10-26-94 MinutesBO~RD O~
October
8upervlaors in A~tendance:
Mr, J. L. Me,ale, III, Chairman
Mr. Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Edward B. Barber
Mr. Barry G. Daniel
Dr. Freddie W. Nicholas, St.
Mr. Lane B. Ramsay
County Administrator
Office un Youth
Mr. Craig Bryant, Pit.,
Utilities
Assr. to County Adm±n.
L~gi~. Svcs. and
Fire Department
Recreation
bepu=y Co. Admin.,
Dir., Planning
Airport
Dir., Transportation
Dir., Env. Engineering
County Attorney
~r. Kenneth Perrctte,
Dir., General Services
Pulic~ ~e~artment
Clerk to the Board
Dir., ~udget & Management
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Deputy Ce. Admin.,
Community Development
Mr. McHale called the regularly scheduled ~aetinq to o~der at
~:05 p.m.
................. L t ~. ........ L .........[ I. ......
~.A. OCTOBER 6. 1994
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board
approved the minntes of Oetobe~ 6, 1994, as submitted,
On motion of ~ir. Warren, seconded by Y~r. Barb~r~ the Board
approved the minutem of October 12~ 1994, ~s submitted.
Votm: Unanimous
the National Emergency Training Institute. He further mtated
report to the Board on ~he training exercise,
chief Eansm s~atad it was an honor to represent the County at
Mr. $1ayton eonqratulated the Board and the County an the
agencies to go to the Institute to participate in the
is mn excellent training tool. ~e m~premmed appreciation to
th~ Board for making the trip ~ossible and congratulated
chief Eanes expressed appreciation to ~r. Slayton for his
efforts in making this trip possible for the County and
with the National Fmergency Training Institute.
observed t~e commigment and d~dicatlon to training by County
preparedness for participation in this
chesterfield and %h~ overall performance in bot~ the training
and exercise-based aetlvitie~ was excellent. He then
reviewed issues addressed by participants including County
staff feeling the response exercise provided by ~he In~titut~
and possibly offered a~ e future ~raininq opportunity-
Chief Eane~ then presented a brief slide prmm%ntation of some
of the e~ergency training exercises held a2 the In&tituts and
recognized County employees and other individuals who
Services, for her effert~ in making the County'~
94-764
Mr. Warren expressed appreciation to all participants for
their efforts and professionalism. He stated it was a
wonderful experience, specifically, the tremendous talent
that was shown and he is proud of the performance by the
County.
Mr. Ramsay also expressed appreciation to staff and
who participated in the Institute for their dedication and
ce~itment to the County's emergency plan.
Mr. McHale stated the Police and Fire Training Facility was
dedicated earlier today end h~ feels this type of training is
essential for public safety officers. He
appreciation to the ~artici~ants for their excellent
performance.
Mr. Ramsay then introduced ~r- Hammer to present an update on
the LaPrade and Ettrick/Matoaca Branch Libraries.
Mr. rammer stated the LaPrade and Ettrick/Matcaca Branch
Libraries repair projects are one week ahead of schedule;
that repairs, renovation, and improvements ere scheduled fo
be completed by the end of D~c~mb~r, 199A; that some
additional asbestos removal, beyond the ori~inal proje~t~
experienced at the LaPrade and ~ttrick/~ato~ca
Libraries; and that interior refurbishing plans for
Branches hav~ been completed. ~e then updated =he Board on
tbs Chester Branch Library including the Board approving
funding for relocation of thc Libmary to a new area included
in the Chester Area Village Plan. Me then reviewed
construction at the ~idlcthian Branch Library which began in
0ct~b~ of this y~a~. He presented a brief slide
presentation showing the repairs underway at the Ettrick/
Matoaca Branch Library. When a~ked, h~ ~tatad
uf th~ Ettri~k/~atoaca Branch Library is ahead of schedule.
Mr. Ramsay stated there have b~e~ several articles in the
newspaper recently regarding the County's ~olice Department
Pittman to brief the Board on th~ i~sues addressed in the
articles.
Chief Pfttman stated he feels the Police Department is doing
an outstanding job protecting and serving it~ ¢iti~en~ while
delivering quality service with sustained efficiency. He
further stated th~ County had the lowest crime rate in the
in the metropolitan area, and serves i=s citizens at an
routine during sash budget year and were addressed during ~he
1994 levels, however, delivering the same service levels is
challenging due to i~e~eases in population and workload; and
that special events have been increased and customer demsnds
for s~rvic~ have impscted overtime_ He reviewed increases in
calls and assignments for uniform officers and the budget
adjustments implemented that have received m~dia attention
including the K-9 Pregram and mileage reduction. He ~tated
h~ understands the perception o~ the publis, however, the
capability of t~e Police Department remains intact. He
further ~tated many other adjustments are being implemented
throughout thc Depsrtment including office supplies,
unlform~, vehicle operat~on~ printing, and cap~tal ~quipment_
He briefly reviewed the K-9 Pro,ram and stated the officers
involved iD this ~rogram have be~n ae~ipned to regular patrol
d~ty and the County has the use of search dogs through the
Virginia State Police when needed. He ~hen reviewe~ direct
and i~di~eet savings from tho K-9 Program and mil~age budget
adjustmenZe an~ no=ed %he Department feels the decrease in
~ileag~ is an opportunity for ef£ioe~e to enhance their
94-765 10/26/94
~oIm~unity policing- Ha stated police officers will alway~ be
available to respond to si%nations and th~ reco~mendatio~
red,os the mileage was designed by the Ranklng/File of£i~ers
Committee as a funding method to pay for replacement of the
Department's handguns. He further stated the end result is
the ability to serv~ the public in every adjustment decision,
that p~blic safety remains at high levels, and that Police
officers are good custodians of public funds an~ innovative
in it~ 5olutions.
Mr. Warren ~ta~ed he is proud of the Police Department's job
performance and inquired as tO how ~any new police
will be recruited in January, ~5. Chief pittman stated 15
officers will b~ recruited in January, ]995. Mr. Warren
~nquired as to whethe~ the recruitment could be acceleratad
to emhanc~ the County's program more 03/iokly. chief Pittman
stated at the Board'~ direction, ~he bepartment could
n~cessary f~llcwing the hiring cf the additional police
officers; citizen ¢oncern~ regardin~ the articles in the
n~WSpaper; the County being able to use the State'~ search
dcqm if needed; and reassuring citizens that the County has
the best equipped, best managed, and highest morale police
D~. Nieholam inquired as to whether funds ~re u~ailable in
the budget to hare the additional personnel. Chief pittman
Police b~partment performs a vi~al function within th~
informed ou th~e type of issues to assist in alleviating any
Mr. Mc~ale clarified the Police Depar~ent would r~cruit fo~
police officers earlier than January. 1995. He co~/~endad
Chief Pittman for recommending innovative solutiom~ and
stated the Police Oapartmeut has a~siqned the additional
o~Gers to its community policing effort. ~o further ~tat~d
community policing is working welt in th~ J~fferson Davis
Co~dor and Ettrick and provides officers with the
aommunity, thereby making police offioerm more
~ny other needs Of the Police Department.
forum held by the County council of PTA's in which Delegate
respond to questions from the audience; that he attend~
~idlcthian village Day; that h~ attended a dinner for the
24, 19~4; that he will be attending the G~and Opening for
being made on the Midlethian YMC~ and they will hold their
with the topic of discussion being the County's budget.
Mr. Warren stated he held his constituents meeting on october
3, 1~94 with the topic of discussion being the 01ympio
Fe~tivel~ that he attended Brendermill's Twentieth Y~ar
Anniversary Celebration on October 7, 1994 in which he
p~esented a ~esolu~ion fro~ the B~ard; and that the
Chesterfleld Business Council and the Board of Supervisors
will be holdin~ a retreat, follow=d by a reception, on
November 17, 1994 at the Reynolds Can Division at the Airpurt
and noted the County's Delegates and Senators will al~o
invited to attend the meception.
Dr. wicholas s~a%e~ he attended an Exi~tinq Industry
breakfast meeting, a meeting with the Chesterfield
Council~ and a breakfast meeting with citizens for
Responsible ~overnment.
Mr. Daniel stated he attended a breakfast meeting with
Citizens for Responsible Government and a meeting with the
~etropoli~an Richmond chamber of commerce. E~ fur%her s~ated
the Capital Reqion Airport Co~n~i~sisn has met with r=gional
local governments in th~ r~gion, cities, and ~urrounding
a presentation r~gar~ing the Airport expansion plan; and that
meetings have also been scheduled with th~ Chamber of
with the topic of di~cun~ion being education,
providing orientation meetings for him to become fa~itiar
~ir. MoHal~ sta~ed the Board has ~een active in lobbying
Delegation on the issue of unfunded ~andat~s. M~
indicating he is now a co-sponsor of that legislation. He
instructed staSf ~o verify whether the entire Delegation is
legislation.
REOUESTS TO POST~ONE ACTION. EMERGENCY ~DDITI~N~,,OR
CRAN~ES IW THE ORDER OF PREBBNTATION
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by ~r. Daniel~ the Board
moved It~ ~_A., Adoption of Resolution Regarding Hou~ Joint
Resolution 140, Proposing Revision~ in ~ow the Constitution
of the United States is Amended to i~ediately follow this
Item; added Item 8.A.2., Adoption of Resolution Recognizing
the Regional Value of Hosting the U.S. 01ym~ic ~estival to
follow It~/~ 8.A.; and added Ite~ 8.C.11., Appropriation of
Fund~ for Purchase and In~ta!lation of "No Parking" Signs for
Blockader Lane in Glen Tara Subdivi~ion to follow Item
S.C.10., Conveyance of an Easement to Virginia Electric and
Power Company and, adopted the agenda, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
94-767 10/~6/94
140. PROPOBIN~ REVISIONS IN HOW ~H~ CONSTITUTION
OF THE ~NIT~D STATES IS
Mrs. De, art introdu=ed ~enator Stephen H. Ma~tin to address
the Board regarding House Joint Resolutio~ 140, proposing
revision~ in how the Constitution of tb~ United States is
amended-
Senator Martin welcomed D~. Nicholas to the ~oard. ~o ~hen
reviewed the background of th~ ~raming of the Constitution of
the United States and ~tetad t~e American psoRle ~hoEld
have to ~ait on Congress to act and in order to work towards
r~storing ballots~ making Virginia full partners in a federal
system, Virginia adopted the proposed resolution in 1990 and
that Colorado and South Dakota have also adopte~ the
resolution. Ne noted the Council O~ state QoVernm~nts, the
National Governors Association, and the American Legislative
Exchange Council have also given their support. ~e stated he
is currently working with his counterpart~ around the country
to solicit support for the resolution; that ~
have adopted the resolution; and that he has received
commitments from State representatives in Iowa, North
Carolina, Maryland, and West V~rqinia. He requested the
Board to adopt the proposed resolution. When asked, he
stated ~he re~clution does not call for a constitutional
convention, but recognizes t~at the fear of a constitutional
convention is what prevents states ~rom beinq able to
in~tiate amendments_ Ne further stated this resolution
to propose to Congress, without using the authority to call a
constitutional convention, to initiate the change.
~r- Daniel made a motion for the Beard to adopt a resolution
regarding ~ouse Join= Resolution 140, proposing revi~ion~ in
kew ~he Con~titutlon of the United states is amended.
~r. Barber inquired as to the intent of tbs resolutio~ and
the process states n~ht initiate tha~ wou!~ not be
accomplished with the current process. Senator Martin stated
Delegate Taylor Murphy, who advanced thi~ initiative, feels
the framers of the ¢cnst%tution intended for ~tates a~d its
citizen~ to be able to initiate proposals to amend the
Constitution. Ke further ~tat~d because Of disagreements
among constitutional so,clare on the subject, there has never
been any action to take that last step because states ara
concerned about the mcope and authority a constitutional
convention would have.
Mr. McHale called for the vote on the motion made by Mr.
Daniel, seconded by Mr. Warren, for the ~osrd te adopt tho
following
~$OLUTION O~ ~Q~TICLE V PROPOSAL
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~OARD OF SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, all 33 amendments proposed to the United States
Constitution since 1755 hav~ b~n initiated by Congress; and
W~EREAS, moro than 400 petitions from the several
requesting a constitutional convention to propose amemdments
have been filed with Congress, but hav~ n~ver resulted in the
calling of a convention or adoption of an amendment; and
WHEREAS, there should be n prop~ balance of national
and state power in a federal system; the pre~ent mechanism
for the states to initiate a constitutional convention has
proved ac be unworkable; and ~he envisioned and desirable
balancing of power~ botwoon national and state powers
requires a means for the several mtatss to bs able to propose
amendments to the Con~tituti~n; and
~q{EREAS, this amendment was developed by the Council on
Stats Governments following ~on~iderable study about how to
more appropriately adjust state and national powers in this
federal' system of government; and
WHEREAS, the Council on State Government's proposal i~
to enable the legislatures of three-fourths of the state to
the Congress by a ~wu-thir~a vote of both Houses within two
WHEREAS, the Virginia General A=aembly and ntat~ and
local entities across the United states are joining in
support of this proposal; and
WH~E~ this proposal embodies a prud~n~ method for
constitutional amendments.
NOW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County supports the foregoing
proposed constitutional amendment.
~r. Daniel requested staff to contact th~ Virginia
Association of Counties (VAco) and kbs virginia ~unielpal
League (V/4L) tu ascertain their position on this issue.
8,A,2, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION RE00~NIZIN~ THE R~IONAL
VALUE O~ HOSTIN~ T~E ~.S. OLYMPIC FESTIVAL
~. Ra~ey ~tated ~r. Warren has proposed ~ resolution
relating to the County regionally supporting the U.S. Olympic
Festival.
~r. Warren stated he h~s serve~ on the U.$. Olympic Festival
Bid Committee with a number of people ~rom the region, in
particular, Mr. Bobby Ukrop and Mr. John Lugbill. ~ further
stated the Committee is aware cf the tremendou~ possibilities
a festival of this nature would bring to the r~g~on, the
amount of business it would generate, and the ability to
improve/construct the necessary facilities i~ the area. He
stated he feels %his is a unique opportunity fo~ the County
to be a leader in this process by being the ~irs= to adop: a
resolution showing its support. He further mtated the
resolution acknowledges the County's support for hosting an
olympic Festival in 1997 or 1999. He then introduced Mr.
Bobby Ukrep.
~r. ukrop state~ the time is now ~or the region to move
forward on this project and that the Olympic Festival will
benefit the entire region and State. He further stated the
City of Richmond em the front runner in this prejeut over
Dallas, seattle, a~d Phoenix. Be requested the Board to
adopt the proposed resolution and ~ntroduced Mr. John
Lugbill.
~. Lugbill stated the Richmond region has established itself
a~ th~ front runner for th~ Olymp~ F~tivat bid an~ h~ feels
adoption of the resolutien w~ll move thi~ process forward_
Festival is concluded.
The Clerk read into the record =~e resolution recognizing t~a
regiQnal value of hosting the U.S. Olympic Festival.
94-769 10/26/94
Mr. Warren then ~ad~ a ~otion, seconded by Mr. Daniel, for
the Board to adopt a resolution recogDi~ing the regional
value of hosting the U.S. Ot~pic Festival.
Mr. MoRale stated he f~els it is thc time for th~ Board ho
move forward on this issue and called for the vote on the
motion made by Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Daniel~ for the
Board to adopt the followinq re~olution:
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE REGIONAL VALUE O~ 5QSTING TM~
U.S. OL¥}fPIC FESTIVAL
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers have
identified an opportunity for t~e Richmond ration to bid ca
the 1997 or 1999 U.S. Olympia Eestival~; and
W~EREAS, he,ting such an event promota~ the ovmra!l
positive attributes of a metropolitan region through
attcndanoa of over 40Q,GQQ and e~posure to the nation and
muoh of the world through media coverage of the gamem and
attendant activities; and
WHEREAS, such an event brin~m an immediate eoODomlc
i~Dact of approximately $60 million, and leaves a lasting
legacy of new world class sports faoilitiss for area citizens
to enjoy, as well as ca~ability to attract similar major
sporting events in the futura; and
W~R~A~, an event of this ~gni~u~s reinforces tbs
· etropolitan area*s sense of unity by involving mo~e t~an
1~,000 volunteers, generating community excitement and
intense activity within significant components of the
business sector, and precipitating greater regional
cooperatio~ among local gQvsrnme~ts; and
W~EREAS, the Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico,
and the City of Richmond have supported efforts to brln~ the
U.s. olympic Festival =o Rich/mend by adopting a re~olutlon of
support at the Regional Summit hold on May 13, 1994 and eaoh
appropriating $10,000 towards t~s cost of bidding on th~
Festival; and
WHEREAS, the Riohmond metropolitan region aaa be
successful in winning the Olympia Fe~=ival hid only if major
n~w sports fa¢i~itius are constructed, ~noluding a Track and
Field Stadium and a swimming and Diving Center; and
WHEREAS, funding, planning, and construction of such
world clasu sports faoilitie~ w~ll r~quiru t~e coopers=ire
efforts of the four area jurisdictions as well ~s th~
Commonwealth of virginia and the private s~ctor; and
feasibility analyses have b~en conducted on the proposed
Virginia Swimming and Diving C~nt~r, and support for
by Virginia Commonwealth University and private
D~ilan~ropists; add
WHEREAS, the privat~ mector has expressed mupport by
pledging more than $2 million towards t~a cost o~ the U.S.
Olympic Festival and an independent public opinion poll has
citizens would support the use of public funds to develop
needed sports facilities; and
Swi~&ming and Diving Center h~s been ~timated by Virginia
Commonwealth university to be $22.2 million.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors does hereby support th~ regional
effort to construct the facilities needed to attract the U.$.
Olympic Festival and pledges to vigorously work with our
regional partners in leading this further transformation and
development of our metropolitan area,
Vote: Unanimous
There were no Resolutions and Special Recognitions scheduled
at this time.
There were no Work Sessions scheduled at this time.
C~,~LE TELEVISION SERVICES IN T~E COUNTY
~Lr. Micas stated consideration of a request of Comcast
cu~levision of chesterfield County, Incorporated for renewal
of its cable television franchise and adoption of am~ndunents
to Chanter 7 cf the County Code relating to providing cable
television ~ervices in th~ County wa~ deferred from the
september ~8, 1994 Board mee%in~ to allow Comcast and County
staff to finalize the terms of the franchise documents, in
particular, oraftin~ language to provide for an institutional
network (INET) that will serve the County'~ needs for the
next fifteen years. He fur=her stated Comcast has agreed to
include, ~s part Of its upgrade to the subscriber system, a
two-way =elecoI~nunisaticns system which will offer video,
voice, and data communications to all County facilities,
echosla, and all individuals and businesses in the County.
this time. He then introduced ~r. suck Dopp, General ~anager
finalize the language of the franchise agreement,
Mr. Dop9 introduced Ms. Amy L. Banes, Comsast Deputy Council
and chief negotiator, for the franchise renewal.
request for an INET as they have felt that traditional stand-
alon~ IN~T'~ are limited in their capacity, under utilized,
offer ~nother option which they feel is a high tech,
fu~ur±stio type cf ~ystem which will provide Chesterfield
with net only vi4ees, but with two-way teleso~unieations and
~r. Depp then introduced Mr. 5od Smith, ~i~-Atlantic Region
assisted in developing the INST system.
~4-771 10/26/94
................ I. .......... ~__L ......... L ........ I L
Mr. Smith ~tated INET is a telecommunioations network and
that Comcast is proposing to tie the INET into comcast's
network to allow ~he County to expand outward. He further
stated this wo~ld allow students to have computers to ~tudy
and grow et home and would be a state-of-thm-art network and
as Comcaet expands, will encompass all County schools and
municipal buildings add make provisions to tic them in! at no
cost to the County. He stated the systc~ wall allow the
County to provide high-speed data, video, distant loar~ing,
homework channel, phone systens~ otc; that channel capacity
would be endless and will have the capability to grow; and
%hat the County can choose its services ~o be brought into
INET.
Mr. MoHale clarified tho same cable currently being need in
the County will Eventually allow citizens to co~unicato
home via modem to a County ny~tem that would
information about County activities and/or allow students to
integrate information from school, /4r. Smit~ ~tated
eyste~ Comcast is proposing would allow those ~hings to
happen in the near future. When asked, h~ ~tated the
proposed system will have the capacity and capability to
transmit voice~ video, and data.
Ms. Bance clarified the difference between the traditional
INET and this system being that the traditional INET woul~
allow the County to only communicate with County building~
and the system Comcast as proposing will allow the County to
communicate with County buildings as well as all residential
and commercial subscribers.
Rt. Barber stated he feels the system Comcast is proposing is
exciting fo~ t~e County and hopes the County and Comcast can
negotiate the necessary issues to provide the very best in
cable service to Co~ty citizens,
On motion cf Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board
deferred consideration of a request fro~ Comcast Cablevision
of Chesterfield County, Incorpo~ated for renewal of its cable
television franchise and adoption of amendment~ to Chapter 7
of the County Code relating to providing cable telev~m~on
s~rvisee in the County unkil Movember 9, 1994 to allow an
opportunity for County staff and Comcast ~epresentativem
finalize lanquage of the franchise agreement.
$, NEW BUSINESS
8.~. AU~HORI~ATTON TO EXERCI$~ EMINENT DO~AIN FO~ THE
ACQUISItiON OF AVI~TIO~ BAS~ENT$ FO~ I~sTAL~hTION
OF THE INSTRUMEN~ L~NDIN~ ~YSTEM AT CHESTERFIELD
tho acquisition of aviation easements for installation of the
Instrument Landing System at Chesterfield County Airport
Incorporated; ~n~ Whittle ~lectric~ Incorporated wac deferred
if the re~uests are approved, staff will continue to
negotiate with the property owners.
~r. ~isas stated the items before the Board are requests to
autho~ihe an emergency acquisition for the easements
necessary for the Instrument Landing system at the Airport.
He further statud action by the Board is a legislative
decision to determine whether there is a sufficient emergency
to begin the construction process or wait until the actual
easements ars acquired through the judicial Drnsess. He
stated the sitnatio~, in terms of contracting for
construction of this syste~, has been delayed for a per~od of
time and that it is necessary for th~ County to comply with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety regulations and
in order to facilitate construction, it is neoessamy to
request the acquisitions. He furthe~ stated several of the
property owners have expressed concerns abou~ this issue
being an a~ergency. He noted eminent domains on an emergency
basis have been addressed in praviuu~ litigation and in those
instances~ the Court~ have ~upported and validated the
County's action in d~clarlng an
Discussion, co~u~nt~, and questions en~ued rs!ativ~ to tho
negotiation process with the property cwner~ continuing if
~he ~oar~ approve~ the requests; the topping e£ the tree~
bein~ the p~efurred construction method; the issue of concern
a~ thi~ time being t~o monetary value o~ the easemen~ and =he
O0~t~aoto~ who will actually top the trees; the property
owne~e still maintaining o~nerahlp of =he easements as tho
County is only buying the air rights to their property;
County standards which will limit the height of buildings
built on the properties due to the closeness to the Airport;
the requests being for the County to obtain the ai~ ~ights to
existing and futur~ tr~; and the County being responsible
f~r toppin~ tho trees in the future if needed.
Mr. Mc~ale stated one of the property o~ner~, ~r. James
Lauck, was present at the meeting and would like to address
tho Doard on this issue.
Mr. James E. Lsuck stated he is the only homeowner who will
he impacted by this request and h~ has invss~e4 a lot of
and money into his hone. ~e further stated hi~
currently appraised ~t ~pprwximately $i80,000; that ha has
attempted to negotiate with County staff regarding th~
topping of the trees~ and tha~ his only concern at this time
is monetary value. He stated he had an informal appraisal
performed which indicated mis Droper%y value would he
decrsuued by $30,000 - $50,000; that purchase of the easement
will allow air,lanes to ~ly directly over his hens; and he
feels this will negatively impact the value of his property.
He fumthem stated he is nut in agreement with the $18,000 as
proposed by the County, b~t feels $~,000 is fair; that if
the request ~s approved, he would llke some type of
placed on removal of the tress if the tree= are not topped;
and that the trees is the only bnffer ~one between the
Airport and tho r~siden~ial area. He stated he is a pilot
and does not oppose the Airport, however, he feels he has to
consider the impact of this request on his home if he sells
~is property.
Mr. Daniel stated he feel~ the CoUnty need~ to take the
necessary action in order to mee~ the construction schedule
and that thc tree~ will be topped. He further stated he
construction and directed staff to continue to meet with ~r.
Leach =o resolve the monetary value issue.
94-773 10/26/94
Diecumsion, comments, and guastlons ensued relative to how
the $24~000 figure by the property owner and the 518,000
figure by County staff wa~ reached; the County's routine
procedure for deciding monetary value being to follow FAA
Procurement Guidelines; the County being oom~elled te fellow
FAA guidelines as they are paying 90 percent of the
acquisition and the State is paying 5 percent; the options
available to ~taff in reaching an a~reement with the property
owner on the monetary value; the legal costs associated with
litigation if ~hi~ issue reaches condemnation; the 1Lability
of the homeowner, during the time period of negotiations, if
an accident occurred with an airptane hitting one of the
tress; and deferrin~ this issue to allow ~taff to ~ubmit an
item which would allow construction ~e take place and
addressing tbs verbiage to resolve the monetary value i~sua.
O~ motion of Mr. Daniel, sesende~ by Mr. Warren, the B~a~d
authorized the County Attorney to proceed with eminent do~ain
on an e~erGency bati~ and sxsrcise immed~at~ right of ~ntry
pursuant te Section 15.~-238.~ of the Coda of virginia for
acquisition of aviation eassments for installation of the
Instrumsnt Landing System a% th~ Chesterfield County Airport
over the properties of Mr. James ~. Lauck; Nr, Walter W~ and
Mrs. Charlotte D. KRr~h; Spencer'~ Sulk-Stop, Incnrporated;
and Whittle Electric, Incorporated and for staff tc ~o~tinue
to negotiate with the property owners in reachin~ e
~ttl~ent and authorized the County Adninis~ra~or to notify
the owners by certified mail on October 27, 1994, of the
County's intention to take possession e~ the easement~- (It
ia noted copies of ~he plats are filed with the papers of
thi~ Board.)
Ayes: Mr. MoRale, Mr. Warren, Mr, Daniel, and Dr. Nicholas-
Nays: Mr. Ba~er as he felt the motion was not clear.
ado~te~ the following resolution:
The Industrial Development Authority Of the County of
Chesterfield (the "Authority") has considered the request of
profit corporation (the "company'S), to reissue th~
Authcrity's Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Brandermill Woods
Project), Series 1991A issued september 30, 199i, in initial
aggregate principal amount of $44,0~6,700 (the "series A
Bonds"), to finance a part of the cost dC t~e acquisition,
construction, and eguipping of a facility for the residence
facility, 60 assisted living units, and appro×imat~ly 200
independent livin~ ~nits (~he "E×i~ting Facility") owned and
ehesterfipld, Virginia (the "County"), and ~as held a public
amended (the "Cod~"), provides that the governmental unit
having juri~diotlon ovar the issuer of private activity bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the
proceeds cf private activity bonds is located must approve
the issuance Qf the bonds.
94-774
The Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County
of Chesterfield, virginia (the "County"); and the Board of
SuperVisors of the County of Ch~uturfield, Virginia (the
"Board"] constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of
the County.
The Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
A copy of %he Authnrity's resolution approving the
reissuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed
upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Pineal Impact
Statement have been flied with the Beard.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RE~0LVED, BY THE BOAI{D O~
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the reissuance of the Serie~ A
Bonds by the Authority for t~he benefit of the Company, to the
e~tent required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section
1~.1-1%75,1 o~ ~he Code cf Virginia of i950, as amended, to
per,it thn Authority to assist the Company in the refinancing
of =he Existing Facility.
2. Th~ approval of th~ reissuance of the Series A
Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective
purchaser eS the Serle~ A ~onds of =he creditworthiness of
the Company. Am r~quired by Section 15.1-13R0 of th~ Code of
V_~r~inia of 1950, an emended, the series A Bonds shall
provide that neither the County nor the kuthority $hall be
obligated to pay the Series A Bonds or thn interest thereon
moneys plndged'thnrefor, end neither the faith or credit nor
~he %e~ing power of the ¢o~menwealth, the County~ or the
Authority shall be pledged thereto.
3, T~is resolution shall take effect immediately upon
its adoptiQn.
Vote: Unanimous
awarded a contract to J. ~. Martin and Sons, the low bldder~
in the amount o~ $369,S98, for construction of the
Stonehenge, Ehase I Drainage Project; appropriated
~ro~ the 60/147 Dreinegn Escrow Account for the construction;
and authorized the County Admini~trator to execute the
necessary documents. (It is noted funds for thin project
have been contributed by developers who develop in the
Drainage
Vote: Unanimous
ENGiNeERS A~D RUST EI~VIRONMENT AND
On motion oS ~r. ~arb~r, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board
engineering needs of %he Transportation Department, to
~lauvelt Engineers, P.C. and Ru~t Environment and
I~f~a~%~¢~re, I~cc~porated, which contrast ~hall be
effective through September 30, 1996 and authorized the
94-775
County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. (It
is noted thi~ action rep~esent~ the addition of the6e two
engineering firms to the exieting list of those o0mpanies
which may be called upon to provide design mervices to the
County as ~eeded ~nd since nO retainer feee are involved and
appropriation of funds is only required mt the time the
County enters into ~ contract for a epecifio project, there
i~ ue funding requirement associated with th~ action.)
Vote:
agreement with the Virginia Department of Tran~pOrtatiom to
c~nstruct the Warbro Athletic Complex access read. (It is
acted funds were appropriated at the time of application for
money is needed.)
Vote: Unanimous
DATE FOR ~UBLTC HE~RING. TO CONSIDER AN ORDIEANCE
17.2 relating to real estate ta× o×emption for certain
Vote: Unanimou~
~DDITTON ~RO~ECT
On motion of ~r. Barber, seoomded by Dr. Nicholas, the Boar~
adopted =he £ollo~in~ resole=ion:
WHEREAS, Cedar springs Rea~ was ~stabli~hed on ~r before
October 23, 19~3, and currently serves at least three
families per mile; un~
WHEREAS, ~e V~rginia Department of Transportation has
determined Chesterfield County's current ~uhdivlsion
ordinance me~ts all necessary requirements to qualify
Thesterfield County to recommend additions to the Secondary
System of State Highways, pursuant to ~.1-7~-1~ Cod~ cf
Virginia; and
W~EREAS, it is the opinion of Chesterfield County that
speculative interes~ doe~ eot exist on Cedar Spring~ Ro~d.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Che~%er£ield County
5card of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to a~d to the Secondary Systen of ~tat~
5ighways, pursuant to ~3.1-7~.lfD), Code of Uir~inia~ Cedar
Springs Road, beginning at a point 0.27 nile west of
Claypoint Road (Route 651), thence southward for a distance
of 0.18 mile.
AND, BE IT FLrRT~ER R~OLV~, that the Board guarantees a
ctoar and unfed:flared right of way of fifty (50) feet for
Cedar Springs Road, such right-of-way being recorded in Deed
Book: 1199 Page 560, Deed Book: 1199 Page 557, Deed Book:
Page 765, Deed Book: 2572 Page RRP~ Deed Book: 2564 Page
677, and Dasd Book: 2§75 Page 618-
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to improve Cedar
Springs Road to the prescribed minimum standards, funding
~aid improvement~ pursuant to 33.1-72.1(D), Cede of Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County ~nvlrenmantat ~ngineer, in accordance
with direction~ from this Board~ made report in writing upon
his examination o£ the roads in An=let Ridge, Section 7,
Whereas, the ~sid~nt Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation ha~ a~vised the Director of EnviroD/~entai
Engineering, the street~ in 3kntler Ridge, ~ection 7, ~atoaea
District, meets ~he requirements established by the
Subdivigion ~tr~et R~quirmm~nts Of the Virginia Department of
Transportation, and
Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department of
Transport=finn have entered into an a~remment, recorded in
Deed Book 2~5~, Page 405, January 21, 1994~ for all
mtormwater detention/retention facilities in the County.
Therefore, upon consideration whereof, and on mo%ion of ~r.
Barber, seconded by Dr. Nieholas~ it is resolved that the
roads in Antler Ridge, section 7, Matoaaa Dis=riot, be and
they hereby are established as p~blic roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virqinia Department of
Transportation, De and i~ herehy requested to take into the
Secondary System, pursuant to Section 33.%-229, Cod~ of
Guaranteed RighS-of-Way width: 50' feet.
From: the intersection of Nashua Pleas
Guaranteed Right-of-way width: 40' fee~o
Name of Street: Nashua Drive Length: O.QS mile
From: existing ~auhua Drive
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, ~ight
distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements in~icate~ on the
development plat.
Th~se roads serve 27 lotm.
.... IL ~ .L __ L I L _
This s~ction of Antler Ridge is recorded as follcw~:
Section 7, Plat Book 81~ Page 30, June 23, 1993.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C.~. REQUEST TO ~UITCLAIM A PORTION OF A SIXTEEN
FOOT SANITARY EEWE~ EASEMENT ACROSS PRO~ERT~
OWNED BY MOUNT~INBER PRDPER~.~ES-- INC. AND
On motiom of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nicholas, the Board
a~thorized the Chairman of the Board and ~he C6un%y
Administrator to execute a quitclaim de~d to ~acate a portion
Mountaineer Properties, Incorporated and L~o~ard C. Ellis,
Jr. Real E~tate Company. (It i~ noted a copy cf the plat is
filed with the papers of this Board.)
vote: Unanimous
8.C.9. REOUBST FOR PEI%HI~ION ~ROK MR. MICHAEL W. LE0~IRTH
TO CONSTRUCT A PORTION OF A DECK WITHIN ~ ~XISTI~G
TE~ FOOT BASEmeNT
On ~otlcn of Mr. Barber, ~eccnded ~y Dr~ ~icholas, t~e Board
approved a r~quest from ~. Michael W. Lenrnhirth to con,truer
a portion of a deck w~=hin an existing ten foot easement
across Lo~ $, Sprinq Trace, Section I, subject to the
e~ecution of a license agreement. (~t in noted a copy of the
vicinity sketch is filed with the papers of this Board.)
authorized the chairnan of the Board and the Covnty
Administrator to execu%~ an ~as~ent agreement with virginia
the Chesterfield County Airport for runway lighting. (It i~
noted a copy of ~he plat i~ filed with the ~spars uf this
Board.)
for th= purChaSe and installation of four (4) "No Parking"
signs for Blockader Lane in dlen Tara Subdivision. (It is
noted a copy of the vicinity skatoh ~s file~ with the papere
of this Board.)
94-77~
WASTE COLLeCTiON ALTE]tNATIVEH FOX THE COUNTY
~r. Barber stated he has not had any concerns expressed by
citizens regarding waste collection services and supports the
County encouraging itc recycling efforts. ~e further stated
he i~ uncomfortable wit~ the eo~t associated wit~ conducting
the telephone survey for a problem which he feels has not
been identified, therefore, he does not feel he can ~upport
~ha survey at this time.
Kr. Daniel stated he also is uncomfortable with the cost
as~oclat~d with the survey.
When asked, F_r. Hammer stated the cost was derived from prior
incorporate other County Departments in the survey in an
the survey is for long-term and strategic planning purposes.
He stated the Board requested the Bolid Waste Advisory
Committee to address various options and the Committee
concluded it needed input from the consumers prior to making
Kr. Barber res~ated he is concerned about the intent and cost
of the survey.
~r. Warren stated he concurs with comment~ expressed by ~r.
barber and made a motion for thc Soard ho defer indefinitely
consideration cf conducting a County wide telephone survey
regarding various waste collection alternatives for %he
County. He furthe~ stated he f~sls th~ Board should
communicate with its Committee members to obtain a stronger
feeling from them and if necessary, the Board could revisit
this ~ssua.
~r. MeHale 0ff~red an amendment ts th~ motion for staff to
bring the issue back to the Board during thc upcomiDg budget
Mr. Warren accepted Mr. McHale's amendment to his motion.
Mr. McKale called for the vote on the motion made by Mr.
consideration of conducting a County wide telephone survey
regarding various waste celiac=ion alternatives for the
County until the ~peomi~g b~dget precess.
Vote: Unanimous
9. HEARINH~ OF CITIZENS CE UNSCHEDULED ~IATTERB OR CLAIMH
There were no Hearings of citizens on Unscheduled Matters or
Claims soheduled at this time.
~0. REPO~T$
On notion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr, Warren, the Board
accepted the following reports:
water and sewer contracts executed by the County
Administrater.
94-779 1O/26/94
.................. ~ ~ ~1 .... L ............. [ L .....
Mr. Ramsay Dre~ented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Balance; R~merve for Future capital Projects;
District Road and Street Light ~un~s; Lease ~urchase~;
School Board Agenda.
vote: Unanimeus
0~ motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Dr. Nio~olas, the ~oard
recessed to the A~ministration Building~ Room ~02, for
dinner.
Reoen~ening:
12- i~VOCATION
Mr. ~oHale introduced ~r. Stith who gave th~ invocation.
AKERICA
Chief Esnss led =he Pledge of Allegiance to the Fl~g of the
united State~ of America.
citisens nf c~emterfield County and iotroduced
A~sembly, to Mr. Celbert's family, a~ a tribute to
~amily who were ~resent to accept the
Mrs. Colbert expressed appreciation for the
(It is noted & copy of the re~olution i~ filed with the
~aDars of ~hie ~oard.}
Mr. Stith stated the re~olution before the Board acknowledges
the dedication and commitment ~hown by Mr. Colbert to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
94-750
On motion of the Board~ the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The Honorable Whaley M. Colbert served on the
Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, representing
~ahcaca District, from January, 1992 and as ChairMan of the
Board from January, 1994 until his passing on August 17,
1994; and
WHEREAS, after being diagnosed with cancer, Mr. Colbert
continued to ~aintain his insight and good humor while
serving his Matoaca constituency and, at the eame time,
fighting with much determination and courage; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Colbert demonstrated exemplary leadership,
courage, and insight in' dealing with issues facing the
County; was responsive ts the needs of its citizens while
maintaining the quality of life at an economically ac=eptable
level; and dedicated to the highest caliber in promoting
Chesterfield County as a progressive and well managed
governmental entity throughout the Region, State, and Nation;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Coibert~s dependability, integrity, and
expertise has been recognized not only by the Board, the
Administration, and County residents, bu: ales State and
National officials through his astivs involvement and
commitment to eueh groups as [he Appomattox Basin Industrial
~evelopment Corporation~ th~ Crater Planning District
Commission; th~ Metropolitsn Riohmon~ Convention and
Visitor's Bureau; the Tri-Cities Area Metropolitan Rlannlng
Organization; the virginia Association of Counties; and the
~ational Association of Counties} and
W~ER~A~, under ~c- Celber~'s Chairmanship, the County
confronted challenges and demands placed upon it by focusing
on the County's relationship with its Tri-Cities area
neighbors to the south bordering Matosca District; was
instrumental in providing for the addition to Matcaca Mark,
expansion of Phillips Fire Station, development of Appomattox
Riverside Park at Virginia State University, the new clover
~ii1 Library, expansion of the Ettrick-Matoaca Volunteer
Rescue ~quad, and the County 3ail Annex and con,true, ion of
the Riverside Regional Jail~ and
W~ERF~AS, Mr. Colbert was & ma~or proponent for the
Ettrick on the Move Community Action Project an~ in ~he
development cf a n®w community center for ~ttrick/Matoaca;
was instrumental in receiving sta~e funding for restoration
projects mt ~ppington; was actively involved in the regional
effort to keep Fort Lee off the Department of Defense's Bas~
Closure list; and was a participant in the flrmt himtcric
Regional Su~it in March, 1993 and the two ensuing Summits in
October, 1993 and May, 199A; and
W~ER~A$, Mr- Colbert was a life-long resident of ~atoaca
District; wee employed by State Far~ Insurance Company for
twenty-seven year~ and maintained an offic~ in Chester; was
an elder in Greenwood Presbyterian Church serving as a
teacher, trustee, choir member, and Sunday School
muperintendent; was actively involved in Matoaca Dimt~ict
you~ programs; served on the Board of Directors for the
Colonial Heights Children'~ Theater; was a past member of the
Chm=~ Kiwani~ Club and th~ National Grange A~ociaticn; an~
was a me,er of the Petersburg ~agles.
NOW, T~R~FOR~ B~ IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
Co~:y Boar~ of supervisors ~ereby recognizes the untiring
efforts and co~itment of excellence displayed by Th~
Honorable ~aley M. Colbert, posthumously.
94-781 10/26/94
......... ~ ...... L ...................... I ....... L ...... [ L .........
AND~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLV~b, that the Board of
Suparvleore hereby pressut~ Mrs. Whaley M. Colbert and family
with a plaque inscribed as follows:
Whaley M. Colbert
Matoaca Dis~ri~t Supervleer
Chesterfield County
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
January, 1~94 to A~g~st~ 1~94
Mr. ~eMale presented tbs executed resolution to Mrs. Colbert,
accompanied by members of her family, and ~tated the Board
will miss FAr. Colbert,
~Lrs. Colbert expressed appreciation for the recognition.
~.A.~. METROPOLITAN R!OH~iOND CONVENTION ~ND VISITOR'8
Mr. Jack B~rry, President and Chief Operating officer~
accompanied by Mr. Rick Young, Chairmmn Elect, of the
Metropolitan Richmond ConVention ~nd visitor's Bureau, stated
he is proud to present the resolution in recognition of Mr.
Colbert.
Mr. ~err¥ read ~he r~olution adopted by the Mmtropelitan
Richmond Convention and visitor's Bureau and presented the
plaque =o Mrs- Colbert, ac=ompanied by mcmberE of her family,
and stated Mr. colbert served th~ vieltor~s Eureau W~ll-
~rs. Colbert expressed appreGiation for the recognition.
DONATIONS TO THE PUBLIC ~FETY TR~I~ING CENTER
Mr. Hammer introduced gr. ~ack Shoo~mith, P~esident of
~hoo~mith Brother~, Incorporated, and ~r. Bill Baxter,
President o~ =he Retail Merchants A~oclation of Greater
Richmond, who wer~ pr%menu to receive the resclu~sns and
stated both individuals have been long-ti~ contributor~ to
Chesterfield County and bays made generous ~inaneial
contributions toward =he purchase of the physical training
e~/uiDment for the new ~blic Safety Training Center.
0~ ~otion of the Bourd~ th~ followinq resolution was a~cpted:
WH~RF3%~, Chesterfield County has aon~tructed, with
proceeds fro~ the 1988 Bond Referendum, a new public Safety
Training Center; and
W~R~AS~ the Training C~nter has physical training rooms
designed tn be used by police officer~ and firefighters to
maintain their well being a~d fitness; and
~EREAS, tb~ Bond project did not prnvide funding for
physical training e~uipment to outfit the training rooms; and
~ER~S, Mr, Jack ~hoosmith, President of Shoos~ith
Rrotherm, Incorporated, ha~ always been a loyal and steadfast
mupporher of the County's Polioe and Pire Depar=ment~ and The
Retail Merchants Association of Greater Ric~mon~ has
c~ntributed to many County p~ojeet~; and
10/26/94
WEEREAS, Mr. Shoos~ith has generously donated $5,000 and
The Retail Merchants Association of Greater Richmond has
generously donated $5,000 to assist the county in eguipping
the physical training rooms in the Public Sa~ety Training
Center.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Beard of ~uDervisors hereby expresses its sincere
appreciation to Mr. Jack Shoo~mith, President of Shoosmith
~rothers, Incorporated end The Retail Merchants Association
of Greater Richmond fo~ their generous donatione.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. McHale presented the executed resolutions to ~.
Shoosmith and Mr, Baxter and eMpr~ssed appreciation for their
generous contribution~ to the Public Safety Training Center.
Mr. Dexter s~ated their contribution was a small token of the
co~it~ent the Retail Merchants Association has for the
support given to the co--unity by public safety ~ploy~ and
expressed appreciation for the recognition.
~r~. ~ennett introduced Dr. ~uy Cabral~ chairman of the D~ug
a~d AlCohol Abuse Tas~ FOrCe; ~s. Kay Drew, representing the
Drug Free Schools Program; and ~r. Rick Shinn, Chairman ef
the Chesterfield Alliance for Drug Rehabilitation and
Education (CADRE), who were present tc accep~ the re~elut~en.
On motion of the ~card, the following resolution was adopted:
WKEREA$, alcohol and other dru~ usa in this nation has
reached epidemic stages; and
W~ER~AS, Chesterfield County has been keenly aware of
the destructive potential substance abuse represents in every
~ommuni%y ~nd has sought to address ~his issue through
creation of the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force; support of
the local Chesterfield Alliance for Drug R~habil~tation and
Education (CADRE); and funding of governmental services
r~lated to subEtance abuse; and
W~ERRA~, it in imperative that visib!e~ unified
prevention eduoation efforts by oo~m~hity ~=mbers b~ luunched
to reduce the demand for drugs; and
WHEkEAS, The Virginia ~dera%ion of Communities for Drug
Free Youth, Chesterfield County's CADRE, Chesterfield County
Schools, and the office on Youth are sponsoring the Red
Ribbon Campaign offering citizens the opportunity to
d~cnstrate ~he~r commitment to drug-frae lifestyles; and
~EREAS, th~ Red Ribbon Campaign will be celebrated
throughout Virginia during "~d Ribbon Week,~' October 24
2S, 1994; and
~EAS, private citisens of all ages, business and
gover~en% employees, and professionals will damonstrat~
their oommitmen= to drug-free, healthy life~tyle~ by wearing
and displayiug red ribbon~ during thi~ w~ek-lung campaign.
ROW, T~EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, ~hat the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby supports October ~4 - 28,
1994 aE "Red Ribbon Week" and ~nco~rages its citizens %o
p~rticiput~ ~n alcohol and other drug ~dnaation and
pr~van~ion activities, making a visible s=atement that we are
94-783 10/26/94
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Doard of
Supervisors enooura~e~ all citizens to pledge: The way to
be, Druq-Free!
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Warren presented the executed resolution to Dr. Cabral,
Ms. Drew, a~d Mr, s~inn and expressed appreciation for their
efforts and commitment toward a drug-free no~uni=y.
Dr. Cabral e~premsed appreciationt on behalf of CADR~ the
Task Ferce~ and the School System, for the r~cegnltion. Ha
stated h~ feels the County is fortunate to have the support
of the Board for ant~-drug initiatives in the County and
encouraged everyone to support the drug-free efforts takin~
place in the county during "R~d Ribbon Week."
STREET ROAB#...~0UTE 360, TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT O~
TRAnSPORTaTION
Mr. Stith stated this date and ti~e has bee~ advertised for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of right Of way
along Hull Street Road, Ruute 360, to the Virginia ~epartment
of Transportation.
issue.
On motion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Dr- Nicholas, the Board
approved the conveyanc~ of a .003 acre parcel of land to the
virginia Department of Transportation and authorized the
chairman of the Board and the County AdministratOr to execute
the necessary deed. (It i~ noted a copy uf the vicinity
s~etch ia filed with the pap~r~ of this Board.)
Vote: Unanimous
rezcning from Agricultural IA) to Residential (R-9). A
single family residential subdivision with a minimum lot size
4.$4 unit~ per acre is permitted in a Renidentlal
Di~rict. The Comprehensive Plan designate~ the property for
the applicant is requesting a thirty-day deferral. There
no opposition present.
In Bermudm Magisterial District, 9RINSE G~ORGB S~VIC~
~ORPORATIO~ requested rezoning from Community Business
to General Business (C-5}. The density of ~uch amendment
Will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance
standards. The Comprehensive Plan designator the property
for general so~ero~al use. This request lie~ on 3.0 acres
known as 8700 Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 81-4 (1)
Parcel 15 (Sheet 25).
Mr. Jacobsen presented a summary of Case 9BSN0120 a~d stated
the applicant is requesting a sixty-day deferral. There was
mo opposition present.
On ~otion of Mr. NeHals, ~seonded by Mr. Barber, the Board
deferred Case 95SN0120 until December 14, 1994.
Vote: Unanimous
In Bermud~ ~agiet~rial District, D~Fi%L DEVE~OP~NT/W~LLI~M
DurAL requested re~oning £rom Agricultural (A) to Residential
(R-12] of 2.7 acres; Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-I~)
of 16.4 acres; Residential Townhouae (B-TH) to Residential
(R-i~) of ~.8 acres; and Residential Townhousa ~R-T~) to
Community Business (C-3) of 5.8 acres. A single family
residential subdivision ~ith a minimum lot si~ of 12,000
s~uare feet and co~t~erclal uses ars planned. Residential USe
(R-12] District. The densit~ of the C-3 development will be
controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the property for general
commercial use and for residential use of 1.01 - ~.oo units
per acre. This request lies on 47.7 acrs~ lying off the
southern terminus of Cedar ~ana, also lying approximately 400
feet off the wast line of Jefferson Davis Highway and off the
south line of Osborne Road. Tax MaD 9S-13 (1) Part of Parcel
8 and Tax Map 116-1 (1) Parcel 8 (Sheet
Mr. Jacobsen pr=seated a summary of Case 95~N0125 and stated
the applicant i~ requesting a thirty-day deferral. There was
no opposition present.
Mr. Me,ale entered into the record petitlonm from the
neighborhood relating to the request.
On ~etion of ~r. McHale, seconded by Mr. Warren~ the Board
deferred Ca~ 95~N01~ until November ~,
94~N0211
In Midlothian ~agisterial ~istriot, ~DOLFOLK
requested amendment to Conditional Usa Planned Development
(Case 83S~26) to permit a second freestanding sign. The
density of such amendment will be eontrnlled Dy zoning
conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for general commercial use. Thio
request lies in ~ General ~usineas (C~) District on
acres known a~ 11600 Bu~y Street. Ta~ Map 16-12 (1) Parcel
Mr. 3a~ob~on pr~n~nt~d a ~ummary of Ca~ 945N0~11 and stated
the Planning Commission recommends denial of the application
and approval of a si~n that conforms to ~he county's Zoning
94-785 10/26/94
Ordinance requirements subject to a condition.
Mr. Doug WoolfOlk, representing the applisant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable- There was no Opposition
pre,ant.
On motion of Mr- Barber~ seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board
denied the applicant's requested sign for Csse 94~N0211 and
approved a sign that conforms to the County's zoning
Ordinance requirements subject to the following condition:
Individual buildings shall De permitted to have a
Ordinance for buildings located in an of Eio~ park. (P)
(NOTE: This condition modifies Condition 10 of Case
$~S0~6 for the request property onl~ relative to
free~tanding signs for individual ~uildings. That
portion of Condition 10 of Ca~e 8S~0~6 relative to
In ~ermuda Magisterial 0istrict, ~R~STON ~OKTNg
INC. requested Conditional Use to permit motor vehicle repair
in Agricultural (A) and General Industrial (I-Z) Districts.
Th~ ~n~ity of ~uch amendment will be controlled by zoning
conditions or Ordinance s~andards. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the property for light industrial use. This
request lies on 7.0 acres ~eown as 2000 Croggblade~ Street.
Tax M~p 02-9 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet
Mr. 3acobson presented a summary of Case 95SN0122 and
the Planning Conu~iseicn and sLaff recommends approval and
aoeept~Dce of a proffered condition.
Mr. Larry ~arksd~le, r~pres~ntlng the applicant, stated
recommendatio~ i~ acceptable. There was no opposition
present.
on motion of Mr. McHale, seconded by ~r- Barber, the Board
approved Cas~ 9B~N0t22 and accepted the following proffers~
condition:
within tho buffer along the northern property boundary,
exi~tinq v%getation shall be supplemented with evergreen
plantings of sufficient height, density and spacing to
~ini~ize the vie~ of the improvements an t~e re~uest
property from adjacent residences to the north. Within
thirty (~0) days of approval of this request, a
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for review an~
approval.
Vote: Unanimeus
95~N0134
In Bermuda Magisterial Distriot~ ROWNTREE PONTIAC
TR~K, INO,, requested resining from Agricultural (A) to
Co~unity Business (C-3~. Motor vehicle sales an~, as
accessory to sales, service, repair and rental is planned.
However, with the approval Df this request, the property
could be developed for any other C-3 usa. The density of
such amendment will b~ controlled by ~ening conditions or
O~dinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
94-7~
property for commercial/industrial corridor usE, and
residential use of 2.5% to 4.Q units per acre. This request
lies on a 16.8 acre parcel lying approximately 380 feet off
the west line eS Je££e~esn Davis Highway, measured from a
point approximately 1,908 feet north of Huppy Hill Road, and
lying at the southern terminus of Lucia Drive. Tax ~ap 163-5
(1} Putt of Purcel i (Sheet 4~).
~he Planning Commlss~sn and staff Tocomm~nds approval amd
acceptance of a proffered condition.
Mr. Ted Griswall, r~prasanting th~ applicant, ~tated the
re¢ommsndation is acceptable. There was no opposition
pr~ent.
0n motion of Mr. Morale, seconded by Dr. ~icholas, the Board
approved Case 95SNQ134 and accepted the following pro~fersd
condition:
Except for timbering approved by th~ Virginia State
Department of Forestry for the purpose of re~eving d~ad
or diseased tr~, thar~ ~hall be no timbering on the
Property until a land disturbance p~it has be~n
obtaln~d ~rom the Envlronmental Englneerin~ Department
and t~e a~proved devices ihstulled.
Vote: Unanimous
In Mi~lo%hian Magisterial District,' C AND N DINING, IND.
conjunction with ~ permitted restaurant. The density Of such
amendment will b~ controlled by zoning conditions or
0rd~nance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
This request lies in a Corporate Office (0-2) Di~tric~ on
Parcel 31 (Sheet 3).
the Planning Commission and staff reco~h~nd~ approval subject
to conditions.
approved Case 95SN0140 subject to the following condition~:
p~rmitt~d on the request property only.
(~0TE; This condition modifies condition 24 of Case
only.)
(NOTES: a. Outdoor recrsationai facilities cannot
Ocoupy any required par~ing space or
driveway area.
94-7~7 10/26/94
v~e: Umanimous
Site plans for outdoor recreational
facilities and associated improvements
must be submitted for review
approval.)
In Matoaoa Magisterial Dis%riot, ~. P. ASSOCIATB~, L. P.
requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development
(Case 85S035} to permit repair services, excluding body,
major engine and transmission repair of motor vehicles, in a
Neighborhood Buminemm (C-~) District. The density of such
amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or
Ordinance s%andar~m. The Comprehensiv~ Plan designates the
property for community mixed use. Thi~ regua~t lies on 1.9
acres fronting apprsximately ~S0 feet cn the east line cf
North Spring Run Rsad~ aDprsximately 300 feet south of Hull
Strait ~oad. Tax Map 7~-~ (1) Part of Parcel 14 (Pheet ~0).
Mr. Jacobsen ~resented a summary of Case 9§SN0143 and stated
the Planning Commission and staff recommends approval subject
a condition. ~e note~ the reg~es~ conforms to the UppS~
Swift Creek Land ~ss Plan.
Mr- Cheryl ~impson, representing fhe applicant, stated the
recommendation is acceptable. There was no opposition
On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Beard
approved Cass 95SN0143 subject to the following condition:
In addition to the uses permitted on the subject property
(Part of barc~l A), ~otor vehicle repair ~ervices, exClUding
body, major engine and transmission repair shall be permitted
on the subject property only.
(NOT=S: a. This condition is in a~ditiom to the Textual
Statement of case g5S095, conditions of Parcel
A and cass 88SN0038 for the subject property
b. All other ccndition~ of Case~ 855U35
885NOU~$ remain applicable.)
Vote: Unanimous
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood
~Usinesm (C-1) of ~.0 acres, and to Residential (R-15) cf 6.3
acres; and from Residential (R-15) to Neighborhood ~usine~
(C-Z) of 10S.3 acres, to Light Industrial (I-1) gf 185.7
acres and to Neighborhood office (o-1) cf 4.1 acres; plus
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit ~se and b~tk
e×ceDticne on these properties and a~jaoenT property
currently zoned Residential (R-fa}. A mixed use development
to ~mclude residential, c£fic~, ucmmer¢ial and industrial
uses is planned. The density of such amendment will be
controlled ~y zoning conditions cr ordlnanee, standards. The
l~ght ~nduetr~al use end for residential uae of 4.01 to 7.0
units p~r acre. HoweVer~ t~e Plan notes that this area may
be appropriate for large scale, mixed u~e development in the
vicinity of Route 1-295. This request lie~ On a total of
837.7 acres fronting the west line of Route 1-295, the north
~o1~/~
and south lines of Meadowville Road, and the north line of
Bermuda Hundred Read. Tax Map 100-9 (2) Rivers Bend, Section
6. Lets ~9 - 62; Tax Hap 100-12 (2) Rivers Bend, ~ection
Lots 20 - 3S end Lots 63 ~ 735 Tax Map 118-5 (1} Parcels 1,
Lot 120; end Tax Map 118-10 (1) Parcel 33 {Sheet 33).
F~r. Pools pre,eared a summary of Case 95SN0109 and stated the
Planning Commls~ion recommends approval and acceptance of the
proffered conditions. He further ~tated th~ applicant
proffered to make a number of road improvements to assist in
supporting the density and mitigate the impact of the
project; that an addendum hem been submitted to the re.est
which would allo~ a small number ef homes te be recorded in
the single family residential section prior to having
begin to make ~e road improvements; and that if the Board
accepts ~e addendum, the Board needs Lo emend its Rules
Was advertised. ~ ~tated ~taff doe~ not ~upport Tract~ SPg,
ZPg, and SF10 being changed from industrial to residential
development, the Eastern Area Land U~e and Tran~9ortatlon
and th~ ~eadowvills Plan rapport= more intense indu~trlal
dcvolopment to the cast and anticipates that thoro will bo
~ome lighter intensity industrial u~e~ on th~ River~ Band
~ite to act as a transition to the residential
a~ presented a brief ~lide pre~entatlon of exlstin9
industrial and office ~ses that have been built in the Coun%y
tc go into the Rivers Bend site i~ those tracts were to
remain in,us=rial.
they have b~n working on %hi~ project for approximately two
~ears; that =he applicant accepts the Planning co~ission's
reco~endation; and that approval of the request will provide
a blueprint for the future for an upscale, cohesive
r~idential and busine~ community. Me further ~tated th~
a~plicant wants tc make the land realize its full and proper
many peddle who have worked together in supporting this
project and introduced Mr. Clark Plaxco~ an archi=eot and
planner ~or the projsct, to brief th~ Board on the project.
that currently e~i~t~ and stated the project would allow
approximately six million s~are fee~ of industrial, office,
and retail use~. M~ further otated the amount of retail,
o~Zic~, and industrial uses would not b~ feasible in the
current economy; that it was rescinded that the amount of
co~erclal, retail, and office usam Ehould bm r~duu~d by 70
acres and industrial uses increased by 35 acres; and that the
revised plan consolidates ~he industrial area in a sin~le
ar~a between the proposed Rivers Bend Boulevard and Route 10,
which provides immediate marketing a~cesm and visibility.
then reviewed several development plans incorporated into the
Mr. Ccgbill ~tated the immu~ im whmther indumtrial nme
apprmpriate on ~im property and the applicant does not feel
indus=rial use is an appropria%~ u~ for this proper~y; ~hat
this portion o~ ~ivers Bend should be viewed as residential
and not industrial; tha~ ~he residents in the area are
~e envircnment~ that the applicant feels it is appropriate
that the applicant is proposing a c~refully integrated
project that allows the first view that is seen of
94-789 10/26/94
chesterfield County to be of a residential community. Bm
reviewed the comparison De,ween the original and proposed
land usa and zoning aoreages and expressed concerns relative
to drainage associated with commercial develepme~ in this
area. Be stated this plan is a Better land use and
development prepoeal with a more realistic basis in taTms of
density and the applicant ~emls this request is a watershed
case- ~ further stated Rivers Bend iF the gateway into tbs
County and should speak well of the County an~ they feel it
wou%~ be an injumtice to leave the zoning am is.
~r. Warren e%arifi~d what has occurred on the p~operty and
that thim im a product, from a business standpoint, that is
more practical ae land u~es have been brought together to
ensure more compatibility and atheistic quality in the 1-295
Mr. Cogbill stated the applicant feels they have accomplished
tho~e things and have developed a plan that is a~hiavahle and
workable. He referenced a letter from Mr. Ralph SpenCer
gupporting the prCpO~d zoning change of T~e non-residential
property indicating the resulting confi§~ration of land
will be a better arranqemen~ for future River~ Bend residmntm
as the bluff along ~ha River is not a good commercial or
indumtrial site.
Mr. Richard Tardess stated he resides in Riverm Ben~
mxpressed cun~e:ns relative to commercial building in the
Riverm Bend Subdivision; the traffi~ amsociated with the
industrial development; and requested the Soar~ to give
favcrabl~ consideration to thm request.
Mr. Todd Farmer~ Vi~e Premident of Operations of the Er~i
Components facility in Rivers Bend, ~tated the ability for
Emi Components to locate te Rivers Bend was quemtionabl¢ at
one time; that they feel a viable plan consistent wi~h the
goals of the County, i~s eitim~nm~ and the business community
is critical to the future development of the business park;
that they are excited about the opportunity to have new
neighbors in the businesm park; and look forward ts approval
by the Board of a sound, workable plan that meets this
criteria.
~s. CaDdic~ ~angu~ ~tated she re,ides in Rivers Bend and is
mpeaking on behalf of mothers in Rivers Bend; that they are
concerned about the mafety of children if the zoning is not
approved; and expressed concerns relative to increased
traffic in the neighborhood that industrial development would
generate. She stated the residents of Rivers ~end want their
quality of lif- to continue to improve and requested the
Board to give favorable consideration to t~he ~equemt-
Mr. Judge Schwartz stated he resides in Rivers Bend; that th~
request is a vast improvement and clea~ly distlncts
industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational areas;
that he does nut feml an industrial area or a water tower in
the midst cf an upscale residential area is good zoning; and
r~quemted the Board to give favorable consideration to the
request.
Mr. Bob Valentine, representing the Rivers Send Momeowners
A~eociation, stated approximately 150 of the 1~0 heuseholdm
in Rivers Bend si~ned a petition supporting the request with
t~e proper~y~ no industrial land on th~ bluff aver the gelf
course, and adoption of the circulation plan to faoilitate
better movement through %he oommunity. He further sba=ed the
residents of Rivers Bend want the quality of life they enjoy
to continue. ~e ent~ra~ into the record a espy of the
petition.
94-7~0 ~0/~6/94
Mr. Berkley Matthews, President of the Bermuda District
Association, stated he resides on ~eadowville Road; that the
request; that they feel many of the items which have been
addressed were forced upon existing residents in the original
zoning request; that the residents have spent six years
trying to keep their ~r=u intact as a residential co--unity;
that they placed many restrictions on Eeadowville Road in the
original zoning request to protect the residential ar~a and
Tract VH-1 is appropriate; that they have continually
requested single family residential be allowed to face
~eadowdal~ Road; and requested the Board to deny the zoning
of VH-1 as ~equested or that reconsideration of sinqle family
homes, R-15, be considered for this property. He referenced
a letter from the Bermuda District Azsociatio~ requesting the
Board undertake action to alleviate the unsafe condition they
feel has developed at the Rivers Bend entrance relating to
increased traffic and traffic light installation. He entered
into the record a copy of the letter and petition on behalf
of th~ B~rmuda District ks~oclation.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), on several
oocasions, to install a light at the intersection of Route
and Rivers B~nd Bculevard~ that the developer has posted the
~ond ~e ins~atl the light; and sta~ will ~on~inue to pursue
this issue.
~r. McHale stated he feels this is a serious situation and he
F~r. Valentine clarified that 150 households also signed the
p~tition in nupport of the traffic light.
~L~. Plaxcc stated the County process provides an opportunity
for the developer to offer Mr. Matthews and hi~ community
association a schematic plan which is the next step in the
County's process before any development can be done on the
pro,arty and that the applicant has proffered a condition
whereby the president of the Association would have a voting
position on the Architectural Review soar~ £er Rivers send,
which would review the architectural and site plan~ prio~ to
=hem coming to the County ~or site plan approval. He further
stated the plan contain~ the possibility cf developing single
~amily lots on ~eadowville Road and using them as a buffer
for the village housing.
~r. Mc~ale clarified that ~he zoning would p~rmit single
successor would b~ a voting member
91anning Commission.
Kr. Cogbil! ~xpress~d appreciation t~ staff ~or ~h~ir
and Kingston ~ntersection when warranted. He further ~tated
a significant proffer that was added was immediate
improvements ~o Route 10 and referenced th~ Su~rvitl~
~ammmd by the Board in 19~4. He stated the applicant came in
with no contractual obliqation to
is for an accommodation of residential uses on 24 net acres
=hat is currently zoned indus=rial and he feels R-i~ is not
the proper classification as the minimum zoning for the rest
of Rivers Bend is R-12; that the applicant wor~ed diligently
with Mr. ~at~h~w~ in try~n~ to reach a compromise; =ha= the
applicant will continue to work with Mr, Matthews; and read
Dcrtlon cf a letter from ~r. Wolfgang Webner, representing
the EnQn Civic A~ociation, indicating their pssition on tho
proposed request. He requsstmd the Board %0 give favorable
When asked, Mr. Pools stated if t/%e e~se wore approved as
presented, the devsloper would hays the option to develop
typical single family housing in TraGt VH-1 as well as a
smaller lot dovolopment.
Mr. Warren stated he feels this is a project that has been
well planned, will be successful and beneficial to the
County; and will be used in the futur~ as a guide by other
developers to improve the future of Chesterfield County.
~r. Daniel s~a~ed this is a classic z~ning case in that the
original developers of Rivers Bend are no longer involved,
but had a vision for an upscale residential ceI~munity. He
further ~tated he feels new and improved c~angss were needed
as demonstra~sd and the ccnditienal use zoning allows for
continued cha~ge based on current events.
Dr. Nicholas concurred with the comments expressed by ~r.
Warren.
Mr. Barber stated the =cunomic Development Department is
indus~rlal acres that would be zoned for thi~ project. Be
further stated he feels the county needs to be oogni~ant of
the a~0~nt of indus%rial la~d in =he County as that is the
development which funds ~ducation and ~ays the additional
cost beyond residential dovolc~ment. ~e stated the Board is
aware of the long-term needs of the County and to some degree
ha is uncomfortable with the redum:isn in industrial acres
£or unis request. ~e further ~tated the change to
residential zoning is building in opposition to future cases
whes residential development ~ither adjoins, abuts, or can
view futur= industrial development. Ho ~tated he will
support the recommendation of the B~rmuda Distri=t supervisor
industrial land is not plentiful and the County needs tO
covet that land so it can bring about t~o things necessary to
sustain tho quality o~ life in Chesterfield.
Mr. MoHale stated the County does not have a lot of
industrial land becomes a challenge to defend as casem arls~.
He further stated he does not feel the lOSS Of industrial
len~ a~ Rivers ~end has a serious impact to the County,
orated he does nut f~el this project will advor~ely impact
the possible development of the Meado%rville tract for
stated he is concerned about t~e villaqe housing is~u~ and
in,sired as ~o whether ~here is ~ny further level of
protection, without changing the zoning, that the
Mr. Pool~ ~tat~d he ~s unaware of any other protection that
could be provided, however, a~ t~e property is sold, any
rules ~stablished w~th t~i~ reques~ remains. He further
~tated the Board ha~ the legal ability to impose conditions
applicant must agree to any condition~ imposed or all
proffers to the reques~ would ~eoome n~ll and void. When
a~ked, he s~ated an example of a condition that the Board
or limit the housing t~es to single family detached on
typical suburban subdivision
94-792 10/26/94
Discussion, eo~ment~, and ~ue~tinns en~ued relative to the
Planning Commission having the right ~o approve or deny the
applic&nt's site plan~ the Planning Commimmion, residents of
Rivers Bend, and resldentm in the Meadowville area havin~ an
es%ire role in the ultimate outcome of the project; and the
density tha~ was built in ~nglish Oaks.
Mr. McHale stated he feel~ thi~ is a good case and the
applicant and staff have worked diligently on the project.
the B~a~d to ~uspend its Pules at this time to con~ider the
following language added to proffered condition 7.a.:
"excluding Section 9 [8 10ts) and Section 1~ (no more than 15
lots of the proposed ~4 lots."
Vote: Unanimous
95S~Q109 a~ recomm=nded by th= Planning Commission, with the
amended proffered condition. He stated in conjunction with
approving this request, he would like staff to communicate to
the virginia oepsrtmsnt of Transportation =he necessity of
installing stoplights et the Route 10/Rivers Bend Boulevard
Dr. Nicholas e~nonded the motion.
Mr. ~cHala called for the vote on the motion made by him,
~eoonded by Dr. Nicholas, for the Board to approve Case
95SN0109 and to accept the following proffered condition~:
Statement are defined in the Definition section of this
application and by this reference are made part of this
application.
The Textual Statement, together wi~h its exhibits, last
revised September 20, 1994, shall be considered the overall
master ~lan for ~he Property.
A. P~BLIC FACILITIES
1. Within sixty ~ays o~ re~ueet by ~he Fire
Department, the developer agree~ to dedicate to
Chesterfiel~ County, free and unrestrlctsd sn~ fire
station/rescue squad site (not to exceed three
gross acres, exclusive of any required right-of-way
dedication) within one of th~ following ar~as
designated below and subject to the site criteria
and rmmtriotionm outlined below:
Megan's Drive (Tract 0-1): First priority.
b. village ~ousing A Tract in the Nor=beast
quacLrant of River's Band Boulevard and
Msade~ville Read (Tract VH-1): S~cend
priority.
c. Or an alternative mi~s either within or
out~ide thim Development acceptable to the
Fire Department and the Developer.
2. At the time of site ~lannlng within any Tracts
designated for a fire/rescue station site, the
developer s~all confer with and obtain approval of
the ~ire D~partm~nt (~ubject to ~it~ ~el~ctidn and
acquisition policies of Chesterfield County)
=e~arding the following:
94-793 10/26/94
a. the exa~t size of the site which is to be
determined by the Fire Department in
consultation with the developer;
b. site planning issues concerning
relationship of the public facility with
well as the size of th~ site;
o. projected construction time frame in
to determine phasing of overall site develop-
The Developer de,ires that the fire station~rescue
squad he an integral part of the Development, both
aa~th~tlcally and functionally. Az ~uch, the
facility is to be designed $0 that it is integral
Development including site planning, architectural
styling, landscaping, and signage.
4. Prior ~o the i~$u~see of any building permit in any
Tract in ~hich a fire station/rescue s~uad site has
been designated and for which a schematic, ~ite,
and/or tentative plan approval has been granted,
the Developer shall ~e~ic~te the site to the
county, er at such time as epeclfie~ by the County,
er shall dedicate such site within sixty {60) day~
of written re~uest by the Fire Department,
whichever occurs first.
5. IS the si=e is not developed for a fire
~tation/rescue squad facility, ~t may be developed
for other public uses or facilities a~ mutually
agreed upon by the Developer a~d the County.
1. The transportation plan submitted with the
application (Exhibit C) shall be considered the
master road plan- Approval of the plan b~ the
County doe5 not imply that the county gives final
section.
The maximum density of the Development, for traffic
management purposes, sh~ll be 1,~O0,0O0 square feet
of office/warehouse! 50~,000 square feet u~ light
industrial, 50,oo0 Dquare feet of retail,
square feet of office, 5IQ ~in~le family
residential units, ~SQ Dultipl~ family residential
approved ~y the Transportation Departmunt.
3. Prior to ~ite or tentative subdivision plan
for Kingston Avenue an~ River'~ Bend Boulevard
shall be submitted to and approved by the
Transportation Department~ Access to the Property
s~all conform to the approved accemm plan.
4. The Developer shall dedicate, fre~ and
unrestricted, to and for the benefit
Chesterfield County: i) a one hundred twenty (120)
foot wide right-of-way for Kiver's Bend Boulevard
from Kingston Avenue to 1-295; ii) a ninety
Soot wide right-of-way for Kingston Av~n~o from
Bermuda Hundred Road north to King~ton Avenue at
Parcel 1~ on Tax ~ap 115-5(1); and iii) ~ffici~nt
94-794 10/26/94
riph=-of-way for =he r~liqn~snt of ~he Msadowvitle
Road/River's Bend Boulevard intersection. The
exact location of theme ri~hts- of-way on the
Property shall be approved by the Transportation
Department. Prior to cite or tentative subdivision
plan approvalj whichever occurs first, a phaolng
plan for these dedications shall be submitted to
and approved by the Transportation Department.
Right-of-way dedication required by thin condition
shall occur in accordance with the approved phasing
plan.
Prior ho site or tentative subdivision plan
approval for Tracts abutting the Interstate Land
(as hereinafter defined) or within thirty (FO) days
cf a written request by the county, whichever
occurs first, the Developer, it~ ~uccessors or
assigns, (the "Developer") shall deliver a ~eeO in
a for~ acceptable to the County, At no coat to
County, to and for the bsnefit of Chesterfield
County the real estate shown hatched on ~xhibit
and consisting of approximately 41 acres of land
(the "Interchange Lan~"). The Ieterehange Lan~ is
to be u~ed fo~ the sole p~rpose~ of constructing
the proposed Meadowville Road-River's
Bo~leva~d/I-295 interchange (the "Interchange").
The oxes= location of nee right-of-way ~or
I~te~ohange Land (inclusive of the area designated
a~ the ~00 foot setback in the nurthweot
and th= 50 foot setback in the southwest quadrant)
shall be approved by the Transper~atien De9ur~ment.
The dsed to the County shall contain a reverter
clause for the benefit of tke Developer, setting
forth that the Interchange Land ~hall r~v~rt to the
Dsvelope~, if the Interchange has not been
constructed befor~ the date which is twenty (20)
years after the date of the approval of this
rezoning by th~ Board of Supervisors (the
"Construction Period"). If the Interchange has not
been eoD~tructed before the end of the Construction
Period, then upon a written request from the
Developer~ the County or the th~n owner of
Int6rstate Land shall execute and deliver a ~peeial
warranty deed conv~ying titl~ to ~he
Land to the Developer. In the event the
Interchanqe is constructed d~ring the
Period, the county or its successor in interest
shall, at the request of the Developer, convey
the Developer~ by special warranty deed, at no cost
to the Developer, so much of the Interchange Land
as ~=mains outside uf the right-of-way limits (as
set forth on the final approved ~esi~n) of the
Intsrchsnge. During the Construction Period
~eoorlbe~ shove, the Developer may develop all
Property adjacent to the Interstate Land described
in this condition provided such development ~hall
In addition to the deed of dedication
above, =he Developer ~hall main=sin a 50 foot
setbnck for non-residential usec and a 200 foot
Interchange Land a~ shown on ~hibit C-2 and ac
further specified in Proffer B.10. $~bject to the
last sentence of thio paragraph, if required by the
agency with the authority for such a~provalc for
at ~ha request of the Transportation Department,
~hall dedicate additional land within the 200 foot
~4-795 10/26/94
setback in th8 northwest quadrant and within tha
f~ot setback in the southwest guadrant as depicted
on Exhibit C-2. Setbacks for any building,
regardless of use, located on the Tracts adjaoent
to th~ Interchange Land ~hsll he measured ~rom the
proposed right-of-way line shown on Exhibit C-2 and
as more precisely defined at th~ time of the
dedication Of the InterGh~ngQ Land. If, prior to
final dmsign cf the Intershange~ th~ Tra:ts in the
northwest qua~ran~ have received sit~ plan and/or
tenta%iv~ subdivision plan approval, thc County's
right to ohtalm ~y dedication additional right-of-
way shall be limited to 50 foot setback shown on
ExhiDit C-~.
To provide f~r an mde~uete roadway system for
development of 1,024,000 square feet of
office/warehouse, 316,000 ~g~are feet of light
industrial, ~0,000 ~quare feet of retail, 74,0~0
square feet ~f office, 5lO single-family
~esidential unite, ~0 multiple family r~midential
units, end a golf course (or equivalent densities,
as approved by the Transportation Department).,
Developer ~hall be responsible for the following
improvements:
a. · Construction of one (1) additional westbound
lane =long Route i0 from the Kinds%on Avenue
inte~secti¢~ to east of River's Bend Road
in%ers~ction &~d one (1) eastbound lan~ alon
Route 10 from Old Bermuda Hundred int~rsectlon
to ~ingston Avenue intersection as generally
shown on ~xhi~it C-l, subject to ~roff~r
B.7-a- and
Construction of River's Bend Boulevard
a four lane road from the terminus of
e×i~ing four lane ~ec~ion at
River'~ Bank Boulevard to Kin~zto~
Avenue~
(2) a four lan~ road east of Kingston Avenue
transitloning tc a two lane road within
1200 feet east of Kingston Avenue with
approved by the Transportation
Qepartm~nt~ and
(3} a ~wo lane road from approximately
feet east of Kingston Ave~ns to the
existing ~eadowvil!e ~oad bridge over
295.
c. Construction ~f e ~ul-de-~ec on Meado%~vill~
Road at Kingston Avenue, if required by the
of this cul-de-sac On the ~rop~rty shall be
approved by the Tran~portatlon Department.
Hundred Road at Kingston Avenue, if required
by t~e Transportation Department. The
location of this ~ul-de-$aG shall be
by the Transportation Department.
e. Construction of Kingston Avenu~ from Route 10
to River's Bend Boulevard as a two
facility with turn lanes or as a four-lane
~ivided or four-lane undivided facility with
turn lanes as determined by appropriate
traffi~ ~tudies or, a~ required by the
Transportation
f. ~/11 cost of traffic siqnalizatien at the
River's Send ~oulevard/Route 10 interseo~±on,
at the Kingstoh Avenue/RoUte 10 intersection,
and at intersections on River's Band ~uulavard
from north of Hagen's Drive to King'ston Avenue
if warranted as determined by the
Transportation Department. Full cost of any
necessary traffic signalization on Kingston
~end Soulevard if warren%ed as determined by
g. Construction cf all intersection improvements,
including turn lanes, as identified on Exhibit
C.
the b~nofit of Chesterfield County any
additional right-of-way (or ~as~m~nt) r~quired
for the improvements identified above.
The phasing of the required improvements specified
in Proffer ~.~ shall be as follows:
a. Construction of the one (1) a~dltienal
w~stbound lane alon~ Routs 10 specified in
Proffer s.6.a, shall Bo under construction in
its entirety and bonded prior to (i)
recordation of any subdivision plat or site
plan approval for any residential
sxcludln~ ssctlon 9 (8 l~t~) and Section 10
(no more than 15 lots of the proposed 24 ~ete)
or (ii) site plan approval for more than
240,000 square feet of light industrial (or
equivalent densities as approved by the
Transportation Dgpartment), or (iii) within
two (2) years from the date of approval of
this rezoning by the Board of
whichever first occurs. The additional
westbound lane ~hall ~e Co,plated within 12
The ~40,000 square' feet of light industrial
and unrestricted any additional right-of-way
for easements) required for thi~ improvement.
b. Construction of ~he one (t) additional
eastbound lane slung Ruute 1~ specified in
Proffer B.6.a. shall be under construction in
its entirety and bonded prior to (i)
of 40~ rmsidential units/lots, or (ii) site
plan approval for more t~an 670,000 square
feet of light industrial/office warehouse
(baaed upon 240,000 square feet of light
warehouse) (or equivalent dansitie~ as
approved by the TraD~portation Department),
eastbound lane shall he completed within 12
months after the commencement of construction.
Th~ developer shall dedicate to and for the
benefit of Chesterfield County free and
94-797 10/26/94
unrestricted any additional right-cf~way (or
easements) required for this improve~e~t~
c. A phasing pled for required improvements
specified in Proffers B.6.~. through
shall bo submlttod to and approved by tho
Transportation Departmen~ prior to any elto
or tentative subdivision plan approval for the
d~volopment specified in Proffer B.6.
than 1,024,000 square feet of allies/warehouse,
316,000 square f~et of light industrial, 50,000
s~uare feet e~ ~etail, 74~OQO ~quaro fe~t of
office, 510 single-family residential units, 350
m~ltiple family residential units, and a
course (or ~quivalent densities as approved by the
Transportation Department), ~he d~veloper shall
~ouhhwest ~uadrents and a loop in the
southeast quadrant of the Neado~ille ~oad-
River's Bend Bouleuard/I-395 interchange. If
those interchange improvements are provided by
others thi~ requirement shall ~e deemed
satisfied.
~. Construc=io~ of all intersection improvements,
including turn lanes~ as identified nn
c. Dodlcation, ~res and unrestricted, to and for
th~ benefit of Chesterfield County, any
additional ~ight-o£-way (or easement) r~quir~d
for the improvement~ id=stifled above.
Specific roadway improvements, set forth in these
transportation proffers, are required by the limo
of full sit~ d~velopment and are tO be constructed
in accordance with the phasing plane approved by
the Transportation Department er as required by
other proffered conditions~ If requested by the
~ranepsrtation Department, tho Developer ~hall
p~avide to the Transportation Department,
additional Lra££io studies upon completion of each
required of the Developer shall be increased or
deo~eased by the Transportation Department,
those additional studi~ indlcato that traffic
generation rates and distributions sslely from this
Development differ materially from the original
projections in the Dexter R. Williams
determined by thc Transportation Department. If
satisfactory improvements cannot bo provided, the
dens/ties to tho extent that acceptable lovelo of
s~rvice arc provided as d~tormined ~y the
Transportation Department.
In order tc assist in noise mitlg~tlon, for
rezid~ntial Tracts there shall be a 200 feet
$o~baQk, exclusive of r~quired yards, malntalnod
from tho e~istinq 1-295 right-cf-way and from
Interchange Land ~hown on ~hibit C-2 unless a
sound study demonstrates that a lesser distance is
acceptable, ss ~etermined by ~he Transportatio~
Department. Natural vegetation shall be retained
within this setback area unless removal of
94-795
vegetation is approved by the Planning Cu~mis~ion.
11. The follewing~access provisions shall apply:
a. ~o direct ac~ ~halt be allowed from the
Property te Meadowville Road.
h. In conjunction ~ith the recordation of the
first subdivision plat, an access easement,
acceptabl~ %0 the Transportation Department,
shall be recorded from Middlecoff Drive to
Parcels 4 and 5, Tax Map 99-i~-(1).
C~SH PROFFERS
Although cash pro~fer~ are not required for the
construction of up to 659 dwelling units in the
0evalopment, this application h~5 requested certain
devolcpment ~cen~rio~ that could cause the number of the
dwelling units to exceed ~he previously established
ceiling. Thfs additional housing includes Village
Center ever-shop hQuslng, Elderly/Retirement Housing,
and empty-ne~er housing near the golf course. In the
event the number of dwelling ~Dit$ a~ ~iver~s Ben~
exceeds the previously authorized number of units, cash
preffez~ (o~ some portion thereof) may be due and
payable as follow~=
1. At the time designated betow~ the Developer,
subdivider, or hie assignee, 'shall pay %he
following cash payment to the County for
infrastructure improvements within the nervice
district for the Proper~y or Development as
designated by the Capital I~prove~ent Program.
Subject to the limitation~ ~t forth in Proffer
C.2. below, the Developer shall pay the following
applicable cash preffer fee for each dwellXng unit
constructed in excess of 659 units:
a. At ~hs time of building permlt applicat±on the
cash payment, if pai~ prio~ to June 30, 1995,
shall be the amount currently ~pproved by the
Board of Supervisors (the "~oard") not to
exceed $5~D83 for e~oh dwelling unit; or
b. The amount approved by the Board not to e~ceed
SB0g~ for each dwelling unit constructed in
the Development, adjusted upward by any
increase in the ~mhall end swift Building
Co~t Inde~ bet~ee~ J~ly 1, 1994 and July 1 of
%he ~iscel year in which the payment im made
if paid after June 30, 1995.
If any of the cash proffers are not exp~nded
for the purposes ~esignated by ~he Capital
Improvement P~og~am Within fifteen (15] year~
from the date of payment they ~hall be
ret~r~ed in full to the Developer or his
assignee.
2. on any Tract dev~lope~ for r~idential uses,
designed and used primarily for Elderly/Retirement
~ousing, for which dash proffers would otherwise be
due as ~et forth in Proffer C.1. above, the cash
proffer described below shall be paid. Occupancy
with the requirements of Elderly/Retirement Housing
as se~ forth in. the definitions section of this
application.. For each dwelling unit developed, the
Develuper, the suhdlvlder or hi~ a~ignee~ at the
94-799 1Q/26/94
.............. I: !_~1 ........... L__ [ L ...................
time of building permit application~ shall pay as
cash proffers to the county'that portion of the
cash proffer for infrastructure improvements within
the ~ervice district for the Development excluding
that per,ion applicable to sebeol~:
and each new unit to be constructed in the
D~velopment, if paid prior to Jnne ~0~ 1995
for each dwelling unit; ok
The amount approved by the Board not ko exceed
57% of $~O~ ($~a) for each residential lot
and each new unit to be constructed in the
Development, adjusts4 upward by any increase
in the Marshall and Swift Bu~ldlng Cost Index
be%ween July 1, 1994 and July i of the fiscal
yea~ in which the payment i~ made if paid
after June 30, 1995.
If the cash proffers are not expended for the
purposes designated by the Capital Improvemen~
Pregram wi%bls fifteen (ID) years from the
date of payment, they shell be returne~ in
should Che~terfleld County impo~e impact f~ at
any time during th~ life of the Develop~ent~ the
amount paid in cash proffers shall be in lieu cf or
credited toward any impact fe~s at the
determination of the County.
UTILITIES
1, Public water and sewer shall be used, except that
wells may be es~d for irrigation purposes only for
th~ golf course, open space srea and community
facilities such a~ landscaping and play field~
{zubject to Health Departnent approval and the
requirements c~ Chapter.18.1 of the Cohnty Code).
The existinq golf course maintenance building shall
be permitted to use its existing drainfleld.
2. In conjunction with the submittal of the ~chemati¢
plan for the Development, an updated overall water
and sewer plan for the Development ~ha]l be
~ubmitted to the U%illties Department for review
and approval. This plan shall depict th~ routing,
sizing, and tic-in points for all mein~ and shall
Utilities Department.
the ~nvirenmental Engineerln~ Department shall be
provided with copies of correspondence from
applicable State and Federal' agencies in urdex that
it may be confirmed that all p~mit~ ~eqarding
wetlands have besu ressived. A qualified weblands
expert can certify that notification of applicable
State and Federal agencies is not required.
4. Collector or arterial road plane (based on ultimate
development design on a phased basis) which a~e
connected to an existing s~at~ maintained road
either directly or via existing recorded and bonded
dedicated public right,-of-way shall be approved,
~eparately and prior to or concurrent with adjacent
94-800 10/26/94
area development plans, by VDOT, the Transportation
Department and Environmental ~nqinearing prier to
the r~l~ase of any building permits or recordation
of any subdivisions requiring these roads for
permanent access. The rights-of-way for these
roads shall be bonded and dedicated prior to
recordation of uny residential development
requiring thesc roads, for permanent access. This
requirement ~hall not supersede any requirement for
right-of-way dedication er conmtruction outlined in
the Transportation Proffers.
Prior to schematic, site and/or tentative plan
approval for individual Tracts, a buffer/setback
plan for residential .areas which are adjacent to
U.S. Amy Co~s of Engineers' jurisdictional
we%lands and areas that, in the opinion of
Envirornmentat Engineering, are steep elopes, shall
be approved by the Environmental Engineerinq
Prior tO schematic, site and/or tentative plan
approval, an overall road network plan which will
allow for a clear and easy comparison of the
proposed network to the existing road network shall
be provided to the Environmental Engineering
Department. ' This plan will allow for a
determination to include~ but not b~ limited to,
those reade which have been built/recorded that are
names may have to be ahanged~
Preservation Act plan which severs the area north
of existing Meadowwille Road and west of 1-295 will
be revised to account for the land uss and storm
water management changes which may occur with the
new zoning conditions on the Development. Any
additional pollutant removal capacity on the
project whiuh is determined to be required shall be
achieved prier to or concurrent with further
developmen~ subsequent to the rezoning.
The lan~ area north of ~eadowville Road, exclusive
interchange which drulns to Johnson Creek, shall he
subject to a etormwater management concept limiting
the ul=ima=e water~he~ development 2, 10 and 100
year/~4 hoar duration storm event discharge to a
peak diechar~ lees than er equal te the
corresponding pre-development peaks.
That portion of th~ Development located south of
Meadowville Read shall be designed to meet a peak
discharge less th~n or equal to the corresponding
pre-development peak discharge for the 2, 10 and
100 year/24 hour d~ratien storm event.
~ainline stormwater s~ructures located in Kingston
A~enue shall be designed to meet VDOT criteria.
The Developer shall be responsible for the
attenuation e~ ~he post-development discharge
created by the area within the right-of-way of
Kingston Avenue. Such attenuation from the right-
of-way and adjacent industrial sites in the
Development, at the Developer's option, shall be
d~sign~d a~ individual facilities or ether type
faei.li=iee~ as approved in advance by the Director
of Environmental Engineering.
94-801 10/26/94
SEVERANCE
1. The u~enffereeabilify, ill~gality, elimination,
revision er amendment of any proffer set forth
her~in, in whole ur in part, shall not affec= the
validity er enfsroea~ility of the other proffers or
the u~affected part of any suoh proffer.
'Vote: Unanimeu~
Mr. Cogbill stated for the record that the applicant accepts
the conditions.
17- ADJOURNMENT
On motion of ~r. sarber seconded by Dr- Nicholas, the Board
adjourned at 9:25 p.m. until October 27, 1~94 at 5:3Q p.m.
fo~ nhe Boar~ ~o travel to Ma!rment Park for it~ annual dinne~
and tour.
Vets: Unanimous