O~ REa~ ~RO~RTY ~OE PUDLIC PURPOSE RELATIN~ TO THE CODE O~ V~R~INIA, ~9~0, AB A~ENDED, FOB CONSULTATION ~ITR LEGAL COUNSBL REG~RDTN~ ~O~-~T~ V. WOODL~KE, ET. AL. On motion of Er. ~=Hale, seconded by /~r. colbert, the Beard went into an ~×ecutlve Session pursuant to Section (3), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for discussion cf ~$e of real property for public pnypo~e relating to th~ use of the Northern Area LandfAll Site and pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (7), Code of virginia, I950, as amended, for consultation wl%/~ legal counsel regarding County v. Woodlake, et. al. Vote: Unanimous (It ie noted due to time constraints, the Board would continue the Executive Session~ at the end of the evening agenda.) DINNER MEETING WITN MEMBERS OF MENRICUS FOUNDATION On motion of Mr. MoHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the ~oard recessed to the Administration Building, Room 502, for a dinner meeting with me,berm of ~he Menricus Foundation. Vote: Unanimous Members of the Henrlcus Feunda~ion met with t~e ~oa~ of himtory of their accomplishments; revlswe4 the mission and objectives of the Historic Research Committee; reviewed th~ "first" event~ that occurred within er about tho citie of Henricum; reviewed comt emtimate$ to recon=truct the citie of Henrieus and the visitor's center; and highlighted their vimion for the future. Reconvenlng: Mr. Warren introduced Dr. Glen Boban~o~, Pa~or of central Baptist Church, who gave the invocation. AMERIC~ ~r. ~aramer led the ~ledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United State~ of America. 2., COUNTY ADKINISTP~TOR~S COMMENTS Mr. F~am~ey introduced ~n. Do~a Reynol4s, President Of League of Women Voters of the Richmond metropolitan area. Ms. Reynolds in=reduced Ms. Carolyn Pswers~ Natural Resources Chair, and stated the League Of Wom~n Votera ci~izen~ to play am active rolo in government and in cooperation with a national alliance of non-profit group~, including the U.S. ~PA~ USDA E×ten~ion ~ervioe~ A~erican Waterworks Associations, the American Groundwater Trumt, and the National Geogr~Dhio~ Society, a~ well as other groups, supported the Blue Thumb Safe Drinking ~ator ~romotional Campaign. She recognized the county's Utilities Department and swift Creek Water Treatment ~lant, and ~tated th~ County is one of only two localities in the State who sponsor activities honoring National ~rinking Water week. She then presented a certificate of recognition, on behalf of the League of Women Voters, to Mr. David Welchonm, Director of the County's Utilitiem Department, and Mr. Herbert Evans, Swift Creek Water Treatment Plant Manager, for their efforts in honoring National Drinking Water Week. ~resente~ him with a CerSiSicate cf Appreoiation, on behalf District. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Moh~ for his service to the County. recognition of his service on th~ Industrial Develo~e~t Authority. ~ir. ~tith stated the ~idlothian Rotary Club, since its formation, hag aontribute~ Over $2~0,000 to area charities and introduced Dr. James Kelly, in-co~ing President of the Kidlothia~ Eotary club, and ~r. Sradford Eammer, a member of the Midlothian Rotary Club, to accept the resolution. On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~RF=AS, the ~idlothian Rotary Club was chartered in 1983 wlth 35 members and ~s a service organlzat~cn of businees and professional indi~iduals united with other rotary club~ worldwide to conduct humanitarian projects and oncourag~ high ethical standards in all vocation~ and toward world understanding and peace; and WHEREAS~ the Midlo~ian Rotary Club currently ha~ ~E~S~ in that commitment, ~ince it~ formation, the ~idlothlan Rotary Club has contributed over $2~0,0~O to area charities, many of them in Chesterfield County~ and ~E~AS, among these Chesterfield charitie~ a~e the ~EREAS, the Midlothiun Rotary Ci~ also raises money for Polio ~lus, a Drogram designed to eradicate polio in the wo~ld by th% yea~ 2005, which is Rotary International's one hundredth year of ~e~c~ to ma~nd; and ~EREAS, these funds and resources are raised through Zwo major events: the Magnificent Midlothian Foo~ ~estival a~ the Annual Midlothlan Car Ruffle. NOW, ~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that %h8 ohasterfield County Doard of Supervisors does hereby co,end and congratulate the Midlo~ian Rotary Club, its officers and of time and resources. 93-417 6/23/93 AND, FURTHER BE IT RESOLVEDt that a copy of this resolution be filed with tke papers of this Soard cf Supervisors. Vote: Unanimous ~r. Barber protested tho ~cut~d re~olution to Dr. K~lly and e~ressed appreciation ts the Rotary Club for their hard work and ccntriDution$ to tke community, Dr. Kelly expressed appreciation to ~ks Board for the county's recognition and support and to Mr. Hammer and Mr. Stith for their support of the Rotary Club. R-8~ ;%ND A ~ONtNG DISTRICTS ~D TO THE PROTECTION OF IDE~U~IFIED VISUAL RESOUR~E~ 15,B. A GOSq~TY-WIDE ORDI~/LNOE TO A~END THE OODE OF THE COUNTY OF ~BESTBRFIBLD, 2975, A~ A~E~DBD, BY l~.&-29, AND 18.~-~$ RELATING ~XNERALLY TO ~HE CHEST~P3I~LD. 197~. ~$ ~D~D. BY AKA24DIN~ AND REENACTING SEGTIO~ 20-43 AND BY ADDING 8EOTION 20-63,1 AL~D~OR WASTEWATER ~YSTEMS IN C~RTBiN AREAS IDENTIFIED Mr. Jacobean stated the purpose and objective of the Southern and Western Area Plan is to develop a Plan to guide development in the principally undeveloped portions of the County which ¢ompri=e approxinately 3~ percent of the land araa of Chesterfield Co~ty. He further stated the Plan will guide development witkin t_his area and acco~odate the proj~oted population for the next 20-3~ years. He reviewed the following obj~ctive~ that form th~ basin for tho ~lan: maintaining mignificant aesthetic features unique to the Eouthern and w~torn aroa; establishing a framework to provide an orderly! efficient development pattern instead of allowing scattered gro%~h to happen in a leapfrog manner; promoting balanced development so that necessary jobs and ~ervices are provided for the expanding population; and ensuring a choice of residential environments and housing typss to meet %he changing needs o~ current and future residents. He then introduced ~s. susan ~eGarry, Principal Planner of the County's Plannin~ Department. Ms. ~cGarry ~tatod tho ~outhorn and w~stsr~ Area Plan update prao~ generated several important~ inter-related product~ including a land u~o plan, devolop~e~t recommendations that g~ide i~ approach, and a oonaistent publio faoilitie~ plan, She then pre~ontad a brief overview of the Plan including the land use plan; the development approach; and the public facilitie~ plan. ~r- Sa¢ob~cn ~hen reviewed the proposed ordinancm amendments including change~ to the Zoning Ordinance for setback recuiremente, visual resources protection, and the R-88 district bonus option.' He then rev£~w~d changes bo the Utilitie~ Coda for mandatory connections.. There was brief dimcussion relative to mandatory water connections in the tan-colored area ~ui~ed to R-SS zoning of the yellow area designated for residential densities of 1.01 to 2.5 unite per asre. including changes to the Subdivision Ordinance for minimu~ width for exempt lots, preservation of natural features~ and mandatory utilitiem connection- Discussion, comments, and questions ensued relative to the roadstripping issue; the currant road frontage requirement being 200 feet per lot; the resulting rcadstripplng pattern along major arterial roads and the number of individual requirement road frontage be increased to 600 feet; and the shared driveways. recommend adoption of the Southern and Neetern Plan and, in addition, the Planning Commission recommends the subdivimion rule for roadetrip lot~ ho modlflod to allow ~0 feet Of ro~d frontage er 250 feet of road frontage with a shared driveway. property which has bean subdivided; property owners paying cash proffers; the maximum number of housing units which number of potential roadstrip lots; the proposed changes to the zoning Ordinance for setback requirements; residential road frontage ra~uire~ent~ variations to the R-SS district zoninq for preservation of scenic rescurses$ the Planninq Commission having the ability to offer relief from the role of the utilities Plan in recommending public water and Mr. George Beadles expressed support for requlrin~ the use of public sewer; that he is in favor of requiring conditional order to build a home, the homeowner should be required to to change~ b~ing drafted to th~ Plan jugt prior to the publi~ hearln~; and stated he felt further consideration of the Plan Mr. Jerry Jewett inquired as to whether any of the public meetings regardin~ the Plan h~ve been held in the county im not consistent with current market demands and expressed concerns relative to the proposed rural conservation area; that the Plan was vital to planning for th~ Richmond metropolitan area; and stated that he felt the Plan should be deferred to allow sufficient :Ama for the public to understand the ~lan, developing the Plan and stated there were public meetings regarding ~he ~1~ held ~hro~ghout thc county. Mr. Shields Jett stated he is a ~eal estate practitioner, is Plan's impact on property values. Ms. Carolyn Powers, President of the Chesterfield Regional Envlrs~ontal League and traine~ fo~ the Isaac Walton League "Save Our Stream~" Program, stated ~he f~lt the issue of water quality should be addressed; that natural resources should be protected; and referenced various environmental nsasure~. She stated she also felt pollution prevent{on measures should be addressed; that recycling system needs should be supported; and that commercial enterprises meed to be carefully monitored when approved. Mr. ~sr~er excused himself from the Mr. Price Wood expressed concerns relative to further restricting lund being subdivided along roadways; Plan to the County; and th~ method in which th~ affected landowners were notified of the proposed Plan; and requested the County send written notification to each affected sitizen. Mr. Barber returned to the meeting. Ms. Edna M- Bass stated ~he owns land in Mateaca ~istrict and the western area of the County and questioned the impact of the new public water and sewer requirements if she sold her property. ~r. Walter ~eterend stated he and his wife are life-long residents of the County; that they own several parcels of res1 estate in the western area; and that he felt the ~!an ~ill have a negative impact on their p~eperty by decreasing the value o~ their real estate without compensation. He expressed eonoern~ relative to property owners being required to provide a forest in e rural farm setting and read into the record an article (dated 1992) f~om the Virginia Fa~ Bureau which cites a case involving a sou~h carolina landowner affected by u regulation restricting development of the the curr~nt minimum lot size requirements and submitted into the record a copy of the article referenced. questioned the impact of leapfrog development and the need for increased road fronta~ for remidential lots; an~ stated he is opposed to the Plan. Plan; that nuffieient public information about the Plan evoidXng leapfrog development, and protecting the enviror~ent and noted the Plan t~kes into consideration tho protection of its natural ro~ouroe~, specifically, Lake Cheedin. Mr. Lsd Hudgins stated he resides in ~mtoaca District and co--ended staff on their efforts in developing the to landowner~ not being properly notified about the public deferred for six months ts allow the public the opDor=unity County's magint~rial Mr. Bob Boyer ~tated h~ felt the Plan penalizes landowners in the rural conservation area by denying them the opportunity to develop their property to its hiqhe~t and ~e~t uso and, therefore, he is opposed to the proposed ~lan. Mr. Jim W£lllngham stated he served as a member of the Citizens Advisory Co~i~%ee amd clarified that thc first publlc meeting on the Southern and,Western Area Plan was held i~ August, 1989 where citizens were invited to participate on the co~ittees. Ee further stated the development of the Plan has been ongoing for the pamt thr~ years; that he felt citizens have bean adequately notified; tha~ hs supports Plan; and inquired as to future planned lend uses in the rural conservation area after the 20-30 year planning period. There was brief dissuasion relative to the Plan being vital to future decisions on zoning issues; the impact of the Plan o~ cn~ent and future taxpayers; and the need to review the impacts of the Plan every five years. ~-r. Bill Hundley stated his family has owned land in the southern part of the County for the pa~t 60-70 years indicated he did not f--1 it is fair for the County to decide what the land could be used for; and that he is opposed to the Plan and to dividing the County in~o urban versus rural Mr. Tyler Hudgins ~tated h~ is a resident of the County and submitted into =he record a petition of 17 signatmres in opposition to the Plan. ~e inquired as to review of th~ Plan in future years and the impact of the Plan on future zoning r~qu~ts. Mr. Warren clarified the Plan would oon~inue to be reviewed ~n tho future and ~npmt would be received through the public hearing process. There was brief discussion relative to the impact the southern a~d Wester~ Area Plan would have on the zoning process. Mr. ~udgin~ ~hen expressed concerns relative to thrill development; that ho did not feel conventional methods of no,trice%ion were adequate in notifying citizens an~ that he i~ opposed to the Plan as he fe=l~ the Plan inhibit~ growth an~ prohibits landowners from using their property as they so desire. Th~r~ was brief discussion relative to the petition submitted by Mr. Hudgins. elderly property owners and ex-pressed concerns relative to its negative impact on property value~ and proposed increase in lot width r~quirement~. ~ stated he is opposed to Plan and re~uested the Board to ma~l notices to tho~e property owners, eS 10 acres or more, advising them of the requirement for 300 ~eet of road frentaqe in agricultmral districts. Mr. ~cctt Cam~ stated hs represents a local development company; that the company is in the prooes~ of acquiring land in the southern and western area on Lake chesdin and requested the Board to exclude that portion of property from the Plan in consideration of apprsximately 400-700 acres to be donated to the County for a special purpose park, to include an l~-hcle public gol£ course, equestrian center, nabur~ trail~, and gre~nwny~. K~ furth%r stated the development esm~any was planning initial, limited development of ~arge lots along Lake Chesdin leaving the balance of the property until public utilities warrant development and, if the Plan is approved, he felt that property taxe~ in thi~ 93-421 6/23/93 a~ea shemld be adjusted down 50-70 ps,cent to ~eflect the decreas~ in property values in the area over the past two years. There being no one ~l~e to addres~ fhi~ issue, the ~ublic hearing was closed. It was generally agreed to recess for five minutes. Mr. Colbert ntate~ he r60sntly met with representatives of the timber industry and the Virginia D~partment of Forestry and referenced Page 18 of the Southern and Western Area Plan and read into the record a proposal to amend tho wording as follows: "Emect~age forestry nanaqe~ent by working with the virginia oopartment of Forestry to allow ongoing timber operations and protect visual as well as environmental resources." He fur:her stated he was not completely satisfied with the current req~irement for five acre lots in the agricultural district ox the proposed ~0O foot lot width ~eqairement, but at this point in time, he felt the Plan was workable and would be reviewed in future years and, ~res~nted with the amended wording on Page 18 and with the oDtio~ to review the Plan in two years. Mr. Colbert then made a motion, s~conded by ~. Warren, for the Beard to adopt am amendment to the Plan for Chesterfield, County-wide ordinance to amend the Code ef the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amend~d~ by amending and reenacting Sections 21-77.20~ 21-146~ 21.1-49 and 21.1-129 and ~y adding ~ection ~1-1-212.1 relating generally to development regulations in R-S8 ~nd A zoning distriotm a~d to the protection of id~ntlfled visual resources; to adopt a County- wide ordinanne, with changes to the road frontaqe requlrement~ a~ r~comm~nd~d by the Planning Commission, to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, a~ amended, by amending and reenacting sections 18.1-2, 18.1-27, 18.1-29, and 18.1-55 relating generally to the regulation of subdivisions; to adop~ an ordinance to amend the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1976, as amended, by amending and reenacting Section 20-43 and by adding ~ect~en 20-63.1 relatinq to mandatory connection to County water and/or wastewater systems in certain areas ~dentifie~ by ~lan in two years. ~r. Daniel expressed concerns relative to the lack of public wa=er/sewer in subdivisions and stat=d he felt public water should be required for health, safety, and welfare reasons. He further stated he felt the policy on septic systems, established in i~8~ needs further review; that there ie a need for road stripping impacts to be identified; and consideration should b~ given tn the Plan being modified to allow for limited road stripping for pernonal us~ without allowing ~he creation of subdivisions along major thoroughfares. ~e indicated he is in favor of the ~00 foot minimum road frontage re~uiremmnt. He al~o e~resse~ the need to prevent the creation of flag parcel= and about avoiding the cash Proffer Policy; indicated infill develol~ment will be a beneficial part of felt a policy on orderly a~d ~ality gro~h should be established with this ~lan; and that he is ~he forestry amendment and for the Plan being reviewed and 93-422 updated in future years. paying for itself, but is sympathetic to the concern~ and fears e×pres~ed by landowners ~hat their property values may decrease. He expressed concerns relative to the avoidance of infrastructure. He stated he support~ the Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. ~. Barber stated he felt the Plan is pro-active and offers valuable use of property to it~ owners. ~e fu~the~ stated he felt adequate notification of the Plan ha~ b~en provided to citizens and is in agreement with the Plan being reviewed. ~e expressed concern~ relative to the request to decrease property taxes. Be then s~atod he supports tho Plan as preseated an~ also feels the Land Use Tax Policy should be reviewed. Mr. Warren expressed appreciation for inmat into development of the Southern and Western Area Plan and indicated he i~ in agreement with the idea expressed a~out involving surrounding juris~iotion~ in d~clslons establishing land use plans for th~ County. Mr. Warren than called for the Vote on the ~otio~ ~ade by Colbe=~, SeCOnded by Fnf. Warren, for the Board to adopt an amendment to th~ Plun for Chesterfield, known as tl~e Southern end Western Area ~lan ae~ to adopt the £ulluwing ordinanse: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COD= OF TH~ COUNTY OF AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-77.~0, 21-14~, ~1.1-4~ ~ND 21.1-129 AND BY ADDING SECTION 21.1-212.1 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Su~ervisorm of Chesterfield ~ounty; (1) That Chapter 21 of the Code of the County of Chesterfie.ld, 1978, as amended, is amended and reenacted to r~ad am follows: Required conditions. The following conditicn~ shall be met in the R-88 Diut~ict~ (a] Lot area. Each primary structure, together with on a lot having an area of not le~s than eighty-~ight thousand (eS,000) square fset and a width of not less than one hundred fifty (l~0) fe~t, ~xc~pt that wh~re the lot fronts O~ a major arterial ~oad, as shown o~ the county's comprehensive plan, the lot width ~hall be increased to three hundred (3~0) fee~. At the option of =he applicant, the area of ~ny lot not herin9 dire~t ~cces~ onto a major arterial road a~ indicated on the County's COmprehensive plan may be r~duced to not ie~s than ~ixty-f~v~ thousand three hundred forty (65,3~0) square feet; or, if tho lot is served by five hundred si~ty (~3,5&0) square fee%. In order to reduce the lot size in either ease, the total number 0~ 10ts within the platted subdivision shall be calculated us follows: (1) Determine gross site area by actual on-~ite survey. ....... L ] J [ (2) Subtract land that is not contiguous: Any parcel that does not abut, adjoin, or ~hare a common boundary with the rest of the development. Land that ie cut off fram th~ ~a£n parcel by an exist±rig road, railroad, ~xlsting development, or a perennial stream. (3) Subtract land area constituting roads and land within ultimate rights-of-way of existing reads (as defined by the transportation plan]. Subtract any remaining land within the limits of the base flood area az defined by section (5) Subtract land previously used in calculating the density of other adjacent =ubdivision~. Subtract any remaining land within the limit~ of resource protection areas a~ defined by ~his chapter and chapter (7) Equals Base Site Area (8) ~ultip!y base site area by: (9) Equal~ Ba~ Lot~ or residential units pern~tt~d on the ~ite. (10) Bonus provisions. Calculate acreage 5n special credit toward bonu~ density, this land area must m~t the following criteria: calculated above in sections (a] 1-6; and Land area must fully neet the Standards for Classification of Real Estate a~ Devoted to Open-Space Ute Under th~ Virginia Land U~e Assessment Law, as amended, adopted by the Director of the D~partment of Con~r~ation and Histori~ Resources under the authority af Virglnla~ provided! however, that reqardle~ of size, areas otherwise qualifying as real e~tate devoted to open space use are eligible for credit toward th~ bonus density calculation; and (11) (e} Land area mast be subject to a resorded p~rpetual easement he!d by the county devoting such land to epen-~pace Multiply acreage ne~ting the above oriteEia by to get BONUS LOTS (12) Total B~se Lots and Bonus Lots to get TOTA~ LOTS ALLOW~BL~. Sec. 21-145. Rscuired condition~. The following conditions ~hall be met in the A District: (a) Percentage of ]~_.coveraqe. Same a~ ~pecif~ed for R-~ Dis~riet. 93-424 Front yard. Emoh lot shall have a front yard having a depth of not less than one hundred fifty (150) feet. side yard. Same ah specified for R-88 District. Corner ~ide yard. Same as ~pecified for District. {e) ~ar yard. Same as specified for R-88 District. (f) Re~uired lot area. Each primary Structure together with a~ca~sory structures, hereafte~ eree~e~ ehell be lots=ad on a lot having a~ area of not less %has forty-three thoumand five hundre~ ~ix%y (43,560) square feet an~ a width of not less than hundred fifty (1SO} feet. (g) Exemptions. The requirem~n~ of section 21-146 ~al! not a~ply to any lot of record created prior adjoining land. Lotm e~e~pted from section ~1-146 shall comply with the requirements of ~ction ~1-92 except that each lot shall have a Front Yard having That Chapter ~1.1 c~ the Coda of the County of CheSterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended an~ reenacted to read aa follows: Sec. 21.1-49. Re~uired conditionm. · he followlng conditions shall District: be met in the Lot area. Each primary structure, to,ether with its accessory structures, hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than elghty-aight thousand (8~,~00) square feet and width of not less than one hundred fifty feet, except ~hat where the lot fronts on a major arterial road, as shoWn on the county'~ comprehensive plan, the lot width shall be increased to three ~undred (300) feet. At the option of the applicant, the area of any lot baying direct access onto a major arterial road as indicated on the county'~ comprehensive plan may be reduced to not less than sixty-five thousand three hundred forty (65,3A0) square feet; or, if the lot is served by public water ~nd sewer, to not than forty-three thousand fiv~ hundred sixty (43,560) square feat~ In order to reduce the lot ~ize in ~ither case, the total number of lot~ within the plstted subdivision shall b~ calculated us follows: Determine gross si~e area by actual on-site (2) Subtract land that is not contiguous: Any parcel that dce~ not abut, adjoin, or share a co~o~ boundary with the remt Of the development. 93-425 6/23/93 (3) (4) b. Land that is out off from the main parcel by aM e×i~ting road, railroad, ~xi~tlng development, or a perennial stream. Subtract land area constituting road~ and land within ultimate rights of way of existing roads (a~ defined by the trannDortation plan}. Subtract any remaining land within tho 1X~itn of the base flood area as defined by section 21.1-36. (5) Subtract land previously used in ealcul~tlng the density of other adjacent subdivisions, (6) subtract any remaining land within the limits this chapter. (7) Equals Base Site Area (~} ~ltiply base site area by: (~o) Bonus provizions. Calo~late aoreaq~ ~n ~pecial area~ prenerved from development. To qualify for credit toward bonus density, thi~ land area mu~t m~t th~ following criteria: Land area must be exclusive of areas calculated above in ~ection~ (a) 1-~; and Land area must fully ~eet the standards far Clac~i~icatlon of Real E~tate as Devoted to 0pen-space Use Unde~ the virginia Land Uae Acceccment Law, aa amended, adopt=d by the Director of the Department of Conservation and His=eric ~emuurces under th= authority of Section Virginla~ provided, however, that qualifying as real estate devoted to open ~pace u~e are eligible for credit toward the bonus density calculation; and Land area mu~t b~ nubjoet to a ro~ordod perpetual easement held by the oounty d~vot~ng suGh land to open-$pao~ use. ~ultiply acreage ~eeting the above criteria by 1.0 to ~e~ BONUS LOTS Total Base Lots and Bonus Lot~ =o get TOTAL LOTS ALIDWABLE. Sec. 21.1-129. Required condltion~. Tho following conditions shall be met in the A Dis=riot: 9~r~enta~e of lo~ coverage, same as sDeoified · R-88 District. , { Front vard~ Each lot shall have a front yard hevin~ a depth of not la~ than one hundred-fifty (1~0) feet. (c) Side va~d.. Same as apecified for R-S8 District. (d) Corner mlde yard. Same as specified fo~ R-88 Dimtrict. Rmar Yard. Same am specified for R-SS Die,rick. (f) Reouired lot a~ea. ~aoh primary atreetnre together with accemgory ~t~uct~res, hereafter erectmd shall be located on a lot having an area of not less than ferty-th~se thousand five hundred si~ty (43,560) ~quare feet and a width of not lees than one ~und~ud (100) f~et. Exemptions. The requirements of section 21.1-12~ shall not apply to any lot of record created prier adjoining l~nd. Lots exempted fro~ ~aotion 21.1- (100) feet. identified in the ¢oun~y'~ comprehensive plan against encroachment, degradation or destruction to %h~ maxim~ua extent practicable. (3} This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. And, further, for th~ Board to adopt the relieving AND USE OF PUBLIC WATER AND BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of (1} That Sections 18.1-2, 18.1.27~ 18.1-29 and of the Code of ~ha Coun%v e~ Cheste~f.iDld, 197S~ a~ ~m~nded, sec. 18.1-2. Definitions. In the construction of this chapter, the definitio~ contained in this ~ection ~hall b~ observed and applied, except when the context clearly indicetem oth==wiue: Subdivision, The division of any parcel of land for residential use, into two (2) or more lots any one of Which is less than five (~) acres, or which ha~ road frontag~ cf 6~23/9~ less than three hundred {300) feet, or two hundred fifty (2~0) feet if a mhar~d acc~m im um~d, for the purpomer either i~mediate or future, of transfer cf ownerehlp or development for residential use including condominium development. Division of land for the purpose of granting or ~nberdinatin~ e~ otherwise affectin~ Ch~ p~io~ity Of plats of confirmation and related transfarm of interest in ]and not directed at the creation of lots or parcels for sole, shall not be considered as an act of subdivisioe. T~e term eubdlviaion shall not include a single division of ~ male or gift to a member of the immediate family of the property owner. Only one (1) such divisiQn shall be allowed per family member and shall not be for the purpose of ctreuovsntlng this chapter. For the purpose Of this subsection, a me.er of the immediate family shall be defined as any person who is a natural or legally defined o~spring, spouse, grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the owner. wi~h respect to family subdivision all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be met end fha proposed le~ s~al~ conform to t~e design standards set forth in this chapter. Sec. 1~.!-27. Improvements-Required. (c) Connection to the county water mupply system shall be required in th~ fcllowin~ circumstances: (1) In a proposed subdivisien when any lot in the subdivision ha~ an area of l~s ~han one (l) acre; or (~) For any lot or parcel having an area lesm than one (1) aere~ er ($) When an existing wate~ line ia le~ than two hundred (200) feat f~om any D~cpsrty line of the lot for which a building pxrmit is sought; or (4) In a proposed s~bdivision within the following unl~ r=~idential monin~ wu~ obtained for ~uch subdlvi~ion prior to the e££eutive data of this subsection: ~eginning at ~he boundary line between chesterfield County and Powhatan County at its point of intersection with the center line of senite Road; t~ence exten~in~ eastward along the center line of Genito Road to its intersection with Mossley Road; thence extending southward along the center lin~ of Momeley Road to its point of i~tersectio~ w~th the boundary of Tax Map 44~ ti~enoe extending southward along the uppermost reaches of the Upper Swift Creek watershed to its point ef in~er~ection with ekinquarter Road; thence e~temding southward along the center line eklnquarter Road to its point of in~er~ectien with Mull Street Road; thence extending eastward along the center llme of ~ull Street Road to itm paint of intersection with Baldwin Creek Read; thence extending southward along the center llmm of Baldwin Creek Road to its point of intersection with Meach Read; thence extending eamtward along the center line of Meaeh Road to its intersection with Hen~]ey Road; thence extending northea~twar~ along the center line of Hensley Road to its intersection with Spring Run Road; thence extending westward along the center line of $sring Run Road to its intersection with Bailey Bridge Road; thence extending northeastward 93--428 6/23/93 along the center llne of Bailey Bridge Road to the point where it crosses Swift Creek~ thence extending southeastward along the center linc of Swift Creek as it mcander~ to it~ point of intersection with Piney Branch Creek; thence extending northeastward following the center line of said stream into Lake Dale; thence ex, ending northeastward along the ee~ter of Lake Dole and continuing eastward along Piney Branch Creek as it meanders %c its point of beginning; thence extending due eastward to its point of intersection with Branders Bridge Read; thence extending southeastward along the center line of Branders Bridge Road to its point of along the center line of ~appy Hill Road to its point Of intersection with Baldwin Road; t~ence extending eastward along the c~nter line of Baldwin Road to it ~oint o~ intersection with the western boundary line of Parcel 9, Tax Map 133-5; thence extending around and including said Parcel 9 to its point of intersection with the western boundary Of the Atlantic Co=st Line Railroad right-of-way continuing to its point of inter~eetion with the easternmost corner of Lot thence extending northeastward across said railroad right-oS-way, continuing northeast%~ard along the southeastern boundary of Parcel 4, Tax Map 133-10 to its point of inter,action with Lot B, Block ~, ~id-city Farms Subdivision, TaX ~ap 133-11; thence extending southeastward along said lot boundary to its southc~mo~ corner; thence extending northeastward along said parcel to its point of inter~ction with the eente~ line of Jefferson Davis Highway; thence extending northward along the center l~ne of 3~f£er~on Davis ~ighway %e i~s ~cin% of intersection with Old Bermuda ~undred Road; thence extending eastward along the center line of 01d Bermuda Hundred Road to its point of intersection with U.S. Inter,tare 9~; then~ ¢~cn~ing uou~hward along the center line of u.S. Interstate 95 to its point of intersection with the boundary line of the City of Colonial Heigh~$~ thence e~tending along the boundary line between Chesterfield County and the City of Uolonial ~eights as it meanders westward and southward =o its point of intersection with Old Town Creek; thence e~ending southwestward along the center of old Town Creek a's it meanders to its point of inter~ecticn with the southwestern property lin~ of ~ot 34, william E. Gill Ietatea Subdivision, Tax Map 181-11; thence extending southeastward along th~ w~tern boundary cf the William E. Gill Subdivision as shown in Plat Book 4, pages 86 and 87~ to it~ point of intersection with River Road; thence extending eastward along the center line of River Road to its point of inter~ectio~ with the virginia Power company rig~t-ef~way; thence extending southward along the Virginia Power Company right-of-way to its paint of intersection with the boundary between Chesterfield County and the City o~ Petersburg; thence exten~in~ westward along the boundary between Chesterfield County and th~ City of Petersburg to its point of intersection with the boundary between Chesterfield County and Dinwiddie County; thence extending westward along the boundary between Chesterfield County and Dinwiddie County as it ~eander~ to itc point of intersection with the boundary between Chesterfield County and A~elie County: thence extending northwestward along thc boundary Ds%ween Chesterfield County and Amelia County as it meander~ tO it~ intersection with the boundary between Chesterfield County and Powhatan County; thence extending northeastward along the boundary between Che~terfleld County and Powhatan county to its point of intersection wi~h the center llne of Genito Road, the ~oint of beginning. (All parcel boundaries d~scrib~d h~rein are those appearing on the County Tax Assessor's Maps as Of ~ay 1t, 1992.) o o e 93-429 6/~3/93 (e) Except where connection to the County water supply ~ysten is otherwise required by law, including tbs regulrements of subsection c above, individual wells may be used to provide water for domestic consumption provided that: (1} Ne lot which is proposed to be ~erved by ~ well shall have an area of less than one (1) acre; and (2) In a subdivision where lots are proposed to be served by individual wells, all lots shall have an area (3) ~here lots are propomed to be served by individual wells, a hydrologic study shall be ¢onducte~ which provide~ a scientific determination that there i~ an adequat~ quality and quanti=y Of potable water in the underlying aquifer under both "normal" and "drought" ccndition~ for th~ acre under consideration; and (4) Prior to issuance of a building psrmit, a well shall be installed, tested and approved cn each lot. Med. 18.1-29. Preservation of natural features and amenities. Existing natural features which would add value to watercourses, hi~tori~ ~ite~ and ~imila~ amenitie~ and ass~s, ~ncluding inventurlmd visual r~source~ ado~tad part of the county's compr~ensive plan, shall be protected whe~ever p~aotioable in t~a design of t~e subdivision. Sec. 18.1-~5. Size of lots served by conventional ~eotic systems. [a) In any ~ubdivi~ion utilizing ~onvantional ~ptic ~yst~s the average lot ~ze ~hall be no le~ than forty of all lot~ in the ~u~ivi~ion shall b~ at lea~t forty tho~an~ (40,000) squ~re feet in size, an~ no lot shall be less than thirty thousand (30,000) square feet in mile. addition, all lots in the subdivi=ion ~h~ll have a minimum 10~ width of one ~und~ed twenty {120) feet measured at for which residential zoning i~ obtained after Feb~ary 23, 1989; provided, howgv~r, ~at ~is subsection ~hall apDly 1991. Western Plan a~ea, a~ defined in section 18.1-27(c)(4}, for of this subsection may utilize conventional uaptlc unless ~11 lot~ in ~uch ~ubdivision are at leas= one {1) acre i~ size a~d located in these areas deuignat=d in the county's oompr~ensive Dian for single ~amity residential use in lowest density category. (Araus colored tan on The Sou~ern and Western ~ea Land Use Plan.) ~d, f~the~, for the Buard to a~oD~ %he fullowin~ ordinanc=: ~3-430 6/23/93 . I AN ORDINANCE TO MEND THE CODE OF mE COUNTY OF CMBSTERFIELD, 197~, AS AMENDED, B.¥ REENACTING SECTION 20-43 ~ BY ADDING ~CTION ~0-63.1 R~TING G~N~L~ TO ~DATOR~ CQ~ECTION TO TH~ ~UBL~C ~AT~ ~D WAST~ATER IN CER~AIE ~EAS OF THE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 20-4~ of the Code of the County of Chesterfleld~ 197s~ aa amended, i~ amended and reenacted to read as follows: ~eo. 20-4~. Kandato~v water connections in certain areas. (a) For ~e 9urposes of this section only, the mandatory connection aria shall be described a~ follows: All struutures l~cated in th~ folloNing area of the cowry shall connect to the county water system: Begi~ing at the southern corner of the County Che=~mr Landfill at its point of inter~ection with Bradley's Bridge Road; thence we=twardly to th~ corner of ~aid landfill~ thonc~ northwardly along the western property line of said landfill to the ~ur~hwest corner of said landfill; thence eastwardly alonq the p~op~ty linu of ~aid landfill to it~ iDter~ction wi~ th~ fifty-~oot right- of-way; thence northwardly along said right-of-way ~o its inter~u~ion with Carver Heights Drive (Rte. 708); eastwardly along Carver Heights Drive to its intersection subdivision; thence northwardly along said subdivision ~ro~rty llne to its intersection w~th Iron ~ridge Road; thence eamtwardly along the southern right-of-way of Iron Bridge Road %0 its intersection with the eastern property line of Tax ~p 114-16, Parcel 4; thence southwardly the said eastern boundary to the southeastern corn~r cf ~e same property; thence westwardly along the souther~ property line of said Drcperty to its interssctlon with the w~tern property line of Tax Map 114-16, Parcel 1; th~nu~ ~o~wardly point of intersection with W. 5undred Road; thence eastwardly along ~he southern right-of-way of W. ~undred Road to its point of intersection with the northsast corner of Tax 114-16, Parcel 7; thenoe in a ~outhea~t d~rectio~ along the boundar~ of Tax ~ap ~14-~6, ~arcel 7, to i~s terminus at the sou~east corner of ~aid p~operty; then continuing proper~y lln~ of Tax ~ap 131-4, Parcel MS, to its point t~rmin~ at the southeast boundary of Tax Map 131-4, Parcel MB; ~mnce w~stwardly along th~ southern property llne of Tax Map 131-4, Parcel 58, to its intersection with Brander= ~ridg~ Road; thenc~ southwardly along =he eastern Tight-of- way of B~and~s B~idge Road to its point of inter=ection with VEPCQ r~h=-of-~ay, R~ ~how~ O~ Tax Maps 13I-4~ 131-8; thence so~thwardly along ~ western line of said right-of-way to its intersection with the southeast corner of Tax Map 131-8, of said parcel to it~ terminu~ at the ~a~tern property line of Tax Map 151~7(1), ~mrcel 21; ~ence nor~wardly along said ~tern line to i~ point of intersection with Bradley'~ Bridge Road; thence westwardly along the southern right-of- way of sradlGy's Bridge Road to itB point of intersection the ~cint of beginning. (b) All existing ~%ru¢%~res i~ the maadatory ¢onneetlon area, as defined by subaecticn (c) herein, which obtain their wa%er supply from wells, whether in actual use or not, ahall connect to the public water system within ninety (9~) days of the effective date of this section (December 10, 1986). (c) All structures under construction or for which a building permit is obtained after Move~Joer 12, 1~$0, shall connect to the county water system. (d) All structures which are lscatmd in the Southern and Western Plan area described in section 18.1-27(c} (4) and for which zoning approval is qranted after the effective data cf this subsection shall connect to the county water system; provided, however, that such connection shall not be required for the following structures unless connection tc the county water system is othe~ise required by law: (1) mobil= (2) structures authorized ~y existing conditional uses or special ~xcepticns which are renewed after the effective date of thim subsection, (3] s~ruu%ures authorized by conditlunal u~ or ~p~cial exception~ granted after th~ effe~tiv~ date of thio subsection when ~he uee permitted by such conditional USe O~ special exOeptio~ i~ incidental to a p~inciple previously allowed with a private wnll, (4) govnrnmentaI and institutional building~ and {5) residence~ constructed on lots ~hat are exempt from the requirements of Chapter The ter~s "~truoture" and "institutional building" shall have the meanings ascribed to them in section 21.1-281. (e) Relief from the mandatory connection requirement in subsection (d) above may be granted by the planning commission through schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review if it determines that (i) the use of a private well Will not adversely affect the ability to extend public water tc other area properties, (2) the use cf private well will not encourage future a~ea development that is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and ~e of a private well is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, eafety or welfare in the future. In grunting such relief, the planning commission may impose conditiens to mikiqa=e ~he impacts of the exception. (2) That Section 20-63.1 is enacted and added to the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 197~, as amended, to read a~ follOWS: sec. ~0-63.1. Mandatory wastewater connection in certain (u) All ~tructures which ere located in the Southern and Western ~lan are~ described in section 18.1-27(c) (4} and for which zoning approval is granted after the effective date e~ this subseution shall connect to the county waetewater system; provided, however, that such connection shall not be required for the following structures unless connection to the county wa=tewat~r symtem ~ otherwise required by law: (1) single family dwellings on lots which are at least one (1) acre in size and located in =hose areas designated in the county's comprehensive plan for single family residential use in the low~$t density category. (A~eae colored :an on Toe Southern and Western Area Laud Use Plan.] (2) mobile ($) structures authorized by existing conditional uses or special exceptions which are renewed after th= effective data of thi~ ~ubmeotion, (4) structures authorized by conditional uses or SpeCial ~2<eeptfon~ qranted after the effective date of this ~ubscuticn when the use permitted by such conditional usa or special exception ia incidental tn a principle previously allowed with a septic system, (5) governmental and institutional bu±ldinge and I6) ~e~idences ¢unstruoted on lots that ere exempt from the requirements of Chapter la.1. 93-432 The terms "structure", "single family dwelling", and "institutional building"~ ~hall hav~ the meaning~ ascribed to them in section 21.1-2Sl. (h) Relief from the mandatory connection requirement in subsection (a) above may be granted by the planning commission through schematic plan~ site plan or tentative subdivision review if it d~ter~Xnes that [1} the use of a septic system will not adversely affect the ability to extend public s~w~r to other area propertiesr (2) the uss of a septic system will not encourage future area development that is inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan and (3) use of a septic system ia not reasonably likely to adversely a£~ect the public health, ~afety or welfare in the In q~anting ~eh ~elief, the Commission may impo~e conditions to mlt~at~ the impacts of the exception. Vote: Unanimous (It is noted a copy o~ t_he Southern and Western Area Plan is filed with the paper~ of thi~ Board.) PUBLID HEARINGS T~ CONS~DE~ THE JEFFERSON DA¥IS..~gRRIDOR PLAN, AN CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS ;~HENDED, RY ;~MBN~ZNG AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. PRIK~RI~Y ~I~HIN THE 2~E~ OF TH~ ~s. ~arbar~ Chasblls~, Principal Planner of the Plannin~ Department, stated the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan seeks make better use of ~he economic reso~ro~ e~courage a pleasant, highly livable and workable environment for its residents amd th~ proposed Plan re£1ec~s the values and vision of th~ community. She reviewed the goals of the Plan inoloding making the JefZerson Davis Corridor a better place to live and work by balancing economic development with the needs of people for a sense of place, attractiveness, and comfort; revitalizing th~ $~fferson Davis Corridor by strengthening residential neighborhoods; promoting economic development of the Corridor, ~hus promoting the availability of work places offering job opportunities. She further stated the Land Use Plan the Jefferson Davis Corridor area and reviewed recommended uses of tAe Land Use Plan; housing and neighborhood revitalization strategy far the Jefferson Davis Corridor area; and i~proving the overall economic and environment of the J~fferson Davis Corridor area. She e~pre~sd appreciation, on behalf of gtaff, for the efforts given by the Jefferson Davis Association and the Ben~ley Civic Association in developing th~ prep0ssd ?tan. She then introduced Mr. William Pools, chief of Development Review for the Planning Department. ~r. Peele stated the propo~d ordinance amendments ~hat are outlined in conjunction with the Plan are designed to support th~ goal~ of th~ Plan in preserving and protecting existing sound residential neighborhoods and revitalizing and encouraging commercial and industrial ~evelopment in the amendments ef the ?lan including reducing =he number of parkin~ ~paces required for new developments; reducing and 9~-455 6/23/93 minimizing landscaping requirements; reducing development setbacks for building and parking spaces; and reducing buffer widths and ~tated staff felt the ordinanc~ amendments would encourage investment in the Corridor. He further stated the Planning Co--lesion held a public hearing on the Plan in which community input was positive and the commission unanimously recsmmen~e~ approval of the Plan and ordinance Ms. Sandy Fox, President of the Bensley Civic Association (BCA) an4 a member s£ the Jefferson Davis Association, stated the Plan will maintain and improve the quality of life for eYeryone in the Corridor and applies to common goals of residents, businesses, and County staff. Sh~ f%t~ther stated the BCA and businesses support the Plan and requested the Board to approv~ the propos=d Plan and ordinance a~end~e~ts. She expressed appreciation to staff for their efforts in developing and coordinating the Plan with the community. ~s. G%~fnn Osborne, representing the bu~ine~e~ of the Jefferson Davis Association, stated the Association has had many meetings to discuss the Plan and are committed to development of the Plan. She expressed appreciation to County staf~ and ~r. ~cHale for their time and efforts in the Plan and stated the Association needs guidance and direction and requested suppor~ ~rom the ~oard for the establishment of a revitalization coordinator position to ensure an ongoing planning process to continue the partnership among gov=rnment, busin~sues, and citizens. She indicated she felt the Plan was in the best interest e£ the entire County. ~r. ~ar~er exouse~ himsel~ ~rom the meeting. Kr. Jim Daniels, representing the Jefferson Davis Association and the Central Chesterfield Business Association, stated the that the cooperation between business and citizens has been Plan an~ ordinance amendments, Mr. Barber returned to the meeting. Mr. Richard ~ill ~tated he ha~ bean a resident of nenstey since 1969 and expressed concerns relative te the enforcement of zoning condltion~ in the area and requested the Board to approving the Plan. ~e indicated he felt the Plan is needed to revitalize the Jefferson Davis Corridor, but the enforcement of zoning ~ond~t~ons ~s also necessary. There being no one else to address ~his issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Mc/Sale stated he felt the proposed Plan is an action Plan and involves neighborhoods and businesses located in the Dorridor area. He further stated the Plan provides a clear vision ~or the area ~om~unity and would allow revitalization of businesses. He etate~ many groups and individuals hays been involved in this process and expressed appreciation to all for their diligent efforts. He stated he supports approval of the ~lan. There was brief discussion relative to the proposed ordinance amendments being reviewed to provide a mecAanism to a~end some development standards, After brief discussion, M_r. McHale then made a motion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, for the Board to adopt the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan, an a/~endment ts the Plan for Chesterfield, and to adopt the fallowing ordinance: 93-434 ~/23/93 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF TKE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 197~_,. AS A~I~D~D BY A~ENDING AND REENA~TI~IG SECTIONS 21-67.41, 21-67.42, WIT}lIN THE AREA O~ ~ J~FF~RSON DAVIS CORRIDOR PLA~ (1) That section~ 21-67.41 and 21-67.42 of the Code of ~he county of chesterfield, as a~emded, are amended and reenacted to read as follows: ARTICL~ III. D~$TEICT$ GenERALLY. Sac- ~1-67.41 Areas of ADDllcabil~ty. The ~ighway Corridor District shall include all lands as specified in S~¢ticn ~1.Z-255.12 of the Code cf the County of ~ee. ~1-67.42. Develon~ent Standards. Refer to the applicable sect~on~ of ChaDte~ 21.1 for all special development standard~ for Highway Corridor Districts. All portions of Chapter 21, ~ncluding uses, that are not specifically ~odified within Highway Corridor Districts, shall remain in full force and effect. 0 0 0 (2) That Seotiens 21.1-219~ 21.1-2~4, 21.1-227, 21.1-~45 and 2£.1-2~3 of the Code of the County of Cb~st~rfield~ a~ amended~ are a~ended and reenacted to read as follows: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. DIVTSION 2. PARKING. 0 e 0 Sec. 21.1-~19. Design ~tandard~ for 0£f-$treet Parklnc. {d) Surface Treatment. (1) ~xcept Sot slngle family ree~dential and farm uses! areas where track mounted e~ipment is stored or displayed, or in I-2 and I-3 Districts, driveways and parking area~ ~hall be paved with concrete, bltuminou~ concrete, er other slmi]ar material. Except in I-2 and I-3 Di~trlct~, ~urface treated parking areas and drives shall be prohibited. ~xcept as detailed in the ~nvlronmental Engineering Department's R~ference Manual, concrete curt and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all ~aved driveways and parking ar~as. Other curbing matsrlal of ~imilar quality, ~uch a~ triok or cobblestone, shall be permitted at the dive,etlon of the Director of Planning Or ~lan~ing Commission through site er schematic plan review. Drainaqe shall b~ designed ~o a~ not to interfere with pedestrian trafZi~. 93-435 6/23/93 o e c (4) Except a~ detailed in the Envizonmental Engineering B~partment'~ Reference Manual~ the perimeter of driveways and parking areas net utilizing concrete curb and gutter shall be delineated by a par~e~t ~eans such as bu~per blecks~ railroad tie~, er timbers (having a minimum end dimension s= six (6) inches by eight (S) inches) ur similar such treatment. D~li~eatinn materials shall be ~asured wi~h a minimum of two (1) re-bars to the ground, pavement, or other o o o o e o 21.1-224. Plant ~aterial specifics%ions. Perimeter LandscaD~nc. o e o (10) Eerimeter Landscaoin~ M. a. At lea~t on~ (1) l~rge deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal feet. DIVISION ~. BUFFERS AND SCREENING. Sec- 21.1-227. General Provisions for Buffers and Screening. (1) Except for buffers required by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of zoning or by the Board of Zcning Appeals, the requirements fcr buffers an~ screening ~ay be waived and/or modified by the Planning Commission during schematic er site plan review and approval under any of the Following conditions: (1) If the strict application of the provisions cf this Division reduces =he usable area ef a let, due to lot configuration or size to a point which would preclude a requirements may be waived or modified provided the sld~ or rear efa building, a barrier, and/er the land between that building and the property line, ha~ b~n ~p~oifi~ally designed to minimize adverse ~mpact through a comb~natlon of (2) Whoro the building, a barrier and/or the land between that building and the property line ha~ been · pe=ifically designed to minimiz~ adver~s impa¢~ ~hrough co~tbination of architectural and landscapinq techniques. (3) Where the adjoining land is designated in the County'= adopted ~ompr~h~n~ive Dlan for ~ use which wuul~ reguire the provision of buffers or screens. (4) Where the adjoining property is used for any publls purpose ether than a school, day care center or hospital. (5) Where adjacent residential ~r agricultural property is used for u compatible use which has been permitted by the Board Of ~o~i~g Appeals as a special exceDtio~ or the Board of ~upervisors as a conditional use. (6] Where the topography is such that the requirements of t~hls Division would not he effective, (71 Between ~ that are to be developed under a co--on development plan. (8) Where adjacent rusidentiul or agricultural property is undevelcDable for residential uses because it i$ a resource protection area. o o ARTICLE 6. DEVELOPMENT STAnDArDS QMFICM~..COM~ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS. ~ec. 21.1-245. Areas of ADDlicabilitv__a~d Exemptions. (a) The standards in thi~ Division ~hatl apply to all development in ~£flce, commercial an~ industrial ~istric~ with the eMceptio~ of those areas outlined in Divisi~ns 3, 4 and 5 of this Article. ~IVIMIoN 3. D~VELOPMENT REOUIREMENTS ~- POST DA~IELOPMENT. Eec. 21.1-253, Yard R~L~/l~ments for Offlse~ Commercial and Industrial Districts. Except where lem~r setbacks are permitted Dy Sections 21.1-25~.1~ cr 21.1-25M.i6, the following yard requi~e~entm shall apply to any zoning lot or parcel: (a) Setbacks alon~ ~a~or arterials. All buildings, drives and parking areas mhall harm a ~iniRum fifty (5~) foot ~etback from the proposed rights of way of major arterials as indicated on the ~eneral Plan, a~ ~mcnded, except that the building setback in an I-2 District shall ba insrea=ed to sixty (60) foet and in an I-] District, to ninety (90) feet. Within these setbacks, landscaping ~hall De provided in accordance with Peri~ete~ Landscaping B. (b) Front and ~orner side yards, Th~ front and corner side yard setback for buildings shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet from public right~ of way other ~han aajor arterials except that in an I-2 Di~trict~ building ~etbacke shall be increased to sixty (60) feet and in an i-3 District ~o ninety (9~) feet. The setback for drives and parking areas shall be a minimum of fifteen (1§) feet from existing or proposed rights of way. Within these ~etbae~s, Landscaping A. (c) Side~ards. The side yard ~tbacks for buildings shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet, except in the I-2 and 93-43? 6/23/93 1-3 Districts side yards shall be increased to thirty (30) fee~, One (%) foot shall be added to each side yard for each one (1) foot that the building height adjacent exceeds ~orty-SiYa (45} feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard setback for buildings shall be thirty [30) feet. One (1) foot shall be added to each rear yard for each one (1) foot that the build- ing height adjacent thereto exceeds fOrty-five (45} feet. (e) yards for caroline pump~. The setbacks gasoline DUmps stall be the same as those far buildings and the setback for drives serving ga~olXD~ pump~ ~hall be the same as those for drives and parking areas, as required in this Section. (3) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, as amended, is amended by adding the following new soctionm: ARTICLE 6. DEVELOPMENT REOUIREMENTS - OFFICE. CO~L~ERCIAL AND INDUSTRIA~ O O O DIVISION 5. DEV=LOP~N~..~E~qIREMENTS-- HIGhWaY CORRTDOR DISTRICT The purpose and intent of thim Division are to recognize unique highway corridors within the county, to maintain and reinforce the character, identity, and vitality of such C~r~ido~s by continuing and enhancing existing patterns of development through the implementation of adopted plans and guidelines and the establishment of a special district mandating particular land use re~ulatlons and ~eYelopment standards and requirements within such corridors. .%~q. 21.1-255,12, A~sas of APPlicabilitY. The Highway Corridor District shall include all lands as specified herein: {a) The Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor, comprised of all that area contained within the adopted Jefferson Davi~ Sec. 21.1-255.13. Geeeral Dsvelopmsnt...$.~D~ards. (a) Exsep~ as specifically noted in the £ollcwin~ sections Containing dniq~e d~velop~ant ~tandards within Highway Corridor Districts, all applicable County-wide, ~merging Growth or Post Development Standard~ ~hall be met. Sec. (a) Parking. Parking requir~mcnt~ in th~ ~ighway Corridor Distriut shall be calculated ba~sd on Section 21.1- 217 or ha~ed on 4.4 ~paces per 1~000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever shall yield the £swer parking spaces. Improved, designated parking spaces in a public right of way ~ay be counted toward the nunbar of parking spaces required herein and by Section 21.1-217, when more than one-half (1/2) Of each such space adjoins the site; s~eh off-site parking spaces shall not be subject to Section 21.1-229 of this chapter, Further, the required number of parking spaces ~ay be reduced by 10% if th~ development oontain~ a sidewalk or other pedestrian walkway system that connects ts existing walkwaym or that may b~ conn~o~ to future walleye. All other re~irement~ of Section Articl~ 4, Division 2 shall apply as described. (b) Landscaping. Within the JefSeraun Davis Highway Corridor, no interior parking lot or p~rimeter landscaping shall be required. Perimeter Lan~ecapln~ ~ sh~ll be inmtalled in all front and corner side setbacks except where Darklng or driveway~ are located at the ultimate right of way line. Tree preservation, in acoor4anoe with Sections 21.1- 224 (d} and 21.1-227 Ih) shall be required. (c) Buffer width mat~.iw.. The ragu±red width of buffer~ shall be determined from the following matrix. The left column of the matrix represents the zoning of the lot on which the buffer must be provided, ~he top column of the matrix represents the zoning of property contiguous to the zoning lot. The numbers in ~he matrix rsprmssnt the width in feet of the required buffer: A1 R-7/88 R-T~ /R-M~ R-7/88 + + R-TH/R-MF + 25~'~ 0~1 + 2~~ I-1 + 2S~ ~ Buffer widths adjacent to vacant property with agzlcaltural zoning shall be d~termined ba~ed upon the land use designation shown on the General Plan for the agricultural x Where R-7 through R-~8 property Xs adjacent to R-TH or R-~F property~ a buffer shall be ~eq~ired on the R-TH or R-MF ~ro~srty. Th=rs shall be no buffer requirements between any single family residential districts unless required by the Board of supervisors or Board of zoning Appeals. ~ Buffers shall not be required if %his chapter permits buitding~ or parking areas to be constructed without being set back from the property line. 9eo~ 21~1-~55_15_ ~e~bmck Requirements for O~ C and Districts. (a) Jefferson Davis Hiqhway c0rr%~or. The mini~t~m setbuck for all buildings, drives, and parking areas ~hall be as follows: ............ q '] ....... I'"" r ............... ] (1) Setbacks along public roads. a. Buildinqs. The minimum setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. b. Drive~ and Parking. There shall be no minimum setback fo~ pa~king areas for automobit~, light trucks, VaUS, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles amd for boats, trailers, and RV'u less than twenty-five (~51 feet in length. The minimum setback for parking and storage of other vehicles shall be fifty (50) Side setbacks. a. ~/len abutting an O, C, ur I District, shall b~ no minimum setback for buildings~ drives and parking areas. b. Buildinus. A~jacent to all othe~ districts d~slgnated by the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non- residential use~, the minimum setback shall be ~wen~y fwet. ~is setback shall be eliminated by the Director of Planning provided there are no openings in t/~e wall u~ the office, coa%merGial or industrial building facing the property line except those ~eguired by the Fire Marshal. c. Drives and Packing. Adjacent to all sthnr ~ist=iots designated by the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses, there s~all be no minimum setback for ~rives an~ parkin~ areas for au=omsbiles~ light trusk~, van=, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles and for b~ts~ trailers~ and RV'u less %ham twen~y-fiv~ {2~) feet in length unless the adjacent property is occupied by a dwelling. If the adjacent property is occupied by a dwelling, the minimum setback shall at least four (4) feet high is installed. The minlmum setback for parking an~ storage of other v~hicles shall b= thirty (30) feet. d. Adjacent to all otl~er districts ~esignated by the 3~fferEon Dav~ Corridor Plan for residential u~s, the minimum setback for buildings shall ba twenty (20) feet, the ninimu~ netba~k for driv~ and parking areas for automobiles, l~ght trucks, vans, pi=k-up trucks, and motorcycles and for b~ats, trailgrs, ~nd Rv's les~ ~an twenty-flys (~) feet in parking and storage of other v~hicles shall be thirty (30) feet. Rear setbacks. a. When abutting an O, C, or I District, there shall be no minimum s=tback ~om buildings, d~ives and parking b. Buildings. Adjacent to all other districts d~si~ated by the ~efferson Davis Corridor Plan for non- r~identiaI uses, the minimum setback shall be ~hirty (3~) feet. This setback shall be eliminated by the Director of Planning provided thee are no openings in the wall of the office, oo~rcial or industrial building facing the line exoept t~osa re~i~ed Dy the Fi~e c. Drives and Purkinc. Adjacent to all other non-resi~ential umem, ~ere mhall ~ no minimum setback for drivms and parking area= for automobilem, l~ght truckm, vanm, pick-up truckm~ and motorcyct~m and. for boatm, trailmrm~ and RV*s Isms ~han twenty-flv~ (25) feet in length ~lesm the adjacent property i~ occupied by a dwelling_ If the adjaoent 93-440 6/23/93 property is occupied by a dwelling, the ninimu~ setback shell be increased to twenty-£ive (25) £eet unless a solid screen or f®nce ut least four (4) fast high is installed. The minimum setback for parking and storage of Other vehicles shall be forty (40) feet. d. Adjacent to all ether districts designated by the Jefferson Dav~s Corridor Plan for residential uses, the minimum setback for buildings shall be thirty (3e) feet, the ~inimum ~etback for driv~ and parking areas for automobiles, light trucks, vans, pick-up trucks, and motoroycle~ and for boats, trailers, ~nd RV's less than twent~five [25) feet in l~ngth ~hall b~ twenty-flys (25) ~eet, and ~he minimum setback for parking and storags of other vehicles shall be £crty (40) (4) Setbacks for gasoline pumps, ATM'~ and other fully automatic self-operate~ equipment. The setbacks for such uses and drlvas ~ervlng ~uch uses shall be the sane as those for drives and parking areas for aute~ebiles, light truok~ vans~ pic~-up =ruc~ and motorcyoles and far boats~ trailers, end RV's ie~ than twenty-five (2S) feet in length. Sec. 21.1-255.~6. Setback R~cuir~ent~ for I-~ and Districts. (a) Jefferson Davis Hichwav Corridor. The minimum ~t~acks for all buildings, drives, and parking areas shall he as follows: (1) Setbacks alon~ Dublic roads. a. Buildings_ The minimum setback shall be slx~y (60) feet. h. Drives and Parking. There shall be ne minimum setback for parklnq area~ for automobiles, light trucks, vans, pick-up trucks! and motorcycles and for boats, trailers, and RV'~ less than %wenty-£ive (25) feet in length. The minimum setback for psrklnq and ~torage of other vehicles shall be £i£ty (~0] (2) side setbacks. a. Buildings. The minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet. b. Drives a~d. Parking. When abutting an C, er I District, there shall be ne ~inimum setback. c. Drivs~ and Parkln~. Adjacent to all otk=r di~trict~ designated by the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses, %here shall be no minimum setback for drives and parking areas for automobil~, light trucks, vans, pick-up truc~s, a~d motorcycles and for boats, trailers, and RV'~ less than twenty-five (~) fe~% in length, unless the adjacent property is occupied by a dwelling. If the adjacent property is occupied by a dwelling, the minimum setback shall be increased to ten (t0) feet unless a solid ~creen or fence et least four (4) feet high is installed. The ~ini~um methack for parking and storage of other Vehicles shall be =hirty (30) fast. d. ~rives and Parking. Adjaaent to all other districts designated by the Jefferson Davi~ Corridor parking arsas for automobiles, light trucks, van~, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles and fe~ boe~S, trailers, and less than twenty-five (2~) feet in length shall be ten (10) feet¢ and the minimum setback fo~ parking and storage of 93-441 6/~3/93 other vehicles shall ba thirty (30) feat. Rear setbacks. a. Buildings. The minimum setback mhall be thirty (30) feet. b. Drives and ParkinG. When abutting an O, C, er I District, there shall b~ ne ~inim%un ~etback. o. Drives and parking. Adjacent to all other districts designated by the Jeff~rssn Davis Corridor Plan non-residential uses, there shall be no minimum ~ethack for d~ivez and parking areas for automobiles, light trucks, vans, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles and for boats, trailers, RV'~ less than twenty-five (25) feet in length, unless the adjacent property is occupied by a dwelling. ~£ the adjacent property im occupied by a dwelling, the mini~kt~ setback shall or f~nce at lea~t four (4) feet high is installed. The minimum setbauk fQr par~ing and storage of other vehicles shall be forty (40) feet. d. Driv~ and Darkimq. Adjacent to all other distr~et~ 4es~gnated by the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan far resld~ntlal uses, the minimum ~etbeck for drives and parking areas for automobil~m, light trucks, ~ans, pick-up trucks, and motoroyclu~ and for boat~, trailers, and RV~ le~ than twenty-five (25} feet in lenpT~h shall ba twenty-flys (25) feet, and the minimum setback for parking and ~herage of other vehiclez shall be forty (40) feet. (4) Setbacks f~r ~s~sline ~umDs~ A~M'S and other fully automatic self-operated e~uiomant. The ~etbacks for such uses and drives serving such nses shall be the same as these for dri¥~s an~ parking areas for autcmebile~, light vane, pick-up trucks! and motorcycles and for trailers, and ~v's less than twenty-five (2~) feet in length. (4} T~is ordinance shall become effective immediately ~pon Vote: Unanimous (It ~ noted a copy of the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan is In Matoaca Magimterial District, J~ES H. HORNER requested razoning from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood offioe (0-1) of 0.8 acres, ~eighborhood Buminemm (C-~) of 7.2 acres and to Community Business (c-3) of 9.5 acres, wi=~ Conditional Use Planne~ Development ~c permit use and bulk (setback) ~xceptions. A ~ix of sff±as~ general commercial and co~unlty co~ercial uses are planned. The densit~ of such amendment will be contrnllmd by zoning oenditionm, or Ordinance mtandardm. T~e Comprehenmive Plan designatem the property for general commeroiat u~ and r~zidential mme of 1.Si to 4.00 unitm per more. Thim requemt liem on 17.5 acres fronting approximately 1,851 feet on the south line of ~ull ~tr~t ~oad, al~o frontin~ in three (3] pSac~ for a total ~f approximately 1,100 fast on the west line of Ganite Read at Stigall Drive. Ts× ~p 4~-~3 (1) Parcel 13 and Tax Map ~9-~ (1) Parcel 22 (Sheet 14). Mr. Jacobean presented a summary of Case 93SNO1B0 and stated the Planning Commission and staff recemmends approval subject to conditions and acceptance of the proffered Conditions. noted the request conforms with the Northern Area Land U~e and Transportation Plan. On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McNale, the Board ~pproved Case 93SN0180 subject to the following condltlone: 1. The rezoning/aehe~atic plan entitled ~snlto & Rebail, prepared by Belair and Associates, Inc. dated April 6, 1993, and Hay 1I~ 1993~ shall be considered the plan referenced as "The Plan" in the following oonditicn~ and proffered conditions. 2. If at the time of site plan review, documentation acceptable to the Planning Department is submitted which en~uras that adequate landscaping a~d tree preservation can b~ accomplished to achieve visual separation and high-story tree canopy preservation Consistent with the in~ent of the fifty (50] foot setback requirement, maximum of a twenty-five (25) foot exception to the minimum fifty (s0) foot eetbsc~ requirement for buildings, driveways and parking ~ree~ along Hull Street and Genits Roads may b~ granted wighin Tracts B, C2 and D, us shown on "Th~ Plan." (~) (NOT~: The Zoning Ordinance requires a ~ev~nty-fiv~ which may be administratively reduee~ ts fishy (50) feet with appropriate landscaping. Such landscaping is ~gtablish~d by ~he Zoning Ordinance and is in exsafis of that required for the seventy-five (75) foot setback. With the imposition of this condition, landscaping in addition to that ~eq~ired by the Zoning Ord±nance for a fifty (~0) foot ~etbask may be required within reduced setbacks.} 3. A minimum forty (40) foot setback shall be maintained along that portion of Tracts C1 and C2 as ~epicted on "The Plan"~ which lies along Stig~ll Drive Relocated. If, however, properties to the south are zoned for non- residential uses in the future, this ~etback requirement may be mo~isied es p~r Section 21.1-247 (b) cf the Zoning Ordinance. (P) (~OTE: This setback mu~t ba land~cape~ in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the zoning Ordinance for front yardm iD ~aerging Growth Areas. Further, the forty (40) foot setback ~ay be red, ced to tw~nty-flv~ (2~) feet with ~ppropriate a~ditional landscaping if properties across 8tigai1 Drive Relocated are ever zose~ for non-residential uses.) 4. Display or "Shell" House uses shall b~ reshrlcted to ~trmctures designed for use a~ medal residences_ (NOTE: This cenditian ~odifies Proffered Condition (b) and prohibits the erection of other types of display strnct~re~ for sale ~uch as utility buildin~ or An~, further, the ~oard accepted the following proffered conditions: 1. ~xcept as stated herein, Area A, a~ eho~n O~ ?'The Plan", shall be restricted to those usaa permitted by right and with rostric~ions in the Community Bu~ines~ (C-3) 93-443 6/23/93 District plus the following ~eneral Business a) Auction Sales in conjunction with Antique Stores. b) Display or "shell" Houses. Provided, however, that the following uses shall not be per-mitred in Area A: a) occult sciences such as palm readers, astrologers! Laboratories. c) Indoor target or shooting range. d) As accessory to automobile and motorsyole sales, storage yards for v~hicles awaiting body repair/painting, auction or wholesale sales. e) Commercial kennels. f) Fraternal uses- And further~ any automobile service station or nightclub shall be se= back a minimum of 500 feet from Frederick Farms Subdi¥ision. EXCept aL stated h~rein, Ar~a ~, us ~hown cn '*The Plan," shall be restricted to those uses permitt~ by right cr with restrictions in the Neighborhood Business (C-2) D±~trict pl~ the followin~ Commuelty ~uainsss (C-3) a) Carpenter and Cabinetmaker offices and Display Rooms (no outside ~torage). contractors' offices and Display Rooms (no outside storage). c) Electrical, Plumbing, H~ating Supply Sales, and related Display Rooms (no out~ide storage). f) Schools Co~e~eial, Trade, Vocational and ~rainieg. g) Veterinary Hospitals wit~ no outside runs. set back e minimum of 100 feet from udjacent residential, office or similar properties or areas currently zoned agricultural and shown on the General Plan as residential or sfflse uses when loading/warehouse areas are oriented toward adjacent residential or o~fice uses. The 1o~ foot ~tbaek shall b~ landscaped according to Section 2l.l-~s(a) (4). When loading/warehouse areas are o~iented away from adjacent ~esid~ntial o~ office the District. Providmd, however, that the following u~em mhall not be permitted in Area ~: a) Coin-operated dry cleaning, pressing, laundry and laundremats. Automobile self-service station. c) Frozen feed looker and sales. e) Occult sciences such as palm readere~ actrologerc, Areas C1 and CZ, as shown on ~IThu Plan~l, shall be restricted to those uses permitted by right or with restrictions in the ~eigh~orhood Business (c-2) District except that the following Neighborhood Bu~ine~c (C-~) usss shall no~ be permitted: a) Au%omsbile Self-Servi~e Stations. b) Communication studios, o££ices and zta=ions~ incI~sive of Towers. c) Department Stores. d) Frozen Food Locker and Sale~. Funeral ~ome~ or ~ort~arie~. £) aealth clubs. g) Occult Sciences such as palm readers, astrologers, fortune tellers~ tea leaf readers, prophets, etc. Tsle~hone Exchanqes. h) i) ~hepping Centare. j) Hospitals. 4. Within Area~ C1 a~d C2, indi¥idua~ buildings shall not eMseed 8~000 c~are feet of gross floor area. Further, development in Area C shall not exceed $,000 square fast of gross floor area per acre and ell the structures shall have an architectural style ~ompa~ible wi~h currounding residential neighborhoodc. Compatibility may be achieved through ~h~ u~e o~ ~imilar building massing~ materials, coals or other architectural stigall Drive and stigall Drive Relocated, design specific mmasurss shall be provided to mitigate the impact of development cn these neighborhood ac=es~ roads. These measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to additional landscaping, fences, w~lls, hedges, berms~ etd. The exact t~eatment shall be approved by the Planning Department at the time of cite plan review. 6. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following shall be sccemplishsd for fire protection= a) Thc Owner, Developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the County $150.00 per 1~000 square feat of g~oss floor area adjusted upward or downwar~ by the same percentage that the Marsh~tl Swift Building Cost Index increases or decreas~ between June 30, 1991 and the date of payment. Witk the approval of the County's Fire chief~ the Ow~er~ Developer, O~ 93-445 ~/~3/93 10, suppression ~ymte~ not otherwise required by law which is i~ol~ded s~ a Dart cf the development. or b) The Owner, Developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire suppression system not oth~rwin~ required by law which the County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for County facilities otherwise necessary for fire protection. Prior to mite plan approval, forty-five {~5) feet cf right of way on the west side of Genlto Road from tl~e cenferline of that part of Gonite Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, f~ee and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. Acuasa tu Re~te 360 shall De li~i%ed to ~hree (%) entranse~/~xits. These entrances/exits shall generally he losated: 1) midway between Genito Road and the of Gen~to Road, and 3) midway between ~ha crossover west of Genito Road and western property line. The exact location of these accesses shall be approved by the TranEportation Departanent. TO provide for an ad~quat~ roadway ~y~tem at the time of the complete development~ the developer ~hall be rezponsible for the follcwing: A) Construction of additional pavement along the of Genito Roa~ to provide a left turn lane; consCruction of an additional lane of p~vement (i.e., third through lane) along the eastbound lane~ of ~oute 3~0 for the entire property frontage; C) Con,traction of additional pavement along the eastbound lance of Route ]~O at each approved a¢ces~ to provide a right turn lane. At time of sine plan review, t/sis requir~ent may be eliminated by the Transportation Department if the proposed traffic volll~es do not warrant the turn D) Construction of additional pavement along the of Stigall Drive and stigall Drive Relocated to provlds right turn la,es; and E~ Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unreetricted, any additional right of way (or easement) required for the improvement~ identified above. Prior to any ~ite plan approval, a phasing plan for r~quired road improv~a~nt~, identified in ~roffered Condition 9, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Departn~nt. 93-446 11. There shall be no diNcet access to Gcnits Road. At time of site plan review~ the Transportation Department may modify this condition to approve cnm (1} direct access to Genito Road if ad~quete access ~ep~ration along Genito Road ia provided. If direct aeoes~ ie approved~ the developer shall be responsible for construction eS additional pavement along the ~outhbound lanes of Genito Road at that access to provide a right turn la~. 11. In Area B, no use ~hall be open to the public between 12 midnight and So00 a.m. 13. The owner/developer shall send notice by first class mail to all adjacent property owners cf the sntir~ property which is the mubject Of this zoning plus the property owners of Tax MaD 48-8 (3) Geni~o Estates, Seotion C, BiOC~ P, Lot 3; Tax Map 48-~2 (7) St. Regents Lake, Section 1, Lot 43; T~g Map 49-13 (1) 5~ 9 and 10; Tax ~up 49-14 [1) 3; Ta~ Map 63-1 (1) 3; and the last known president or thc Clerundon civic Association prier to any site plan submittal to Chesterfield County. In conjunction with hh~ submission of each ~ite plan, tho owner/developer shall provide the Planning Department with an a£Sidevit listing those persons to whem notice wa~ ~snt and thei~ add~ess~s, plu~ a copy of the notificatlsn letter. 14. ~e development on that portien of the property whie~ drains through Frederick Farms Subdivision shall be designed to retain runoff based Upon u ten (~0) year post-development condition and runoff released based upon a two (2] year pre-development rate. Unanimous Conditional Use to permit e two-family dwelling in Residential (R-I~) District. The density of such amendment Will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordlnanse standards. T~e Comprehensive Plan designates the preperty for resld~nhial nme of 2.20 unit~ per acr~ or le$~. This request lies on a 0.32 acre parcel know~ as 7911 Belment Stakes Drive. Tax Map 75-1~ (~] Triple ~rew~, Section 2~ LO~ 49 (sheet 20}. Mr. Bill Pools, Chief of Develepment Review fe~ the Planning Department, presented a summary o~ Case 93SN019~ and stated t~e Planning commission and staff recommends approval subject to condition~. There was no opposition present, There was brief discussion relative to staff and the Planning Commission reco~nending approval of th~ r~quest and the request being in accordance wit~ t~e p~ocess to permit n two- family dwelling. On motion of Mr. Colb%rt, ~e¢o~de~ by Mr. Mc~ale, the Board 1. Occupancy of the second dwelling u~it shall b~ limited %o the applicant and/or a parent of the applicaat. This Con~i~ionsl Um~ ~hall e~pire if such parent ceases to reside in the second dwelling Unit. (CPC) Within sixty (60) days of the approval of this request, a deed ~=striction shall be recorded indicating the requirement in Condition 1. The deed book and page number of such restriction and a copy of the rectrictlon ~hall be ~nbmltted to the Planning Department. Vote: Unanimous Nm. Therema Dimcalo, the applicant, inquired ae to how the zoning would affect a buyer if she sold bar home. Mr. Pools stated the buyer would need to make application the County to request the same usa am granted to the applicant. In Matoaca Magisterial District, JIK kI~DELXN requested Conditional Usa Planned Development to permit indoor/outdoor ~ecreational facilities for a public zoo in an Agricnltural (A) District, plus exception to paving requirements for driveways and parking areas. The density of such will be controlled by zonin~ conditions or O~dinanoe standards. Th~ Cumprehensive Plan designates the proper~y for agri~ultural/£o~mtal u~e. This request lies on a 49.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 300 fse~ on the west line of Beaver Bridge Road, approximately 400 feet south of ~ull 8treat Road. Tax MaD SS (1) Part of Parcel 10 (Sheet Mr. Peele presented a summary of Cas6 935NOI~6 and etate~ the Planning Commission and staff r~co~ndm approval subject to conditions and acceptance of a proffered condition. He the request conforms with tho w~stern Arua Land Use and Transportation Plan. Mr. Jim Andelin stated the recommendation ~as acceptable and requested thm Board to give favorable consideration to the request. Mr. George Beadles expressed concerns relative to ~hese types of r~uests requiring a conditional use and strip development locuted on Bailey Bridg= Road. He stated he felt a condition the Planning Commission. After brief discussion, Mr. Colbert made a motion, seconded by Mr. MoHale, for t~e Board tn apprnve Case 9~$NQ19~ subject to the following conditions: 1. Driveway= and parking areas ~hall comply wit~ 21.1-219 (d) (3) and (4) of the Zoning or~inanue relative to surface treatment and delineation Of areas. T~e applicant snell provide sufficient parking to accommodat~ the demands of the u~e. If it is d=termin=d that insufficient parking exists to moo% t~e use demands, additional p~rking shall be provided, as deemed necessary by the Planning Department. 3- On-site signs shall be as ~ermitted fs~ any clot, church, ~chool, or other public or semi-public inmtitution located along a major arterial. 4. A second pond ~hall b~ constructed downs~reem of any ponds or lakes utilized for waterfowl ~razlng or which receive ~u~off from Other animal impoundment area~ so as to control th~ ~mpact on water q~al~ty downstream. Prior to issuance of a building Dermlt, the owner/developer shall submit a security plan te the Planning Commission for approval. (CPC) And, further, for the Board to accept the following proffered condition: Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the west side of Beaver Bridge Road ~ea~ured from the center/ins of that part cf Beaver Bridge Road i~mediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted! to and for the behefit of Chesterfield County. Mr. War~en inquired as to security measure~ ~elating to the safety of the animals. Mr. A~dslin stated prior to the issuance of a building permit, he is required ts submit a security plan to the Planning Co~immicn for approval. Ha noted the zoo would also be inspected by the USDA. Mr. Warren called for the vote, on the motion made by Colbert, seconded ~y Mr. ~e~ale~ for the Board tO approve Case 93SN0196 subject to the following condltlong: 1. Driveways and parking ar~a~ ~hall Comply with Section 21.1-219 {d) (3) and (4) of the Zoning Ordinance areas. (P) 2. The applicant shall provide ~uffi~ient parking to that insufficient parking exists to meet the use demands, additional parking shall ~e provided, as deemed necessary by the Planning Department. On-~te ~i~ns ~hall be as permltt~d for any church, school, or other public or ~emi-public institution located along a ~ajor ~rte~ie!. 4. A ~e~ond pond ~hall be constructed downstream of any ponds er lakes utilized for waterfowl grazing or w~ieh receive runoff from ether animal impoundment areas to control the impact on water quality down~tream~ 5. Prior ts i~uanoe of e Building permit, the owner/developer ~hall $~bmit a security plan to the Planning Commission for approval. (CPC) And~ f~rther, fsr the B0a~d to accept the following proffered condition: Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the west side of Beaver Bridge Road m~as~red ~rom ~he oenterline of that Dart Of Beaver Bridge Road i~ediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and tture~trioted, to and for the benefit of C~esterfield County. Vote: Unanimous U~B OF T~E NOHTBBRN AR~ L~NDFILL SITE (CONTINUED} 10.B, EXEOUTI%'E SEfiS,ION PURSUANT TO ~HCTTON CODE OF VIaGImIA. 19~0. A~ A~ENDED. FOR OCCULTATION WITH LE~5 COUNSEL REG~DING COUNTY V. WOOD~E. ~. (CONT~EO) continued from the afternoon session) pursuant to ~.~-~44(a) (2), C~de of Virginia, 1950, as emended, for discussion of use of real property for public purpose relahing to the use oS the Northern A~ea Landfill site and pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) (7), Code of Virginia, 1950, a~ amended~ for consultation with legal counsel regarding County v. Woodlake. et. al. On motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by Mr. Colbert, the Beard adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, tho Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into ~x~cutlve ~ion ~n accordance with a formal vot~ of the Board and ~n accordance with the provisions of the VirginXa Fr~dom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, the virgi~ie Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, I9~9 prcvide~ for certification that such ~xecutive Session was conducte~ in conformity with law. ~OW, TH~OR~ B~ IT R~S0LV~D, the Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best o~ each member's knowledge, i) only public buulnass matter~ lawfully exempted from open meeting reqoirsmsnt~ under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Executive which this certification applies, end ii) only su=h public busines~ matter~ a~ were identified in the ~otion by which the Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the Board. No member dissents ~rom this o=rtificetion. Mr. ~cHale : Aye. Mr. Celhert~ Hr. Barber : Aye. Mr, Warren : Aye. Mr. Warren noted a ground-breaking ceremony for the Po~hite Parkway is schedule for Ju~e 25, 1~93 at 11:~0 a.m. 18. ~DJOURNMBNT On motion of Mr. Colbert, seconded by Mr. McHale~ the Board a=juurned at 11:10 p.m. until July 28~ 19~3 at 2:CO p.m. Vote: Unanimous chairman