The URL can be used to link to this page

09-28-94 Minutes~INI~TES ~Up~ViSOF$ i~ AttS~da~o~ Mr. J. L. McHale, III, Chairman Mr. Arthur S. W~rren, Vice Chrm. Mr. Edward B. Barber Mr. Harry G. Daniel Kr. Lane B. Ram~ey County Admini~t~ato~ St&~f in Attendance: Deputy Chief David E. Barfield, Pi~e Dept. Ms. Barbara Bennett, Dir., Office on Youth M~. C~aiq Bryant, Dir., Utilities Ms. Marilyn Cole, Exes. M~. Doris R- DeHart, A~st. Ce. Admin., Leqis. avco. and Intergovern. Affair~ ~_ ~ichael Golden~ Dir., Parks and Recrsation County 0~budsman Dir.~ Planning Ms- Mary Leu Lyle, Di~., Mr. R. John McCrack=n, Dir., Transportation Dir., Env. Engineering County Attorney ~r. Kenneth Perrette, Dir., POblic Affairs golic= Department Clerk to the Board ~r. Themes H. ~r. Jam~ J. L. Stegmaier, Dir., Budget & Deputy Co. kdmin., Conmunity Developmen% Dr. Robert Wag~nknecht, Dir., Libraries ~r. Pr~deriok Willis, Jr., Dir.~ Human ReSO~TCe Mgt. Hr. HcHale calle~ the regularly scheduled meeting to order 3:15 p.m. APPROVAL OF MIRTJTES the minutes of S~pte~ber 14, 1994, as submitted. 94-477 9/2s/94 councilwoman; Mr. Robert Bobb, City Manager; Colonel ~arty TapsterS, Chief of P~lice; and Mr. Anthony Romanello, Beard on recent crime initiatives for the City of Richmond. Ms. Baskerville stated ~he Richmond City Council convened a public hearing on Augmet 8, 1994 in ~hich ¢iti~eD~ and crime; that the council then held a crime cut.mit on August 10, 1994 to discuss crime initiatives; and then held a work session in which a crime initiative packet was developed. she ~urther stated citizens are feeling safer and that the in~o affect, she s~ated the crime initiative package for the Program and the initiatives went into affect on September 12, 199~. She briefly reviewed the crime initiative packaqa an~ stated the City of Richmond im asking effort to r~vitaliza the central Virginia region~ Mr. BeDS then reviewed strategies to reduce crime including the City by reallocating police personnel and having a Cooperative partnership with Virginia state Police. ~e measures such as identifying juveniles in the City who hav~ co~itted ~u]tip!e offense8 and developing triage team~ to work with juveniles and their families to keep the juvenile~ volunteers who work with families, school~ and other social institutions in the city in the prevention c~ crime. Be support in this crime initiative and c~he: regional Mr. Daniel stated ~enrico County has agreed to assign ten ps/ice officers to the City of Ric~ond in assistin~ with thie crime initiative an~ requested staff to revie~ the City's r~port and document what Cheeterfield is currently doing on a regional ba~i~ in the area ef crime assistance- He further stated if opportunitie~ a~ available, they can be ad~re~se~ in ~e upcoming ~udget. regional projects and recognized Mr. Bobs a~ beln~ the outstanding city Manager in the oount~- ~ ~tated hs feels Chesterfield ~hould assist the City in its orim~ initiat~ve~ tn~ region in a4=ressing ~Ae issue of orlme. ~. ~arber e~ressed appreciation %0 ~ city for its presentation and stated it~ crime initiatives hav~ been recognized in the city. ~. ~cHale also exDresse~ appreclatlon to the City for its prezentation and stated effort~ by the City are beneficial to tough on crime end wished them suocess in this initiative. ~. Ramsay =hen introduced Ms. Jo-Anne Clark, Christmas ~oth~r for ~994, %0 brief th~ Board on the Christmas Mother Program. Ms. Clark expressed appreciation to the Board, on behalf of the Christmas Committee, for construction o£ the new multi- purpose/christmas building and their support of the Christmas Mother Program. She requested the Board allocate $6,000 to tho 1994 christmas Mother Program and briefly reviewed tho Program. She invited each Board member to visit the christmas Mother center during the holiday Season. Mr. McHale expressed appreciation to Ms. Clark and tho Christmas Committee £0r t-hair of£srhs. Mr. Ramsay ~-hon in%ro~ueed Dr. Wagenknecht to update the Board on the LaPrade and Ettrick/Natoa~a Branch Libraries. Dr. Wagenkn~cht stated contracts for the LaPrade and Ettriok/Matc&ca Branch Library D~oJects have been awarded with construction starting on ~sptember ~1, 1994 and that contract completion ia scheduled for January 6, 1995. When asked, he stated work on the Midluthian Stanch Library ex, antics is scheduled to restart the week of october 17, 1994 and completion is scheduled by ~all Of 1995. ~. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORT~ Fzr. Daniel acknowledged the recent d~ath of Mr. Burr ~oward, a former Dale District Planning Commissioner, and recognized his devoted service to Chesterfield County. He ~tat~d h~ attondo~ moo~ings wi~h citizens who reside along Hopkins Read regarding corridor improvements and noted the citizens are working eellectlvely to inclmds the corridor i~prove~ents project in the updated Central Area Blah. Be further ~tated he has recently been appointed hy the Governor to serve on the Commission on Champion Schoolg and noted public workshops will ba ~e~0 across th~ state to dlscus~ all educational issues including funding. Mr. Wurren ~tated Chesterf~el4 County is net receiving its fair share of funding from State and federal resources and ranks 115 cu~ of 1~4 jurisdictions in the State and h= feels this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Me further stated he attended a me,ting with the Central Virginia Coalition on September 19~ 199~ with discussion focusing on crime, ~hool construction, and economic development; that on September 20-21, 1994~ he interviewed the eight candidates his service on various regional issues; that the InterCity Visit Co~itte~ mot on September 23, 1994 in which he and Mr. receiving a lot of attention; that he, ~r. ~caale, and Mr. Daniel participated in the Clover Hill Branch Library dedication on September 27, 1994; an~ that his next Con~tituonts meeting will be held on October 3, 1994 at Ludville will ~e gu~t ~p~ak~r~ with tho topic of discussion being the Olympic F~stival. ~r. Barber stated his next constituents meeting will be hold October 3, 1994 with the topis of discussion being the ~, 199~; and that th~ COunty Council of PTA's will be 94-679 9/28/94 Hr. ~c~ale read portions Of e letter ~rom the Virginia Association of Counties stating they ers working to stop Allen to die,uss the problem of unfunded man,ares em it applies to local governments. He entered a copy of the letter into %he reeo~d. Mr. Daniel stated this is the second year the County has tried to ~top unfunded mandates and that the process in ~low. Me further atated he recently received a letter from Senator John Warner agreeing to support the eo~eept on unfunded ~andates at the national level, ~hieh is in oonoert wi~h rACe's position. Mr. ~cHale stated hs attended =he kick-off and recognition of ~anehester High ~chool'm Crime ~toppers Program end ne%ed Ms. Susan All,n, Firmt Lady of Virginia, was t~e guest speaker and that on October 1~, 1994, ICI Films (the le~e~t polyester fil~ manufacturing plant in t-he world) will have i%e seoond community open house end invited all to attend. CH~NGE~ IN THE O~DE~ OF ~R~SENT~TION On ~oticn of ~. Daniel, ~e¢on4~ by ~tr. Warren, the Board deleted Item 10., an Executive Session Pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A.1., Code of Virginia. Relating to Discussions of ~ot~ntial Appoint~nt~ to Matoaca District supervisor Po~itlon and added a n~w %t~m 10., an Executive Ses~icn Pursuant to Section ~.1-344.A.7., Code of Virginia, 1950~ ae Amended, for Consultation with Legal counsel to Discuss SDecifi¢ Legal Matter~ Related to Reeds Landing corporation versus PoWhatan County ~oard of SuDervieors to follow Item 9-, R~ports and, adopted the agenda, as amended. at this time. There were ~o Work Ses~on~ scheduled at this time. Constitution Week Committee, who wa~ present to receive resolution. On motion of the Board, the following mesolution was adopted: blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity, did America; and WHeReAS, it is ¢f th~ greatest importance that all citizens fully ~nders=and t~he ~roviaions and principles containe~ in the Conetituti0n iD or,er to ~pport, preserve, WHEREAS, the TWO Hundre~ Fi~t/u Anniversary of the Signing of the Constitution provld~ an hi~toric opportunity for all ~ericans to realize the achievements of the Fra~nr~ of the Constitution and the right~, privileges, and responsibili~is~ it af£or~s; and WI~EREAS, the independ~noe guaranteed to American citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, should be celebrated by appropriate ceremonies and activities during "Constitution Week," September 17 - 23, 1994, as designated by proclamation ef the President of the United Stat~ of /Lmerioa in accordance with Dub!it Law 91~. WOW, TK~E~ORE BE IT ~SOLVED, that the Chest~rfisld County Board o~ Supe~i~o~ doe~ hereby ~ecognize Sept~bar 17 - 23, 19~4 as "Cons~i~utlon Week" and urges all citizens to ~eflect during t~at Week on the m=ny benefftm of our federal Constitution an4 ~erioan citizenship. ~tated he f~el~ the Constitution is the flnes% document ~t~ kln~ in the world and preserves the freedom individuals, and e~ressed appreciation for th~ effortm in raoognizing "constitution Week," Ms. Phipps ~pressed appreciation for t~e ~eoo~nitiun. ~ir. Stegmaier presented an overview of the F¥94 Quarterly Performance Report including library circulation ~nd the average number of food stamp cases. There was brief discussion relative to the trend of food stamps cases for the past three F_r. Bteg~aier tRen ~evie~ed the number of police calls and assignments; the average jail population; an~ the number of single famil~ buildin~ permits. F/r. Ramsay noted the r~c~ssicn the County saw during the 1981-82 perio~ was quickly ~llow~d wi~h growth and that followin~ th= more recent recession, gro~h has come back more slowly. Mr. S~e~aier th~n reviewe~ completion of ~w r~siden%ial versus injuri~; and tn~ number of registered voters full-time employ~m. Hs revi~we~ FY94 ~ajor accomplishments including %he viotim/witne~m office assisting in %~ptem~ntation of project AW~; the Economic Development DeD~rt~ent announcing business inv~tment~ totalling million; %he County imDlementin~ a new program EealthTrak to promote a healthier workforce; preparations for ~e County's ~otice and Fire Departm~n%~ to rove into ~e new ~blio safety Training Buildin~ t~e Mental Heulth/M~ntal Retardation/Substance Abuse Degar~ent increasing the number respectively~ the County being a 199~ finalist for ~a Uni:ed Steres Senut~ Productivity and Quality Award for Uirglnla; Quality Improvement (TQI) implementation; and through the use o~ TQI and va~iou~ cost reduction activities, the Department generating a savings Co County and School departm~nt~ in ~he amount of $470~948. ~a a~greciation tO the Board and Mr, ~ms~y for their and leadermhip to County staff. 94-6~1 9/2S/94 ....... ~. i~ i, L._L .......... L ................ [ L ..... Mr. ~cHale stated TQI is more than paying for itself in terms of cost recovery a~ well as improved service ~o o~$t0mer~- 7.C. CONSID~IOR OF REOUE~T O~ COM~ST ~LEVISION OF C~STE~TR?,n COU~TY,..~NC. FOR RENEWAL O~ ITS ~A~LE TELEVISION ~CHiSE AND ADO~TiON OF ~NDMENTS TO O~PTER 7 OF ~R ~OU~Y CODE RELATIN~ TO PROVIDING ~BL~ TELEVISION S~VICES IN THE C0~TY Ca~levi~ion of Ckesterfield County, Incorporated for ~n~w~l of its cable television franchise and adoption of amendments to Chapter 7 of the County Code relating to providing cable television servioe~ in the County was deleted ~rom the July ~7, 199~ Board meeting to allow Comcast and County staff to finalize the term~ of the ~ranchise documents, op$oif~cally, clarifyin~ how access charge~ for institutional network {INET) ~e~vice~ will be calculate~. He further stated staf~ met with corporate officials from Comcast and ~. Buck Dopp, local manager of Com~a~t~ to discuss Co~Cas~s pru~omai to provide an IN~T within the franchis~ a~reement a~d that the last remaining issue to the conclusion of th~ franchise renewal is s~ructuring an institutional m~twork positioned to meet ~e needs of th~ County in t~e next 15 ysars. ~m further s~a~ed %he County is leading the nat~on in Comcuut~ entire network of franchise across t~e coun~ and ~s ~e firs% to re~ire Comcast to design an I~T. ~e requested t~a to allow Comcas~ to ~resent its INET design. On motion of ~. ~arbe~ ~econded by ~- Warren, the Board deferred consideration ufu request of Comoas~ cablavi~ion o~ Chesterfield Coun~y~ Inoo~orated for renewal of its cable television franchise and mdcption cf amendments to 0haptBr 7 of the County Code relating to p~ovidin~ cable telavin~cn ~ervic~ in the County until October ~6, 1994. Vote: Unanlmou~ ?.D. STREETLI~HT INETALLATION ~OST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Warren~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved a streetlight installation cost ap~oveI for the intersection of Northcreek Drive an~ ~orthland Drive, in Clover Hill Maqisteri~l District, in the amount of due to health, safety, and welfare reasons, vote: Unanimous S-A- REOR~ANZZmTIO~ OF BOARD ~r. ~emsey stated Board members requested an item on the agenda for the Board ~o eon~ider reorganization. ~e noted nominations de not requir~ a second and because the Board had previously adopted its rules for th~ year, t~e momina=ion and appointment pre=ess would apply to thi= reorganization a~ ~. Warren made a motion, secon~e~ Dy Mr. Barber, for the ~oar~ to ~u~p~nd it~ rul~ at this time to allow simultaneous no~inatlon/appointment of Chairman and vice Chairman to the 9/25/94 ~r. Warren then nominated Mr. MoHale for Chairman of the Roard of ~up~rvisor~ for the reRaindar of 1994. ~r. Daniel ~econded the nomination. Ne stated sinc~ Mr. Colbsrt's critical illness, he hen pledged his support to Mr. KcHale and supports him serving the unexpired term of Mr. Colbert. Mr. McHale called for the vote On the motion made by ~r. Warren, seconded by Mr. Daniel, for the Beard to simultaneous nominate/appoint The Honorable J. L. McHale for Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the remainder of 1994. Vuts: Unanimous Mr. ~cHale expressed appreciation to the Board for their support. Mr. Mc~ale then nominated Mr. W~rren for vice Chairman of the ~ear~ o£ Su~erviser~. Mr. Daniel seconded the motion. ~l~. MnHals nallsd for the vote on the motion ~ade by him, seconded by Mr. Daniel, for the Board ho slmultane~u~ly nominate/appoint The Honorable Arthur S. Wa~en for Vice Chairman of the Board e~ supervisors for =he remainder o~ 1994. 8.B. ~0N~I~u~TION O~ ~OM~NATION/~poI~T~E~T OF ~ATOACA DISTRICT SUPERVISOR Mr. Ramsay stated the Board at t~i~ time may accept desires to simultaneously nominate and a~oint. ~r. Daniel s~a~e~ he interviewed each of the eight candidates who submitted their n~um~s for appointment to the District Su~erviaor sea= on September 21, 1994 and upon completion of the interviews, requested staff to incSude thi~ ite~m on the agenda. He further stated the County is fortunate to have citizens who have offered their commitments, and tal~nt~ for consideration, but only one can be chosen for the position. Ke stated he has considere~ each individual's ba~k~ound, community involvement, and has a~s~d co--unity ~upport, H6 th~n nominated ~r. Harry Ma~ to serve a~ Matoaoa Di~t~i~t Supervisor and stated Mr. Marsh Qurrently serves as Chairman o~ th~ Planning Co~ission. feel~ the prospective nominee should have a good solid back~ound, be non-partisan, not be looking Iora forum in which to r~n for election in 1995, and whos~ agenda Chesterfield County. 5a th~n nominated Dr. William~ E~monds 8.C. STREETLI~HT INSTALLATION COST ~P~ROVnL On motion of Mr. Warren, ~econded by ~r. Barber, the Board approved a ~treetlight inetallation cost approval for the vicinity of 1906 Castle Glen Drive, in Clover Magisterial District, in the amount of $688.95. Vote: Unanimoum 8.D. CONSENT ITEKB CONTEMPORARY CO~NIT¥ On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, ~m adopted the following resoluuion: ~E~AS? Brande~mill now is hems to approximately 16.000 ~es~erfleld county residents in 84 distinctive neighborhoods thee a~e well plan~ed with common s~aces, wood~, recreational fasilitie~; and ~ER~A$, th~ d~v~lopnent has Drovid~d not only but a ho~e and a community for ~hese r~sldents who often their housinq requirements chants; and nei~hbor~, friends, and family members who contribute professionally, ~ocially, culturally~ and finanolally Chesterfield County; ~EREAS, Brande~ill frgquently ha~ been cited and bumlnesses interssted in relueating to the area; and development in the coming years. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ~SOLVED, t~at t~e chesterfield County Hoard of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstandln5 contribution~ of Brandar~ill, it developers~ its residents to the Cu~ty and e~re~eu the apDreciation Vote: Unanimous HiLL ATHLETIC COMPLEX On ~otion of F~r. Bu=bu=, sucO~ded by /~. Warren, the Board a~propriated up to $250,000, upon notification that th~ grant has been awarded, for the construction of turn lan~ i~Drovemen~s te Geni~u Rea~ and a 1,200 foot long entrance road to Clover Mill Athletic Complex and adopted the following resolution: W~EREAS, t-he C%ovar Hill Athletiu Complex is owned and is to be developed by the County cf Chesterfield ae a re=reatlonal facility serving the residents of Chest=rfiel~ county and adjoininq counties; and WHEREAS, the facility is in need of adequate access; and WNEREAS, the right-of-way of %he proposed access is provided by the County of Chesterfield at nc cost to the State; and WHEREAS~ the procedure gove~ni~ the allocation of recreational access funds aa set forth in ~ecti~n 33-~3~.3, Code ~f Virginia 1966, as amended, r~quir~s joint action by the Director of Conservation and Hist~rlc Reaeurcs~ and the Hiqhway and Transportation Board; and W~EREA$, s ~tatement of policy agreed upon b~tw~n th~ said Director and Board approves bh~ use of suoh funds for the construction of acce~ roadn to publicly-owned recreational areas; and WHEREA$~ =he Board of SupeTviso~s Of Chesterfield County has duly adopted a zoning ordinance pursuant to Articl= ~ (Section 15.1-486 et seq.}, Chapter 11~ title 15.~; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board that all requirements of th~ law hav~ be~n m~t to permit the Director of Conservation and Historic Resource~ to designate Clover Hill ~thletio Co~plc~ as a recreational facility and further permit the Virginia Highway and Transportation Board to provide funds for aeoes~ to this public recitation area in accordance with SectiOn 33-135.3, Cod= of Virginia, 1966, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Board acknowledges that purmuant to the provisions of Section ~.I-23~, as amended, this road shall be designated a 'lVir~inia Byway" and recommends the State Highway and Transportation Board~ in cooporation with the Direo=or of Conservation and Historic Resources, take the app=opriate action to implement this designation. F~rther, the Board agrees, that in keeping with the intent of Sestion 33.1-63, to u~e its good office to reasonably protect the a~st~e~io er cultural value Qf thi~ road. NOW, THEREFORE S~ IT RESOLVED! ~hat the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County hereby requests the Director O~ C0~se~vatiun and Histcri= Resources to designate the Clover Hill Athletic Complex as a public recreation area and ~c recommend to the State Highway and Transportation Board that recreational access fund~ be allocated ~or an access road to serve sai~ athletic complex. AND~ BE IT FURTHER tAESOLVED, that t~e Virginia Highway and Transportation Board is hereby requested to allocate the nesessa~y recreational access funds to provide a suitable access road a~ hereinbefore dessribed. Vote: Unanimous APPROVAL OP TR~NR~BR ,OF FUNDS FOR LAPRADB AND ETTEITK/F~%~OA~A B~SH ~IBP~%RIE~ REPAIR PROJBCT~ On motion of Mr. Barber, s~oond~d by ~r. Warren, the Board approved the transfer of $160,000 from ~he Reserve for Future Cagltal Projects to the LaPrade, Ettrick-Matoaca Library Repair Project. 9t28/94 $.D.~. ~WARD OF CONTRACTS 8.D.d.a. G~RY BROWN /%SBOCIATES ~0H_~CQUISI~ION OF to ~×oeed $1501000, for acquisition of a replacement fixed assets system and authorized %he County Adminimtrutor to approval as to ~orm by the County Attorney. (It is noted funds for this project are available in ti~e 1994 Budget.) 8.D.~.h. SOUTHERN CONOTRUCTION COMPANY FOR ~LEWOOD On motion of ~r. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board awarded a ~ontract to Southern Cons%ruction Company, in an amount not to exceed $136,~0~.~0, for construction of the R~blewood Drainage Project and authorized the County Admlnis~rator to execute a oontrast, on b~half of the COunty, ~ubject to approval as to form by t~e county Attorney. (It is noted funds for this 9ruject are available in the ~¥94 and FY9~ budgets and UpOn completion of the project, all remaining funds will revert back to the Reserve for Future Capital ~rojects.) Vote: Unanimous FOR BTOP. M W~TER F=%N~GF~E~T FOB EXPANSION O~ MiDLOTHIAN ~2~NCH LIBRARY On ~otion of Mr. Barber, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Board authorized th~ County Administrator to ~xecute a temporary drainage agreement with Glen Roy CorDoratlon an~ T~ckahoe Cardinal Corporation for stormwater management associated with expansion of the Midlothian Branch Library. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Vote; Unanimous REOUEST FOR ~ERMIS~TON FROM BOCEY~ ~AGEL8 TO withi~ ~×i~ting 10 foot water and 10 foot sewer easemsnt~ (It is noted a copy of the plat i~ filed with the papers of this Board.) 8,D. 6. CON~BYANCE OP ~AE~MENTS TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER 8,D.6.~. ~ILEY BRIDGE ROAD On motion ef Mr- ~arb~r, s~con~e~ by ar. Warren, the Beard autheriz~d th~ Chairman of the Board and the County A~mieistra%er to execute an eusenmsnt agreement w~th V~g~nia 50 ~ right of way a~jacen~ noted a copy of th~ plat is filed with the papers of this Boar~.) Vo%~: Unanimous 8.D.6.b. BE~SLBY FTRE STATION On motion of ~r. ~arber, ~¢onded by Mr. Warren, the Boa~ authorized the Chai~an cf thc Board and the County Admlni~trater to execute ~wo e~sement agreements with Virginia Electric and Power Company to provide power service to ~ensley Fire Station. (It is noted a copy of the plat is On ~otlon o~ Mr. Barb%r, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board accepted the following reports: Mr- Ramsay pr~n~nted the Boar~ with a report on ~he developer water and sewer ~on~raots executed by the County Administrator. Mr. Ramsay presented the Bo~rd with a status report on the General FunO Balanoe~ Re~erve for Future Capital Projects; District Road an~ Street Light Funds; Lease Purchases; and School Board Agenda. Mr. Ramsay stated the Virginia Department ef Transportation has formally ~oti~i~d the County of the acceptance cf the following reads into the State Secendary System: RI~HBERRY WOODS. ~EZ 2 - {Effective 8~17~4~ Route 4610 (Hiqhb~rry Woods Road) - From mile Nor%he%st Route 4612 to 0.20 mile Zest Reute 4613 0.12 Mi Route 4613 (~ighberry Woods Place) - From Route ~610 to 0.05 mit~ Northwest Route 4610 0.05 Mi Route &613 (~ighbsrry Woods Drive) - Fram Route 4610 to 0.09 mile Southeast Route 4610 0.09 Mi aout~ 4614 (~ighb~rry Woud~ L~n~) - ~rom 4613 to Reute 5009 0.06 Mi ~-%HTLTON - (Effective 9-1Z-94) Route 396~ (Church Bay Road) - ~rom Route tO ROU~O ~4 Route 3963 (Paget Court) - From Route 3962 to 0.03 mile ~ortheast Route 3962 94-687 o.o6 ai ~/2~/94 ............ : L L I ........ L__ t L 3964 (Horseshoe Bay Court) - From 0.06 mile Southwegt Route 3962 to 0.03 mile Northea~ 0.09 Mi vote: Unanimous consultation with legal counsel to discuss ~p~ciflc legal adopted the f~llowing resolution; WHEREAS, ~he Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into ~x~cutive session in accordance wi~h a formal vc~e ~hs Board and in accordance with the provisions of Virginia ~reedom of Information Aet~ and WHEREAS, the Virginia Freado~ of Informatio~ Act, effective July 1, 1959, p~ovideD for certification that much ~x~outive Session was conducted in conformity with law. does h~r~by oartlfy that to the ~est o~ each member's knowledge, i) only public business mmttere lawfully exempted from open meetin~ requir~ent~ un,er ~ha ~reedom of Information Act ~r~ discussed in th~ E~e~utive Sem~ion to whic~ t~is certification applies, and ii) only ~u~h ~ublie business matters as were identified in the Motion by whXch the ~xecutiv~ $~ssion wa~ convened dissents from this certification. The Board being polled, the vote was am follows: ~r. Warren : Aye. ~r. Daniel : Mr. Barber : Aye~ Mr. MoHal~ : Vote: Unanimous 12. IN~O~TION Mr. Mc~ale introduced Reverend ~illy ~outher, Pastor of Southside ~aptist Church~ who gave the invocation. 1~. PLEDGE OF ~LLE~IAN~E TO THE FLA~ OF THE ~ITEB aT.TBS OF Mr. Ramsay led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States cf America. 14. REBOLUTION~ AND BPE~IAL REC0~NITIONS · 4.~. RBCO~NI~IN~,,.,COMMUNITY ~FFORTS OF TH~ VILLagE OF MIDLOTHIANVOL~dTEER ~OA~ITION FOR PRES~RVIN~ AND Kr. Barber introduced Mr. Peppy Jones, Chairman; Mr. ~ramdan ~ocsrmae~, vise Chairman; ~s. Yaye Palmate secretary; Mr. Den Marsho~ Treasurer; FLr. Charles Batchlor, Development Team ~eader and Peet President; ~e. Debie P~rker, Teohnisal T~a~ Leader, Ms. Catherine McCormack, Advisory Board Chairman; Mr. ~hepperd~on, and ~s. Crystal Weary, Steering Committee member~ of the ~idlothlan Volunteer Coalition, who were present to receive the r~notutlon~. On me%ion of %he ~eard~ the following resolution was adopted: W~EREAS, The Village of Midlothian volunteer coali=ion was established to preserve the Village's history; and Wq{EREAS, a portion of Midlothien -- approximately 1.2 miles -- has been designated as a historical village; and W~REAS, a flexible, phased landscaping plan fur the Village of Midlothian has been developed by local eo~munity and business representatives working with a landscape architect and County representatives; and W~EREA$, thi~ innovative plan responds to the aesthetic needs e£ the growing uommunity, reinforcing Midlothian'~ long hi~tory a~ a working village; and ~tEREAS, the Village of Kidlothian Volunteer Coalition Virginia Department of Forestry and the "~atural R~ourc~'~ Grant f~om the S~all B~sinass Administration for their effort~ in the construct/on of a village park, the planting of 135 trees within the historic district~ end the ~tabli~hment of day lily bed~ on Rout~ 40; and W~EREAS, The village of Hidlothlan Volunteer Coalition received the 199~ "Meritorious Planning Award" from the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association; the 1992 "Achievement Award" fre~ th~ National Ae~©¢iati0~ Of Counties; the 1993 ~'Kesp Virgln~a Beautiful Award" demignating the Village of Midlothian as one of Virginia'm "Best Small Communities;" and s 1994 gran~ from the Federal Transportation Enhancement ~rogram administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation; and W~EREAS, the Village of Midlothlan'~ land~oaping plan is important to th~ community by retaining ~he communlty'~ sen~e of place~ bette~ p~ese~ving the unique character cf the Village; and ~nhanc~nq th~ b~auty of th~ ~onu~nity through the preservation and addition of landscaping; and 94-689 9/~8/94 W~EREA$, the coalitien ham coordinated addltlunal enhancement efforts by community organizations inoluding the Midlothian Garden Club, the SaliSbury Garden Club, and the Walton Park Woman's Club; and W~EREAE~ the Coalition, with the cooperation Of the Midlo~hlan Junior Woman's Club, established an annual community festival~ "Visit the Village Day," which d~ws NOW, THEREFORE BE IT R~$OLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of $~pa~visor~ doe~ hereby reco~nizs the ¢o~ni~y efforts of the village of M£dlothian Volunteer Coalition for preserving and enhancin~ the Village ~f Midlothian. Vote: Unanimous ~r. ~ccormack, Ms. Palmer, M_r. Marsho~ ~r. Batchlor, Ms. the County's support in the establishment of ths Coalltion and assistance it has provided to the Coalition and to t~e Midlothian Junior Woman's Club for their support. 14.B. ~HCOGNI~I~G OCTOBER 9--9. 1994 AS resolutions. On mctlon of the Board, the following resolution was adopted: ~=R~A$, ~ holiday weekend in the Full is a wonderful sport played by American youth, ~ith thousands of boys and girls pl~yinq in all 50 ~t&tss ~oruss the Nation; and fielding 1,600 or more Dlayer~ {and an additional 13,000 in and Charlottesville, and the Coun~e~ of Chesterfield, 7-9, 19967 and complexes ~n Che~terfleld County; and ~nd ~wQ or mo~e coaching ~t~£f a~d ~er0~s parent~, siblings and friends) hav~ be~n invited to play in the Richmond 94-690 9/2~/94 Metropolitan Youth Soccer League Colu~us Day TouT~anent, coming from Virginia, North Care!ina, Maryland, West Virginia! Pennsylvania~ New Jersey and ~ichigan; and WHEREAS~ these tonrna~ent participants will be r~nting approxlmately 1,200 rooms in more than 17 hotels in Chesterfield County and purchasing food end other items during the weekend in County restaurants and buslnessss; and ~E~A~, the r~venu= ~ensr~ts~ ~or Chs~teTfisld County by this one event ~ho~ld be appreciable. NOW, ~R~FOR~ B~ IT R~$0LVED, that the Chest~rfleld County Board of supervisors heTeby declares the weekend of October 7-9, 1994 as '~Richmend ~etropolitan Youth ~occer League Col~bms Day Soccer Tournament Walk,nd" in Chesterfield County, Virginia. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Barber presented the ~×~cut~d r~olutioDs to Mr. Fisher, MT. Minadekis, MT. Battiston, Ms. Evans~ Mr. Gate~, ~_ service they are providing to children throughout the State. approxima:ely $4 million in r~vanua for the County and rucognised the financial impact of youth sports to a On motion of th~ Board, th~ follow~ng re~olution was W~R~AS, crime prevention and safe sohoul~ are everyone's business and they depend em an active partnership officials; and community responnibility and shared pride; and programs encourage youth =0 make uigni£icant ¢ontrlbut~ons to thxir communities7 and ~reventlom efforts wi=him ~te community to nurture a safe, W~R~A~ youth add ~iti~n~ ~hould be aware of W~ER~A$, the Chesterfield County Board of 94-691 ~128/94 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors and the School Ssard entkasiastically pledge to work togethe~ tc make Chesterfield County a safe place for learning, living, and working, free cf ~rugs, weapons, and fear. Vets: Unanimous Mr. ~ar~er presented tho executed resolution to chief ~ittman, expressed appreciation for the efforts cf the Palise Department in ~ealin~ with citizens and noted the School Board adopted this resolution at their september 27~ 19P~ meeting. HEARINGS OF, CITIZENS ON ~NSCHED~SE~L%TTERS OR CLAIHS ~ESA~kbIN~ TNE SELECTION PROCESS FOR F~%TOACA DISTRICT SUPERVISOR SEAT M~. Smith stated she is a new resident ts the County and e~prassed appreciation for the opportunity to address th~ Board on qualification5 for the ~teaca District Supervisor. She ~urther stated she woa!~ llke a candidate who provides the needs of the co~munity; a person who will provide a "first ckeice co~unity throuqh sx~ellence in public sarvise'~; a person who ha~ knowledgg of demographics and the geography of the County; a pe~on who has knowledge of political end cultural views shared by citizens of the County and State; and a person who i~ cognizance of keeping i~.B. MS. J~E L. SALTE~ ~m. ~alt~r stated ~he ie a two-year resident of ~ateaoa District and expressed eono~rn~ relative ~o ~he selection process for the Matoaca District Supervisor ~at and the process in general. She furt~e~ ~tated she ~eels the procedure i~ vague in what the correct proceSS i~ for replacing a member Of t~e Beard of Supervisors upon death and that ~atoaoa Di~trlct citlzon~ ~hould have input in the proc~. She requested the Board te involve citizens in the ~eci~ion-makin~ process in ~ome for~ in which the citizens can voice their views on the per,on they want as their representative. 15.~. MS. FAY n. WILLIAMSON Ms. Williamson stated she is an eight year resident cf Mateaoa District~ that ~he w~nte Chesterfield to be a County for the people~ that she feels citizens should have a voice in gov~rnm~nt; that she feels the selection proces~ for fillinq the Mataaca District Supervisor seat should be by public hearing; and that citizen~ ~hould have input and fair chosen should listen to ~hs needs of the people, he available whe~ ~eeded, and have government and business exDeriense. ~S.D. F~R. DAVID ~. JOHNSON It is noted Mr. Johnson was not present at the meeting. 94-692 9128194 Mr. Hawkins stated he has'base a re=idem= of Matoaca District for 55 years; that Mr. Colbert wa~ a fair and honest person; that he Seels citizens in the Matoaca District should have the opportunity to provide input into the selection process; that hs feels the person~ elected should be someone who grew up in the area and knew Mr. Colbert; and that citizens of Matoaca District should have the right to express their views, 16. DHFEP~RED PUBLIC HF~RIN~S 0 TO CONSIDER ~-N ORDIN~/~CE TO AKEND THE CODE OF THE ~OUNT¥ 9~..CHESTERFIELD~ 1978, AS AMENDED, ~¥ AMENDING AND Mr. ~ichael Chernau, Assistant County Attorney, stated public hearing to consider an erdinanse relatin~ to tax refunds was deferred from the ~uqust ~4~ 1~94 Board He Subtler stated the County historically ha~ not had a clear policy on paying inter~t on erroneously assessed tax resulting in an inconsistent treatment of taxpayer~ and that in most ca,es because th~ amount of tax collected iu minimal mhd the meney hag be~n held fe~ a short period of time. He stated State law allows the county to adopt an ordinance providing for the payment o~ interest for tax refunds and ~taff recommends the ordinance be adopted to codify the ~xi~ting pra~ti~. ~e noted the Treasurer anticipates no significant financlel impact will result from the NO one came fo~werd to speak in favor of or against thi~ ordinance. On me, ion of Mr. Warren, seconded by Mr. Barber, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COD~ OF T~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS A~ND~D, BY A~ENDING AND REENACTING S~CTION h-12.7 RHI~%TING TO TAX ~FUND$ BE IT ORDAIN=D by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) Thet Section $-12.7 Of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, is amended and ~ee~acted to read as follows: ~c. ~-~].7. R~fund~. (a) If %he ue~missioner of revenue or =ha real estate assessor is satisfied that he has erroneously assessed any taxpayer with a local tax, he ~hall certify to the treasurer the amount erroneously assessed. If the tax has not paid, the taxpayer shall be exonerated from payment el tax, If the tax has been paid, th= tax together with applicable penalties and interest shall be refunded to ~he taxDaye~ in accordance with Code of Virginia, section (b) Ail erroneously a~sessed taxes refunded under this section which w~re erroneously assessed due solely to the £ault Of the semmi~sioner of r~venu~ cr the real e~tate a~a~or and not due to the fault of the taxpayer in filing hi= return and were held by the county for more than thirty (30] days shall ~e repaid pursuant t~ Code of Virginia suction 58.1-399~ with interest. The interest paid under ~/~/~ ......................... L ......... ; . .I [ I [ . this subsection shall be paid at a rata equal to the lesser of (i) the average interest earned On the County's investment portfolio as reported in the trea~urer'~ quarterly report~ to the board for the pe~ieds of time such taxes were held by County or (ii) the rate imposed by the County fur delinquent taxes- Such interest shall run from the date sEcia taxes were required to he paid or were paid, whichever is later, and one-hundred dollars ($100). (o) No tax refund shall be made under thi~ ~ection the requemt for ~ refund was made more than three (3) years after the last day of the tax year for which the tax was (d) The refund procedure established by thim sestiun shall not aDDly to refunds resulting from th~ deck.ion of the co~issloner of revenue to r~classlfy a busine~ for license taxation, such refun~z may, however, ~e proees~d in accordance with Code of virginia, secfion 58.1-3980 and (2) T~at t~is ordinance shall become effective i~rmediately upon a4option. Vote: Unanimous 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS 17.~. TO. CONSIDER THE CONVBYA~GE OF ALL THAT O~RTAIN T~AOT LOCATED IN DALE I~%eISTBRIAL DISTRICT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY AT THE ~HE~TERFIELD AIR, CRT INDU~TRIAL~.K.~ OPTION A~REBMS~T WITH CHILDRE~S KLEIN Mr. Stith state~ thiz date and time has been advertined for public hearin~ to consider the conveyance Of all that certain tract or parcel Of land contsining approximately ~,8 locate~ in Dal~ Magisterial District of Chesterfield County at the Chesterfield Airport Industrial Park and to authorize the County A~ministrator to renew an option agreement with Childress Klein Properties. NO one came forward to speak in favor u£ Qr against this issue. Om motion of ~r- Warren, ~econded by Mr. Barher~ the Board conveyed all that certain %rao~ er parcel of land containing approximately ~.$ acres, located in Dale Magisterial District of Chesterfiald County, Virginia, at the C~es=erfield Airport Industrial Park, which parcel fronts approximately 30 feet on the cul-de-sac of White Bark Terrase ~n~ is bordered on the nor=beast by property owned by ti~e Chesterfield County I~d~etrial Development Authority; on the southeast by Johnson & Bloy Canada, Incorporated; on the southwest by Route 288; a~d on tho northwest by property owned by Dennis H. Owsn~ and W.G. & H.J. Lindsey; and which includes Parcel 79-6(3) 43 and the portion of 79-6(3) 11 descr~e~ above; and authorized the County Administrator to renew an option a~reem~nt with Childress Klein Properties. improvem~nt~ in ~onju~ct~on with construction of the new Bensley Fire Station. No eae came fei-ward to ~peak in favor of or against this issue. approved the exchange of a 0.10 ac~e parcel of land for a 0.03 acre parcel of land to make necessary road improv~onts station. vote: Unanimous in Matoaca Magisterial bistrict~ DOUGLAS SOWERS rozonimg from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9). A single family residential ~ubdivision with a minimum let size of 9,000 ~quare f~et is planned. Residential use of up to 3.63 units per a=r~ i~ p~rnitt~d in a Residential (R-9) District. Th~ Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 1,51 to 4.0 units per acre. ~hie request lies on 5~.5 acre~ ~rnntinq a~p~oximetely 2,210 feet on the so~th llne of Lucks Lane, approximately t~0 ~eet east of Exbnry Drive. Tax Map 37-4 (1) Psrcel 6 (sheet Mr. Jacobson stated the applicant is requesting a thirty-day Mr. Andy scherzer, representing the applicant, ~ated =he applicant is requesting a thirty-day deferral. There was no opposition present. deferred Case 94SN0119 until October 26~ 1994. Vote: Unanimous 958N0119 In Bermuda Magisterial District, WILLIE O. AND FP_%NCES B. ~RUBB requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (C-5) of 5.6 acres and from Community B~siness (C-3) te General Bu~ine~ (c-~) of ~.2 acre~. The density of such a~endment will be controlled by zoning conditions or ordinance ~tandards. The comprehensive Plan designates t~e D~operty for qene~at commercial use. This request lie~ on 10.S acres fronting a~preximately 640 feet on the we~= line of Jeffe~ee~ DaVis ~ighway, uppro×imately 1,60~ feet south of Osborne Road. Tax ~ap 116-~ (1) Parcel 1 [Sheet 32). Mr. Jacobsen stated the applicant is requesting a ninety~day deferral. Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing the ap9!icant, ~tated they are re~%/esting a ninety-day deferral. Ths~e ~as ne eppesitiun present. On motion of MM. McHale~ seconded by }tr. Barber, the Board deferred Case 9~$N0119 until December 14, 1994- Vote: Unanimous In Matoaca Magisterial District, MARY DICKINSON ~e~oninq from Residential (R-25) to Convenience Business (C- 1). Tbs applicant has proffered a maximum development of 15,000 gross square feet. The comprehensive Plan designates the property for residentiml use of o.s to 1.~ units per acre and suggests that the site is appropriate for convenience approximately 740 feet on tile north line of B~ach Road, approximately ~00 fee~ west of Carter~ Way Boulevard, Tax Map 109-8 (l) Part of Parcel ~ (Sheet 29]. Mr. ~acobson presented a ~u~ary of Case 94SN0182 and ~tated the Planning Commission and staff recemmends approval and acceptance of the proffered condition~. ~e noted the conforms to the Southern and Western Area Plan- On motion of Mr. Mc~ale, seconded by ~r. Barber, ~he Board approved Ca~e 9~N0182 and accepted the following proffered 1. The density of development sh~ll not exceed 1~,000 square feet. 2. Prior to ~ite plan aDDroval~ forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the north side OS ~eaoh Road, measured from the eenterline of that part of Beach Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be de~icated, free and unrestricted, to and for the ben,fit of Chesterfield county. 3. Prior to site plan aRproval, thirty-five (35) feet of right of way on the eas~ side of ~h¢ Dorth-~outh collector (Brandy Oaks Boulevard) m~a~u~ed from the centerline of that part of Brandy Oaks Boulevard immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for %he ben, fit of Chesterfield County. ~. Access to Beach Road shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit located towards the eastern property lids. Access to the Brandy Oak~ Boulevard shall be limited to shall bs approved by ~hs Transportation Department. TO provide ~or an adequate roadway system, the developer shall be r~sponsible fo~ the following: a. Construction of additional pavement along Beach Road a= t_he approved access to provide left and right turn h. Relocution of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the north side of Beach Road for the entire property frontage. Con~tr~ctiou of additional pavement along Brandy Oaks Boulevar~ at the appreved access to provide left and right turn l&~es_ Construction will occur as dictated by the road and drainage plan ~pproval for BraHdy Oa~ Boulevard and/or the transportation phasing plan as umtllned in Proffer d. Dmdioation ~0 and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any uddi~ienal right of way (or easements} required for tha improvement~ idantified above, 6. Prio~ ts site plan approval, a phasing plan for the required road improv~ant~ identified in Proffered Transportation Department. 7. Except as q~alifled herein, uses p~rmitt~d shall be those usng permitted by-right and those permitted wit~ re~trictions and acce~mory UE~E in th~ C-1 District exoept ~hat the following uses shall not be permitted for a period of eight (a) years from the date of the rezonin~ of the Pre~sr~y by the Board of supervisors: a. Candy store. b. Drugstore/pharmacy. c. Dairy Products store. business located on ~he property. use provided that it is not along such $~remts which terminata in u residential neighborhood. including stationery stors~ Nhioh may be permitted. Vi~ee rental ~n~ sales store. a. Banks and savings and loans associations shall not a]Iow an outdoor public address system; provided, permitted to use microphones and speaker systems normally associated with bank drive-in window operations. b. Dry cleaning pick up and drop off are permitt~, 9. Th~ following use shall not be permitted: Motor v~hiclm 10. All site plans for any us~s on the property will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval a~ set forth in Sec. 21.1-276 of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance or any successor ordinance apDlioable to sits plan r~view. Vote: Unanimous In Bermuda Nagisterial Distriot~ $?$~EEN DA~IBL ~RILLI~$ requested rezeninq from Residential (R-?) to Community Business (C-3) of 0.3 acres and from Community Business (C-3) to General Business (C-5) of 0.8 ~cre~. Th~ density of such amendment will be controlled by ~ening Conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan desiqnatss the propcr~y for community and general commercial use. This request lies on 1.1 acres known as 10100, 1010~ and ~010~ Jefferson Davis Highway and 2615 Velde Road. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcels 5 and 45 (Sheet 23). Mr. Jacobsen pre,eared a ~ummary of Case 95SN0t12 end stated the Plannin~ Cemmleeion and staff reuommende approval. ~e noted the request conform~ to the Jeffermon Davi~ Corrlds~ Plan. Mr. Dean Hawkins, representing the applicant, stated the On motion of ~t~. McKale, seconded by ~r. Barber, the Board approved Case 9~S~0112. toques=ed rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business zoning uon~itione er Ordinance stan~ard~. The Compreheasiv~ Th~ request lies un 1.6 acres known as 9020 ~am~ Avenue. Tax Map ~2-5 ($) King,land ~eights, Lot 9A (sheet 23). the Planning Commission and ~ta~ recommends approval. Ke noted the request cenform~ to the Jef~en Davi~ Cerride~ Mr. Dean Nawkin~ represanZing the applicant, stated the recommendation i~ acceptable. There was no opposition present. ~5GN0124 In Matoaca ~agimterial Di~g~ict, RO~BA~ B. PROPeRtieS, I~C. requested amendment t~ conditional Planned D%velopment (case 88SN0170] and a~endment to rezoning applicant wi~he~ to reduc~ the total mu~ber of leto allowed by 6s, yielding an overall density of 1.~5 unltm per acre. The comprehensive Plan d~signates th~ property for residential uso of =.~ units per acre er less. This request lieu in Residential (R-9 and R-i~) Distriot~ On four (4) percale ~otalling l~5.z acres, two (2) parce!~ fronting on the south line of Weolridge Road~ at its intersection with Fox Club Roa~, and two (2) paroeln located in the northeast and southeast quad~ant~ of Fox Club Parkway and Lakebl~ff ~arkway. Tax Map 60-7 (1)Part of Parcel ~; Tax Map 6~-10 (1) P~rt of Par=e! 4; and T~X ~aD 60-15 (1} Parcel 3 (Sheet 19). the ~lanning Co~ission and staff recomm~nd~ ~pproval and acceptance of the proffered condition~. ~e noted the confo~s to ~e ~Der Swift Creek. ~. Gloria Pry, representing the applicant, sta~ed the recc~endation is acceptable. 9~-698 9/28/94 Mr. George Beadles stated he calls this case "trans£errable ~evelopment rights" an~ he fools the County should stop qiving money to the developer. ~r. Warren inquired as to whether the iggue of transferrable development rights' was discussed by the Planninq ~r. 3acob~on ~tated the i~ue of transferrable development illegal in Virginia. He further stated the reason they are before the Board new is fo allow a reduction in the density Sot the development and noted scoff and the Planning Ce~mmismien ~ecemmends approval. Mr. Warren then inquired as to whether thiE wam in conformanc~ with the ~oard'e adop=ed Cash Proffer Policy. Mr. Micas clarified thi~ case is net ~ransferrable developmen~ rights, but is a flexible applicatiom of the Cash P~effer Policy. On notion of Mr. Warren~ seconded by Mr. Barber, the approved Case 95SN0124 and accepted the fcllowlng proffered conditions: 1. For that portion of the ~roperty which is included in this request an~ subject to Case ~$NOlP~ t~e m~ximum number of lots permitted shall be 75. ~. For that portion of the Property which is included in this request and subject to Case 88SN0170, the maximum nu~er of lots permitted ~hall b~ ~xc~pt for timbering approved by the virginia State Prope~ty until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Znvironment~l zn~ineering Department. Vote: Unanimous 94SN0197 In Bermuda Magisterial District, c. ~. ESTES requested ~ezoning from Agricultural (A> to General Industrial (I=2) c~ 104.4 acres with Conditienal Use on a 34.0 acre portion of this parcel 50 permit truck, trailer, trotter, heavy equipment and parts salem, service and repair; Community ~usiness (C-3) to General Industrial (I-2) of 9.1 acres; Agricultural (A) to Community Business (C-3) of ~.~ acre~; Di~S proffered conditions on a 1.8 acre parcel currently zoned Comtmunlty Busine~ (C-~). Th~ den~it~ of ~uch amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance ~tandard~. Th~ Comprehensive Plan designate~ %he property for commercial and liqht industrial u~e~ This on the south llne of West ~undred Road, al~m fro~ting approximately ~30 feet on the east line of Ware Bottom Spring ~oad, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these reads, also fronting approximately 1,240 feet on the south line of ~are Bottom SDrimq Road and approximately 1,750 feet on the west line cf Old Stage Road, and located in the southwest quadrant of ~he intersection of those roads, and fronting on th6 east line of Route 1-95. Tax ~ap 116-8 I1) Parcel 34 and Tax Hap 116-12 I1) Part of Parosl 44 (Sheet 32). acoaptanoe of t~e p~offered conditions. He ~oted the request conforms to the Eastern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. 94-699 9/28/94 Mr. Peele presented a brief slide presentation of the relating to the case. Mr. ~eCracken stated Mr. Wayne Belch's primary Condition #15 relating to the ¢~l-de-sacing of Ware Bottom pre,ers that this property acce~ to Route 10 further west to ma~e ti%e interchange more officiant and aa£er. When asked, he stated Ware Bottom Spring Road would not necessarily connect to Route 10 in another location, ~cwever, t~exe may ~e some type of cenpection, either a publi~ road er driveway connection, but ~taff is trying te restrict acces~ from the subject property so that another traffic signal will not b~ n~eded. He further orated there is no condition on this property requirin~ ~he developer to ~on~truct a public ~cad fro~ Route 10 to Ware Botto~ Spring Road. Mr. ~cHale clarified traffic that normally uses Ware ~ettom Sprin~ Roa~, wil~ ~e directed down Old Stage ~e~d, but there may be a solution w~ich will allow a publi~ or private road through the property to Route l0 apposite the crossover at Chestnut Hill Road. l~r. ~eade 9pottm, representing the applioant~ stat6d thin p~cject ~ssts County plans Io~ the area; that traffic ¢oneern~ have been ~ifficult to deal with because five road systems are invelved~ that t~ie property has wetlands; and preeented a map to each Board member o~tlinin~ hew the buffers and wetlando will affect this He further stated the applicant has met with ~ Cunningham, to develop a s~t of proffers to deal with unaware of any opposition at the Planning Commission meeting ur an~ opposition at this time; ~at the applicant =ngi~eered this property in tryiug to work with the the applicant has voluntarily proffered all oonditionm with ~a~aty concerns of both th~ Virginia Depar~ent of Wayn~ Bal~, Jr., owner of ~e property at 1~920 01d Stage Road. He stated he is in favor of the development plan; concerns about =he development plan for this area; that he feels the buffers should be lar~er and ~. Spott~ ~tated the applicant has proffered that there will 94-70O what they currently haws}; and going through the site plan review p~ecess. When asked, ~Lr. ~¢Cracken olarifisd that i~ the Board there is still an opportunity to worx out details relating to ~=cess. He further stated Condition ~13 gives the Planning ~smmission an option u£ permitting another access to Route Mr. Barber inquired es to whether the County is going to ask ~or ~e right of way ts permit another public road access. ~r. McCracken stated if the County cannot work out something with the adjoining property owner across from the crossover, Condition ~11 ~ill allow the applicant to have the ability to ask the Planning commission for cna additional private There was brief discussion relative to getting the right of way for the extension of Ware Bottom Spring Road f~om the adjoining p~operty owner through the site plan review When asked~ Mr. Pools stated the applicant has increased the foot buffer, they would i~stall a fo~ to six foot high berm to assist in screening any low level activity neighborhood, D~scussien, comments, and questions ensued relative to whether there is a requirement for a public rlqht-nf-way to go to Route 10; whether it is the Transportatko~ Depart~ent,~ demire for traffic to go down Old Stage Road; and the property havln~ a~ess t~ Old Stage Road. Mr. McHale inquired as to whether Ware Bo~ton Sprinq Road is CUrrently cul-ds-sace~, Mr. M~Cracken stated the Highway Department has either elesed or is in the process of closing Ware Bottom Spring Road because of a problem with a culvert under the road. He further stated staff has been working w{th the appllcant and th~ ~ighway bepartment r~garding the closing of Ware Bottom Spring Road rather than ~aki~g the repair~ to reopen the road, therefore, the applicant is working with the Kighway Department to build the cul-de-sac as conditions would identify. W~en asked, ~e stated staff w~ntu to cul-de-sac Ware Bottom Spring Road even if th~ ~. NoHale stated he is generally net comfortable with cai- de-seeing existing roads if it has th~ potential to impact an existing businea$, however, he concurs with the Bass ~. Balch~e ~ue~ns~s. Ke stated he feels the buffer Mr. McHale then made a mo%ion, seconded by Mr. Barber~ for following proffered conditions: A lO0 foot buffer consisting cf undisturbed vegetation This buffer ~hall ~ensist of existing vegetation which maintain er restore the natural drainage conveyance from shall be no access ~hrough the buffer which would allow access from thi~ property to property to the south and 94-701 9/28~94 ultimately tu Old Bermuda Eundred Road. Within the Northern 100 feet of the required 200 foot setback along the southern property line, a four six (6) foot high undulating berm shall be installed. This berm shall be landscaped. The exact treatment of the landscaping shall be approved at the time of site pled review. 2. Any development of the sttDjeet property or any portions thereof ~hall include mandatory usage of County water. thereof shall include mandatory usage of County ~ewer provided same has adequate offsite capacity. 3. NO drainage from any of the proposed I~2 zoned properties shall be directed to Bermuda Place subdivision or Old Stage Road. A seventy-five (75) ~eot buffer shall De provided along the western property lin$ adjacent to the 1-95 right of way. Thi~ buffer shall conply with Sections {d) and 21.1-227 (h) of the zoning Ordinance. This buffer may be reduced Or modified at the time of site plan review if it is ~etermined that existing or proposed vegetation within the buffer will provide an acceptabl~ stand of high story trees. Provided, however, this buffer shall not be reduced to le~s than 5. The following uses shall net be permitted: water or wa~tewater treatment plants providing service for offsite 6, The culvert capacity currently exi~tlng under ~outs l0 shall not be increased. ~ith the exception of timbering to remove dead or diseased trees which has been approved by the StaLe Department of Forestry, there ~hall be ne obtained from the Environmental Engln~ring D~partm~nt and th~ approved d~vice~ installed. 8. Prior to site plan approval! one hundre~ (10o) fast of righ~ of way on the south side of Route 10 measured from adjacent ~o ~he pro~erty shall be d~dicated, free and 9. Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of immediately adjacent to the property ~hall he dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the ben,fit of Chesterfield County. 10. Direct aeeez~ to 01d Sta~e Road shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit. This access shall be lccate~ on Bottom spring~ Road. The e~a=t location of =hi~ any developer utilizing the access shall construct 94-702 additional lane of pavement along 01~ Stage Road for the entire property frontage. 11. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy pe~it, additional pavement shall be constructed along the westbound lanes of Route 19 at its intersection with Old Stage Road to provide an adequate single left turn lane. This improvement shall not involve modification ~o the existing CSX Railroad overpass bridge on Route 10 located approxinat~ly 350 feet east of this intersection. 12. Prior to site plan appreval, a bond or other sureties in the amount of $305,000 shall be provided to the county for road improvements to Old Stage Road and/or Route 10. At ~uch tine construction of road improvement~ are committed as determined by the Transportation Department or prior to site plan approval for development on more than 20 acres, whichever occurs first, p~y~ent of the ~305,000 shall b~ provided ~o the County. NO direct access s~ali h~ ~rovided to Route 10. At time of ~ite plan re~ie~, th~ Planning Commission may modify ~hia condition to ~ermit cna (1] entrance/exit to Route 10. 14. Th~ maximu~ density cf this development shall be a 60- room hotel on the C-3 tract, and 37,000 square feet of truck terminal, la6,100 s~uare feet of light industrial and 200,000 square feat of wurehoume on the I-I/I-I with conditional use tract, or ~ivalent ~nslties approved by the Transportation 15. Prior to issuance of an occupancy pe~it, a cul-de-sac shall be constructed, as determined ~y Transportation Depar~ent~ ~n Ware Botto~ Spring Road just south of Route lQ. The exact location of this de-sac shall be approvud by tho Trunsportation DeDar~ent. The ~evel0p~r ~ha!l d~dlcate to Chesterfield Co~ty, fr~e and unrestricted, any additional right-of-way (or easement) required for this improv~ant. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Warren excused himself from the meeting. 94GN0202 In Dale Magimtorial Dis~riot; O. H. RARRIBS requested re;oning ~rom Agricultural (A) te Residential (R-12], A single family residential subdivision having a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet is planned. Residential use cf to &.s4 units per acre is permitted in a Residential District, The Ccmpreh~n~iv~ Plan designates %he property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. This request lies on ~0.0 acres known as 4912 Newbys Bridge Road. Tax Map 50-11 (1) Parcel 2 (sheet 14). ~r. Pools presented a summary of Case ~4~N0~0~ and stated the appliean~ ~a~ amended the request ~rcm R-9 ~o R-12 zoning after meeting with neighborhood representatives. He further stated that subsequent to publishing the request analysis, the applicant amended his proffered conditions to remove th~ 1,600 square foot minimum house size requirement from the restrictive covenants and included this ~tandard as proffered condition which allows the County ts enforce it. He n~t~d the Dsard would have to amend ~hsir Rules of Procedure to consider the new proffered condltlonm that had been 9~-7o~ submitted after the request was advertised. ~e stated subsequent to the Board Q£ ~up~rvisors meeting on August 24, 1994, Les Saunders, E~quire, staff, and representatives of the neighborhood met and the neighborhoods requested that the application ba amended tO R-I~ zoning; that minimum square fuut house sizes De l~6OO; that there be a maximum cf ~0 lots in the project; and that the applicant proffered an average 1,800 square ~cot huuss. Mr. Warren re=urned to the meeting. tonight versus when the Board h~ard the case in A~/~t, is a change from R-9 zoning tc R-12; a change in ~he cash proffer offer from $~,04~ tc $1,000; a change in the number of lots f~om 95 to $I; a change from a portion of the homes being 1,500 square f~et minimum to al! homes in the subdivision having a 1,600 ~quare foot minimum~ a change that the case h~d a proffer of an average house si2e of 1,350 feet to no average home size proffered; a change that the developer has now ~ru££erad a series of restrietiv$ ~ovenant= that wo~ld reeo~ded as covenants and styled l~ke the covenants in Jacobs Glen subdiv£siun; and a change that the developer maF record additional regtrictions in their restrictive covenants. further stated staff reco~ends approval of the case as styl=d wit~ the proffers subject to the applicant addressing the ~mDact on capital facilities and the transportation network prujeot. He noted the request conforms to the ~erthsrn Area Land Use and Transportation Plan. Discussion, oonu~nts, and questions ensued relative to the different enforcement standards for restrictive covenants versus proffered conditions an~ the reasons e~aff requests certain standards to be proffered conditions and other~ to be included in r~strictiv~ N. Leslie saunders, Esquire ~tated this property is the only property the county was looking to for cash proffers in the and develop ~he property a~ R-12 because Jacobs Glen and the md3acent ~ubd~vision has R-12 zoning an~ Day no pr~ers. f~ther ~tated it was his undor~tanding that he and ~. DeGennaro came to an ag~ment; ~at he is unaware of any opposition at this time; =hat ~e initial compromise was for th~ apDIicant to com~ in under the ~ame zonln~ as Jacobs of paying $1,000 a lot in proffers and felt he scald compete Bridge Ro~d corridor7 t~at she feels ~e neighborhood~ of Sussex Es~a~es, cabin ~reek, and Gl~nwood provide citizens ample opportunity =o ao~uire ine~ensive s~arte~ t~a~ s~arter homes in the ~wbys Bridg~ Road area h~ve accidents; and that adding the add~tlonal families will incrmase traffic, congestion, a==id~nt fr~eDoy, and re.ire more facilities. $he e~pre~med ~once~nm relative to f~om t~e p~oposed development; and drainage and erosion ramifications of the present plan. ,She r~quemte~ th~ to r~ammess ~ainage and erosion r~mifica~ionm of the plan an~ ~u oun~i~r ~veloping the parcel in a manner which b~lancem both ~e %conomic needs of the devetope~ and needs of the homeown~r~ of th~ Newby~ Bridge Road corridor. She ~tat~d she feelm fewer homes with larger s~re restage profitable; that ~he f~ls ~he propomal does not 94-?04 9/28/94 contribute faverably to the master plan for this a~aa o£ the County. She submitted into the record a c~py of her eDeaklng on behalf of M~. Ed DeGennaro, as he is out of the State, and ~ir. DeGe~_naro supports the compromise reached between the attorney and the developer. Re further ~tated his personal concern is that the proffer was decreased from $5,00o to $1,000. Ms. Glen Stcutan, representing Cr~k~ood Subdivision, expressed concerns relative =o additional overcrowding at Jacobs Road ~l~mentary School if thi~ case is approvsd~ the cash proffers only being need for capital improvements~ and the inarea~e i~ t~affic on ~ewbys Bridge Road. She requested the Board to deny the request at this time and s~ated she feels if the case were for fewer homes with larger square footage~ it would help to balance the number of which would attending the three area Mr. George Beadlem mtated a m~mber of his ~amily resides in Cree~wood Subdivision; that he feels the $1,000 cash proffer ~r house i~ not acceptable an~ the County should require er ns~, Newby~ ~ridge Road will continue to have traffic in-fill areas between th~ma ~ho pay sash proffer~ whitu Kr. Daniel re~erred =o ~e last Board m~e%ing relating where residential zoning already exists. Mr. ~icam stated Virginia law state~ that ~ere short,ge of public =~ deny residential zoning along Newbys Bridge Road w~e~e residential zoning already exists. ~r- ~icas ~ta=ed it depends on whether i~ is or i~ not ~onsider=d a safety in the ~oad needing i~provement, fit into the same category. safety or public health concerns. Nr. Daniel ~en inquired am to whether staff conducted a financial analysis as to the value ~at was gained or lost in the offer ~or larger lot ~ubdivi~ion~ a~a selling for approximately $4,000 $5,000 more ~an t~e R-9 lots in neighborhood; that no information difference in th~ lot price is not enough, in terms of tax generated ~han anticipated in ~he cas~ proffe~ Calculation. neighborhoods, developers~ and County ~taff to work toge~er working together and r~aching a consensus indicating that an a~e~ent~ in whole, i~ g~eate~ than the value of ........ 1 T- 1 ~ 'r individual differences He further stated denying a case solely cn the lack of a cash proffer is not legally defensible and he feels the Board~ collectively, is not prepared to vets in support of the request. Mr. Berber stated he is concerned there was no input et the PlanB~g Conumi~sion level about the recent ehangee~ that he iL uncomfortable with the cash proffer a~ount, that other issues need to be addressed such as c~pital facilities and transportation issues, and that appraving this request re~olves a short-term problem and leave~ the County with the long-term burden of dealing with residential development. Me further stated he does not feel .he can ~upport the request as presented d~e to ~he hca/th, safety, and welfare issues associated with it and noted the request does not addre~c future demands of residential development. Mr. Warren stated it is clear that there will be development in the area and he has alway~ ~upported the philosophy of impact fees. He further stated he supports t~e cash proffer system as it is a way for new develepmeht to pay its own Way a~d he ie not comfortable with the request as presented. He indicated he feels the came should be remanded to the Planning Commission for their review. Mr. ~cHale stated he is not totally comfortable with the rogues% as it dose not pay its own wsy~ however, he ~ees no~ feel that is a basis to d=ny tbs request. He further stated he could reluctantly support the request at thi~ time and even though some of the uafety and environmental issue~ have been not been met, he does not feel thaC he can deny the request. Ke indicated he is prepared to mnpport the request. Mr. Daniel stated %here is a differenme cf opinion among Board members on how to address thio rsguest and he feels the Board should go on record as to what action the Board can ta~e. He further stated one option would be to approve the re~usst am presented; that the request mhould not be denied becuuse of the county's prooess~ that he feels approving the request is the best eption~ and that thm original zoning would have had a heavier impact On both schools and roads. Mr. Daniel then mede a motion for the Board =c suspend its rules at this time to allow tho Board to'consider the amended appliCatiO~ a~d &co,prance of the following proffered conditions offered 'with thi~ ca~e, but submitted subsequent to the case being advertised: 1. Prior tc final che~k plat approval, a revised eenterllne, ~aeed on VDO~S Minor Arterial standard= (~0 MPH) for N~wbys Bridge Road, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. At time of recordation of th~ first subdivision plat, forty-five (45) fee~ cf right OK way on the west side of Newbys Bridge Road me~sured from the approved reviled centerline sS that part of ~ewbys ~rldge Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. 2. Aooe~ to N~wbys Bridge Road shall be limited to one (1) public road. The exact location o~ the access shell be approved b~ the T~an~psrtation Department. 3. To provide for an adequate roadway ~y~tem at time Of complete development, the developer ~hall b= r~spo~sible for the following: A. Cenmtruction of additional pavement along Newbys Bridge Road at the approved access to provide left and right turn lanes if warranted at the time of tentative approval. . B. Role=etlon of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the west side of Newbys Bridge Read £u~ thc entire property ~rentage. C. Dedication to and for the hensfit of Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right of way (er easements] required for the improvements 4. Prior to road and drainag~ plan approval, a phasing plan for the required road improvements identified in Proffered Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. 5. The applicant, subdivider/ or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the County o~ Chesterfield prior ~o the time of building permit application for infrastructure imprevem~nt~ within the service ~istrict for the property: The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to exceed $1,000 per lo~ adjusted upward ~y any increase in the ~arshall and Swift Bmilding Cost Inde~ b~tween July 1, 1994~ and July I of the fiscal yesr in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 1995. 6. Public water and sewer shall be used. 7. With the e~oep%ien ef timbering to remove dead or diseased trees which has been approved by the Virginia State Department of Fsre~try, there shall be no timbering until a land disturban=e permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department. $. A twenty-five (25) foot tree preservation strip shall be provided adjacent to Yax Parcel W 9Q-1t (1) 1 an~ 50-12 (1) 3 and along the Newby~ Bridge Road frontage. 9. Stub roads will be provided a~ approved by the chesterfield ~oun~y Transportation Department. 10. The maximum number of lets s~all be sigh%y-one ($1). All dwelling units on any lot within the shull have a minimum ar~a ef 1,~00 gross square feet. I2. The following Declaration cf Restrictions ~hall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation o~ any subdivision plat: The Owner~ do hereby d~clar~ that said property is to be held, owned, conveyed, used and occupied subject to the following restrictive covenants, whioh ¢ovenant~ may be added to ~y th= Owners but not r~duced in requirements by the Owners: 1. No nuisance shall be p~rmitted to exist or operate upon any of the ~ropertie~ ~o as to jeopardize property values. 2. No lot shall bo further subdivided or ~eparated into smeller Lots by any Owner, and no portion less than all of any such Lot, nor any easement or other interest therein, shall 94-707 9/28/94 be conveyed or transferred by an Owner, provided that this shall net prohibit deeds cf correction, deeds to resolve boundary linc disputes and s~milar corrective instruments, easements to public agencies or authorities, or for utilities. ~. ~ Architectural Review Board uumprise~ of three (3) individuals shall be appointed by which names will be recorded with these shall coordinate each residence and-lot amd shall establish roas6nable rules and regulations relating to the procedure for architectural approvals and general guidelines ~er architectural plans according to ~pecifications to be determined by such Board forth ~hall be called "Architectural Review" and attashe~ te these restrictive covenants. Under no circumstances ~hall the Architectural Rsvia~ Board approve any dwelling having minimum area of less than 1,600 gross eq~are feet. No improvements, alterations, repairs, which in any way alters t~e exterior of any its natural or improved state, existing on the dat~ Euch property was first subject to thi~ Declaration, shall be made or done without prior approval of the Architectural Review Board. NO buildings, residence, or u~hsr structure, fence, wall, or 5and~caping in lieu ~ain~ained, improved, altered, mad~ or done on such property WithOUt tbs Drier writte~ approval of the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Barber seconde~ the motion and stated he will support ~u~pending the rules to accept the proffered conditiens~ however, will not vote in favor cf approving the request. Mr. McHale called for the vats on the motion made by Mr. amended application and acceptance of th~ fo!lowing proffered conditions offered with this case, but submitted su~seguent to ~he ease bein~ a~v=rtised: 1. Prior ~o ~inal uh~ck ~lat aDDrovaI, a r~vi~d · cents, line, based on VDOT~s Minor Arterial Standards (50 approved by the Transportation Department. At ti~e of recordation of ~e firs= subdivision plat, forty-five (45} feet of right of way on the west siae of centerllne of that part of Newbys Bridge Road i~diately adjacen= =o =he property shall be dedicated, public road. The exact location of ~e acce~ ~hall be approved by the Transportation D~partment. 3. To ~r~vide for an a~equ~te roadway system at ~ime complete development, the developer shall be responsible for %he following: 11. C0nstructien of additional pavement along Newby~ Bridge Road at the approved access to provide left and right t~rn lane~ if wa~anted at the tine of tentative approval. S. Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along the west side of ~ewbys Bridge Read fer the entire property frontage. C. Dedication to and fer the benefit of Chesterfield County, fr~e and unrestricted, any additional right of way (or easements} required for the improvements identified above. Prior to road and drainage plan approval, a phasing plan for the requi~ed ~oad improvements identified in Proffered Condition ~, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. The applicant, ~ebdivider, or a~signee(~) shall pay the following to the county of Chesterfield prior to the ti~e of building permit application fo~ infrastructure improvements wi~hln the service dis~ric~ fer =he The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not %o e~¢~ed ~l,0O0 pe~ 10~ adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Building Cest Index between July 1, 1994, and July 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30, 1995. Public water and sewer shall ba used. With the exception of timbering to remove dead or diseased trees which has been approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestry, the~e shall be no timbering until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department. A twenty-five (25) feet tree preservation strip shall be provided ~djace~t ~o T~x Parcel # 5~-~1 (1) 1 and (R) 3 and along the Newby~ Bridge Road frontege. Stub road~ ~ill be provided as approved by the Chesterfield county Transportation Department. The maximum number of lots shall be eighty-one All awelllng units en any let within the subdivision shall have a minimum area of 1,600 gross equate feet. Th~ f~llowing Declaration of Restriction~ shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision plat: Th~ Owoer~ do hereby declare that ~aid property to ha held, owned, conveyed, used and occupied subject to the following restrictive cev~nant~, which covenants may be added to by the Owners nut reduced in requirements by the 0wners~ I. Ko nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon any of the Propertie~ so a~ to jeopardize ~roperty values. 2. No let ~hall ~e fur%her subdivided or separated int~ smaller Lots by any Owner, and no portion l~ss t~an all of any such Lot, nor any easement or other interest therein~ 94-709 9/2~/94 be conveyed er t~anaferred by an Owner, provided that this shall not prohibit ~eed~ cf correction, deeds tO reaolve boundary tine disputes and similar corrective instruments, or for utilities. 3. An Architectural Review Soard comprised of thr~e (3) individuals shall be appointed by the Developer, his aucceaaors or assigns, which names will be recorded with these covenantS. The Arshiteet~ral ~evlaw Board shall coordinate each residence and lot mhnll estubli~h Eeasonable rules and regulations relating to the procedure for architectural upprovalu a~d qeneral guideti~e~ for architectural plans according to specifieation~ to be determined by ~uch Board after ~ts appointment. The guidelines an~ so forth shall be called "Architectural Review" and attache~ =o these restrictive covenant~, Under no circumstanoe~ ~hall the Architectural Review Board approve any dwelling havi~g ~i~i~um area of less tha~ 1,600 gross square feet, 4. Nc improvements~ alterations, repairs~ excavations, changes iB grade, or other WOrk which in any way alters t_he ~xterior of amy it~ natural or improved state, %xi~ting on the date such property wa~ first ~ubject to this D=cla~ation! shall be made or done without the prior approval of the Architectural Review s=ructure, fence, wall, or landscaping in lieu such property without the prier written aDprovat o~ the Architectural Review Board. Vote: Unanimous Prior to final oh~s~ ~lat apDrovaI, a revised s~nterline, based on~OT's Minor Arterial Standard~ (50 ~PM) for Newbys ~ri~pe Road, shall ~s ~ubmitted to and approved by th~ Transportation Department. At time Of recordation of the first subdivision pla=, forty-five (~5} feet of right cf way on the west side of 0e~t~r%in~ of that part of Newbys Bridge Road immediately adjacent ~o the property m~all be dedicated, chesterfield County, for the following: 94-710 A. Construction of additional pavement along Newbys Bridge Road at the approved ~cce$s to provide loft and right turn lanes if warranted at the time of tentative approyal. B. Relocation' Of the ditch to pro~ide an adequate ~houlder along the west ~ide of Newby~ Bridge Road for the entire property frontage. C. Dedication to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted, any additional right identified above. 4. Prior to road and drainage plon approval, a phasing 91an for tho required road improvement~ identified in Proffered Condition 3, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. The applicant, subdivider, or assigeee(s) shell pay the following to the county of Chesterfield prior to the time of building permit application for in£rastructure impravemen=~ within ~he service dis~riet far the property: The amount approved by the Board of Sup~rvioor~ not to exceed $1,000 per let adjusted upward by any incr~aoe in the Marnhall a~ Swift ~uil~ing Ce~t Inde~ between July I, 1994, end July i of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if paid after J~n~ 30, 1995. ~ublic water and sewer shall be used. With the e~ception of timbering to remove dead or diseased ~rees which has been approved by the virginia State Department of Forestry, there shall ~e no timberin~ until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the Environmental Engineering Department. 8. A twenty-five (~5) foot tree preservation strip shall he provided adjacent to Tax Parcel # 50-11 (1) 1 and 50-12 (1) 3 and along the Newbys Bridge Road frontage. 9. Stub roads will be provided as approved by the Chesterfield County Transportation Department. 10. The maximum number of lots shell be eighty-one (81). 11. Ail dwelling units on any let within the oabdivisio~ ~hall have a minimum ~r~a ef 1,~o0 grcs~ square ~est. 12. Tho following Declaration cf Restrictions shall be recorded in conjunction with the recordation of any subdivision plat: The Owners dc hereby declare that said property i~ to be held, ow~ad~ conveyed, uoed &~d 00c~pied subject ts the followln~ restrictive covenants, which covenants may be added to by the Owner~ but not reduced in requirements by the Owners: 1. No nuiaance ~hell be permitted to oxis~ or operate upon any of the Properties sc as to jaopardlze property values. 2. NO lot s~all be further subdivided or separated into ~all~r 5ot~ ~y any owner, and no portion less than all of any such Lot, nor any easement er ether interest therein, shall 94-711 9/~8/94 be conveyed or transferred by an Owner, provided that this shall not prohibit deeds of correction, deeds to resolve boundary llne disputes and similar corrective easementn to public agencies or authorltlss~ or for utilities. 3. An Architectural Review ~oard compri=ed of three (3) individuals shall be appointed by the Developer, his nuccessors or a~sign~, which names will b~ recorded wit21 these covenants. The Architectural Review Board shall coordln~te each re~id~nc~ and lot and shall estsbli~h reasonable rules and regulations relating to the procedure for arohi=ectural ~DDrevals and general guidelines for architectural plans according to specifications to be determined by such ~eard after itn appointment. The guid~Iine~ and forth shall be called ,,A~ohita¢=%Lral Rev£ew" and attached to th~e rentrictive coV~nant~. Under no circumstances shall the Arct~itestural Review Board approve, any dwelling having a minimum area of lams than 1~600 gross square feet. 4. ~o improvements, alterations, repairs, excavations, change~ in grade~ or other work w~io~ in any way alters the e~t~rior of any Lot or the improvements located thernon from its natural or im9=oved stat~, existing on the date ~uch property wa~ first snbject to thin Dmclaratien, shall be made or ~one without th~ prior approval of the A~ohitectura] Review ~oard. ~e buildings, residence, or other structure, fence, wall, or landscaping i~ lieu thereof shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered, ~nde or done on such property withent the Drlor written approval of the Architectural Review Board. Ayes: I~r. McKale and Mr. Daniel. Nays: Mr. Warren and Mr~ Barber. Mr. Micas mtated that alterative motionm can he accepted. Mr. Warren ntated the comfort level in lacking as ~he Board is about to set a precedent on voluntary cash pro~£er~ t~st the requent is for one fifth of the cash proffer amount that =he soard agreed upon. ~r. Daniel stated he co,curs witk Mr. Warren and wanted to make it clear that there i6 no rationale for a.deferral. Mr. Daniel stated the consensus of the Board i~ not to suppurta deferral, but to remand the case to the Planning Co~mission. Mr. Saunderz inquired as to the manner in which the Planning commission would review the request and the difference it 9ill ma~e from their initial review. Mr. Barber stated the ~!a~ni~ Commission ~ay ~ot do anything different, however, the process is important to the Board. 5e further stated that since th~ ~lanning Commission's recommendation was made, circumstances have changed and the request as proposed at is not remanding the request to the Planning Ce~i~ion based on cash proffers. 94-712 Yuf. Daniel then ~ads a motion, seconded by ~lr. Warren, for the Board to remand Case 945~0~0~ to th8 ~lanning Commission for theiD review and recommendation. ~r. Warren stated it is not unusual for the Board to remand a requeot to the Pla~i~g Co~u~issio~ when the comfort level ef the Board is in question. Mr. Morale called for the vote on the ~oticn made ~y Fr. Daniel, ee~onded by Mr. Warren, for the Board to remand Cae~ 945N0~02 to the Planning Co~mission f~r their review and Mr. Daniel excused himsGlf from the meeting. 95S~0Z37 In ~a~oaca Magisterial ~i;tri~, G~D ~D DORO~ MOSS requested rezonin~ from General Business (C~5} to Re~identlal (R-9). Construe=ion of a single family rm~ioence is planned. Residentiul use of up to 4.B6 units per acre i~ pe~itted a R~sid~n~ial (R-~) Die,riot. T~e Compre~ensivu Plan d~signmte~ the property for residentia~ u~e of ~.6~ %o ~-5 approximately 100 f~et on thm north ii~e of River Road, also fronting approxlmataly 220 feat on th~ east line of Church acceptance of a proffered oonditf~n. H~ ~tated s~aff ~eco~e~ds a~provai subject to ~e applicant addressing the impact on capital facilitate and noted the request to =he Southern and Western A~ea ~. Garland Moss stated ~e Planning Co~ission'$ reco~enda~ion is acceptablm. There was no oppo~ition On motion of Mr. Barber~ seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board condition: ~rior to issuance of a building permit~ forty-five (4~) f~et of right of way on the east side of Church Road, measured from the centerlin~ of that p~rt o2 church Road, i~ed~ately adjacent to the property ~hall d~dicat~d, fr~ an~ unrestricted, to and for tho benefit of ~a~terfletd County. Ayes: MT~ Ms,ale, Mr. B~rber, and Mr. Warren. Absent: Mr. Daniel. 16. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Barber, adjuurnsd at 9:4~ ~.~. Ve=e: Unanlmoue ~a B. R~moey~ / Cuunty Adminls~ratcfr seconded by Mr. Warren, !~ Jj .L. ~cBal~, III ~air~an 94-713 the Board 9128194