Loading...
04-26-1995 MinutesMINUTES ~visor~ in Attendance: ~, Arthur S. Warren, Vice Chrm. ~_r. Harry G. Daniel Dr. Freddie W. Nicholas, sr. ~r. Lane H. Ramsey county Administrator 95-251 Din, Utilities A~st. to County Admin. A~t. Co. Admln., Intergovern. Affairs Jr., Fi~e Department Dir., Planning Internal Audit Dir., Airport Mental ~ealth/Mental Deputy Co. Admln., Dir., Env. Engineering Mr. Steven L. Mioas~ Information Systems Tech. Dir., Public Affair~ bit., General Sarvicau ~etice Department Community Development Dir., Juvenile Detention Mr. Frederick willis, Jr., Oir., Human Resource ~gt. · _ZiZ-i Z'.L i ~ '~ I ...... 1 . I 11 ............. Mr. McHale called the ~egularly scheduled meeting to order at 3:0~ p.m. approved the minutes Of April 12, 1995, as submitted. Vote: Unanimous 2. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S cemENTS Mr. Ramsay introduced Mr. Buck DeDD, pa~t General Manager of Comcast cablevi$ion who introduced Mr. Kirby Stocks, the new General Manager. Mr. Brooks stated he is looking forward to working with the County and meeting all obligations of their franchise and that he feel~ customer ~ervice is a top priority. Mr- Ramsay then introduced Mr- Walter witschey, Director of the Science Museum. Mrt Witsohey updated ~he Board on activities of the ~s@um and stated the Museum is one of the top twenty ssienoe centers in the nation. He further stated numerous students and County citizens visit the Museum ~ach year; that the Museum oparate~ an e~oiting hand,-on ~cienoe center; that the Nus~um is in the process of conducting a $30 million capital campaign to improve the Museum's ability to deliver services; and that it has been a pleasure to serve the citizens of Chesterfield County and ~t~ School Mr, Ramsay ~tated the County r~csntly has been awarded the Senate Productivity Award and expressed appreciation to the Board for their support in this endeavor. He further this type of resogniCien keeps the County focused on a quality p~o~ram, will make the County s more efficient government, and can be used in its economic dsvelopmen~ efforts. ~e then introduced Ma. Maria Reynoldm, As~imtant Director of the Budget efforts o~ Ms. Donna Bowman, ~s. Leu O'Soyle, and officer Rick M~adows, who were the frontline County employees who made a preeentaQien a= t~e conference regarding =~e Coun%y~ ~otal quality improvement ihitieti~es. Mr. McHale stated thc presentation made at the Senate Productivity Award CoA£erenoa wilt be telecast un an upcoming segment of "Chesterfield Matters". 3. ~OARD CO~ITTEE REPORTS Mr. ~arber s~ated he a~=ended an Exis~in~ Industry Breakfast, that he visited with the Board of Directors of the Lake Patrick ~enry Momeewner~ A~ee¢iation, ~hat ~e attended a meeting with ~he oo~l~ittee on the Future On April 24, 1995, and that he w~lcomed members ef the National Association ~f Retired Federal Employees at t~ei~ state Convention which was held in chesterfiel~ ~his year. Be fur=her stated he will De at=ending the Midlothian YMCA Founders Campaign Kick-off, the chesterfield Little League opening, the ~obious Elementary School Heritage Day, and the James River ~igh School's Post Prom Party. ~e stated hi~ next "First Monday" constituents meeting will be held May 1, 1~9~ with the topic of being planning and development in Midlothian; that a public Learning C~ntsr; and that he will be attending the Ben A~r Victorian Day Parade and Midlethian ~eritage Day on May 95-252 4/26/95 and that hie constituents meeting in Juno will b~ On the topic of r~cycling. Dr. Nicholas stated ho attended a Private Industmy Council Strategic Plunnlng meeting and the Private Industry Council's regular meeting. He further sta~ed he attended a meeting with high schools with the Mateaca District $ohoel Board Virginia Community College Board on April 26 regarding a colleges; that he will be attending the Chesterfield Little League openinq on April 59; that his next Community Focus m~eting will be held May 17, 1995 in which the commit=em on the meeting will be held Kay 25, 199~ in which the topic Of Club un April 24 regarding County i~sues, specifically, the Commission meetin~ in which it was reported a continued as the n~w concour~u, the additional baggage area, the new Newbys ~ri~ge Road area are conducting meeting~ to idmntlfy Mr. Morale stated he met with ConqMes~man Bliluy on April 25 further s~ate~ he participated in a kick off cerumony for added Item ~.~.l.c., Adop~ien cf Resolution Opposing ~han~ing Design Project to Courthous~ Road Widening 9roject~ a~ded Item Exercise ~minent Domain Across Property of Mr. Gerald B. and ~s. Carla ~- D~nial for Acquisition of Sewer and Temporary adopted the agenda, as amended. Vote: Unanimou~ ~5-253 4/26/95 5. RESOLUTIONS AND SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS 5.A. RECOGNISIN~ MAY 4t 1995 AS..~ATIONAL DAY OF pRAYER" Mr- Stith introduced Mr. Glenn Hug~es~ a member of First United Methodist Church of Hopewell, who was present to receive the resolution- On motion Of the Do~rd, the followin§ resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the "National Day of Prayer" is a tradition first proclaimed by %ha Cantinen%al Congress in 1775; and WHEREA$~ in 19S8, legislation was unanimously ratified by both Houses of Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan stating that t~e "National Day of Prayer" was to be observed on the first T~ursday of every May; and WH~R~A~, Thursday, ~ay 4, 1995~ marks th~ 44th con~ecutiYe observance of the annual "National Day of Prayer"~ and WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to give t~an~e %o =he Lord by observing this day in Virginia when all may acknowledge our bleszi~g~ and express gratitude for them~ while recognizing the need for strsngthenin~ religious and me.al values in our State and Notion. NOW, T~R~FORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclai~ ~ay 4, 1995 as a "Day of ~rayer'~ kn Chesterfield County. AKD, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that th~ Board of Supervisors urges all citazens to observe this day in ways ~ppropriat~ to its importance and significance. Vote: Unanimous Mr. MeHale presented the executed resolution to ~r. ~ughee and thanRed him for bringin~ the National Day of Prayer to the attention of the Board- ~r- Hughes expressed appreciation for th~ recognition. professional quality support ~ervices. American public and private organizations has ~een recognized WHEREAS, persons who serve Chesterfield Coun~y in this job a combination of effective intsrpersonal abilitlss and citizens and fellow employees, and knowledge and application of 95-~54 4/26/95 hi4EREA$, the Administration wishes ~o express its appreciation to all County secretarie~ for their dedication to excellence in public sexvice and for their contributions to the County team. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that tho Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes all County sscretmrie~ for their invaluabl~ contributions to tko County and its citizens. Vote: Unanimous Mr. McHale presented the e~eauted resolution to Ms. Ada~ and ~xp~es~e~ appreciation tQ all County secretarie~ ~or their dedication and contributionm to the County. M~. Adam$~ on behalf of County s~cretaries~ expressed appreciation £or the recognition. There were no Work Sessions mch~duled. 7. DEFERRED IT.S There wore ns Deferred Items scheduled. R.~. ~TBEETLIGHT INST~LLATIO~ COET ~PPROVAL~ On motloo of Mr. McHale~ seconded by Mr. Daniel, the ~oard approved ~he following stroetliqht installation co~t approval~ with funds being expended from the deoignated Distric: streetlight Fund: Bermuda District Cost to install ligh~ $~1Z.23 ~o co~t t~ install light * Chesswood Circle, in tbs cul-de-sac (Des to ~f~ty concerns) No cost to install light 95-255 apparatus on the sbreetlight for ErmaYedo Drive as some citizens in the surrounding area are concerned about the light shining into their hom~. 8.B.1. ADOPTION OF RESDLUTIGNS 8.~.l.a. WELCOMING MOTOROLA CORPORATION TO THE REGION on motion of Dr. Nicholas, ~ecnnded by Mr. warren~ the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, un April 11, 1999, ~etcrola corporation announced its intention to build a $5 billion eleGtronies man~faoturing plant in eastern Gooehland County, a fasility which may employ as many as §,000 people when fully developed; and W~R~A$, Motorola, a $22 billion-a-year electronics eorporatio~ and the na~isn's loading manufacturer of ~emkconduetor~, ~xamlned more than 300 other site~ in the nation before deciding upon Gooohlen~ County; and WHEREAS, the presence o~ ~otorola in central virginia catapults our metropolitan region into the twenty-firut century, insu~in~ our community'o place in both national and international high-~ech dev~lmpment markets as well as related ocon~mic deuelopment a~enas; end WHEREAS~ the decision of this fil~t to locate in central virginia io a source of great pride for ~v%ryone in the metropolitan area and is a decision for whioh we are doeply WHERFz%S, citizens, educational institutions, and local government~ throughout the region and the Co~umonwealth of Virginia should work tsgethsr diligently and cooperatively to bring this welcome project to fruition. NOW, THEREFOR~ DE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesherfield County Boar~ of Supervisors hero~y welcomes Motorola Corporation to the metrupolitau region~ ~xpre~ses its pride and appreciation to ~otorola officlels for thoir vote of confidence in the region as a place to do business, and that the Board oommits itsolf to ent~usia~=ic cooperation in support of the development work which lies ahead. AND, BE IT FURTHER R~SOLV~D, that this rauolutiu~ be presented to Motorola CorDcrHtion with sinu=ru thanks, praise, and appreciation of this Board an~ that thi~ r%~olution be pe~anently recorded among th~ DnDerm of =his ~uard of Supervisors 0f Chesteriield County. WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDQT) 95-256 4/26/95 WHEREAS, ~he widening of Courthouse Road from Route 288 to Route 360 (0$55-020-236 (502)) is a priority project in the County's Soeendmry Road $iz Year I~provement Plan~ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests VDOT ts transfer the $57,444°50 balance on the Route 28B Project to the CourthoUse Road Project. Vote: Unanimous ~OBLE~ES On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by ~r. Warren, the Board adopted the following re~olution: WHEREAS~ chasterfiel~ County has supported John Tyler for many years and continues to ~o so, most recently by allocating $4 million over ~wo years for ~ite development in support of John Tyler's efforts to construct facilities to replace the leased s~acs a~ ~he Midlc~hian Campus; and WHEREAS, o=her jurisdictions imcluding the City of Richmond -- have provided support over the years and also are being ~sked to held fund this prcj~ct~ and WHEREAS~ over the past 28 years, John Tyle~ Community College has served Chesterfield County, Richmond, and the re,ion well ~rovidin~ thousands of student~ from all our jurisdictions with educational opportunities; and WHERRAE, nearly 1,OCs students from the city of Richmond take classes at John Tyler each year and that will not change if the service region changes; and WHeReAS, the City has a long history cf seeking including supplying water, treating wastewater, economic regions represents a step i~ the opposite direction of jurisdictional partnershipm; and WHEREAS~ Jo~n Tyler plays a siqnifican~ role in providing efforP with J. Sergeant Community College and VCU with economic to the region; and WHEREA~ all our jurisdictions are being asked to assist with site development costs for the Midlothian Campus and changing the service regions would create a financial hardship would ~ave ~o make up for Richmond's share of t~is project. These jurisdictions have hud every reason to anticipate future support fro~ Richmond complemen~in~ t~eir support; and ~ith Richmond Schools in this venture; and, 95-257 WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is correct in ~tating that public transportation is not available and that tho City has a closer relationship with management at the d~wntown campus of ff. Sergeant R~ynolds, but th~se ar~ not compelling reason~ ts realign service regions, NOW~ THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, because of the above rationales, Chesterfield County declares its opposition to rcaligninq community college service regions. APPROVAL OF CH~/~E ORDER AND TRANSFER OF FUNDZ FOR W~ERO ATHLETIC COMPLEX PROJECT On motion of Dr. Nioholaa~ seconded by M~. Warren, the ~eard approved change Order ~umber 4, in the amount of $1~0,000, to Adkins Construction, Incorporated for the Warbro Athletic Complex Project to increase ~he scop~ of work to perform construction of a third softball field, additional parking, and security lighting and transferred $~©,000 fro~ the Nanchester Middle School Project to the warbro Athletic Complex Project to fund the parking area portion of ~he change order improvements. Vote; Unanimous On notion of Dr. Nicholas, ~ocondod by Mr. WRrren~ th~ Boa~d approprla%ed an a~it~onal $~6,100 received from the Department cf Corrections for the cs~tmuni%y Diversien services (CPI) 9rogram. Vote: Unanimous On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board s~t th~ da~e of ~ay lQ; 1~5 at 7~QQ p.m. ~or a public hearing aosep~ both Fedsra~ Aviation Administration (~.~) and Virginia into con%facts with the federal and State governments for Administrator to enter into contrasts with tho applicable lowest responsive and ~esponsible bidders; and aRpropriation of all federal ($135~716), State I$595,13S), and County funds allocated for the projects. (It is noted the balunc~ available funds in the Airport Capital Improvements program cover %he County match required for this project.) T~is day the county Environmental Engineer, in accordanos ~ith directions from %h~s B~ard~ made r~port in writing upon his e×smination of the rosds in Lakewood Farms, Hection I, Bermuda District, and 95-258 ~/26/95 Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Di~eeter of Environmental Engineering, the streets in La~ewood Pa~s, section I, Bermuda District, meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requi~gDD~ of Che Virginia Department of Transportation, and Whereas, the County and the Virginia Department Transportatio~ h~ve entered into an agreement, recorded in Deed Book 2453~ Page 405, January 21, 1994, fur all detention/retention facilities in the County. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that the roads in Lakewood Farms, Section I, B~rmuda Dintrict, be and they hereby are established as ~ublic roads. And be it further re~olved, t~at t~e virginia Department of ~ransportation, be and is hereby requested ~o take into the Secondary System, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, Code of Virqinia, and the Department'~ Subdivision Street Requirements, ~he ~ollowing: Name of Street: Zack Road Length: 0.04 mile From: State Route 4573, ~xisting Zack Road, 0.06 mil~ ws~t of State Route 1657 TO: the intersection with Erin Road Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50' feet. Name of Street: Erin Roa~ Length: 0.03 mile From: north of Zack Road Guaranteed Right-cf-Way Nidth: 50' f~et. dis~ance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of pla=. This section 0% Lakewoo~ Fsrms is recorded as follows: Section I. Plat Book 64, Page 3, November 15, 1988. This day th~ County ~nvironm~ntal ~nginoor~ in acoordamoe with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon Distriot~ and Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, the streets in River's Send, Section 4, Bermuda Die,riot, meet the requirements established by ~he Subdivision detention/retention facilities in the C~unty. hereby are established as public roads. ...... --F .... "'f r "q ' ~ It And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of ~raD~portation, be and is hereby requested to take into the Secondary Systemt pursuant to Section 35.~-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department'~ Subdivision Street Requirements, the following: Name of Street: Bedbind Drive Length: D.24 mile From: the intersection with Dightingale Dri¥~ TO: the limits of River's Bend, Section 4 Guaranhmmd Right-of-Way of variable Width: 50' - 60 Name of Street: Crystal Downs Lane Length: 0.O~ mile Fro~: the intersection wiBh Redbird Drive To: th~ limits of River's Bend, S~ction 4 Guaranteed Right-of Way Width: 90' feet. Na~e of Street: Hagen's Drive Length; 0.14 mile From: north £rom the intersection To: ~he limits of River's Bend, Section ~ Guaranteed Right-al-way width: ~0' feat. Name of Street; Haman's cour~ Length: 0-03 mil~ th~ intersection with Drive T~: the cul-de-sac Guaranheed RighE-of-Way W~dth: 50' feet. Name of Street: Ho~an's Drive Length: 0.2~ mile From: eouth £rom the intersection with Redbird Drive TO: the limits 0£ River's Bend, See%ion 4 G~eranteed Right-of-Way Width: 60' feet. This re~u~t is inclusive of t~e adjaoent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virgini~ Department of Transportation drainags easements indicated on the development plat. The section of Rivsr'~ Ben~ is recorded as fellows: Section 4. Plat Book 69, Page 64, January ~$, Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from thi~ Boar~, made report in writing upon his examination of the roads in Riven~a Bend, Section 5, Bermuda District, and Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Tuan~portation ha~ advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, the streets in River's Bend, Seotion 9, sermuda District, meet the requirements emtablimhed by the Subdivision Street Requirements oX the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Wherea~ the County and the Virginia Department of detention/retention £aoilities in the County+ in River's Ben~, Section 5, Bermuda District, be and they And be it further resolved, that the virginia Department Transportation, be and is hereby requested to take into the ~econdary Systems pursuant to $~otion 32.1-229, Code of virginia, and tko Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, the following: ~amo of Street: Redbird Orive Length: From: Redbird Drive, Riv~r~ Bend, Section 4 To: the intersection with Bayhill Drive Guaranteed Riq~t-ef-way Width: 60' feet. Name of Street: Beyhill Driv~ Length: 0+14 mile southwest from the intersection with Redbir4 Driv~ To: th~ cut-de-mac Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 60' Name of Street: Bayhill Drive Length: 0.17 mile From: northeast from the intersection with Radhird Driv~ TO: the C~i da sac Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 6Q' Thi~ r~guo~t is inclusive of the adjacenu slope, sight di~tanc~ clea~ zone and designated Virginia D~partm~nt of Transportation drainage eassmsnts indicated on the devslcDmsnt This section of River's Bend is recorded as follows; Section 5. Plat Book 69, ~aqe 67, ganuary ~3, 1990. This day the County Environmental Enginesr~ in a~cordanoe with directions fro~ this 5card, made report in writing upon his e~aminatisn of th~ reads in River's Bend, Section 7, Bermuda District, and whereas, the Ee$i~enr ~ngineer for the Virginia Department o~ Transportation has advised the Director of Environmental =ngineering, ~he s~ree=s in River's Bend, section 7, Bermuda Di~triat~ me~t the ~equirements e~tabli~h~d by the Subdivision Street R~uirement$ of the Virginia Dopartmsnt of Whereas, the County and the virqinia Department of Transportation have ent~rod in~o an agrssman~, recorded in Deed Book 2453~ Pe~e 405, Jan~&ry 21, 1994, for all sto~mwuter de,antics/retention facilities in the Csun~y. Therefore, upon consideration w~ereof~ and on motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by ~r. Warren, it is resolved that the roads hereby ar~ established as public roads~ Transportation, be anl is hereby requested =o take into the the following: Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50~ f~o%. Wams of Street: Crystal Downs Court Length: 0.07 mile From: the intersection with C~y~tal the cul-de-sac Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50' feet. This request i~ inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone amd designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage ea~onente indicated on th~ development plat. This oeo%ion ~£ River's Bend is recorded am follows: Section 7, Pla~ B~ok SQ~ ~aqee 1~ & 19, January 23, 1993. Vote: ~nanimous Thio day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, mmde report in writing upon his examination of the road in River's E~nd, Section S~ Bermuda Whereas, the Resident Engineer ~er th~ virginia Depar~men~ Transportation has advised th~ Director of Envircn~e~t&I Engineering, the street in giv¢~'s BEnd, Section ~, Bermuda bigtrict~ meets the requzremeets established by the Subdivision Street Requi~e~ent~ cf the Virginia Department of ~ezea~, the County and the Virginia D~partm~nt of Transportation have entered into an agreement, recorded in Deed Book 2453, Page 405, January 2~, 19~4, for all detention/retention facilities in the County. Therefore, upon consideration whereof~ and on motion el Dr. Nicholas, ~condad by ~r. Warren~ i~ i~ re$olve~ that the road in River's Bend~ Section 8, Bermuda District~ be and it here~y And be i~ Zurther resolve4~ that the Virginia Department of Transportation, be and is hereby r~que~ted to take into the Secondary System, pursuan~ to seGtion 3J-1-~9, Code of the following: Name of SKreet: old St. ~nd~ews Place Length: 0.09 mil~ From: the intersection with Redbird Drive To: the Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: 50~ feet. This reques~ is inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, ~ight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Departmen~ of Transportation dmeinege easementm indicated on the development plat. This road serves 9 lots. ~his section o£ River's Bend im recorded as Section ~. Rla~ ~ook 75, Page 57, May 21, This day the County Environmental EnginEer, in accordance with directions from this Board~ made report in writing upon his cx&min~tion of the road in Dakin~ Landing, Clover Hill District, end Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of T~&~spOrtatiun has advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, the street in Pekins Landing, Clover Hill District, meet~ the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Reauirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and Wh~r~a~, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation ~ave e~tered into an agreement, recorded in Dasd Book 245~, Page 405~ January ~1, 1994~ fur all detention]retention facilities in the County. T~ere~ors, upon consideration whereof, and on motion ef Br. ~tcholas, seo0nded by Mr. Warren, it is resolved that the road in Dakins Landing, Clover Hill Distriot~ be and it hereby is established as a public road. The d~v~lop~r has dmfault~d on bis responsibility to construct the road and the County had to Co,plate the construction. be waived. Also, by virtue of this road providing a public service, it may be added to tb~ System a~ an ~ddit±on under Section 33.1-229 of the C~da o~ Virginia. And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Transpertatien~ b~ and is hereby requested to take into the Secondary Syste~, pursuant to Section 33.%-~9, Code Virginia, and the Department's Subdivimion Street Requirements, the following: Name of Street: Celia Crescent Length: 0.24 mile From: Celia Crescent, Route 3309, 0.07 mil~ south of Lakant Lane, Route To: Reuben Road~ Route 3313, 0.04 mile south of Lakent Lane~ Route 3314 Guaranteed Eight=of Way Width: 50' feet. This request is inclusive of the adjacent ~lope, sight d~gtance, claar zone and designated Virginia nepa~tment Transportation drainage easements indicated om the development plat. This road serves 3~ lots. Plat Book 4S, Page 100, March 29, 19~5. Vote: Unanimous Thi~ day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions f~om this Soard, made report in writing upon his examination of the roads in River Ridge, Section C, Matoaca District, and Whereas, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation hal advised the Director of Environmental Engineering, ~he s~reets in Kiver Ridge, Sec~i0n C~ Distr~ct, meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Recuiremmnts of the Virginia D~artment Transportation, and Whereas, the County and the Virginia ~partment of Book 2453, Page 405~ January 21~ 1994, for all stormwater detentien/r~t~ntion facilities in the County. Nicholas, ~econded by Mr~ Warren, it is resolved that the reads in River Ridge, Section C, Natoaca District, be and they hereby ar~ established es public roads. the roads and the County had to complete the con~truction. Therefore, we ara requestinq that the maintenance fee and bond be ~aived. Al$o, by virtue of these roads providing a public ~rvice~ they may be added to t~e Symtem as an addition under Section 33.1-229 of the code of Virginia- And be it further resolved, that the VirgXnia D~partment of Transportation, be and i~ hereby requested to take into the Sseondary system, pursuant ~e ~ction 33.%-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department'S Subdivision Street the following: From: north of the intmrsection of Riverpark Way (Route and Northbrook Circl~ (Route 4355) the interzectien with Riverpark Drive, 0.07 mile north of Riv~rpark Way Guaranteed Right-of-Way Width: From: ~iverpark Way, 0.07 mile north of Route 4355 eld in a permanent cut-de-sac, 0.23 mile north cf Riverpark Way Guaranteed Kighh-~f-Way Width; ~0' feet. Name of Street: Plantation Trace Place Length: 0.2~ mile From: Plantation Trace Drive (Route 2720), 0.04 mile north from ~he Route 27~0 Guarantmed Right=of-Way width: 50' ~eet. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance, clear zone and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage ~asemonts indica=ed on the development plat. This section of River Ridge is recorded am follows: Vote: Unanimous southern Construction Company, th~ low bidder, iD th~ amount of $1~,~3.50, for the Ettrick Area Water Line Rehabilitation Project and authorized the County Administrato~ ~o e×ecut~ the ava£iaDle in tge current capital Improvamentm Program and a copy~of the vicinity ~ketch is filed with the papers of this Vc~e: Unanimous ROAD P~OM GLEE ROY CORPORATION AND THE TUOFd~{OB On motion of Dr, Nicholas~ seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board of land containing 0.3& acres along Coalfield Road ($~a~e Route 754) from Glen Roy Corporation and ~he TucRahoe Cardinal Corporation and authorized the County Admlnls~ratcr to s~e~te the necessary deed, (It i~ noted a copy of the vicinity sketch ia filed with the papers of this Board.) ~UTKORtZATION TO EXERCISE EMINENT DOlL%IN ~CROSS PROPERTY OF MR. ~BRALD D. AND ~. CA~LA ~. DANIEL authorized the County Attornuy to proceed with eminent domain acroe~ property of Mr. Gertld B. and MS, Carla H. Daniel for Subdivision. (It i~ noted a copy of the plat is filed with ~he On motion of Dr. Nicholas, meconded by Mr. Warren, the Board appropriated $~0~ooo frQ~ F~9~ ~und ~alanoe ~o the Greater Richmond Community Corps. 8.B.10. TRANSFER OF THREE CENT ROAD FUNDS FOR CHESTERFIELD CHEERLEADER LEAGUE On motion of Dr. Nicholas, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board transferred $30~ from each District's Three cent Road Fund (~otal of $~,5001 to the Chesterfield Cheerleader League. Vote; Unanimous 9- HF~RINGS OF CITIZBN~ ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS Claims scheduled. On motion of Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board accepted the following reports: A report en Developer We%er and ~ewer Contracts and a ~tatus rsport on the General Fund Balanoe~ Reserve for Future Projects; Distris~ Roa~ and Street Light Funds; and Lease And, furtker, %he ~Q~r~ accepted the following roads into ~W~L~R RIDGE. $~CTION 5 - ~Effective ~-10-95) Route 4922 (9ecr~teriat Drive) - F~O~ 4920 to 0.0~ mile ~ast Rou~e 4920 ~.60 Mi FOXCROFT. SECTION II - ~ffective ~-~4-95) Route 5201 (Fox Club Parkway) - E~Qm mils East Route 5200 %~ Ronte 5~07 0.12 Mi Route ~210 (Fox Crest Circle) - Frc~ Rout~ 5~09 to O.OV ~ile Sou~heeet Rout~ 5209 O.07 ~i Route 5211 (Fox Cre~t Court~ - ~rom Rout~ 5207 to 0.14 nil~ Southwest Route ~207 0.14 ~i Route 520S (FOX Crest Place) - From R~u~e 0.12 mils Southwest Route 4~28 to Route 5201 0.09 Mi REED~MILL. SECTION E - {Effective Route 3498 {Springheuse Drive] - From Route 3694 ($~ringhuuse Way} - From Route SAL~BURY, SECTION A - (E~ee~iv~ 3-10 Northwest Route 3139 0.~1 Mi Route 4196 (Olde King Circle) - Fro~ Route Rc~tc 4187 (Trenadior circle) - From Route 4181 to 0.06 mile East Routo 4121 0.06 Mi ~AI~T R~GENT~ LAK~ ~CTIO~ 1 - {Effactivs ROUte 202? (Pease Road) - From 0.03 mile oouthwost Route 2038 to 0.06 mile Southwest Route ~O~g 0.03 Mi Route 4~79 (Tap!0w Circle) - From Route 42?7 to 0.04 milo No~th R~uto 4277 0.04 Mi Routo 4277 (Taplow Road) - From Routo 2025 to 0.26 nile West Route 2025 0.26 Mi Route 4278 (Tapluw Terrace) - From Route 4277 to 0.07 mile North Route 4277 0.~7 Mi SUM~ERVILLE ~ ~Effeotive 9-27-95) Routo 973 (Justice Road) - From Routo 970 to 0.20 nile East ~oute 97Q 0.20 Mi SUM]{ERVILLE. SECTION 6 - {Effsstivo 3-27-95) Routm 973 (Jumtics Road) - From 0.~0 mile Eamt Route ~70 to Route 974 Route 974 (Wyld~rose Court) - From milo south Route 973 ~o ~.0~ mile North Route TRIPL~ CROWN, SECTION 2 - (Effectivo Route 4700 (Deer ~un Drive) - From 0.01 mile East of Route 4906 to 0.22 ~ilo Wes~ Rout~ 4920 O- 07 ~i 0.05 Mi O. o9 Mi Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: 1~. INVOCATION Mr. Fr~nci~ Pitaro gave the invocation. .;%MERICg ~r, Dieki~ Ring, a m~mb~r of tho Airport Advinory Board ~eDresentinq Bermuda District, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the united s~ates of America, AIRPORT ~DVI~ORY BOARD Mr. Lillard introduced Mr. ROger S, Burns, past member of the Airport Advisory Board rep~eeenting Clover ~1 District, who was present t~ receive th~ r~olution. On motion of the Board~ ~h~ fQllowin~ resolution wa~ adopted: W~ER~AS, ~r. Roger S- Burns faithfully served as a member Of the Chesterfield Gounty Airport Advisory Board, representing Clover ~ill District, for fifteen year~ from 1980 to February 14, 1995; and WHEREAS, ~r. Burns ~erved as Chairman of the Airport Advisory Board on two oceaaicns during his tenures and w~R~3~, Nr. Burns is a multi-engine, instrument rated Dilot~ who is widely recognized for his knowledge and keen umdergtanding of tho aviation industry; and WHEREAS, ~r- Burns was in~trumeutal in hi~ role as an Advisory Board member in the following Airport accomplishments: Construction of hangars at the Airport! inoreasing Airport business and revenues Installation Of the Automated Weather observation System and PanA~ W~ather~ation fliqht planning computer Revieion of Airport Master Plan Development an~ implementation Of Airport Regulations and Standards Privati~arion of service function~ to a Fixed Based Operator, imprQving customer cervices and Airport profitability Installation of a precision Instrument Landing System Suppor~ in application for and construction of more than five million dollars in federal and Stmts Airpcr~ i~provement W~EREAS, Mr. Burns was dedicate~ to public service ~o the Chesterfield County Airport until his relocation to NO~fol~ Virginia in February, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE~, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby raeo~i/es ~r. Ro~er of Chestorfx~ld County and general aviation in the ex%0ressed appreciation for his service and contribution~ to th~ Airport Advisory Boa~d. ~r. Burn~ expressed appreciation ~or the reuognition, improvement~ made at the Airport, and ~tated Mr. Lillard, the County Airport through tis enthusiasm, dedication, and energy. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Mr. ~tith introduced Mr. Arthur S. Mallory, Manager of Civic D~velop~emt at ~hilip Morris, USA, who was pre~snt to receive the resolution. On ~otio~ of the Eoard~ the following ~solution wam adopted: W~EHHAS, ~r. Arthu~ Mallory i~ a native of Brunswick county, virginia and resides in Bermuda District in Ch%~terfield County; and WHEREAS, ~r. Mallory is a graduate of Virginia State University located in Chesterfield County~ and WHEREAS, ~r. Mallory ha~ served Philip Morris, USA for ~ver ~eventeen years during which he served as a ~anu£au~urer Supervisor, Affirmative Action Specialist, and Senior Recruiter, to name jugta f~w of his pesiti0ns7 and WHEREAS, Mr. Mallory ~urr~ntly serves as Manager of Civic DeVelopment for Philip Morris~ USA~ and inclBding the Central Richmond Association; the American ReO CroB~; the State PaTkm Foundation; and th~ Garfield Child Memorial Fund; and is a member Q£ the Leadarshi~ Metro Class of WHEREAS, ~r. Mallory initiated a Community Partnership ~etween Philip Morris and $1acRwell Schsol~ and WHEREAS, Mr. Mallory is a past member of the Richmond Community Hospital Foundation; the unltsd Negro ~ol~ege ~nd; and the National Alliance sf Business Metlvstisn Task Force~ and W~ER~A~, Mr- Mallory, through Philip Morris, USA, mpearheaded tbs private dnnatinns that funded ~he chesterfield Black History Month Celebration by being a pacesetter with their gift; and WHEREAS, Mr. Mallory's efforts encouraged Philip Morris, USA to provide a $100,00o scholarship to virginia state university, as well as spearheading the donation that launched the ~i~torically Black Colleges add Universities Basketball Tournament; and WSEREAS, ~r- Mallory has been promoted to Manager of Community Relations at the Philip Morris plant in Cabarru~, North Carolina. NOW, TMEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, ~hat th~ Chezterfield county Board of supervisors hereby- ¢~mmends and congratulates Mr. Arthur Mallory on his p~o~otio~ and expresses appreciation for his many contributions :o Chesterfield County and its citizens. AND~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy cf this resolution be ~re~entsd to ~r. Mallury and tha~ this resolution be permanently recurdsd among the papers of this Hoard of Supervisors of chesterfield County, Virginia. Mr. ~nHala presented the executed res01~tion to Mr. Mallory, accompanied by Dr- claud~ Flythe, Chief of Staff for Virginia State Univer~ity~ and expressed appreciation for ~he many contributions ks has ~ade %o the County. 95-269 ~/26/95 Mr, Mallory e~pressed appreciation £er the resolution and stated he has resided in the County for e number of year5 a~d will miss living in the county. is. 9~RLId H~RIN~S There were no Public Hearings s=heduled- renewal of Mobile Home Permit 8~SR048 to perk a mobile hom~ in a Residential (R-7) District. The density of thi~ proposal is approximately Q.42 units per acre, The ComprehsDsive Plan designate~ the property for neighborhood commercial use. This (Sheet 32). s~bject to ~tandard conditions. He noted the mobile home is located in an area designated by the chester Village Plan for n~ishborhood com~rcla~ use. Th~e wa~ no opposition pre. eat. application was a new request, he would not be able to ~r. ~cHale ~hen made a motion. $~eonded by Mr. Warren, for the ~oard to approve Case 95SR0247 for s~ven (7) years subject to the following conditions: mobile home site, nor shall any mobile hom~ be used for ~ermi~Ced to be parked on an individual lot or p~r¢~l- 3. The minimum lot size, yar~ setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirem~ntm of the applicable zoning district shall ba complied wi~h, excep~ that no mobile onto ~ mobile hume. Ail mobile ~omee s~&ll be skirted but e~all no~ ~e placed on a p~rmanen~ ~oun~ation. 5. W~ere public (county) water and/or sewer are available, Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall ~hen uhtain the neuassary pmrmits from ~he office the installation or relucatlon u~ the mobile home. 95-27O ?. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Per~it. : ! 958R0249 In Bermuda ~agisterial District~ SO~ORRO R. W~DE requests a Residentia5 (R-7) District. The density of this proposal is approximately %.t units ~er acre. The Comprehensive Plan designate~ the property for residential use of 4.01 to 7.00 unlt~ per acre. This property fronts tho north line of Appomattox Street, approximately 300 feet northwest of Rermuda Amnnuo, and is b~tter k~own as 15413 Appomattox Street. Tax M~p 15]-2 (2) Chesterfield Manor, Block I, Lots 3 and 4 (Sheet ~. Jacobsen ~resented a summary of Casa 959R02~9 and ~tated staff recommends approval of the r~qu~t for seven subject to standard conditions. He noted the mobile ho~e located in an ar~a d~ignat~d by the Eastern Area Land Use and Traneportation Plan for ~adium/mediu~ high dsn~i%~ residential ~e. $ocorro R, Wade e~a~ed =he recommends%ion is aGoeptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of ~r. McH=la, seconded by Dr. ~iaholas, the Board approved Case 955R024S fur seven (7) years subject to the f~llowing 1. The applicant shall be th~ owner and ooeupaD% Of mobile home site~ nor shall any mobile home be used rental property, Only one (1} mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an ind~vidu~ lot ~r The minimum lot size, yard setbacks~ required front yard, and :~hsr zoning requirements cf the applicable zon%ng district shall be complied with~ except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. NO additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile ho~e. All mobile homes ~hall be skirted but shall not be plaee~ on ~ permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used, 6. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall =hen obtain the necessary permits from ~he Office Qf the Building Official. This shall be dona prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. 7. Any violation of ~he abuve conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 271 ~/~1~ In Bermuda Magisterial Qi~trict, ETHE5 ~enewal of Mobile Hone Permit 875175 to park a mobile home in a Residential (R-7) District. The density of this proposal is approximately 0.75 Knits Der acre. The ~empreheoeive Plan designates the property for re$identxal us~ of 5.51 to 4.00 unitm per acre. This property front~ the south line of TipEo~ street, approximately 9~ feet eapt of Hill Street sod i~ h~tt~r known em 2827 Tipton Street. Tax Map 149-14 (12) Milhorn Tract, Block C, Let 8 (sheet Mr, Jaoobson presented a ~ummary of Case ~5SR02~7 and stated staff recemmendm approval of the requezt for seven yearm subject to standard conditions. He no,ed the mobile home located in an area designated by the South=rh and Western Area Plan for residential use. There wa~ brief discussion r~lative to bh~ length of time this mobile home or any other mobile hones have been at thi~ location. M~. Ethel H. Peden ~tated the recommendation is on motion of Mr, McMale, mecond~d by Mr. Barb~r~ the Board approved Case 95SR0257 for ~even (7) years oubject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall b~ the owner of the mobile home. The mobile home ~hall be occupied by the applicant's son, Michael Randy mobile home site~ nor shall any ~obile home be used for rental property. Only one Il) mobile home shall be permitted to be par~ed on 5n individual lot or parcel. 3. The minimum lot size~ yard eetbaoRs~ require~ front y~rd~ and Other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning distrist shall be complied with, except that no mobile home sh~ll ba lacate~ closer than 2Q fee= %o any existing residence. 4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added Onto a ~cbile ~ome. All mo~ile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. S. Nhere public (County) water and/e~ sewer are available, they shall bs used. 6, Upon being gramted a ~obile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from th~ offic~ of the Building official. This shall be done prior to the installation or r~location of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be groundD fur r~voaaticn cf the Mobile Kome Permit. VOte: In ~atoaca Magisterial District, GLORI& CROCKER requests ~ennwal of Mobile Hone Permit 88SR007I to park a mobile home in a Res±dentlal (R-7) District. The density of this proposal is approximately 5.88 units per ec~e. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for residential use of 1.01 to 2.5 units par acre. This property fronts the nort~ line of Madison Street at Franklin Avenue and is better known as 6716 Madison Street. Tax Map 180-15 I2) Radoliff~ Block O~ Lot 14 staff recommends approval of the request for seven years ~ubjeet to standard conditiong. Me noted the mobile home located in an area designated by the Southern and Western Area Plan for residontlal use. Ms. Gloria Crocker stated the recommendation is acceptable. Dr. Nicholas expressed concern relative to comments in the mc~ile home repor~ regarding m~ile home requests being ~enie~ in the future and stated he feels these cooL. ants are unfair to individuals who have lived in a mobile home for an extended time and who cannot control other land usaa in the area. Dr. ~ichcles then made a motion, seconded by Mr, B~rbem, the Soard ~o approve case 9~SRQ26Z for s~v~n (7) years subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall bs the owner and occupant of the 2. No lot or Darcet may he rented or lea~¢d for use as a ~obile hom~ ~iter nor ~hall any ~obil~ home be used for rental property. Only ~ne (1) mnnile home shall be 3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirementg of the applicable zoning district shall bo complied with, axoept tha~ nu mobile home shall be located clossr than 20 feet to any existinq No addi=ianal permanenU-type li~ing space may be added onto a mobil~ home. All mobile h~mes shall be skirted but shall aox be placed on a per~anen~ foundation. $ Where public (County) wa%er an~/or sewer are available, they shall be u~ed. 6 Upon being granted a Mobil~ Home Permit, the applicant shall than obtain the necessary permits from ~he office of th~ Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above ~ondition~ shall ~e grounds for r~vocat~on of the Mobile Some Permit. 7 Vote: 95B~0186 I~ Midlothian Maqisterial Diatrict, BONARCO ASBOCIATEB ~KARL~S ~. A~D LOUIS D. MARCHETTI r~quests rezoning from Agricultural (A} and Residential (R-15) to: Residential Townhouse (R-TH] wiuh conditional Use to permit cluster dwelling units; Residential Multi-family (R-MP) with Conditional Uso Planned Development ~c permit cluster dwelling units plus exceptions to multi-family development standards; Corporate office {0-2); and Corporate of£i¢o (0-~) with Conditional Ug~ to permit commercial ~se e×oeptions~ and Community Business (C-~). ~ mixed use development with office, connn~rcial and residential uses is planned. The dea~ity of such amendment ~ilI be c0n~rolled by zoning condltiens or Ordinance standardo, The Comprehensive Plan designate~ 6/26/95 property for planned transition uses. This request lies on 67.~ acre~ frontin~ in three (3) placs~ for a total of approximately ~IOQQ fast on the south line of Midlothian Turnpike, al~o fronting on the north and south lines of Farnham Drive, and located at the intersection of those roads. Tax Map 16-12 (1) ~arcels 32, 33 and 24 and Tax Map 16 15 Il) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet ~s~ Beverly Mussulman, Planning A~ministra~or~ presented a stkmmamy of Ca~s 95S~0186 and stated ~teff is concerned about the future interpretation ~f the applicant's ~roffered condition 2 relative to the t~rm '~quality" end recommends modification of the condition to address Architectural s~y!e, treatment, colors, and materials and, further, that the request fails to address the intent Of t~e planned transition area as shown on the Midluthian Area Community Plan. She further stated the Planning Commission and staff recommends ~enlal becaus~ the request duos not conform ko the plan; that the request is incompatible ~ith area residential zoning and reproaCheS an encroachment into an approved end planned residential area~ that although the proposed Cnrpsra~e (o-2}, Residential Tewnhouse (R-TK), and Residential Multi- family (R-MF) zoning and land uses confol-m to the Plan, any re~uest for such uses should in~lud~ the entire prop~%y; that the intensity of commercial ~es is contrary to the purpose and intent of the C-$ District; and that the applicant has failed to address the transpertation concerns, she stated if the Board wishes to &pDrove ~his request, staff recommends further modifications to the conditions to avoid interpretation problems in the future. There was brief discussion relative te th% intorprstation of certain proffered conditions in the request. Jim Theobald, ~squire, representing the applicants, stated the request is to rezone approximately 68 acres of land from Agricultural and R 15 to e mix of C-B, 0-2 ~ith conditional Use on a portion of the 0-2, ~F wit~ a Conditional Use ~lanned Development and R-TH with a conditional usa, all subject to substantial proffered conditions. He ~urther s~ated the request provides appropriate transitions to b~th Stonehenge Subdivision and the Village of Midlothian and reviewed provioue ra~uests in atPmmpting to rezone th~ property. He stated the applicants have substantially reduced commercial density and traffio~ h~ve guaranteed an appropriate transition towards the Village of Midlothian; have desi~ed a cluster ~ame, condominium community around the golf course geared toward retired citizens; and have addressed the issue of traffic on Farnham Orive. He further stated the mi~e~ un~ d~v~lopment tran~ition~ from commercial zoning and activity alon~ Mi~lsthian Turnpike to office an~ transitional uses fo the west, ts townhouses and condominium development located around a spectacular recreational amenity, which further transitions back te the quelity~ single family residential housing. stated the most migni£iuant difference in the proffered conditions for this ~eguest~ when compared to the last is the introduction of %he office tract, a substantial reduction in the density of the commercial tract, ~nd guaranteed i~p~ovements to Farnham Drive. He then r~viewed the proffered conditions submitted relative to t~e request. He further stated t~e applicants have agreed that befor~ any commercially zoned p~epe~ty to the east is occupied, the applicants ~ave agreed to obtain at l~ast t~mporary occupancy for certain transitional ~ses we~t of the cc~mercial uses. There was brief discussion relative to staff's concern to the condition relating to the cez~ercial development portion of the request and staffs interpretation ~f the term "quality" in the request. 95-274 4/26t95 ~t~. ~heobold continued to review the request amd su~arizad the difference between the previous zoning request for this property and %his request, He then presented a brief video showing the architectural design of the two housing units. There was brief discussion relative to parking as it relates to the'request. Mr. Theobold continued to summarize the difference between the previpus zoning request for this property and this request and further reviewed the request, He stated the request is good planning and requested the Board to give £avura~le conaideration of the requeat. He reoeqmized approximately twenty persons who stood in support of the request. Mr. M. W. Jefferson stated ho r6sides in Stonehenge subdivision and expressed appreciation to Mr. Barber for holding meetings with area residents regarding t~is request and recognized Mr. KcHale an~ Nr- Warren for their recent appearance on ~he ~'County Call-in" Show which addressed various developments that hays taken pleas in the County. Ee outlined the development changes that have taken place in this area and the impact of futur~ d~velopment on Stonehenge Subdivision and th~ Midlothian Turnpike area and stated ha im in favor of the retirement complex. Ee requested the Board to give favorable consideration to the request and to retirement complexes within %he County in general. Mr. George McDerman stated he resides on Farnham Drive, that he reuli=eu some use of the property is necessary, und bused on the proffered conditions, he supports the r~quoet. Mr. W. L. Lin~$ey ~ta~ed he re,ides on Harwick Drive; ~hat he has'resided in the County for forty-two yoaro7 that there have retirement complex. entire community; that he feels the revised plan is a good mix of resldential, commercial~ and uffice space wi~h s~equa~e ~. Jim Harris~ a member of the Board of Directors for the meetings ~ave Deem held since Marc~ 9, 1995 regarding the beneficial for a retirement community and to his knowledge, only two serious proposals have been brought forward for this area. ~e stated the owners of the property purcha~e~ the specific preconceived use, which uss is in direct contrast with the existing land use plans, to the recommendation of Planning staff, and to what ~he stonehenge neighborhood has always deYelopm~nt between Midlothian Turnpike and the reeidentiai proffered conditions du not a~equately address the that he is oppose~ to th~ request as currently proposed. 95 275 4/26~95 There was brief discussion relative to applieant~ and area residents addressing the reguest and whether a deferral would p~0vide an opportunity to continue dlsoussion of the request. Mr. Chuck aaley stated ne feels the Board should define and ~rticulat~ what their feelzngs are about violation Of the Midlethian Ares Community Plan in th~ request and expressed coscer~s about several of the proffered conditions. Mr. Warren excused himself from the meeting. ~r- Relay then ~tated it i~ his understanding that the c~ndeminiums will cost approximately $50,000; that he feels bh~ proposed development has m~rit; and r~quested the Board to d~fer the request tc further addre~ the concerns e×Dressed. Mr. Warren returned to the meeting. Mr. The~bold ~tated the condominiums would cost approximately $lao,0O0; that the requ~gt has been in e×i~tence for approximately ~ix msnth~; that the applicant has ~ubmi%t~d to as much participation from area r~sid~nt~ as possible; that he does not feel a deferral would benefit the applicant; and request. There wes brief discussion relative to the ~u~ber of ~eet~ngs held between the ~DDlican~s an~ area residents- It was generally agreed %0 reuses for ten minutes. Reconvenlng: Mr. Berber stated he feels th~ presentation accurately represents the differences between the original plan, whioh was denied, and the current plan. He further state~ the ~oard supports ci~n input on zoning requests and this included public hearings am well ns solicitation of impo= from residents in the Stunehenq~ Subdivision. H~ stated he supports the retirement complex port,on of the request; that he received many different responses fro~ the neighborhood rssident~ regarding the requeet~ that this is a difficult decision; and OU~li~ed the ~istory of the request. Ee further stated he feels the request docs not meet t~e criteria of support and violates the intent of the Midlothian Area Communitv Plan. then made a motion for the Beard ts de~y Case Mr. Warren eecond%d the motion. Di~=rict Supervisor, however, he feels this request has other issues that hav~ been brought to the Board, but not explored during t~e DUDliC hearing process. Me further stated original d~ni~l of the request is in t~e legal system and he f~el~ the request before the Beard is better than the original request. ~ stated although th= zoning may not be ideal, he realm it batter than w~at ~as been presented in th~ p~st for this area and the Plan should be used as a guide. He further stewed h~ would like to support t~e recommendation o~ the District Supervisor, however, he cannot support denial of the request at this time. Dr. Nicholas Stated he has r~viewsd the request, that he understands the recommendation of staff, and questioned ~ome of the staff narratives and cei~l~ante sf the Planning Commission relating to the r~qu%st. He further stated that of the 95-2Y6 citizens who spoke during ~he public hearing process, percent voiced support and approximately 20 per~on~ ~tood in support the recommendation for denial of the request_ There wa~ brief discussion relative to the uses which are consistent wlUh the Plan; ~he use~ whish make the request inconsistent; and zoning which was in plac~ prior to this Mr. MuHale stated he feels this is a difficult request as it is almost ¢oDs~s~an% with the Plan! that the uses closest ~a the neighborhood ars consistent with the Plsn~ and that although he is concerned about going against the recommendation of the District supervisor, he cannot support denial of t~e request. Hs further stated he feels the applicant has addressed the issues and the request closely fsllow~ the ~,l~n and preserves it. Mr. Warren s~ated he supports the motion made by the Distr~ct Supervisor for denial as the request is not consistent with the Plan. 95SN01S6. Ayes: Mr. Warren and Mr. Barber, Nays: Mr. McHale, Mr. bani®l, and Dr. Nicholas. Mr. McHale then made a motion, seCOD~ed by Dr. Nicholas, for the Board to approve C~se 95S~0186 and to accept the following proffered conditions: that ~lan prepared by J. M. Timmons & Associates, entitled "Marohetti/Dusarco Zoning Plan", dated October 17, 1994. The property owners and applicants in this rezoning case, pursuant to Section 15.1-491+2|1 of ~he Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning ordinance of chesterfield County, the development of the property under consideration will be developed according to the following proffers if, and only if, the rezoning request submit=ed herewith is granted with only the event this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the owners and applicants, th~ proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force er 1. A ?~ foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary cf and within t~e Community Bu~inez~ (C-31 Tract whsrs it abut~ the R-TH Tract. A 2~ ~oot buffer shall be maintained along the northern boundary of and within the R~TH Tract where it abuts the Community Business (C-3) Tract, thu~ effecting m 1~0 foot wid~ buffer along the common boundary of =he c-3 and R-TH Tracts. A buffer shall be maintained along Far,ham Drive within the Co,unity Business (C-3) Tract. A 1O0 foot buffer shall be maintained along the southern boundary of the Corporate Office (0-2) Tract, the westernmost mdge cf which ~hall be located approximately 750 feet along the eastern right of so,thorn right of way line of Midlothian Turnpike. The aforesaid buffers shall conform to the requirements of the zoning ~rdinance, Sections ~1.1-226, ~1.1-~7 ~xcapt and (j) ~ and 21.1~225. In addition to the requirements specified herein, wisain ~hsss buffers a berm shall be constructed varyinq in height from fifteen (15) feet to twenty I~O] feet, or higher if desired by ~hs developer, ~5-277 within the Community Business (C-31 Tract and the R-TH TraCt, and varying in height frem ten ~0) to twenty fee~ or higher if desired by the developer, in the Corporate Office (0-2) TraCt. The berm within the Corporate 0ifice (0-2) Tract shall be extended westwardly along Farek~m Drive adjacent to any retention pond or BMP facility- Ail buiLding~ to be constructed within the Cs~hmunity Business (C-~) Tract shall be similar or complementary in architectural style and ~aterials. Franchis~ type parcel buildings shall conform to the architectural styl~ which predominate in such Tract. The overall quality of development in such Tract shall be similar to that cf Chesterfield Meadows, Laburnum Park, Westpark and/or villase Market Place Shopping Centers. Within the Community ~usiness (C-~) Tract and the Corporate office (O-Z} Tracts, the elevation~ ~f the rear walls of any building{s) visible f~om Farnham Drive shall be constructed with architectural elements consistent with the overall architectural treatment of said Tracts. 4. Within the Communi=y ~usiness (C-~) Tract, the following u~es shall not be permitted: Funeral homes or mortuaries; B. Occult Sciences ~u~h as palm readers, astrologers, E. Veterinary hospital~ and/or commercial kennels~ F. Material reclamation reo~ivinq centers; G. cocktail lounges mad nightclubs; J. coin o~erated dry ¢leaning~ pressing, laundry and associated with financial institutions and/or drive- (0-2) Tracts shall b~ architecturally compatible with the architectural ~esign standards applicable %o the Community Business (C~3) Tract. 6. Within the Corporate O~fice (0-2) Traots~ the following u~e~ shall not be pezmitted: C. Communication studios, stations, and/or offices the Cerpera~e o£~ice (0-2) Tracts shall be submitted to approval, schematic plans s~all include a architectural renderings, and/or any additional conditions of zoning. 95-278 4/26/95 I0. Thm developer shall be responsible for notifying the last known Presidents of the Stonehenge Country Club and the Stonehenge Civic Association at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the time and date of the initial schematic plan consideration by the Chesterfield County Planning Commission. Prior to schematic plan approval, the developer shall provide the Planning Department with evidence of such notice. The developer shall th~rea£ter submit a site plan or tentative plan, as applicable, to, at its option, the Planning Department for 5dminietrative review and approval, or to the Planning Conu~ission for r~viaw and approval. The developer shall be responsible for notifying the last known ~residents of the Stonehenge Country Club and the Stonehenge civic Association prior to or contemporaneously with the initial site plan or tentative plan submittal to the Plannin~ Department or the Planning Commission. Prior to site plan or tentatlv~ plan approval, th~ shall provide the Planning Department with ~vidence that Far,ham Drive, which drain to the existing pond located on the $=onehen~e Golf and Country Club property, shall be increased. With the exception of that portion of the property which drains t~ the existing ~ond on the S~onehen~a Golf and Country Club property, ~tor~wateD shall be stored so that the ~torage volume is that of & 50 y~ar pomt-development storm with a release of a 10 year pre-d~velopm~t storm. existing pond on the Stonehenge Golf and Country Club property, star,water shall be stored so tha~ the storage velum= is that of a 50 year post development storm with a For any drainage area which wall ultimately drain to the existing pond on the ~tonehenge Golf amd Country Club the proparty, the developer shall not opt out of provisions of the chesapeake Bay Preservation Act adopt~d by Chesterfield county. ~ithin the Co~umunity Business {C-~) Tract, gross square feet of s~opping center, inclusive of out parcels; (b) within the Corporate Office (0-2) Tract, 1~5,000 ~quare feet of general office, 6,500 square feet of restaurant usa (not including a fast food or a carryout ~e~taurant) and 4,000 square feet of bank or savings and loan use with a drive-in window; and within the R TH and R MF Tracts, 195 residential condominium/townhouse units; or equivalent densities in =he aggregate among the Tracts as approved by the Transportation D=partment e×nept 8e r~strlctad ~y Condition NOS. iS, 25 and The developer shall have two (2) options as to Tenant sizes on the community susineee (C-3) Trac~: 95-279 4/26~95 13. (a) A ~rctery store, not tQ exceed ~,000 square fs~t of qross floor ~r~a, one oth~r T~a~t hot to 30,000 square feet of gross floGr area, and all other Tenants net to exceed 15,000 square fe~t of ~ross floor area OR A commercial Tenant o~her than a grocery ~tore, net to exceed 40,000 square feet cf gross flour one other Tenant not to exceed 30~000 square feet of gros~ floor area, and all ether Tenants not to o×ceed 15,000 square feet of gross floor area each. Acces~ te Route 60 shall be limited to four (4) entrances/exits. The western access shall be designed and constructed to be shared with the adjacent p~operties the we~t~ The eastern access shall be designed and oonstructed ~o be shared with the adjacent properties to the east. The e~aet legation cf these access~ ~ha~l be approved by the Transportation Department- P~ier to site plan approval for any n0n-r~sidpntial use, easements, acceptable to the Transportation shall be recorded for bo=~ locations. To provide for an adequate roadway syutem at t~e ~ime of complete development o~ th~ property~ the developer uhall be responsible for the following: (a) Construction of an additional lane o~ pavement (i.e., third through lane) along the eastbound lanes (b) construction of additional paves%em% along =he eastbound lanes cf Route 60 at each apprGved to provide a separate right turn lane; (c) construction of a crossover on Route 66 leoated towards the eastern p~cp~rty line ~o align with the Sam*m Club service entr&ncs if requested by dev~lGp~r end permitted by ttls ~irginia Department of Transportation; (d] Construction of additional pavement within existing ~dian along the westbound lanes of ROU%~ 60 at each crossover that serves the property to provide dual left t~rn lanes~ (e) Full cost of traffic ~ignatization modification at the Wal-Mart Way/site access crossover and full cost of traffic signalization at a crosu-ever ts align with tbs ~am'~ Club service entrance, should such ~oss-ever be permitted; (f) CDnstruction cf a six lane typical sec%ion (i.e., two southbeun~ lane~ and four northboumd lanes) for each entrance/exit that aligns a crossover on (g) Installation of a ma×imum of six (6) "upeed humps" on Fernham Drive/Fernh~m Drive KelQcated fro~ its inter~otion with Route 60 to th~ ~denherry Drive intersection, if approved, and for se long as permitted by, the County and VDOT. Subject to the foregoinq, the exact number and location o~ the speed humps shall be approved by the Transportation Department~ and 4/26/95 unrestricted, any additional right of way (or Prior to site plan approval, a phasing plan ~er required road improvements identified in Proffered Condition 14, with supporting traffic analysis if requested by the Transportation Department, shall be submitted to and approved by the Transportation Department. Theme shall be no vshicular access ~rom %he Community Business (C-9] Tract o~ the Co~po~&ts Office (0-2) Tracts as shown on The Plan, to existing or relocated Farnham Drive. 17. Within the ~-TH Tracts and R-MF Tract as shown On The Plan, dwelling units shall have minimum square footsges as follows; R-TH Tract Parcel "A" 1,0Q0 gross square feet on the first ~1oo~ R-TH Tract Psroei "B" 1,200 gross square feet cn the first floor; and the R-MF Tract 1,400 gross square feet per floor. Any cluster homes developed within the R-~F Tract shall have a minimum of 1,~00 gross ~quare feet on the first floor. There shall be a maximum of five (51 out-parcels on the Community ~usine~s (c-~) Tract. The denei=y of =he Community Business (c-3) Traot shall not exceed gross square feet. ~o more than 90,000 gross square feet of offices shall be constructed on the Corpurata office (0-2) Tracts. 19. Ail dwelling units, ctker than slustsr homes, devslopsd an the R-MF Tract shall be condominiums as defined and regulated by the virginia condominium Act. 20. The architectural appearance of dwelling units in the R-T5 Tract Parcels shall be traditional, colonial style ~ith b~ioK and frame facades similar in appearance to Westham Gr~en cemmunity on Ridge Road in H=nrico County. Within the ~-TE Tract Parcels, t~e total number of dwelling units attached within each group or row shall mot sxceed Sour. The architsctural appearance of dwelling units in the R-MF Tract shall be similar in appaarumce to =he Qld ~uckingham Station and/or stsny Point apartment developments. The provisions in this condition applicable =n the R-TH Trac~ Parccl~ shall also bm applicabl~ ~o any cluster homes developed on the R-MF Tract. Ri. A. At the time designated below, the developer shall pay the ~ollowing cash payment to t~s County for infrastructure i~prov~ments related to the residential development requested herein within th~ service district for the property as d~signat~d by the Capital Improvement Proqram. Subject to the limitations set forth in Section lid below, the developer s~all pay the following applicable proffer fee for each dwelling unit cosetructe~ in excess of 124 units: (i) At the ~ime of building permit applioation, the cash payment, i~ pai~ prior to 3use ~0~ 19~5, shall be the amount currently approved by the Board o£ supervisors (the "Board") not to exceed $5,0S~ for each dwelling unit; er (ii) The amount approved by the Board not to $5~Q83 for e~mh dwelling unit constructed un the property~ adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and Swift Buildin~ Co~t Index 95-281 4/26/95 between July l, 1994 and July 1 of the fimcal year in which the payment is made if paid after June 30~ 1995. If any of the cash proffers are not expended for the purposes designated by the capital from the date of payment, they shall be returned in full to the developer or his assignee. B. On amy Trao~ developed for r~sidentkal u~es designed and used primarily for elderly retirement housing as restricted in accordance with r~gulations controlling age restricted communities as set forth in ~ 3607 Of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U$CS ~§ e__t ~.~ as amended from time to ti~e~ for which cash pro~rers would otherwise be due as se~ forth in ~iA above, the cash proffer described below shall be d~veleper, the subdivider or ki~ assignee! at the time ef building pardi: application, shall pay cash proffers to th~ C~unty that portion of the cash proffer for infrastructure improvements wi~hln service digtrict for the deYelop~nt excluding that portion applicable to school~: (i) Th~ amount approved by the Boar~ not to exceed 57.00% o~ $5,6~ ($~,~S) for ~ach dwellin~ unit and each new unit to he constructed in the development, if paid prior to June 90, 1995 for each dwellinq unit; or (ii) ~he &~ount approued by the Bo~rd not to exceed 57.00% of $S,0~3 ($~,89~) for each residential lot and each new unit to be constructed i~ the development, adjusted upward by any increase in the Marshall and S%~ift Building Cos~ between July 1, 19gg and July 1 of the fiscal y~ar in which the payment is made if paid June 30, purposes d~ignated by the Capital Improvement Program within fifteen (19] ygars from the date cf payment, they shall be returned i~ f~ll to the developer or his assignee. C. Should Chesterf{al~ County impos~ impact fees at any time during the life of the development, the amount paid in cash proffers ~hall Ba in lieu of or credited toward, but not be in addition to, any i~pact fees in a manner as determined by the County. Prior to any ~ite plan approval or in conjunction with recordation o~ the first subdivis±on plat, whichever occurs first, the developer shall: (a) Provide a bond or other sureties to Chesterfield County for the cost to relocate Farnham Drive as identified o~ the Plan; and Dedicate the right of way for ~he relocation of FarDha~ Drive, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits, the relocated of Farnham Qrive shall ba completed as determined by the Transportation Department. 4/26/95 The public water and waste water syste~ shall be u~ed. 24. With the exception of timbering to remove deed or diseased trees which has been approved by the Virginia State Department of Forestryr there shall be no timbering until a land disturbance permit has been obtained fro~ the Environmental Engineering Department. Within the 0-~ CT area as sho~n on The Plan, there shall be a maximum of two {2) freestanding buildings, each of which shall be limited to a maximum of 6,000 square feet of gross first floor area. 26. Prior to the granting of any certifiGates of occupancy for any development on tho Co,unity Business (C-~) Tract, at least temporary certificates of occupancy shall have been granted for a building on the westernmost portion of the 0-2 CU a~ea and for at least 5,000 qross square feet of O- 2 use at a location nearest to the eastern boundary of the Corporate office (o-~) Tract_ 27~ Pedestrian access ways may be provided through the buffers required by Condition ~e. 1 wi~h the approval of the Director of Planning or the Planning Commission. The ways shull be determined at the time of site plan review. No more than fifty-one (51) reuiduntiuI dwelling units aggregate. No more than 144 dwelling units shall be constructed on the R-MF Tract. Ayes: Mr. McHate, Mr. Dmniol, and Dr. Nicholas. Nays: Mr. Warren and Mr. Barber. ~n Dale ~agisterial District, ~UL~ERRY COR~O~{ATIO~ requests rezoning from Agricultural IA) to Re~i~gntial (R-9} with Conditional Use to permit indoor/outdoor recreational facilities. The applicant has proffered to restrict the use of the property to indoor/outdoor recrestional uses only. The denmity of much amendment will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for public/memi-public umm. Thim request lies on 11~3 sores lying approximately 395 feet oTf the ~est line of Belmont Road, measured from a point approximately 1,250 feet north of Cogbill Road, and also lying approximately 4~ ~aet off the southern terminus of Five Forks Lane. Tax Map Mr. William Peele, Assistant Director of Planning, presented a summary of C~se 95SN0237 an~ stated ~he Plannin~ Commission recommends approval suDject to impe~ing the apDlicant~ Proffered Conditions 1 throuqh S as conditions and imposing an additional Condition relating to restricting the a~cunt and tine of use of any outdoor speaker systems. He further stated the applicant submitted a revision to tho proffered condition relating =o =he outdoor speaker systems and that staff suggests, and the applicant ~Dd neighborhood agree, that the B~ard impose a substitute condition that will be easier to ~nfQroe. ~e stated ~taff r~commends approval of the r~quest and acceptance of Proffered Conditions 1 through 6 and that Proffered condition 7 net be accepted_ ~e further stated in lieu of Proffered Condition 7, staff recommends a condition which would Drohlblt outdoor public address systems. Me noted the request conforms t~ the Central Area Land Use and ?rans~orta%io~ Plan. Gloria ?rye, Esquire, representing the applicant, stated the recommendation is eoceptaDla and requested the Board to give favorable consideration to the requ~stt There was no opposition present. Mr. Daniel stated the ~pplicunt and Mr, Thomas L. Farim have received a letter from Mr. Paris regarding the request. He submitted the letter ~rom Mr, Faris into ~he re~crd. further stated ha is prepared to make a motion with the csnd±tions submitted by the Plannln~ Commission along with added Condition 7. Mr. Daniel then made a motzon, seconded by M~. MeHale, for the Bmard to suspend its rules at this time ~o ccnsidmr the £~llcwin~ condition: Outside ~ublic address systems or speakers may be used mo mere than six (6) days per calendar year and, when required, for ~m~rg~ncy announcements~ provided that no such Symtem shall be used between the hours of lQ:00 p,m. and 8:00 a.m., Sunday through Thurmday~ and 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m~ Priday and Saturday. Vote: Unanimous On motion of ~r. Daniel, seconded by Dr, Nicholas, thm Beard approve~ Case 955~0~$7, rejected all proffered conditions, and approved the following conditions: ~ublic water and wastewat~r system~ ~hall be u~ed. D~v~lcp~nt on the property shall be limited to indoor/outdoor recreational uses only such as club houses, swimming pools, tennis or o~her court facilities, playfieldm~ and a$sociated recreational faoilities. No residential units sh~ll ~e permitted on the Property, 3. A fifty (~O) foot buffer shall be provided alen~ the perimeter of all active recreational facilities except where adjacmnt to any existing or proposed road. Thi~ buffer shall conform to the requirements of t~e zoning or4in~nce- 4, O~tdoor playfields, courts, mwimming pools and similar active recreational areas shall be located a minimum 100 fee~ from any pNopossd or existing single family residential i~C line and a minimum of fifty (s0) feet from any existing or proposed public road. Nothing hsm~im shall prevent development of the indoor facilities and/or parking within the 100 feet. Th~ 100 f~ot setback shall be landscaped in acco~dansm with Section 21.1-228 (a) (4) of the Zoning 0rdinan~e. ~. ~xcept £0~ ~im~ering approved by the V~rgXnia State Department of Forestry for the purpose of remevin~ ~ead or diseased trees, there shall be no timbering on the Property until a land disturbance permit has been obtained from the ~nvironmental Engineering Department and the apprOVed devices 6. A dam failure analysis cf the upstream pond ~h~ll be performed and such analysis shall b~ submitted to Environmental Engineering for approval in conjunction with than twenty (20) feet to the limits of the dam failure inundation. 4/26/95 Outside pu~llo a~dress systems or speakers may be used no more than six (6) days per calendar year and, when required, for emergency announcements, provided that no such system shall be used between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.~ Sunday t~rc~gh Thursday, and 11:0~ p.m. and ~:00 a-m,, Friday and Saturday. 95S~0239 requests Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a 540 foot communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District. The density of ~ch a~end~ent will be controlled by zoning conditions or Ordinance standards. The Comprehe~siv~ ~lan designate~ ~he property f0~ general industrial u~e. This request lies on ~.~ acres located Off the eastern terminus cf Station Read. Tax Map 53-12 Il) Part of Pa~e~l i (Sheet 16). Ms. Beverly Mu~selman, Planning Administrator, pre~ent=d a su~mary of Cas~ 9~S139 ~n~ stated the Plannlng Commission and staff recommends approval subject bo condition~. She noted the ~loria Prye~ ~squire, representing the applicant, stated the copy of a letter from Palls Virginia, Imeorperate~. She stated the Federal Co~L~unication Commission (FCC) has technicians to a~re$$ any complaints or concerns that area residents may have. She further stated the applicant oensu~s with staff that tho request will have no negative impact on adjeinlng nelqhbers and reguested the Boa~d tc give favorable consideration to the There was brief d~ssussion relative to the tower having e negative impuct on surrounding residents; future users of the tower; add FCC prouedurea that govern complaints and their resolution. Peter McKee, ~squire, representing Falling Cr~k Associates, =xpreused concerns r~lative to the one year sunset provision; and requefite~ %he ~oar~ Lo deny the request in its present form. Ee further stated the provi~ionn of th~ proposed conditions are not acceptable and he feels if Palls virginia, Incorporated is not the owner of the property, then they do ~0= Dlan~iDg Commission meeting regardin~ this request. Ms. Frye reviewed the one year ~CC regulation relating to the licensee and stated any concerns would be addressed. She further stated K-~ is a good corporate citizen who would be responsive to ell concerns addressed by any area r~idente~ there are similar uses of ~his type in the County; the avuilubility of n~w technology; and the application being consistent with similar re,easts. ~Lr. Mc~ale stated he would hsvs a difficult time denying this request; that th~ Planning Commission and staff recommends approval; that this area of technology has been successful; and that he does not feel the minimal risks justify delaying approval of the request. Mr. McHale then made a m~tLon, seconded by ~r. Daniel~ for the Board to approve casa 955~0239 subject t~ the following conditions: 1. There shall be no signs permitted tO identify this use, The base of the tower and guy wire anchors shall be enclosed by a minimum six (6) foot high fence, designed to preclude trespassing. The fence shall be placed sm to provide ~u££iciont ~oom between the fence and property lin~ to acecmnodat~ everqr~n plantings hav~ng an initial height and spaclhg to minimize the view of the bass of the tower and th9 equipment building from the adjacent properties. A detailed plan depicting this requlremant shall be ~ubmitt~d to the Plunning Department for approval in conjunction with £inal site plan review. Prior to release of s ~uilding per~i~ £or t~o tower, a copy of FAA approval ghall be ~nbmitt~d to the Planning Department. 4. The tower and equipment shall be designed amd installed so as not to interfere with %he Chesterfield County Publi= Safety Trunked system. The developer shall perform an engineering study to determine the possibility of radio frequency interference with the county system. Prior to release of a building permit, the study shall bu submitted to, and approved by~ the Chesterfield county Communications and Electronics staff. The owner shall be responsible for correcting any frequency problems which affect the Chesterfield County Public Safety Trunked System caused by this usa. Such corrections shall.be made immediately upon notification by the Chesterfield County Communications and Electronics The color and li~htimg system for the tower shall be as follows: reflection may bs used during dayliqh~ hours. c. If ~he tower is llghted az night, ligh~in~ shall limited to ~oft blinRing lights. 7. All drive,aye and perkin~ areas shell be graveled or paved and maintained to m~nimize dust ~roblems and provide ease of ingress and egress. 8. Any building or m%ch~nical equipment shall comply with Section ~1.1-~45 Of the zoning ordinance relaZive to screening of mechanical e~uipmsnt. (Note: This condition would require the sureening mechanical equipment located on the building or ground ~rom adjacent properties and public rights of way. mounte~ equipment.) 9. At such time that the tower ceases to be used for communications purposes for a period exceeding twelve p~oparty. 10. In conjunction with the approval of this re~uemt, a 390 foot exception to the 150 foot height limitation shall be qranted. Prior to release of & b~ildi~g permit, a pedestrian easement along Falling Creek shall be granted to and for Chesterfield County, free and unrestricted. T~e exact location and width of the easement shall be approved by the Department of Parks and Recreation at the time of site plan review. 12. Nc additional fill material shall be placed outside the limits that are currently filled for either the building, the tower, or any of ~hs guy wires. 13. Prior %o the issuanoe ufa land disturbance permit, the Department of ~nvironmental ~ngineering shall be presented wi~h documentation tha~ %he development conforms to the The 100 y~ar floodway of Palling Creek shall be maintained sa a bu~ar. ~xcept ~er dlaturbanca necessary to existing vegetation within this buffer shall he preserved and maiDtalned. Existing tr~es within this buffer ~hall be supplemented, wh~re necessary to minimize the view from adjacent property to the south, with trees of specle~ having am average minimum ~mtura crown spread of greater than thirty (30) feet and a minimum mature crown spread of greater than thirty (30) f~et and a minimum caliper of three and one-half (~ ~) inches at ~he time of planting, to achieve a density of at least one (1) tree for each twenty (~0) lineml feet of buffer. In addition, cleared areas of 300 square feet er greater shall be planted with trees~ as ~eecribed herein, to ~chieve a minimum ~ensi%y of one (1) tre~ for each 300 squats feet of cleared area. At the time of site plan approval, a landscaping plan depicting this requirememt shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval~ (NQT~: The Palling Creek floodway contains w~tlands. Tree mpecies and landscaping installation must conform to applicable ~peoifica~ion$ and accepted procp~ure$ for planting within such wetland areas.) (NOT~: Prior to site plan or building permit approval, Conditions 4 and ~ o~ Casa ~sl~o must be complied with.) 14. vote: Unanimous ? ~airman 95-287