04-22-1987 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINDTES
April 22, 1987
Supervisors in Attendance:
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes, Vice Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
Acting County Administrator
Mr. Stanley Balderson,
Dir., Econ. Develop.
Mrs. Doris DeHart,
Legislative Coord.
Mrs. Joan Dolezal,
Clerk to the Board
Chief Robert Eanes,
Fire Department
Mr. Bradford S. Hammer,
Asst. Co. Admin.
Ms. Alice Heffner,
Youth Svcs. Coord.
Mr. William Howell,
Dir., Gen. Services
Mr. Thomas Jacobson,
Dir. of Planning
Mr. Robert Masden,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Human Services
Mr. R. J. McCracken,
Transp. Director
Mr. Richard McElfish,
Dir. of Env. Eng.
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Dir. of News/Info.
Services
Mr. Richard Nunnally,
VPI Extension Agent
Col. Joseph Pittman,
Chief of Police
Mr. Richard Sale, Asst.
Co. Admin. for
Development
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Dir. of Parks & Rec.
Chief Dennis Turlington
Fire Marshal
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Frederick Willis,
Dir. of Human
Resource Management
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at
9:00 a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Bermuda District
Supervisor, who gave the invocation, in the absence of Reverend
Ron Talley.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America was recited.
87-276
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.A. APRIL 1, 1987
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved the minutes of April 1, 1987, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
3.B. APRIL 8, 1987
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the minutes of April 8, 1987, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
4. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hammer announced the following appointments to the Virginia
MuniCipal League committees:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Geoffrey H. Applegate
Mr. Robert Masden
Mr. Richard Sale
Mr. Bradford Hammer
Effective Government Committee
Transportation Policy Committee
Legislative Committee
Human Development Committee
Community Development Committee
Educational Policy Committee and
Environmental Policy Committee
Mrs. Girone stated her representation on the Virginia
Association of Counties Executive Board will expire this year
and she hoped the County would remain involved in this
capacity.
Chief Eanes introduced Chief James Graham, Fire Training
Officer, who several years ago suggested that a computer
program be made available to fire departments nationwide, which
would assist fire prevention bureaus in determining the size
and ~ application rate of foams for flammable liquids and
flammable liquid gasoline bulk storage. He stated Chief Graham
was recently invited to National Foam Company in Lionville, PA,
where he was presented with a copy of this program, which has
personal computer capabilities, and is now available to
virtually every fire department across the country. Chief
Graham stated he was very proud to have represented the County
and Fire Department at this event.
Mr. Mayes commended the Fire Department for their expedient
response during a recent emergency when lightning struck his
home. He expressed his appreciation for the diligent and
meticulous manner in which the situation was handled.
5. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Daniel reported he attended a roundtable discussion with
the Virginia Department of Transportation at which issues
conc'erning Phase II of the Governor's Study on Transportation
and procedures within the Department of Transportation were
discussed.
Mrs. Girone stated she attended the ground breaking ceremony
for the YMCA in Chester and felt the citizens of the community
were especially pleased with the event.
6. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ACTION, EMERGENCY ADDITIONS OR
C~ANGES IN 'r~z ORDER OF PRESENTATION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board moved
Item ll.B.i., Resolution Authorizing Sale of Water and
87-277
SeweY Refunding Bonds, Series 1987, and Item ll.B.2.,
Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds, out
of sequence on the agenda to be heard prior to Item ll.A.,
Farmers' Market Presentation; added Item ll.Q., Approval of Law
Clerk - 1987-88 Budget, to be heard immediately after Item
ll.J., Consent Items; and adopted the agenda, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
7. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
7.A. DECLARING MAY 11-15, 1987 AS "NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
WEEK"
Chief Pittman requested Board adoption of a resolution
recognizing May 11-15, 1987, as "National Law Enforcement Week"
and law enforcement officers in Chesterfield County for their
dedication and devotion to law enforcement and to the citizens
of t~e County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, The dedicated, loyal and brave members of police
departments throughout the Country provide an invaluable
service to all citizens; and
WHEREAS, The week of May 11 - 15, 1987 is recognized as
National Police Week; and
WHEREAS, The County is proud and honored to have such
outstanding and professional individuals as our police officers
in Chesterfield County who serve to protect the health, safety
and welfare of its citizenry.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors, to honor the dedicated efforts of
the Chesterfield County Police Department, declares May 11 -
15, 1987 as Police Week in Chesterfield County and calls this
recognition to the attention of its citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Chief Pittman
who indicated the resolution would be displayed at the annual
Police Memorial Week dinner.
7.B. CAPTAIN JAMES W. APPLEWHITE, UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM
POLICE DEPARTMENT
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Captain James W. Applewhite will retire from the
Chesterfield County Police Department on May 1, 1987, having
provided 32 years of quality service to the citizens of
Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Captain Applewhite's diligent service; and
WHEREAS, Captain Applewhite joined Chesterfield County in
April, 1955 as a Deputy with the Chesterfield County Sheriff's
Department and transferred to the Chesterfield County Police
Department as a Patrol Officer on August 1, 1956; and
WHEREAS, Captain Applewhite's abilities were recognized by
his career promotions to Patrol Sergeant in April, 1969; to
Lieutenant in command of a patrol shift on July 1, 1975; and to
Captain of the Patrol Division two years later at which rank he
87-278
served the Chesterfield County Police Department in the Patrol
Division and Support Services Division; and
WHEREAS, Captain Applewhite's caring attitude toward
people is one of his strongest attributes, and his career has
been marked by many letters and certificates of appreciation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes Captain
Applewhite and extends on behalf of its members and the
citizens of Chesterfield County their appreciation for his
service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this
resolution be presented to Captain James W. Applewhite and that
this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of
this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel noted that Captain Applewhite was not present for
the meeting and the resolution would be presented to him at a
retirement dinner in his honor.
7.C. SPECIAL AGENT EDWARD F. SULZBACH, FOR EFFORTS IN EN-
HANCING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Special Agent Edward F. Sulzbach, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, while assigned to the Richmond Field Office
provided outstanding training sessions for the officers of the
Chesterfield County Police Department; and
WHEREAS, Special Agent Edward F. Sulzbach assisted the
Chesterfield County Police numerous times in the investigation
of major crimes and their successful resolution; and
WHEREAS, Special Agent Edward F. Sulzbach worked closely
with the Chesterfield County Police Personnel and Training Unit
providing "state of the art" training in such topics as stress
management, interviewing and interrogation, psychological
profiling, and supervisory skills; and
WHEREAS, Special Agent Edward F. Sulzbach assisted in the
formation and repeated training of the Chesterfield County
Police Hostage Negotiation Team which has lead to the
successful resolution of many high risk situations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its appreciation
and gratitude to Special Agent Edward F. Sulzbach for his
efforts in enhancing law enforcement in Chesterfield County.
AND, FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board of
Supervisors acknowledges the good fortune in having such an
individual supporting our police and community during his
assignment in the Richmond area.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel noted that Special Agent Sulzbach was not present at
the meeting and the resolution would be presented to him at the
annual Police Memorial Week dinner.
7.D.' DECLARING MAY 7, 1987 AS "BARRIER AWARENESS DAY"
Mr. Masden stated the Barrier Awareness Day Committee has
worked very diligently in its efforts to encourage the public
to .remove barriers which are a substantial hindrance to the
handicapped and requested Board adoption of a resolution
87-279
declaring May 7, 1987, as "Barrier Awareness Day" in
Chesterfield County.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Today some 36 million Americans suffer from some
form of handicap and eighty percent of Americans will
experience some disability in their lifetime; and
WHEREAS, Many disabled people face financial, cultural and
physical barriers because of a lack of public understanding of
their needs; and
WHEREAS, It is important for all of us to understand and
appreciate both the barriers they must surmount as well as the
contributions which they can make to our society if such
barriers are removed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes the outstanding
achievements of our disabled citizens and encourages all of our
citizens to be sensitive and helpful to those who must cope
with physical handicaps.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby designates May 7, 1987 as Barrier
Awareness Day in Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Ms. Darleen
Morgan, a member of the Virginia Barrier Awareness Day
Committee, who was present. He stated he hoped the examples
set forth by Chesterfield County would have a positive impact
on the removal of barriers in both the public and private
sectors.
7.E. DECLARING MAY 3-9, 1987 AS "CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC
DRINKING WATER WEEK"
Mr. Sale requested Board approval of a resolution declaring May
3-9, 1987, as "Chesterfield County Public Drinking Water Week".
He stated, in conjunction with this observance, the Utilities
Department is sponsoring a poster contest and also an open
house at Swift Creek Water Treatment Plant on May 9, 1987, to
which all Board members were invited.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, May 3 - 9, 1987 has been officially declared
National Drinking Water Week; and
WHEREAS, Our health, comfort and standard of living depend
on an abundant supply of safe, high quality water; and
WHEREAS, The future growth of Chesterfield County depends
a great deal on the County's ability to provide drinking water;
and
WHEREAS, The public drinking water in Chesterfield County
is treated to the highest standards and delivered to each
customer's home for only pennies a day.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby declares May 3 - 9, 1987 as
Chesterfield County Public Drinking Water Week in honor and
appreciation of the excellent water provided to the citizens of
Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented the executed resolution to Mr. Sale and
87-280
expressed appreciation for the excellent water provided to the
citizens of the County.
Mr. Daniel stated he felt it would be appropriate to recognize
the secretaries during "National Secretaries Week" as they
provide a most valuable service to the County. He requested
that the Board suspend the rules to add Item 7.F., Resolution
Recognizing Chesterfield County Secretaries.
On motion of the Board, the rules were suspended to add Item
7.F., Resolution Recognizing Chesterfield County Secretaries.
Vote: Unanimous
7.F. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING "NATIONAL SECRETARIES' WEEK"
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Secretaries are an integral part of any operation
providing clerical as well as technical assistance; and
WHEREAS, Secretaries are responsible for effective
communications, for retrieving information and for maintaining
pertinent records; and
WHEREAS, April 20-25, 1987 is "Secretaries' Week" and
April 22, 1987 is "Secretaries' Day", whereby all secretaries
should be recognized for their contributions to every organiza-
tion, and especially Chesterfield County secretaries whose
unwavering efforts and outstanding abilities have not gone
unnoticed in providing quality service to the Administration
and to our citizenry.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield
County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes all its secretar-
ies and expresses its appreciation for their invaluable assis-
tance to the County and its citizens.
Vote: Unanimous
8. HF. ARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
There were no hearings of citizens on unscheduled matters or
claims.
9. DEFERRED ITEMS
9.A. POSITION AUTHORIZATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
Mr. Sale stated Board approval to authorize the positions of
Assistant Director for Finance/Administration, Principal
Utilities Engineer and Financial/Rate Analyst for the Utilities
Department is requested as recommended in the Utilities
Department Management Study. He stated the creation and
staffing of these positions will provide the staff resources
necessary to reorganize the Department which would be more
conducive to a management approach and these positions can be
funded for the remainder of FY87 within the current budget
allocations.
Mrs. Girone expressed concern relative to the overall scope of
the study in that it recommended the concept of team management
which she felt provides less individual responsibility and/or
accountability. She stated a major concern has been that it is
difficult for people to get direct answers and she felt there
should be an individual ultimately responsible/accountable to
public concerns.
87-281
Mr. Sale stated one of the Study recommendations was individual
accountability and the consultants strongly recommended the
development of accountabilities for each of the positions
within the Utilities Department as an early-on task.
Mrs. Girone inquired if there would be an individual, within
the Utilities Department infrastructure, who would make the
ultimate decisions. Mr. Sale stated each of the assistants
will be responsible/accountable for his area of responsibility;
however, ultimate responsibilities/accountabilities lie with
the Director. Mrs. Girone stated the development community has
indicated it does not mind paying its fair share of the fee
structure; however, they would like to see the processing take
less time.
Mr. Mayes inquired if job specifications for these positions
were made available to the Board. Mr. Sale stated copies of
the job descriptions were distributed at the April 8
work session.
Mr. Applegate expressed concern regarding the establishment of
an additional planning position and stated he felt that
consideration should be given to utilizing the existing
Planning Department staff to address this need. Mr. Sale
stated the Principal Utilities Engineer position is extremely,
narrowly defined and oriented toward utilities activities as
opposed to comprehensive planning activities. He stated the
position is designed to head the consolidated water and sewer
planning activities, assist the development community by
providing information on water and sewer availability and/or
facilities required, develop conceptual design for improvements
to existing facilities and for future expansions as well as
developing the Utilities Capital Improvement Program, reviewing
rezoning and subdivision requests and commenting on the impact
of those requests in terms of current and planned utility
systems, etc. Mr. Applegate inquired if the funding for the
positions can be absorbed in the projected 7% increase in
utilities fees. Mr. Sale stated it would. Mrs. Girone
inquired if the Utilities planner's comments would be reflected
in the rezoning staff reports. Mr. Sale stated those comments
would be reflected in the staff reports.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the positions of Assistant Director for
Finance/Administration, Principal Utilities Engineer and
Financial/Rate Analyst for the Utilities Department for the
implementation of the recommendations of the Management Study.
(It is noted that these positions can be funded for the
remainder of FY87 within current budget allocations.)
Vote: Unanimous
9.B. CHANGES IN STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM FOR HOPKINS AND BEULAH
ROADS
Mr. Sale stated, at the April 8, 1987 meeting, Mr. Charles
Quaiff appeared before the Board to request that that portion
of Beulah Road scheduled to be abandoned be conveyed to the
Beulah United Methodist Church. He stated a question arose as
to whether or not the land would, in fact, revert to the church
and staff was directed to meet with members of the church to
assist them with resolving this issue with the Virginia
Department of Transportation. He stated the State has
determined that the land does revert to the church. Mr. Daniel
directed staff to ensure that the wording of the resolution
specifically state that the section of Beulah Road being
abandoned is deeded to the Beulah United Methodist Church.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
WHEREAS, Hopkins Road, Route 637, from 0.14 mile south of
87-282
Beulah Road, Route 641, to 0.09 mile north of the south
intersection with Beulah Road, Route 641 and Beulah Road, Route
641 from 0.08 mile west of Hopkins Road, Route 637, to 0.02
mile east of Hopkins Road, Route 637, have been altered, and
new roads have been constructed and approved by the State
Highway Commissioner, which new roads serve the same citizens
as the road so altered; and
WHEREAS, certain sections of these new roads follow new
locations, due to the relocation and construction on Hopkins
Road, Route 637, State Project 0637-020-237, M-502.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Beulah Road, Route
641, of the old location from 0.01 mile east of Hopkins Road,
Route 637, to 0.05 mile east of Hopkins Road, Route 637, a
total distance of 0.04 mile, be and the same hereby is,
abandoned as a public road pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the
Code of Virqinia of 1976, as amended.
AND FURTHER, that the State Highway Commission be
requested to take the necessary action to discontinue Beulah
Road, Route 641, of the old location, 0.08 mile west of Hopkins
Road, Route 637, and Beulah Road, Route 641, of the old
location, from Hopkins Road, Route 637 to 0.01 mile east of
Hopkins Road, Route 637 and Beulah Road, Route 641, from 0.05
mile east of Hopkins Road, Route 637, to 0.21 mile east of
Hopkins Road, Route 637, and Hopkins Road, Route 637, of the
old location, from 0.15 mile south of the west intersection of
Beulah Road, Route 641, to 0.09 mile north of the west
intersection of Beulah Road, Route 641, a total distance of
0.49 mile, as a part of the secondary road system of State
Highways as provided in Section 33.1-150 of the Code of
Virginia of 1976, as amended.
AND FURTHER, that Hopkins Road, Route 637, of the new
location, from 0.11 mile south of Beulah Road, Route 641, to
0.11 mile north of Beulah Road, Route 641, and Beulah Road,
Route 641 from 0.06 mile west of Hopkins Road, Route 637, to
0.23 mile east of Hopkins Road, Route 637, a total distance of
0.51 mile be and hereby is added to the secondary system of the
State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of
Virginia of 1976, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Micas stated, as a point of clarification, that the motion
indicate that approval is premised on VDOT's determination that
the land will revert to the Beulah United Methodist Church.
Mr. Daniel stated approval is premised on the fact that the
Board is vacating a right-of-way which is to be deeded to the
church and if the land is not deeded to the church it will
revert to the County for disposition.
9.C. APPOINTMENTS
9.C.1. YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION
Mr. Daniel and Mr. Applegate deferred nominations for the Youth
Services Commission for the Dale and Clover Hill Districts at
this time.
9 .C. 2. CAMP BAKER MANAGEMENT BOARD
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed the following persons to serve on the Camp Baker
Management Board, whose terms are effective immediately and
will expire April 30, 1990:
Mr. C. R. Gibson
Midlothian District
87-283
Mr. James Lumpkin
Mrs. Yvette Ridley
Mr. Robert Collier
Vote: Unanimous
Dale District
Matoaca District
Richmond Area Association
for Retarded Citizens
10.
PUBLIC wR. ARINGS
o TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ARTICLE
III, TITLE 8, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD,
1978, RELATING TO FINANCE AND TAXATION BY ADDING A NEW
SECTION 8-16.1
Mr. Micas stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact
Article III, Title 8, of the Code of Virginia, relating to
Adjusting Income Limitations for the Elderly and Permanently
and Totally Disabled Tax Exemptions Program.
No one came forward to speak in favor of or against the matter.
Mr. Applegate indicated it was his understanding that approval
is only for the term of the existing Board. He stated it will
be necessary for the new Board to adopt a similar ordinance and
directed staff to ensure that this issue is addressed at the
appropriate time.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ARTICLE III,
TITLE 8 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978,
RELATING TO FINANCE AND TAXATION BY
ADDING A NEW SECTION 8-16.1
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended and reenacted by adding Section 8-16.1 as
follows:
Section 8-16.1 Adjustments to income and value limitations
The income and net worth limitations set forth in Sections
8-15 and 8-16 of this article shall be adjusted by an amount
representing the product of the previous year's limitation
figure and the previous federal fiscal year's Consumer Price
Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rounded to
the nearest $100. This same adjustment procedure shall be
performed annually for each tax year.
Vote: Unanimous
11. NEW BUSINESS
ll.B. BOND ITEMS
ll.B.1. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF WATER AND SEWER
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1987
Mr. Hammer stated Board approval of a resolution of Sale of
Water and Sewer Refunding Bonds, Series 1987, is requested to
be presented to the State Council on Local Debt for refunding
bonds in the amount of $51,705,000. He stated the County will
pursue the refunding as long as the bond market conditions
permit a greater than 5% net present value savings.
87-284
Mr. Daniel requested, because of market fluctuation in interest
rates, that staff determine if a general policy statement can
be developed whereby debt can be reviewed and acted upon
without having to bring the issue before the Board and thus
eliminate the delay in taking advantage of the best market
rates.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the County Board to save on
debt service costs by advance refunding the County's Water and
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1985B; and
WHEREAS, interest rates have dropped since the date of
issuance of the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1985B, to
a level that meets the State Council on Local Debt criteria for
approval of an advance refunding; and
WHEREAS, tentative dates have been discussed for meetings
with the State Council on Local Debt to seek its approval of
the advance refunding.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, that an advance refunding is hereby
approved and the Acting County Administrator is directed to
meet with the State Council on Local Debt to present a
refunding plan and seek its approval; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will bear the fees
and expenses, if any, of the State Council on Local Debt in its
review of the County's advance refunding proposal.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.B.2. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF AIRPORT REVENUE
BONDS
Mr. Hammer stated, at the December 10, 1986 meeting, the Board
approved the concept of building a hangar at the County Airport
for the State Police for its Aviation Unit and to house its
24-hour per day Medivac Operations. He stated Board approval
of the resolution authorizing issuance of Airport Revenue Bonds
is requested in order to begin the project. He stated the
completion date would be approximately September, 1987, which
would meet the needs of the State Police.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
AND SALE OF AIRPORT GROSS REVENUE BONDS, SERIES OF 1987,
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA, IN THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF $267,800; APPROVING THE FORM AND DETAILS OF
SUCH BONDS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION, AUTHENTICATION
AND DELIVERY THEREOF; APPROVING THE FORM OF AN INDENTURE OF
TRUST AND AN INVESTMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND CENTRAL FIDELITY BANK, AS TRUSTEE, AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF BY THE CHAIRMAN AND THE
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; APPROVING THE PROPOSAL OF
GOVERNMENT LEASING TO PURCHASE SUCH BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO FILE
A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AND TO CAUSE THE PUBLICATION OF THE
LEGAL NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC FINANCE ACT WITH RESPECT
TO THE ADOPTION HEREOF
WHEREAS, the County of Chesterfield, Virginia (the
"County"), owns and operates the Chesterfield County Airport
(the "Airport") in the County; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia,
87-285
1950, as amended (the same being the Public Finance Act)
authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the County, without the
approval of the qualified voters of the County, to borrow money
and to issue bonds of the County to pay all or part of the cost
of appropriate projects so long as such bonds are payable
solely from the revenues of such projects;
WHEREAS, the County has been requested by the Virginia
State Police to acquire and construct at the Airport a hangar
for its Aviation Unit and to house its 24-hour per day Medivac
Operations (the "Project");
WHEREAS, the County desires to finance the cost of
acquiring and constructing the Project through the issuance of
its airport gross revenue bonds, the payment of the principal
of and interest on which would be secured by the pledge of the
gross revenues of the Airport, including gross the revenues to
be derived by the County from the leasing of the Project to the
Virginia State Police;
WHEREAS, in response to a Request for Proposals approved
by motion of this Board of Supervisors at a regular meeting
held on December 10, 1986, the County has received a proposal
from Government Leasing pursuant to which the County would
issue to Government Leasing, or its designee, the County's
airport gross revenue bonds in the principal amount of
$267,800, which bonds would bear interest at the rate of
6.6525% per annum and would mature in semiannual installments
of principal and interest, with the final installment to be
payable ten years after their issuance;
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors has determined that it
is in the best interest of the County that such bonds be sold
through negotiation to Government Leasing in accordance with
the terms of its proposal rather than through competitive
bidding, and has authorized the Acting County Administrator to
negotiate with Government Leasing the definitive terms of such
bonds and the terms of the indenture of trust pursuant to which
the same would be issued, subject in all respects to the
further approval of this Board of Supervisors;
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the meeting of this
Board of Supervisors at which this resolution is adopted the
form of an Indenture of Trust, dated as of May 1, 1987 (the
"Indenture of Trust") by and between the County and Central
Fidelity Bank, as Trustee (the "Trustee"), providing for the
issuance of and security for the Series of 1987 Bonds (as
hereinafter defined), a copy of which form of Indenture of
Trust is filed with the minutes of such meeting as Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting of this
Board of Supervisors at which this resolution is adopted the
form of an Investment Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1987, by
and between the County and the Trustee (the "Investment
Agreement"), providing for the investment of moneys held by the
Trustee under the Indenture of Trust, a copy of which form of
Investment Agreement is filed with the minutes of such meeting
as Exhibit B;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. Authorization of Issuance of Series of 1987
Bonds, Approval of the Form and Details Thereof and
Authorization of the Execution, Authentication and Delivery
Thereof. (a) There are hereby authorized to be issued,
pursuant to the Public Finance Act, as amended, and the
Indenture of Trust hereinafter approved, the County's Airport
Gross Revenue Bonds, Series of 1987, in the principal amount of
$267,800, to be dated as of May 1, 1987 (the "Series of 1987
Bonds"), and to be secured by and payable from the Airport
Gross Revenues as provided in the Indenture of Trust, subject
87-286
to the prior payment from such Airport Gross Revenues of the
County's Airport Gross Revenue Bonds, Series of 1984.
(b) The form of the Series of 1987 Bonds shall be as set
forth in the recitals to the Indenture of Trust.
(c) The details of the Series of 1987 Bonds shall be as
set forth in Section 202 of the Indenture of Trust. The Series
of 1987 Bonds shall be issuable as a single fully registered
Bond in the denomination of $267,800, dated the date of its
delivery, numbered R-1 and bearing interest on the unpaid
principal amount of such Series of 1987 Bond from its date at
the rate of 6.6525% per annum (computed on the basis of a
360-day year comprised of twelve 30-day months), such interest
being payable on November 1, 1987 and semiannually on each May
1 and November 1 thereafter. Principal of and interest on the
Series 1987 Bonds shall be payable semiannually in each year on
the dates and in the respective amounts set forth below and
shall be subject to prepayment upon each May 1 upon payment of
the respective amounts set forth below:
PREPAYMENT
DATE PRINCIPAL INTEREST AMOUNT
November 1, 1987
May 1, 1988
November 1, 1988
May 1, 1989
November 1, 1989
May 1, 1990
November 1, 1990
May 1, 1991
November 1, 1991
May 1, 1992
November 1, 1992
May 1, 1993
November 1, 1993
May 1, 1994
November 1, 1994
May 1, 1995
November 1, 1995
May 1, 1996
November 1, 1996
May 1, 1997
$ 5,092.26
5,261.64
5,436.66
5,617.49
5,804.35
5,997.41
13,428.90
13,875.58
14,337.12
14,814.01
15,306.77
15,815.91
16,341.99
16,885.57
17,447.23
18,027.57
18,627.22
19,246.81
19,887.01
20,548.50
$8,907.74
8,738.36
8,563.34
8,382.51
8,195.65
8,002.59
7,803.10
7,356.42
6,894.88
6,417.99
5,925.23
5,416.09
4,890.01
4,346.43
3,784.77
3,204.43
2,604.78
1,985.19
1,344.99
683.50
$259,214.77
247,882.52
235,801.71
208,223.85
178,824.30
147,482.72
114,070.83
78,451.89
40,480.08
Principal of and interest on the Series of 1987 Bonds
shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of
America by check or draft mailed to the registered owner at his
address as it appears on the registration books, except that
the final installment of principal and interest shall be
payable upon surrender of the Series of 1987 Bonds at the
principal office of the Trustee in Richmond, Virginia.
(d) The Series of 1987 Bonds shall be signed by the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and countersigned by its
Clerk and the seal of the County shall be affixed thereto.
(e) The Series of 1987 Bonds shall bear a certificate of
authentication, substantially in the form set forth in the
recitals to the Indenture of Trust, duly executed by the
Trustee. The Trustee shall authenticate each Series of 1987
Bond with the signature of an authorized officer. Only such
authenticated Series of 1987 Bonds shall be entitled to any
right or benefit under the Indenture of Trust, and such
certificate on any Series of 1987 Bond issued thereunder shall
be conclusive evidence that the Series of 1987 Bond has been
duly issued and is secured by the provisions thereof.
(f) The Trustee shall authenticate and deliver the Series
of 1987 Bonds when there have been filed with it documents
specified in Section 206 of the Indenture of Trust.
87-287
SECTION 2. Approval of Form of Indenture of Trust and
Execution and Delivery Thereof. The form of the Indenture of
Trust filed with the minutes of the meeting of this Board of
Supervisors at which this resolution is adopted as Exhibit A be
and is approved, and the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors be and are authorized and directed to execute and
deliver to the Trustee the Indenture of Trust in such form,
together with such changes as the Chairman and the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors shall, upon advice of the County Attorney,
approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their
execution and delivery thereof.
SECTION 3. Approval of Form of Investment Agreement and
Execution and Delivery Thereof. The form of the Investment
Agreement filed with the minutes of the meeting of this Board
of Supervisors at which this resolution is adopted as Exhibit B
be and is approved, and the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors be and are authorized and directed to execute
and deliver to the Trustee the Investment Agreement in such
form, together with such changes as the Chairman and the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors shall, upon advice of the County
Attorney, approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced
by their execution and delivery thereof.
SECTION 4. Approval of Proposal of Government Leasing to
Purchase the Series of 1987 Bonds. The proposal of Government
Leasing to purchase the Series of 1987 Bonds at a purchase
price of $262,600 (being an amount equal to the principal
amount of the Series of 1987 Bonds, less an origination and
private placement fee of $5,200) be and is approved. The
Chairman and the Clerk of this Board of Supervisors and other
officials of the County are authorized and directed to take all
such actions as shall be necessary or appropriate in connection
with the issuance and delivery of the Series of 1987 Bonds to
Government Leasing, or its designee, in accordance with the
terms of its proposal.
SECTION 5. Filing of Resolution with Circuit Court of the
County and Publication of Legal Notice. The Clerk of this
Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to file a certified
copy of this resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, and such Clerk of this Board of
Supervisors is hereby further directed to cause to be published
once within ten (10) days of the date of such filing, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the County, a notice
setting forth in brief and general terms the amount of the
Series of 1987 Bonds and the purpose for which the Series of
1987 Bonds are to be issued, such notice to be in substantially
the following form:
"LEGAL NO~ICE
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 15.1-199 of the
Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, that the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, Virginia, adopted on
April 22, 1987 a resolution authorizing the issuance of
$267,800 aggregate principal amount of Airport Gross Revenue
Bonds of such County, and has caused a certified copy of such
resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County of
Chesterfield, Virginia, on April . . , 1987. The proceeds of
the sale of such bonds shall be'used to pay the cost of
acquisition and construction of the following facilities at the
Chesterfield County Airport: a hangar to house the Aviation
Unit and Medivac Operations of the Virginia State Police.
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
By:
Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors"
SECTION 6. Further Action of Officers and Employees of
County. Any one or more of the officers and employees of the
87-288
County is hereby authorized to execute such further documents
and to take any and all such further action as upon the advice
of the County Attorney (a) he or they shall deem necessary or
desirable in order to effectuate the issuance and delivery of
the Series of 1987 Bonds in accordance with the terms of the
Indenture of Trust, the Investment Agreement and this
resolution, or (b) as may be reasonably required to carry out,
give effect to and consummate the transactions contemplated
thereby or hereby and by any of the documents referred to
therein or herein or approved thereby or hereby.
SECTION 7. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. Ail
resolutions, or portions thereof, heretofore adopted by this
Board of Supervisors which are in conflict or inconsistent with
this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict or inconsistency.
SECTION 8. Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution
shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.C. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES
Mr. Hammer stated Board approval is requested for contractual
services with the firm of Public Resources Advisory Group to
perform financial advisory services for the County. He stated
formerly underwriters were utilized to perform many of the
financial advisory services; however, many underwriting firms
have indicated they do not desire to continue this service. He
stated many larger jurisdictions in the State and nation have
adopted financial policies which require the use of independent
financial advisory services which are not associated with any
type of underwriting operation. He stated approval of this
contract is contingent upon approval of Water and Sewer
Refunding Bonds, Series 1987, and future consultant expenses
will be contingent upon future bond or lease transactions.
There was discussion relative to firms who previously provided
financial advisory services, those firms who submitted bid
proposals for the contract, the selection process, etc. Mr.
Ramsey stated all the major underwriters in the Richmond area
responded to the request stating they would prefer to serve in
an underwriting capacity.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents awarding a contract for
financial advisory services to Public Resources Advisory Group,
New York, New York. (It is noted that approval of this
contract is contingent upon approval of Water and Sewer
Refunding Bonds, Series 1987, and future consultant expenses
will be contingent on future bond or lease transactions.)
Vote: Unanimous
ll.A. FARMERS' MARKET PRESENTATION
Mr. Masden stated the General Assembly of Virginia recently
established a Farmers' Market Board to recommend sites for
construction of major wholesale and retail distribution centers
for Virginia farm products. He stated the Board of Supervisors
recently adopted a resolution urging the Farmers' Market Board
to establish such a center in the metropolitan area. He
introduced Mr. R. Duke Burruss, Director of Marketing for the
State Department of Agriculture and Staff Coordinator for the
Farmers' Market Board.
Mr. Burruss presented a slide presentation and briefly
explained background information relative to the Farmers'
87-289
Market Board, its task of recommending sites within the State
for the location of major wholesale/retail distribution
centers, the cost efficiency and effectiveness of such centers,
etc. He stated the Farmers' Market Board, since its
appointment, has conducted several public hearings and
currently has received eleven proposals from localities
throughout the State requesting consideration for the location
of such a facility in their area. He stated the Board is not
in a position at this time to identify the most feasible areas
of location; however, the Board is currently in the process of
hiring consultants to assess and make recommendations on sites
proffered by various localities within the State and possibly
will award a contract in mid-May. He stated the consultants
will visit the localities who have endorsed the concept and
exhibited an interest in locating a farmers' market facility in
their area. He stated the regional facilities would compliment
each other in that they would provide the wholesalers with
additional marketing outlets, would provide local merchants
with larger volumes of merchandise and the extend the market
availability, etc. He stated, even though these facilities
have farming characteristics, the majority of them are large,
wholesale and/or warehousing type facilities, which serve as
distribution centers for produce and other agricultural
products and are located primarily in industrial areas.
Mr. Dodd voiced support for the concept of locating such a
facility in Chesterfield County and stated he felt the Board
should take whatever action necessary to obtain consideration
for locating a facility in the County. He stated this issue
was discussed at a recent Metropolitan Economic Development
Council (MEDC) meeting and the consensus was that such
facilities were critical for the economy. He suggested that
the feasibility of the Safeway site being converted for such a
use be investigated thoroughly.
Mr. Daniel stated the Board is in support of the concept for
the Farmers' Market distribution center and he hoped that this
part of the region is seriously considered when decisions are
made as to locations for these centers.
ll.D. ELECTION OF VIRGINIA SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT SYSTEM
UNREDUCED BENEFITS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT
Mr. Willis stated the General Assembly passed legislation,
effective March 1, 1987, making State employees and public
school teachers eligible for unreduced early retirement
benefits under the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System at
age 55 with 30 years' service. He stated the legislation
provides local government jurisdictions an option to offer this
benefit for their employees. Mr. Daniel stated he was pleased
to learn that this benefit could be offered to County employees
and, if adopted, this policy would have no impact on the
budget.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
elect the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System Unreduced
Benefits for early retirement for Chesterfield County employees
effective May 1, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.E. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO
AMEND CHAPTER 9.1 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTER-
FIELD BY AMENDING ARTICLE II RELATING TO SMOKE DETEC-
TORS IN CERTAIN BUILDINGS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set
the date of May 27, 1987, at 9:00 a.m., for a public hearing to
consider an ordinance to amend Chapter 9.1 of the Code of the
County of Chesterfield by amending Article II to require smoke
87-290
detectors in buildings containing one or more dwelling units
which are rented or leased and in rooming houses.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.F. REQUEST TO DONATE 1972 CRASH TRUCK TO BENSLEY-BERMUDA
RESCUE SQUAD
Chief Eanes stated the Bensley-Bermuda Rescue Squad is
requesting Board approval for the donation of a 1972 crash
truck, Unit 320, to the rescue squad. He stated the truck was
purchased with 50% federal grant money and is titled to
Chesterfield County and the federal grant program requirements
that the vehicle be used for five years have been met. He
stated the rescue squad desires to use the vehicle or funds
from its sale toward the purchase of a new vehicle.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents to donate the 1972 crash truck,
Unit 320, to the Bensley-Bermuda Volunteer Rescue Squad.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G. APPOINTMENTS
ii.G.i. DRUG ABUSE TASK FORCE
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
nominated Mrs. Carla Park, to replace Mr. Richard W. Spikes,
Jr., representing the Matoaca Magisterial District, to serve on
the Drug Abuse Task Force, whose formal appointment will be
made on May 13, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.G.2. RICHMOND RENAISSANCE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
suspended its rules and nominated and appointed Mr. Harry G.
Daniel as the Chief Elected Officer, and Mr. Lane B. Ramsey
as the Chief Administrative Officer, to a Richmond Renaissance
exploratory committee to help develop future plans for the
region, whose appointments are effective immediately and are at
the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.H. BOARD ISSUES AND CALENDAR OF WORK SESSIONS
It was generally agreed to defer consideration of work sessions
until a later time during the meeting.
ll.I. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
ll.I.1. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING PROCEEDINGS OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND
POWER COMPANY
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
REVENUE BONDS BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD (VIRGINIA) FOR THE BENEFIT OF
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
87-291
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the
County of Chesterfield (Virginia) (the "Authority") has
considered the application of Virginia Electric and Power
Company, a Virginia corporation (the "Company"), requesting
that the Authority approve a plan of financing to assist the
Company in refinancing the cost of the acquisition,
construction and installation of certain air and water
pollution control facilities and sewage and solid waste
disposal facilities for certain of its coal-fired electric
generating plants, including, but not limited to, electrostatic
precipitators and related facilities at its Possum Point Power
Station in Dumfries, Virginia, its Chesterfield Power Station
in Chester, Virginia, in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and its
Chesapeake Energy Center in Chesapeake, Virginia (collectively,
the "Facilities"), through the issuance of its revenue bonds in
an aggregate principal amount of approximately $90,000,000 (the
"Bonds"), and the Authority held a public hearing thereon April
9, 1987; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental
unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial
development revenue bonds and over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of the industrial
development revenue bonds is located shall approve the issuance
of such revenue bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its revenue bonds on behalf
of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the "County"), a portion of
the Facilities is located in Chesterfield County, Virginia and
the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County (the "Board")
constitutes the elected legislative body of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board
approve the plan of financing for the Facilities; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution requesting
approval of the plan of financing for the issuance of the Bonds
and the financing of the Facilities, subject to terms of the
financing to be agreed upon by the Authority, the Company and
the purchaser of the Bonds, and a certificate regarding the
public hearing has been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County, Virginia, as follows:
Section 1. The Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, Virginia, approves the issuance from time to time of
the Bonds as described in the plan of financing by the
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Chesterfield
(Virginia) to the extent required by Section 147(f) of the Code
and the Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act, Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended, Sections 15.1-1373 to 15.1-1392;
provided that all Bonds issued pursuant to such plan of
financing are issued within three years after the date of
issuance of the first Bonds issued pursuant to such plan of
financing.
Section 2. Such approval by the Board does not constitute
an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the
creditworthiness of the Company or the Facilities, and the
Bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness or obligation of the
State of Virginia or of any county, municipal corporation or
political subdivision thereof, but the Bonds shall be payable
solely from the revenues derived from the Company and pledged
to the payment thereof and no owner of any of the Bonds shall
ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power
of said State or of any county, municipal corporation or
political subdivision thereof, nor to enforce the payment
thereof against any property of said State or of any such
county, municipal corporation or political subdivision.
Section 3. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed
87-292
as any assurance that an allocation of "private activity bond
limit" as provided in Section 146 of the Code, if required,
shall be made to Bonds for the Facilities.
Section 4. Ail acts and doings of the officers and
members of the Board which are in conformity with the purposes
and intent of this Resolution shall be, and the same hereby
are, in all respects approved and confirmed.
Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
Vote: Unanimous
11.I.2. STREET NAME CHANGE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved and authorized the following street name changes:
Matoaca District
Stewart Avenue to be changed to Pine Needle Lane
Clover Hill District
Cedaroak Road to be changed to Woodsong Drive at the curve in
the road
Vote: Unanimous
11.I.3. STREET LIGHT REQUEST
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved ascertaining a cost estimate for installation of a
street light at 3125 Dulwich Road in the Dale District.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J. CONSENT ITEMS
Mr. Micas disclosed to the Board that his children attend St.
Michael's School, which institution has a request for a raffle
permit pending action by the Board.
ll.J.1. REQUESTS FOR BINGO/RAFFLE PERMITS
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved requests for raffle permits for the following
organizations for the calendar year 1987:
St. Michael's School
O. B. Gates Elementary School PTSA
Vote: Unanimous
ll.J.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Porters Mill Road, Porters Mill Terrace and
Porters Mill Lane in Smoketree South, Section E, Clover Hill
District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Porters Mill Road,
Porters Mill Terrace and Porters Mill Lane in Smoketree South,
87-293
Section E, Clover Hill District,
established as public roads.
be and they hereby are
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, Porters Mill Road, beginning where State
Maintenance ends, existing Porters Mill Road, State Route 3341,
and going southeasterly 0.07 mile to the intersection with
Porters Mill Terrace, then continuing easterly 0.04 mile to end
in a dead end; Porters Mill Terrace, beginning at the
intersection with Porters Mill Road and going northerly 0.11
mile to end in a cul-de-sac. Again Porters Mill Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with Porters Mill Road and going
southwesterly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Porters Mill
Lane, then continuing southwesterly 0.07 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac; and Porters Mill Lane, beginning at the
intersection with Porters Mill Terrace and going southerly 0.12
mile to end in a temporary turnaround.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
These roads serve 48 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
50' right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Smoketree South is recorded as follows:
Section E. Plat Book 46, Page 48, July 3, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Southwell Court and Southwell Place in
Salisbury, Southwell Section, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Southwell Court and
Southwell Place in Salisbury, Southwell Section, Midlothian
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, Southwell Court, beginning at the
intersection with existing Winterfield Road, State Route
714, and going northeasterly 0.06 mile to the intersection
with Southwell Place, then continuing northerly 0.10 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; and Southwell Place, beginning at the
intersection with Southwell Court and going southeasterly
0.03 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of
distance and designated
Transportation drainage easements.
the adjacent slope, sight
Virginia Department of
These roads serve 11 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
40' right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Salisbury is recorded as follows:
Southwell Section.
1984.
Plat Book 47, Pages 61 & 62, October 23,
Vote: Unanimous
87-294
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Southwell Terrace and Fulford Court in
Salisbury, Fountain Head Section, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Southwell Terrace and
Fulford Court in Salisbury, Fountain Head Section, Midlothian
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, Southwell Terrace, beginning at the
intersection with existing Winterfield Road, State Route
714, and going westerly 0.20 mile to end in a cul-de-sac;
and Fulford Court, beginning at the intersection with
existing Winterfield Road, State Route 714, and going
westerly 0.04 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
These roads serve 17 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
40' right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Salisbury is recorded as follows:
Fountain Head Section.
29, 1982.
Plat Book 41, Pages 97 & 98, October
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of West Salisbury Road, Galloway Terrace, Galloway
Court, Castleford Terrace, Castleford Drive and Castleford
Court in Salisbury, Castleford Section and Galloway Section,
Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that West Salisbury Road,
Galloway Terrace, Galloway Court, Castleford Terrace,
Castleford Drive and Castleford Court in Salisbury, Castleford
Section and Galloway Section, Midlothian District, be and they
hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, West Salisbury Road, beginning where
State Maintenance ends, existing West Salisbury Road, State
Route 902, and going westerly 0.23 mile to the intersection
with Galloway Terrace, then continuing westerly 0.09 mile to
the intersection with Castleford Terrace, then continuing
westerly 0.03 mile to end in a dead end; Galloway Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with West Salisbury Road and
going northerly 0.13 mile to the intersection with Galloway
Court, then continuing northerly 0.09 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac; Galloway Court, beginning at the intersection
with Galloway Terrace and going easterly 0.18 mile to end in
a cul-de-sac; Castleford Terrace, beginning at the
intersection with West Salisbury Road and going northerly
0.11 mile to the intersection with Castleford Drive, then
continuing northerly 0.08 mile to the intersection with
Castleford Court, then continuing northerly 0.09 mile to end
in a cul-de-sac; Castleford Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Castleford Terrace and going westerly 0.20
mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and Castleford Court, beginning
at the intersection with Castleford Terrace and going
westerly 0.25 mile to end in a cul-de-sac.
87-295
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight distance
and designated Virginia Department of Transportation drainage
easements.
These roads serve 80 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
50' right-of-way for all of these roads except West
Salisbury Road which has a 70' right-of-way.
These sections of Salisbury are recorded as follows:
Castleford Section.
2, 1985.
Galloway Section.
1984.
Plat Book 51, Pages 6, 7 & 8, October
Plat Book 48, Pages 1 & 2, November 30,
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Westcreek Drive, Westcreek Circle, Westcreek
Court, Eastcliff Drive, North Wedgemont Drive, Briarhurst
Drive, Briarcrest Drive and South Wedgemont Drive in Monacan
Hills, Section 2, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved that Westcreek Drive,
Westcreek Circle, Westcreek Court, Eastcliff Drive, North
Wedgemont Drive, Briarhurst Drive, Briarcrest Drive and South
Wedgemont Drive in Monacan Hills, Section 2, Midlothian
District, be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, Westcreek Drive, beginning where State
Maintenance "ends, existing Westcreek Drive, State Route
number unassigned, and going southerly 0.05 mile to the
intersection with Westcreek Circle, then continuing
southerly 0.04 mile to the intersection with Westcreek
Court, then continuing southerly 0.03 mile to the
intersection with Eastcliff Drive, then continuing southerly
0.03 mile to the intersection with North Wedgemont Drive,
then continuing southerly 0.05 mile to the intersection with
Briarhurst Drive, then continuing southerly 0.09 mile to the
intersection with Briarcrest Drive, then continuing
southerly 0.07 mile to the intersection with South Wedgemont
Drive, then continuing southerly 0.05 mile to the
intersection with existing Lucks Lane, State Route 720;
Westcreek Circle, beginning at the intersection with
Westcreek Drive and going easterly 0.06 mile to end in a
cul-de-sac; Westcreek Court, beginning at the intersection
with Westcreek Drive and going northwesterly 0.10 mile to
end in a cul-de-sac; Eastcliff Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Westcreek Drive and going easterly 0.08
mile to end in a temporary turnaround; North Wedgemont
Drive, beginning at the intersection with Westcreek Drive
and going westerly 0.02 mile to tie into proposed North
Wedgemont Drive in Monacan Hills, Section 3; Briarhurst
Drive, beginning at the intersection with Westcreek Drive
and going easterly 0.05 mile to tie into proposed Briarhurst
Drive in Mansfield Crossing, Phase II; Briarcrest Drive,
beginning at the intersection with Westcreek Drive and going
northwesterly 0.10 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and South
Wedgemont Drive, beginning at the intersection with
Westcreek Drive and going westerly 0.03 mile to tie into the
proposed South Wedgemont Drive in Monacan Hills, Section 3.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of Transportation
drainage easements.
87-296
These roads serve 74 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
50' right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Monacan Hills is recorded as follows:
Section 2. Plat Book 49, Pages 27 & 28, April 2, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Chagford Drive, East Chagford Terrace and West
Chagford Terrace in Mineola, Section C, Bermuda District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, it is resolved, that Chagford Drive, East
Chagford Terrace and West Chagford Terrace in Mineola, Section
C, Bermuda District, be and they hereby are established as
public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into
the Secondary System, Chagford Drive, beginning at the
intersection with Mineola Drive, State Route 3530, and
going southeasterly 0.07 mile to the intersection with East
Chagford Terrace and West Chagford Terrace, then continuing
southeasterly 0.23 mile to tie into existing Chagford Drive,
State Route number unassigned; East Chagford Terrace,
beginning at the intersection with Chagford Drive and
running northeasterly 0.22 mile to end in a cul-de-sac; and
West Chagford Terrace, beginning at the intersection with
Chagford Drive and running southwesterly 0.03 mile to end in
a dead end.
This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope, sight
distance and designated Virginia Department of
Transportation drainage easements.
These roads serve 48 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation a
50' right-of-way for all of these roads.
This section of Mineola is recorded as follows:
Section C. Plat Book 53, Page 44, July 3, 1986.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.Q. APPROVAL OF LAW CLERK FOR CIRCUIT COURT
Mr. Ramsey stated the Circuit Court has requested approval of
three law clerk positions in its 1987-88 budget. Mr. Applegate
stated he met with the Circuit Court Judge to discuss the
current staffing situation and it appears that the status is
such that there will be a significant shortage of manpower for
an interim period. He stated that he felt it would be
appropriate to approve the hiring of one law clerk position and
once it has been determined if the program is successful
consideration could be given to hiring for the additional two
law clerk positions.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved one Law Clerk position for the Circuit Court in the
1987-88 Circuit Court budget, which position costing $26,500
would be funded from the monies placed in the fund balance from
the revenue increases approved in the budget by the Board. (It
87-297
is noted the 1987-88 budget General Fund balance will be
reduced $26,500.)
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS
ll.K.1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ll.K.l.a. AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE ~ BUILDING LINE IN GREEN-
BRIAR SUBDIVISION
Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been scheduled for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate a building
line in Greenbriar Subdivision.
Ms. Bonnie Anderson voiced support of the proposed ordinance.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate the building line on the
eastern portion of Lot 4, Block D, Section 2,
Greenbriar Subdivision, M~toaca Magisterial
District, Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on
a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book
14, page 70.
WHEREAS, Margaret B. Anderson petitioned the Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate the
building line on the eastern portio~ of Lot 4, Block D, Section
2, Greenbriar Subdivision, Matoaca Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat
of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said
County in Plat Book 14, page 70, made by E. O. Wilkerson, C.L.S.,
dated February 27, 1965. The building line petitioned to be
vacated is more fully described as follows:
The building line on the eastern portion of Lot 4,
Block D, Section 2, Greenbriar Subdivision, more
particularly shown on a plat by E. O. Wilkerson,
C.L.S., dated February 27, 1965, and recorded June
16, 1965, in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court,
Chesterfield County, Virginia, in Plat Book 14, page
70.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section
15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by
advertising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the building line sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: ~
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid building line be and
is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of.Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be
recorded no sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to
Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1483
87-298
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
portion of the plat vacated.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of
the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Margaret B.
Anderson, or her successors in title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.l.b. AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT WITHIN ROCKPORT LANDING
Mr. Sale stated this date and time had been advertised for a
public hearing to consider an ordinance to vacate 20 feet of a
50 foot temporary construction easement across Lot 15 within
Rockport Landing.
No one came forward in support of or opposition to this matter.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE to vacate 20' of a 50 foot wide
construction easement within Lot 15, Rockport
Landing, Clover Hill Magisterial District,
Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat
thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 34,
at page 81 and 82.
WHEREAS, Robert A. Cary petitioned the Board of Super-
visors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate 20' of a 50
foot construction easement within Lot 15, Rockport Landing,
Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield County,
Virginia, more particularly shown on a plat of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book
34, pages 81 and 82, made by J. K. Timmons & Associates, Inc.
dated October 11, 1979. The construction easement petitioned
to be vacated is more fully described as follows:
A portion of a 50 foot construction easement within
Lot 15, Rockport Landing the location of which is
more fully shown, cross hatched on a plat made by J.
K. Timmons & Associates, Inc. dated October 11, 1979,
a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of
this ordinance.
WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section
15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by adver-
tising; and
WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of
the portion of the construction easement sought to be vacated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the aforesaid portion of the
construction easement be and is hereby vacated.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in
accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance,
together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no
sooner than thirty days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section
15.1-485 of the Code of Virgin.ia, 1950, as amended.
The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483
is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the
87-299
portion of the plat vacated. This ordinance shall vest fee
simple title of the portion of the construction easement hereby
vacated in the property owner of the lot within Rockport
Landing free and clear of any rights of public use.
Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names
of the County of Chesterfield, as grantor, and Robert A. Cary
and Linda P. Cary, Husband and Wife, or their successors in
title, as grantee.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.2. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
ll.K.2.a. SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE ABANDON-
MENT OF A PORTION OF EASY STREET
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
Resolution of the County of Chesterfield's intention to
consider a Resolution and Order to abandon a portion of
Easy Street.
Pursuant to Section 33.1-151 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, be it resolved that the Chesterfield County
Board of Supervisors hereby gives notice that at a regular
meeting to be held on May 27, 1987, it will consider a
Resolution and Order to abandon a portion of Easy Street more
fully described as follows:
A portion of Easy Street, Route 1563, within Gay
Farms Subdivision, Section 2, as shown on a plat
prepared by LaPrade Bros., Civil Engineers, dated
November 13, 1963, a copy of which is attached to
this resolution.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Board shall send a copy of
this resolution to the State Highway and Transportation
Commissioner thereof. The Clerk shall further cause to be
published and posted the required notices of this Board's
intention to abandon this portion of Easy Street.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.2.b. CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. HAROLD T.
GOYNE, JR. AND MRS. ADELE G. MAXWELL, OLD STAGE
ROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
authorized the County Attorney to institute condemnation
proceedings against the following property owners if the amount
as set opposite their names is not accepted. And be it further
resolved that the Acting County Administrator notify said
property owners by registered mail on April 23, 1987, of the
County's intention to enter upon and take the property which is
to be the subject of said condemnation proceedings. This
action is on an emergency basis and the County intends to
exercise immediate right of entry pursuant to Section
15.1-238.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Harold T. Goyne, Jr. and
Mrs. Adele G. Maxwell
$779.00
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd stated he hoped this matter could be negotiated among
those involved.
87-300
ll.K.3. CONSENT ITEMS
ll.K.3.a. APPOMATTOX SUBAREA PLAN
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the County's representative on the
Appomattox Subarea Plan Committee to agree to the Final Draft
Report by the State Water Control Board, while at the same time
taking exception to the population projections used for
Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.b. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATION FOR FEDERAL GRANTS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
designated Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, Acting County Administrator, as
Chesterfield County's authorized representative to execute all
necessary documents pertaining to federal grants, after approv-
al of the application and acceptance of the grant by the Board
of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.c. WATER CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER LINES FOR
WOODLAKE PARKWAY, PHASE VII
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents for the following water
contract:
Water Contract Number W87-54CD, Woodlake Parkway, Phase
VII
Developer:
Contractor: RMC Contractors, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
Estimated County Cost:
(Refund through Connections)
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 0
No Appropriation Necessary
Investors Woodlake Development Corporation
$86,775.00
$12,742.40
$74,032.60
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.d. SEWER CONTRACT FOR LAND '0 PINES, OFF-SITE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents for the following sewer
contract:
Sewer Contract Number S87-019, Land '0 Pines, Off-Site
Developer:
Associates
Contractor: H. Hamner Gay and Company, Inc.
Estimated Developer Cost:
Refunds Through Connections:
Cash Refunds
Total Contract Cost:
Number of Connections: 167
Code: 5N-2511-997 - Refund from Connections
5P-5724-8009-Cash Refund
Bexley Associates of Richmond T/A Belmont Run
$ 33,797.42
$ 87,520.48
$ 2,576.00
$123,893.93
Vote: Unanimous
87-301
ll.K.3.e. SEWER CONTRACT FOR LAND '0 PINES, ON-SITE AND
OFF-SITE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents for the following sewer
contract:
Sewer Contract Number S87-369, Land 'O Pines - On Site and
Off Site Sewer.
Developer: Bexley Associates of Richmond T/A Belmont Run
Associates
Contractor: H. Hamner Gay & Company, Inc.
Estimated Developer Cost:
Refund Through Connections:
Cash Refund
Total Refund
Total Contract Cost:
Number of Connections: 167
Code:
$ 24,624.80
$ 80,626.40
$110,251.20
$210,804.21
$321,055.41
5N-2511-997 - Refund from Connections
5P-5724-7369 - Cash Refund
And further, the Board transferred $80,626.40 from the 1986-87
Capital Improvement Budget Sewer Extensions Fund - 900R to
5P-5724-7369.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.f. SEWER CONTRACT FOR GENITO ESTATES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute any necessary documents for the following sewer
contract:
Sewer Contract Number S87-39M, Genito Estates (portion of)
Developer: R. E. Collier, Inc.
Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc.
Total Contract Cost:
Total Estimated County Cost:
(Refund through Connection Fees)
Estimated Developer Cost:
Number of Connections: 17
Code: 5N-2511-997
$52,235.35
$16,546.75
$35,688.60
Vote: Unanimous
lI.K.3.g. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG HUGUENOT
ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed accepting, on behalf of the County,
the conveyance of a variable width strip of land along Huguenot
Road, Route 147, from Huguenot Place Associates.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.h. ACCEPTANCE OF DEED FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR BERMUDA
ORCHARD ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Acting County Administrator to
execute the necessary deed for right of way accepting, on
behalf of the County, the conveyance of a 15 foot strip of land
along Bermuda Orchard Road (formerly East Avenue) from Devanie
Talmage Gornto and Eleanor F. Gornto.
87-302
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.3.i. APPROVAL OF A VACATION AND REDEDICATION OF A SEWER
EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY OF MARGARET T. WRIGHT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board and the
Acting County Administrator to execute any necessary documents
to vacate and rededicate a sewer easement across the property
of Margaret T. Wright.
Vote: Unanimous
ll.K.4. REPORTS
Mr. Sale presented the Board with a report on the developer
water and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
ll.L. REPORTS
Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with a status report on the
General Fund Contingency Account, General Fund Balance, Road
Reserve Funds, District Road and Street Light Funds, Lease
Purchases, School Literary Loans and the Long Range Plan for
Mental Health/Mental Retardation Services 1987-1991.
Mr. Ramsey stated the Virginia Department of Transportation has
formally notified the County of the acceptance of the following
streets into the State Secondary Road System:
ADDITIONS LENGTH
WOODLAKE - MILL SPRING
Route 3608 (Mill Spring Drive) - From Route 3600
to a west cul-de-sac
0.21 mi.
Route 3609 (Mill Spring Court) - From Route 3608
to a southwest cul-de-sac
0.08 mi.
Route 3610 (Mill Spring Drive) - From Route 3608
to a north cul-de-sac
0.22 mi.
Route 3611 (Mill Spring Lane) - From Route 3610
to a northwest cul-de-sac
0.11 mi.
Route 3612 (Mill Spring Circle) - From Route 3611-S
to Route 3611-N
0.07 mi.
WOODLAKE - FOREST WOOD, SECTION 1
Route 3602 (Forest Wood Road) - From Route 3600
to a north cul-de-sac
Route 3603 (Forest Wood Lane) - From Route 3602
to an east cul-de-sac
0.13 mi.
0.09 mi.
WOODLAKE - SHELTER COVE, SECTIONS I & II
Route 3613 (Shelter Cove Road) - From Route 3600
to an east cul-de-sac
Route 3614 (Shelter Cove Pointe) - From Route 3613
to a south cul-de-sac
Route 3615 (Shelter Cove Circle) - From Route 3613-W
to Route 3613-E
0.42 mi.
0.10 mi.
0.08 mi.
87-303
ADDITIONS
WOODLAKE - BENT CREEK
Route 3616 (Bent Creek Road) - From Route 3600 to
a north cul-de-sac
Route 3617 (Bent Creek Place) - From Route 3616 to
a northeast cul-de-sac
Route 3618 (Bent Creek Court) - From Route 3617 to
a southwest cul-de-sac
WOODLAKE - WOODS WALK
Route 3628 (Woods Walk Road) - From Route 3600 to
a north cul-de-sac
Route 3629 (Woods Walk Lane) - From 0.05 mile west
of Route 3628 to 0.09 mile northeast of Route 3628
Route 3630 (Woods Walk Court) - From Route 3628 to
a west cul-de-sac
WOODLAKE - MOSS CREEK
Route 3631 (Moss Creek Road) - From Route 3600 to
an east cul-de-sac
Route 3632 (Moss Creek Court) - From Route 3631
to an east cul-de-sac
Route 3633 (Moss Creek Place) - From Route 3632
to a northeast cul-de-sac
WOODLAKE - COUNTRY WALK
Route 3619 (Country Walk Road) - From Route 3600
to a south loop
Route 3620 (Country Walk Court) - From Route 3619
to an east cul-de-sac
WOODLAKE - OAK KNOLL
Route 3621 (Oak Knoll Road) - From Route 3600 to
a west cul-de-sac
Route 3622 (Oak Knoll Circle) - From Route 3621-E
to Route 3621-W
Route 3623 (Oak Knoll Lane) - From Route 3621
to a northwest cul-de-sac
WOODLAKE - WATERS EDGE
Route 3624 (Waters Edge Road) - From Route 3600
to a south cul-de-sac
Route 3625 (Waters Edge Court) - From Route 3624
to a northeast cul-de-sac
Route 3626 (Waters Edge Terrace) - From Route 3624
to a west cul-de-sac
Route 3627 (Waters Edge Circle) - From Route 3624
to an east cul-de-sac
87-304
LENGTH
0.15 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.10 mi.
0.17 mi.
0.14 mi.
0.07 mi.
0.30 mi.
0.20 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.29 mi.
0.04 mi.
0.25 mi.
0.08 mi.
0.09 mi.
0.32 mi.
0.05 mi.
0.05 mi.
0.04 mi.
ADDITIONS
CANDLELAMP EAST SUBDIVISION
Route 3429 (Candlelamp Lane) - From Route 654 to a
south cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.10 mi.
Route 2780 (Spirea Road) - From 0.03 mile west of
Route 3108 to 0.14 mile west of Route 3108
0.11 mi.
ll.H. BOARD WORK SESSION SCHEDULE
Mr. Daniel stated staff has compiled a list of topics which
require Board work sessions over the next few months.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that work sessions
would be scheduled in the Conference Room (Room 502) of the
Administration Building to discuss the following topics:
June 3, 1987, 1:00 p.m.
2.
3.
4.
Swift Creek Sewer Financing
Health Insurance & Pay Plan; Performance Appraisal
Off-Peak Pumping
Subdivision Ordinance Revisions
June 10, 1987, 2:00 p.m.
Capital Improvements Program
Secondary Road Six Year Plan
Airport Industrial Park
It was generally agreed the remaining unscheduled issues would
be addressed at the June 10, 1987 work session and a schedule
established at that time.
ll.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and to
consult with legal counsel regarding Woolridge versus
Chesterfield County, pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a) (1) and
2.1-344 (a) (6), respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
Reconvening:
ll.N. LUNCH
The Board recessed to travel to The Aquarium Restaurant on
Midlothian Turnpike for lunch and for a groundbreaking
ceremony at Dick Strauss Suzuki.
Reconvening:
Mr. Daniel announced that, under the direction of Mr. Frederick
Willis, Director of Human Resource Management, a Request for
Proposal (RFP) will be mailed on Friday, April 24, 1987,
requesting bids for professional consultant services to assist
87-305
the County in obtaining applicants for the position of County
Administrator. He stated copies of the RFP would be available
to the press at that time. He stated it is anticipated final
recommendations from the RFP's will be available by the last
meeting in May or the first meeting in June.
11.0. MOBILE HOME PERMITS
87SR059
In Bermuda Magisterial District, NORA L. RIDDLE requested
renewal of Mobile Home Permit 81S096 to park a mobile home on
property fronting the west line of Elokomin Avenue,
approximately 320 feet south of Wonderview Drive, and better
known as 10324 Elokomin Avenue. Tax Map 98-1 (3) Halfway House
Heights, Block 4, Lots 39-41 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommended approval of this request
because the applicant is trying to sell the mobile home and
because it will remain vacant while on this property. He
stated, in addition, staff recommends that the Board advise the
applicant to look upon this request as temporary and, if
approved, it may or may not necessarily be renewed.
Ms. Nora Riddle agreed with staff's recommendation.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request for five (5) years, subject to the
condition that the mobile home remain unoccupied.
Vote: Unanimous
87S060
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SHEILA C. SMITH requested a
mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property fronting
the west line of Pioneer Street, approximately 250 feet north
of Botone Avenue, and better known as 7810 Pioneer Street. Tax
Map 67-11 (2) Rayon Park, Block 19, Lots 36-39 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommended approval of this request,
subject to standard conditions. He stated, in addition, staff
recommends that the Board advise the applicant to look upon
this request as temporary and, if approved, it may or may not
necessarily be renewed.
Ms. Sheila C. Smith was present to represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved this request for five (5) years, subject to the
following standard conditions:
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the
mobile home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile
home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added
87-306
onto a mobile home. Ail mobile homes shall be skirted but
shall not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available,
they shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant
shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of
the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
87S061
In Bermuda Magisterial District, PHILLIP G. SILVEY requested a
mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property fronting
the east line of Pioneer Street, approximately 150 feet north
of Botone Avenue, and better known as 7811 Pioneer Street. Tax
Map 67-11 (2) Rayon Park, Block 20, Lots 11-17 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Jacobson stated staff recommends approval of this request,
subject to standard conditions. He stated, in addition, staff
recommends that the Board advise the applicant to look upon
this request as temporary and, if approved, it may or may not
necessarily be renewed.
Mr. Phillip Silvey was present to represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Dodd stated this property is an old twenty-five (25) lot
subdivision and the applicant has encountered a great deal of
difficulty in locating the adjacent property owners to obtain
signatures indicating support for this request.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by
approved this request for five (5)
following standard conditions:
Mr. Mayes, the Board
years, subject to the
The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the
mobile home.
No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a
mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for
rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be
permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
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 home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but
shall not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available,
they shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant
shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of
the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
87-307
Vote: Unanimous
ll.P. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
86S145
In Matoaca Magisterial District, JOHN E. HAMILTON, JR.
requested amendment to Conditional Use (Case 78S204) relative
to the transfer of landfill operation rights and extension of
time period of operation. This request lies in an Agricultural
(A) District on a 40 acre parcel fronting approximately 800
feet on the west line of Taylor Road, approximately 1,600 feet
south of Hembrick Road. Tax Map 123 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheets 35,
36, and 37).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions, one of
which grants approval of the Conditional Use for a period of
time not to exceed five (5) years. He stated, at the request
of the Board, staff prepared additional conditions (Conditions
3, 4 and 5) which, respectively, address on-site supervision,
require platting of the fill area and require documentation of
the material disposed of on the site.
Mr. John Hamilton, Jr., representing Taylor Road Landfill,
Inc., stated the conditions as recommended by staff and the
Board were acceptable.
Ms. Rose Hair, an adjacent property owner, presented the Board
with several newspaper articles concerning stump dumping and
its decomposition. She expressed concerns that the area roads
are narrow and heavily traveled not only by residential traffic
and school buses but also dump trucks that service the
landfill, the safety hazards presented by the dump trucks to
the neighborhood, etc. Mr. Mayes stated the issue before the
Board is the zoning and land use decision. Ms. Hair stated the
only action the Board could take that would be any benefit to
the residents on Taylor Road would be to close the facility.
Mr. Applegate inquired why the staff recommended approval of
the permit for ten (10) years and the Planning Commission only
five (5) years. Mr. Jacobson stated, at the time the request
was presented to the Planning Commission, there was significant
comment and opposition voiced by area residents. He stated the
Commission determined approval of the permit for a period of
time not to exceed five (5) years from the date of approval
would be sufficient and would provide the opportunity for the
Commission to review the request upon satisfactory reapplica-
tion and demonstration by the applicant that the operation has
been of no detriment to adjacent and area properties.
Mr. Hamilton stated he would prefer to obtain approval of the
permit for ten years; however, he would be agreeable to
approval for a five year period.
Mr. Mayes stated he understood the concerns of the adjacent and
area property owners; however, the issue before the Board was a
land use decision, not a road issue. He stated the subject
site is a stump dump, not a sanitary landfill, and he felt the
conditions imposed would ensure proper operation, monitoring,
and reclamation, as well as land use compatibility.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
At such time that the property ownership is transferred to
Taylor Road Landfill, Inc., the Conditional Use shall also
be transferred to Taylor Road Landfill, Inc. Following
transfer to Taylor Road Landfill, Inc., the Conditional
Use shall not be transferable, nor run with the land.
(p)
87-308
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 1 of Condi-
tional Use, Case 78S204.)
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period of time
not to exceed five (5) years from date of approval and may
be renewed upon satisfactory reapplication and demonstra-
tion that the operation has been of no detriment to
adjacent and area properties. (CPC)
During the hours of operation, a supervisor shall be
located on the site for the purpose of monitoring and
directing the fill activity or the site shall be
secured to preclude indiscriminate dumping by the
general public. (BS)
A plat showing the exact metes and bounds of the fill area
shall be submitted to the Planning Department. This plat
shall note all conditions stated herein and, upon approval
by the Planning Department, shall be recorded in the
Circuit Court with the property reference. (BS)
The operator shall submit a report to the Director of
Planning on a quarterly basis documenting the type
material disposed of on the site. (BS)
NOTE~
Vote:
Ail other conditions of Conditional Use, Case 78S204,
remain applicable. Those conditions are as follows:
No dumping shall be permitted closer than 100 feet
from any property line. This 100 feet shall be
considered a buffer zone and shall not be cleared or
regraded.
Only one access shall be permitted. This access
shall be located so as to provide for the best sight
distance along Taylor Road. This access shall be
secured so as to prohibit the indiscriminate dumping
of materials and the applicant shall be responsible
for the removal of any materials dumped along either
the access road or Taylor Road in front of subject
parcel.
This landfill shall be restricted to the dumping of
stumps, land cleared materials and building
materials. At the end of each week, all dumping
shall be covered to a depth of not less than six (6)
inches and this area shall be seeded.
Prior to dumping closer than 250 feet to the front
property line, an earth berm having a height of not
less than eight (8) feet shall be constructed along
the entire frontage of the landfill. This berm shall
be sufficiently high to screen the dumping area from
sight. This berm shall be planted with appropriate
ground cover which shall be approved by the Division
of Development Review.
Prior to the dumping of any materials, the State
Health Department shall be contacted and grant
approval of the operation.
No dumping shall be permitted except between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
Upon completion of the operation, the land shall be
stabilized with top soil and seeded so as to preclude
any erosion problems.
U nan imou s
87-309
Mr. Applegate inquired if the County has conveyed the
information necessary to ensure a smooth transition in the
transfer of ownership of this facility to the appropriate State
agency. Mr. Micas stated staff will take appropriate action.
86S148
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ERA HUNT REALTORS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on an 18.8
acre parcel fronting approximately 795 feet on the west line of
Qualla Road, approximately 130 feet south of Ridgerun Road.
Tax Map 63-7 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to a single condition and
acceptance of the applicant's proffered condition.
No one was present to represent the request.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Mayes stated he did not feel any action should be taken on
this request until the applicant was present. Mr. Daniel
stated the request would be deferred to the end of the meeting
to allow the applicant and/or representative to appear.
86S156
In Bermuda Magisterial District, SUNSTATES PROPERTIES, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 25 acre
parcel plus proffered conditions on this tract and an approxi-
mately 23.6 acre tract presently zoned Community Business (B-2)
and General Business (B-3). This request fronts approximately
600 feet on the south line of West Hundred Road, also fronting
approximately 1,075 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis
Highway, and lies southwest of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 116-6 (1) Part of Parcels 20, 21, and 35, and Tax Map
116-10 (1) Parcels 1 and 3 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Dodd stated he discussed this matter with the
Commonwealth's Attorney and was advised that he could
participate in this issue provided he disclosed to the Board
that he owns property to the south of the proposed site and
that his mother owns property to the east of the proposed site
but that those properties are not affected by the requested
rezoning.
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of this request and acceptance of the
proffered conditions. He stated the applicant has proffered
conditions which will adequately address the traffic generated
by this specific development, the setbacks, landscaping etc.
He stated the proffered development standards are generally
consistent with the County's proposed major arterial corridor
"Overlay District" standards; and the landscape buffers
adjacent to the Sunset Memorial Cemetery and Gay Farms
residential neighborhood are superior to the County's proposed
"Overlay District" standards and, in general, superior to the
transition buffers that the County has adopted between shopping
centers and residential areas in the past. He stated a
shopping center is planned for development on the 25 acres plus
on a 23.6 acre tract which is currently zoned General Business
(B-3) and Community Business (B-2). He presented slides of the
proposed development and provided information relative to the
location of the proposed site, proposed buffers, landscaping,
setback requirements, etc.
Mr. Oliver Rudy, representing Sunstates Properties, Inc.,
introduced Mr. Sandy Acton, Mr. Bob Butler, Mr. Jim Brinkley,
Mr. Jim Mulkey, Mr. Jeff Timmons, Mr. Butch Altman and
87-310
representatives for Sunset Memorial Cemetery, all of whom were
involved in various aspects of this request. He expressed
appreciation to staff for their diligent efforts and
outstanding cooperation with him, the applicants, and the
community on this request. He stated the applicants plan to
develop a quality shopping center on the subject property and,
from the onset, have been sensitive to and desired the total
involvement of anyone who may be affected by the proposal. He
stated there have been numerous meetings with staff, citizens,
civic associations, representatives of Sunset Memorial Park,
etc., to address concerns relative to land use compatibility,
buffers, landscaping, lighting, architectural design, signs,
drainage, traffic issues, site appearance, the impact of the
proposed use on the adjacent cemetery, etc. He stated the area
surrounding the request parcels is zoned for, and occupied by,
a County fire station and various commercial uses to the north,
single family dwellings to include a mobile home park and an
emergency medical facility to the south, a shopping center and
single family dwellings (mobile home park) to the east and
Sunset Memorial Park to the west.
He stated the proposed B-2 tract, included in this request, is
currently owned by Sunset Memorial Park, which property was
heretofore intended for expansion of the cemetery. He stated
this tract, acquired by Sunstates Properties, Inc., contained
no graves or plots, the applicant was informed by cemetery
staff that original cemetery plans did not indicate any use for
the 25 acres and that this tract was in excess of the
cemetery's needs and an unnecessary tax burden. He stated if
the proposed B-2 tract were to be used for expansion of the
cemetery, the expanded cemetery would then be located directly
adjacent to existing B-2 and B-3 commercial zoning along Route
10 and Jefferson Davis Highway and there are no current zoning
ordinance requirements or design elements which would minimize
the impact of the commercial use on the expanded cemetery area
or necessitate this existing commercial development to provide
any screening or buffering adjacent to the cemetery.
He stated the applicant has proffered conditions which address
land use compatibility, buffers, landscaping, lighting,
architectural design, signs, transportation issues, will have
the effect of minimizing the possibility of the typical strip
commercial and piecemeal development which has occurred along
the Jefferson Davis corridor and provide design criteria in
excess of that which would be required by the Zoning Ordinance
for that property which is currently zoned B-2 and B-3 with
design elements which would also be incorporated into the
development of the proposed B-2 tract. He stated it would be
virtually impossible, through current zoning requirements, to
limit access points to both Jefferson Davis Highway and Route
10, obtain road improvements along Route 1 and Route 10,
provide buffer requirements and design criteria to minimize the
impact on the existing residential neighborhoods and adjacent
cemetery use; however, through the Conditional Use Planned
Development process and acceptance of the proffered conditions,
the Board can ensure quality development, proper land use
transition and land use compatibility. He stated, it should
also be noted that the development, if approved as proffered,
would have a positive impact on new development along the
Jefferson Davis corridor, will establish a precedent of design
criteria for similar requirements on future development and
will encourage new development along the corridor to conform to
those standards.
Discussion and questions ensued relative to the developer's
proposed improvements to the Route 1/Route 10 intersection; the
existing buffer requirements versus buffers proposed by the
developer; the number of access points into the shopping center
including the location of loading docks, ingress/egress for
delivery trucks and other traffic issues; the availability of
water and sewer facilities; proposed uses; landscaping,
lighting, architectural design, signs, the impact of the
proposed use on the adjacent cemetery, etc.
87-311
Mr. Leo Myers voiced support for the request. He stated he
owns cemetery lots in Sunset Memorial Park but did not feel
this development would have an adverse impact on the cemetery
use. He stated he felt this area of the County needs a major
shopping center and the traffic improvements anticipated for
the Route 1/Route 10 intersection would be of great benefit to
anyone who travels through that corridor.
Mr. Applegate submitted a letter of support from Carter Myers
and Associates to be entered into the record.
Mr. John B. Burgess voiced opposition to the request as it was
his understanding the proposed B-2 tract, currently owned by
Sunset Memorial Park and included in this rezoning, was being
purchased from him and his wife for the further expansion of
the cemetery. He stated the sale of this tract will diminish
the resources of land available to the public for burial sites,
as family and church cemeteries are not adequate to handle this
service. He stated lot owners are concerned with the integrity
and adequacy of the perpetual care fund which they feel will be
adversely impacted by the sale of this property, the preserva-
tion of the cemetery, the appearance and maintenance of the
grounds, driveways, insufficient accesses, etc. He stated
individual lot owners are scattered and not easily located and
it is difficult for them to look out for their interests. He
stated, until the lot owners are able to join together to do
this, he feels it is the function of County government to look
out for the interest of these people.
Mr. Walter Barneside stated he was representing lot owners and
interested citizens who submitted petitions to the Planning
Commission voicing their opposition to this request. He stated
he concurred with Mr. Burgess' statement that government should
be concerned about the welfare of people and protect their
interests. He stated he felt the Board has a moral
responsibility for the welfare of the people to protect the
cemetery and its future; that the land was purchased for
cemetery purposes and should be used accordingly; that
projections for future land uses within the cemetery are
erroneous; and that there is no need for another shopping
center in this area. He stated he and many others feel
betrayed by cemetery management.
Ms. Mallie Murray stated she owns eight lots in Sunset Memorial
Park but has no objection to the proposed shopping center. She
stated during discussions with representatives for the proposed
development it was indicated a shopping center would be
developed on the site with or without the 25 acres from the
cemetery. She stated she feels the cemetery management has
betrayed her not only with respect to not contacting her about
the potential sale of the subject property but also because,
when she originally purchased her lots, she had anticipated the
cemetery would be a family-type facility with gardens and
mausoleums, etc., none of which has materialized. She stated
there is a great deal of emotionalism involved with respect to
this case and if this meeting had been an evening meeting, more
concerned citizens would be present, as they were when the
request was presented to the Planning Commission. She stated
there is other land to the east of Route 10 that can be
developed as shopping centers and questioned why this 25 acres,
that most of the residents of Chester and the surrounding areas
consider sacred ground, have to be developed into another
shopping center.
Ms. Virginia C. Robinson, a resident of Matoaca District,
stated she owns lots in Sunset Memorial Park and has lived at
her present address since she purchased her lots. She stated
she has never received notification from either Sunstates
Properties, Inc. or Sunset Memorial Park regarding this
proposal and other people, who own lots in the cemetery, have
indicated to her that they have received not as well. She
87-312
stated she feels this matter should be deferred so that more
people can be made aware of what is proposed.
Mr. George Jones stated he owns lots in Sunset Memorial Park
which are in a location that will be facing the rear of the
proposed shopping center, if developed, and expressed concern
that the buffers, berms, etc., no matter how extensive, will
not prevent one from being able to see the shopping center from
the cemetery. He stated this issue is an emotional issue, one
where people consider the land sacred and part of their
family's heritage. He expressed concern that the development
of this shopping center will exacerbate the traffic situation
at the Route 1/Route 10 intersection, resulting in extreme
traffic volumes, congestion, etc. He stated, if approved, he
would prefer that the front of the shopping center, rather than
the rear, face the cemetery.
Ms. Dorothy Armstrong expressed concern that there are no
zoning ordinances which address the treatment of cemeteries in
terms of space allotment, buffering, landscaping, and other
aspects of screening such properties from commercial
developments and that this issue is one which she does not feel
the County can appropriately deal with. She stated she felt it
is the responsibility of the County government to protect
essential services that provide public human needs, such as a
cemetery use, to determine certain land uses for those
services, and protect the citizenry's interests in those
services. She stated she does not oppose the shopping center
development but does oppose the inclusion of the 25 acres,
intended for the expansion of the cemetery, in the proposal.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated he has been in the cemetery business for
approximately twelve (12) years and information he has obtained
has indicated that approximately 65-70 acres of land is
necessary to create sufficient perpetual care funds to maintain
a cemetery. He stated the sale of 25 acres of cemetery
property will not only impact the overall size of the cemetery
but will also reduce the funding which could be obtained from
future lot sales in that tract which could be contributed to
the perpetual care fund to maintain the cemetery. He stated a
large percentage of the cemetery space was sold at inexpensive
rates thus creating very little money for the perpetual care
fund. He stated the Board should be aware of how much money is
actually in the perpetual care fund, that it is being paid, how
the sale of the 25 acres will benefit the cemetery, etc.
There being no one else to speak to this issue, Mr. Daniel
closed the public hearing. At this time, he submitted a
petition of approximately 112 signatures opposing the request
to be entered into the record.
Mr. Rudy stated, of those persons who have addressed this case,
no one has opposed the proposed development plan. He stated
there has been speculation as to whether or not the cemetery
will be protected and he assured the Board the applicant's plan
is designed so as to have a minimal impact on the cemetery and
other adjacent properties.
Mr. Acton apologized to those individuals who may have not been
notified about the proposed development. He stated he realized
this would be an emotional issue and efforts were made to be
sensitive to this aspect and to protect the cemetery from
exposure to the rear of the shopping center. He stated every
effort has been taken to ensure that this development will be a
quality, well-coordinated development and will not be a
detriment to any of the surrounding properties.
Mr. Rudy stated he serves as Commissioner of Accounts for
Chesterfield County, which function requires his supervision
and auditing of all the County fiduciary accounts and Sunset
Memorial Park's account is among these accounts. He stated his
responsibility in this capacity has no impact with respect to
his representation of this rezoning request.
87-313
Mr. James K. Cluverius, attorney for the cemetery company,
stated he has been advised by cemetery management that as of
the end of the March reporting period, the principal in the
endowment fund (perpetual care fund) is approximately $399,000.
He stated this fund is invested and will produce income which
will be devoted to the care and maintenance of the cemetery
property. He stated at this time, given the size and condition
of the cemetery, he felt the funding is sufficient to maintain
perpetual care; however, more funding will be needed and
forthcoming by future sales of cemetery lots. Mr. Dodd
inquired if a portion of the money from the sale of the 25
acres to the shopping center would be contributed to the
perpetual care fund. Mr. Childress, General Manager of Sunset
Memorial Park, stated the perpetual care law, enacted by the
General Assembly on July 1, 1964, requires a deposit of 10% of
the selling price of all lots into an irrevocable perpetual
care trust fund and that the law is very specific with respect
as to who must manage the trust fund and what occurs in the
reporting of that trust fund. He stated, to this date, Sunset
Memorial Park has always made a timely deposit to Sovran Bank,
trustee of the fund. He stated the perpetual care fund will
continually increase as additional lots are sold in the future;
however, monies received from the sale of the acreage to
Sunstates Properties will not be affected by this requirement
as it is not being sold for burial purposes.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the agricultural tract in question can
be rezoned to residential or any other type rezoning. Mr.
Micas stated he was not aware of any private restrictive
covenants that may affect that 25 acres and the applicants can
request consideration of any type of zoning. Mr. Jacobson
stated the applicants could use the parcel for any of the uses
currently permitted in an agricultural zone as permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance and would have the right to request rezoning
to any other use which would be reviewed by the Board for final
approval.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the plans for the cemetery as
represented to the cemetery lot owners at sale has any legal
bearing on the present zoning request. Mr. Micas stated the
lot owners' expectations regarding the property is an issue to
be resolved among the lots owners and the cemetery management.
Mr. Applegate inquired if notification of the lot owners was a
legal requirement of the County or the property owner. Mr.
Micas stated the County is legally required to notify adjacent
property owners, which in this care was the cemetery. He
stated the cemetery management's failure to notify its lot
owners is an issue which must be resolved among the lot owners
and cemetery management. In response to a question by Mr.
Applegate, Mr. Jacobson stated that the 25 acres is currently
zoned to permit a cemetery use.
Mr. Mayes inquired if there is a contract or agreement between
the sellers and buyers of the 25 acre tract that restricts or
prohibits the use of that land for anything other than a
cemetery use. Mr. Micas stated he was not aware of what the
contractual relationship was between the developer and the
cemetery. Mr. Rudy stated he has thoroughly investigated the
records and there was no restrictive covenant in any of the
deeds from Mr. and Mrs. Burgess, or any one conveying property
to the cemetery, restricting the use of any of the property to
only cemetery uses.
Ms. Murray stated she understood there was a verbal agreement
between Mr. Burgess and Mr. Butler when the original contract
for the sale of 48 acres was drawn that the property would be
used specifically for further development of the cemetery;
however, no written agreement was available.
Mr. Dodd stated the issue before the Board is a land use
decision and he felt this location would be appropriate for the
proposed development. He stated he realized that a portion of
87-314
the land under consideration was owned by Sunset Memorial Park,
and he also owned lots there; however, if he had thought the
proposed development would harm the cemetery in any way he
would not support the request. He stated, from the onset,
Sunstates Properties was made aware that this particular area
was a sensitive area and that whatever type development
transpired would have to be accomplished in a quality manner
protecting both the adjacent cemetery and residential neighbor-
hood. He stated the current zoning application, with the
extensive conditions proffered by the applicant, provides the
Board with the ability to ensure that quality, well-coordinated
development, proper land use transition and land use compati-
bility occur. He stated he could see no logical reason why the
proposed use should not be approved. He stated, in his opin-
ion, this project will enhance the existing Petersburg Pike
corridor and he feels very strongly that, if this project is
not approved for this portion of the County, the Route 1/Route
10 corridor will attract hodge-podge development.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request and accepted the following proffered
conditions:
The developer shall provide an accurate account of this
drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the
impact this project will have on the downstream area.
The developer shall submit a construction plan to
Environmental Engineering providing for on- and
off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall be
approved by the Environmental Engineering Department,
and all necessary easements shall be obtained prior to
any vegetative disturbance. The approved plan may have
to be implemented prior to any vegetative disturbance.
Concealed Source Lighting shall not exceed a height of
thirty (30) feet and shall be positioned so as not to
project onto adjacent and adjoining residential prop-
erties and public rights of way in accordance with a
detailed lighting plan which shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval with site plan review.
Lighting located on the rear of buildings adjacent to
residentially zoned property shall be positioned so
that the lights are directed to the interior of the
property and developed buildings and not towards the
residentially zoned property.
Prior to the release of any occupancy permits, ownership
and maintenance of the pond(s) shall be established as the
responsibility of private entities. An indemnification
agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental Engi-
neering Department to save the County harmless of vectors,
maintenance, any replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon
completion of construction of the detention facility, it
shall be certified by a professional engineer.
The released run-off from a storm of 2 year return fre-
quency will not be increased after development. In addi-
tion, the run-off from a storm of 100 year return frequen-
cy after development shall be controlled by the on-site
detention so as to maintain a minimum of one (1) foot
vertical elevation and a twenty (20) foot horizontal dis-
tance between the 100 year floodplain and the finished
floor elevation of any existing building and maintain the
flow over the deck driveway to a flow depth of four (4)
inches. Final review of hydraulic calculations and plans
and specifications shall be considered at the time of
final site plan review.
The maximum height of any freestanding signs shall be
thirty-five (35) feet and all signs, freestanding or
otherwise, may be illuminated, but may only be luminous
if the signfield is opaque with translucent letters.
All other signs shall comply with B-2 bulk require-
87-315
ments. A complete sign package for each phase of
development shall be submitted to the Planning Commis-
sion in conjunction with schematic plan review.
Setbacks along major arterials. The required setback for
buildings and drives along major arterials shall be 75',
with landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping
B, described below. It may be (50) feet with the pro-
vision of landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Land-
scaping C, described below. The required setback for
parking areas shall be 75 feet, with landscaping in accor-
dance with Perimeter Landscaping B, described below. It
may be reduced to fifty (50) feet with the provision of
landscaping in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping C,
described below.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
7. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines
shall be installed underground. This requirement
shall apply to lines serving individual sites as well
as to utility lines necessary within the project.
All junction and access boxes shall be screened with
appropriate landscaping. All utility pad fixtures
and meters should be shown on the site plan. The
necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc.,
should be recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan.
Loading areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings
shall be oriented so as to minimize the view from
project perimeters adjoining any A, R, R-TH, or R-MF
District or any public rights of way.
Architectural treatment. No building facade (whether
front, side, or rear) will consist of architectural
materials inferior in quality, appearance, or detail
to any other facade of the same building. The intent
of this requirement is not to preclude the use of
different materials on different building facades
(which would be acceptable if representative of good
architectural design) but rather, to preclude the use
of inferior materials on sides which face adjoining
property and thus, might adversely impact existing or
future development causing a substantial depreciation
of property values. No portion of a building con-
structed of unadorned cinder block or corrugated
and/or sheet metal shall be visible from any adjoin-
ing property or public right-of-way. Mechanical
equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be
shielded and screened from public view and designed
to be perceived as an integral part of the building.
The finished project shall be in keeping architec-
turally with the quality of construction at
Chesterfield Meadows and/or Stoney Point.
Driveways and parking areas. Driveways and parking
areas shall be paved with concrete, bituminous con-
crete, or other similar material. Surface treated
parking areas and drives shall be prohibited. Con-
crete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drain-
age shall be designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian traffic.
Outside storage areas. Outdoor storage, as permitted
by the underlying zoning districts, provided that all
outdoor storage areas shall be visually screened from
adjacent residential property. Screening shall
consist of either a solid board fence, dense
87-316
evergreen plant materials, or such other materials as
may be approved. All such screening shall be of
sufficient height to screen storage areas from view.
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
8. (a)
~urpose and intent. A comprehensive landscaping
program for the applicant's project is essential for
the visual enhancement of the area; and to protect
and promote the appearance, character, and economic
values of land along the corridor and surrounding
neighborhoods. The purpose and intent of such land-
scaping requirements is also to reduce the visibility
of paved areas from adjacent properties and streets,
moderate climatic effects, minimize noise and glare,
and enhance public safety by defining spaces to
influence traffic movement. Landscaping will reduce
the amount of storm water runoff and provide tran-
sition between neighboring properties.
(b) Landscaping plan and planting requirements.
(i)
A landscaping plan shall be submitted with site
plan approval.
(2)
Such landscaping plan shall be drawn to scale,
including dimensions and distances, and clearly
delineate all existing and proposed parking
spaces or other vehicle areas, access aisles,
driveways, and the location, size, and descrip-
tion of all landscaping materials.
(c) Plant materials specifications.
(i)
Quality. Ail plant materials shall be living
and in a healthy condition. Plant materials
used in conformance with the provision of
these specifications shall conform to the
standards of the most recent edition of the
"American Standard for Nursery Stock,"
published by the American Association of
Nurserymen.
(2) Size and type.
(a)
Small deciduous trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than twelve (12) feet. A mini-
mum caliper of at least two and one-half
(2-1/2) inches at the time of planting
shall be required.
(b)
Large deciduous trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than thirty (30) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least three and one-half
(3-1/2) inches at the time of planting
shall be required.
(c)
Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall
have a minimum height of five (5) feet at
the time of planting.
(d)
Medium shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms
shall have a minimum height of two (2) feet
at the time of planting.
87-317
(d) Landscaping design.
(1)
Generally, planting required by this section
should be in an irregular line and spaced at
random.
(2)
Clustering of plant and tree species shall be
required to provide a pleasing composition and
mix of vegetation.
(3)
Decorative walls and fences may be integrated
into any landscaping program. The use of such
walls or fences, when having a minimum height of
three (3) feet, may reduce the amount of
required plant materials at the discretion of
the Director of Planning.
(e) Tree preservation.
(1)
Preservation of existing trees is encouraged to
provide continuity, improved buffering ability,
pleasing scale and image along the Corridor.
(2)
Any healthy existing tree may be included for
credit towards the requirements of this section.
(f) Maintenance.
(g)
(i)
The owner, or his agent, shall be responsible
for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of
all landscaping materials installed in conjunc-
tion with the development as required in the
landscaping plan (inclusive of new materials).
(2)
Ail plant material shall be tended and main-
tained in a healthy growing condition and free
from refuse and debris at all times. All un-
healthy, dying, or dead plant materials shall be
replaced during the next planting season (inclu-
sive of new plant material).
Arterial frontage landscaping. Landscaping shall be
required along major Route 10 and Route 1 within the
required setback of any lot or parcel and shall be
provided except where driveways or other openings may
be necessary. The minimum required landscaping for
this setback shall be provided as per Perimeter
Landscaping B below.
(h) Perimeter Landscaping C.
(1)
At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet and at least one evergreen tree for
each thirty lineal feet shall be planted within
the setback area.
(2)
At least one small deciduous tree for each
thirty lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(3)
At least one medium shrub for each ten lineal
feet shall be planted within the setback area.
(4)
Low shrubs and ground cover shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout.
OR
(5) A minimum four (4) foot high undulating berm,
AND
(6) Perimeter Landscaping B.
87-318
(i) Perimeter Landscaping B.
(1)
At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet and at least one evergreen for each
thirty lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(2)
At least one small deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet shall be planted within the setback
area.
(3)
At least one medium shrub for each fifteen
lineal feet shall be planted within the setback
area.
(4) Low shrubs and ground cover shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout.
OR
(5) A minimum three (3) foot high undulating berms,
AND
(6) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(j) Perimeter Landscaping A.
(1)
At least one small deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet and at least one evergreen for each
fifty lineal feet shall be planted within the
setback area.
(2)
At least one medium shrub for each twenty lineal
feet shall be planted within the setback area.
(3)
Low shrubs and ground cover shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout.
(k) Landscaping standards for parking areas.
Interior parking area landscaping.
(i)
(a) Any parking area shall have at least twenty (20)
square feet of interior landscaping for each space.
Each required landscaped area shall contain a minimum
of 100 square feet and have a minimum dimension of at
least ten feet. With the provision of this landscap-
ing, parking space size may be reduced to 185.5
square feet. Minimum width shall be 9.5 feet;
minimum length shall be eighteen feet.
(b)
The primary landscaping material used in parking
areas shall be trees which provide shade or are
capable of providing shade at maturity. Each
required landscaped area shall include at least
one small tree, as outlined in this section.
The total number of trees shall not be less than
one for each 200 square feet, or fraction there-
of, of required interior landscaped area. The
remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs
and other vegetative material to compliment the
tree landscaping.
(c)
Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout, located so as to divide and break up
the expanse of paving. The area designated as
required setbacks shall not be calculated as
required landscaped area.
BUFFERS
9. A landscaping plan depicting the required buffer areas,
87-319
types of plants, height of plants, and spacing of plants
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for ap-
proval. On the northwest property line, contiguous with
the cemetery for a length of 550 feet, there will be a
buffer as depicted on the landscaping plan prepared by
LaMarr Bunn & Associates, P.A. There will be a minimum
25' undisturbed buffer with a 25' landscaped berm screened
with staggered evergreens 15' on center, 4' to 5' minimum
height and a 6' wood fence for the remaining length of the
buffer adjacent to the northwest property line. There
will be a 75' minimum building setback (noted as Section
'A'-'A' on exhibit marked Sections).
10.
On the southern property line, contiguous with the de-
tached single family property (Gay Farms) there will be a
35' undisturbed buffer with a 40' landscaped buffer with
staggered evergreens (15' foot on center, 4' to 5' minimum
height) and 6' wood fence. There will be a 125' minimum
building setback (noted as 'B'-'B' on the exhibit marked
Sections).
11.
On the western property line, contiguous with the detached
single family property (Gay Farms) there will be a 25'
undisturbed buffer with a 50' landscaped buffer with
staggered evergreens (15' foot on center, 4' to 5' minimum
height) and 6' wood fence. There will be a 125' minimum
building setback (noted as 'C'-'C' on the exhibit marked
Sections).
12. On the southern property line, contiguous with the mobile
home development, there will be a 15' undisturbed buffer
with a 10' landscaped buffer with staggered evergreens
(15' on center, 4' to 5' minimum height) and 6' wood
fence. There will be a 50' minimum building setback
(noted as 'D'-'D' on the exhibit marked Sections).
TRANSPORTATION
13.
To provide for an adequate area roadway system at the time
of the complete development of this project, the applicant
shall be responsible for the following improvements:
(a)
Construct one additional left turn lane with adequate
storage from Route 10 westbound to Route 301 and 1
southbound. This will provide a double left turn for
the westbound approach.
(b)
Construct one (1) additional lane along the Route 10
eastbound approach to its intersection with Route 1,
from the Fire Station to Route 1.
(c)
Construct a right turn lane along Route 301 and 1
south of the intersection with Route 10 from the
Western Sizzlin to the emergency medical facility.
(d)
Construct an exclusive left turn lane with adequate
storage northbound on Route 301 and 1 at the main
entrance to the proposed shopping center.
(e)
Provide signalization, if warranted, within five
years after a final occupancy permit is issued, at
the two entrances to the shopping center. Said
signalization will include preemptive capabil-
ities by the Fire Department on Route 10.
(f)
Applicant agrees to dedicate to the County of
Chesterfield, 45' of right-of-way from the centerline
of Route 10, and 60' of right of way from the
centerline of Route 1, together with such additional
dedications on its property as may be necessitated by
its proffered road improvements and/or plans for
87-320
scheduled improvements along Route 10 and Route 301
and 1 intersection. Dedication to be accomplished
before issuance of first building permit within
project.
14.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
phasing plan for required road improvements, with support-
ing traffic analysis, may be submitted to the Transporta-
tion Department.
15.
The access points between K and J, and between 0 and P, as
shown on the Master Plan, may be permitted by the Trans-
portation Department prior to schematic plan approval.
16.
The design of the shared access with the Fire Department
shall be approved by the Transportation Department and
Fire Department prior to schematic plan review.
17.
In the event public transportation is ever made available
in the area of the proposed development, buses may use the
parking areas of the development for turnaround purposes.
18. Public Water and sewer shall be used.
19.
If, as a result of the proposed development, additional
fill is placed over the existing sewer line, necessitating
that the sewer be replaced with a pipe of greater
strength, the replacement cost shall be borne by the
developer.
20.
Applicant proffers a maximum of 382,000 gross leasable
square feet of development.
21.
The applicant agrees to submit for schematic plan approval
all development plans for the entire property which is the
subject of these proffers.
22.
The above proffered conditions notwithstanding, the plan
prepared by J.K. Timmons & Associates, P.C., revised
December 18, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan.
23.
The developer shall notify the Gay Farms Civic Association
of the date and place of any schematic plan hearing.
Mr. Daniel stated the test of zoning has been what is contigu-
ous with the request under consideration. He stated this
development, if approved as proffered, will have a positive
impact on existing area development and new development along
the Jefferson Davis Corridor; will enhance the image of Route
1; the design criteria established for this project will
establish a precedent for similar requirements on new develop-
ment and will encourage new development along the corridor to
conform to those standards; the request embodies elements of
quality improvements that the Board subcommittee and land use
plans have addressed, exceeding the minimum requirements that
have been set forth. He stated he appreciated and has consid-
ered the many comments presented by the involved parties. He
expressed concern for those lot owners who feel there has been
a breach of faith by the cemetery management and stated there
is recourse for those individuals but not through a rezoning
decision. He stated the issue before the Board is a land use
decision.
Mr. Applegate stated those persons owning lots in Sunset
Memorial Park expressed concerns regarding no notification of
the proposed development, the question of misrepresentation at
the time of purchasing lots, etc., and those issues require
legal consideration. He stated in arriving at a decision on
the request one would have to discount the legal aspects and
consider only the appropriateness of the proposed use. He
stated the developer has proffered one of the most elaborately
buffered projects he has ever seen; however, he expressed
concern regarding traffic as it relates to ingress/egress on
87-321
Route 10 and its impact on the adjacent fire station. He
stated he felt it is incumbent upon staff and the Planning
Commission to ensure prior to approval that the welfare and
public safety of citizens using that facility have been
protected.
Mr. Jacobson stated the Fire Department will be involved in
reviewing the plan for traffic ingress/egress before the plan
is submitted to the Planning Commission at the time of
schematic plan review.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt this proposal has been given a
great deal of consideration and planning and is a good plan;
that this case is unique and different; and that, during the
public input, the citizens voiced significant concerns, which
indicated the community feels government has a responsibility
to look out for their cemetery and to protect the welfare of
the community; that the lot owners feel betrayed by this
application; that the cemetery is sacred ground; that lot
owners were not notified by either the applicant and/or
cemetery management of the pending proposal even though they
~ave owned lots at this park since 1968; that this issue is an
emotional issue which addresses the heritage of the County and
land considered to be sacred; and that County can not deal with
this issue in that there are no zoning ordinances which address
the treatment of cemeteries in terms of space allotment,
buffering, landscaping, and other aspects of screening cemetery
properties from commercial development and it is the
responsibility of the County government to protect essential
services, such as a cemetery use, that are considered public
human needs and in determining certain land uses for those
services, as well as the citizenry's interests in those
services. She stated she feels the Board has a very special
responsibility in responding to this application.
Mr. Mayes stated he understands the County desires quality
development; however, when human values conflict with the need
for quality development, he favors human values.
Ayes:
Nays:
Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone.
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for five (5)
minutes.
Reconvening:
86S164 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, ROWE PROPERTIES-MIDLOTHIAN
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requested rezoning from Agricultural (A)
and Residential (R-15) to Office Business (0) of 43.72 acres
and to Community Business (B-2) of 0.4 acres plus Conditional
Use Planned Development on this tract and a 3.7 acre tract
currently zoned Community Business (B-2). This request fronts
approximately 530 feet on the north line of Midlothian
Turnpike, approximately 400 feet west of Fairwood Drive. Tax
Map 18-10 (4) Bon Air Hills, Section B, Block G, Lots 1, 2, and
3; Tax Map 18-11 (1) Part of Parcel 2; Tax Map 18-11 (3) Bon
Air Hills, Block E, Lots 35 through 41 and Lots 43 through 47;
Tax Map 18-14 (2) Bon Air Hills, Section B, Block F, Lots 12
through 18; Tax Map 18-15 (1) Parcel 25 and parts of Parcel 1;
Tax Map 18-15 (2) Bon Air Hills, Block E, Lots 48 through 78,
Block F, Lots 1 through 6; Tax Map 18-15 (3) Bon Air Hills,
Section B, Block F, Lots 7 through 11; and Tax Map 28-3 (1)
Parcel 4 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
87-322
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions,
including the addendum, and acceptance of the applicant's
proffered conditions.
Mr. Jay Weinberg, representing the applicants, stated the
recommended conditions, including the addendum, were
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15)
to Office Business (0) on 43.72 acres with Conditional Use
Planned Development, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Higgins & Associates, Inc., dated March 16, 1987,
and the Textual Statement submitted with the application,
shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
The developer shall be responsible for improving any
existing, or constructing any new, facilities necessary to
provide sewage capacity for the development. (U)
(Note: The developer should contact VDOT to coordinate
the extension of sewer with construction of Powhite
Parkway.)
The developer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation showing existing drainage and the
impact this project will have on the site and the sur-
rounding area. The developer shall submit an overall
storm water management and site construction plan to
Environmental Engineering providing for on- and
off-site drainage facilities. These plans shall be ap-
proved by Environmental Engineering and all necessary
easements shall be obtained prior to any vegetative
disturbance. The approved off-site plan may have to be
implemented prior to clearing.
Storm water shall be collected from all developed areas
and placed in surface retention facilities before being
conveyed to off-site drainage conveyance systems. (EE)
No storm water runoff from roads, buildings, or parking
lots shall be directed toward the existing stream along
the northeast property line. (EE)
Disturbance for the purposes of development on slopes
greater than 15% shall be allowed only upon approval by
the Environmental Engineering Department. (EE)
Maximum permissible release rates on the retention/deten-
tion/lake basin shall be based on the capacity of the
existing facilities downstream. The recorded 100 year
backwater and/or floodplain shall not be increased. (EE)
Dams shall be built at an elevation such that on-site
buildings or existing homes downstream would not be jeop-
ardized, should the dam fail. A dam failure analysis
shall be performed and submitted to Environmental
Engineering. (EE)
10.
Prior to the release of any building permits or
recordation of right of way, and/or subdivision plats,
ownership and maintenance of the pond(s) shall be estab-
lished as the responsibility of private entities. An
indemnification agreement shall be submitted to Environ-
mental Engineering to save the County harmless of vectors,
maintenance, and replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon
87-323
completion of construction of the detention facility, it
shall be certified by a professional engineer. (EE)
11.
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri-
an traffic. (EE)
12.
Prior to erection of any signs, a conceptual sign package
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for ap-
proval. The Planning Commission may modify the sign
restrictions of the Office Business (O) District to the
extent that sign proliferation is not encouraged and that
the sign program is uniform. (P)
13.
Surface parking areas shall be landscaped so as to divide
and break up the expanse of pavement. Parking areas shall
have at least ten (10) square feet of interior landscaping
for each space. Each landscaped area shall contain a
minimum 100 square feet and shall have a minimum dimension
of at least ten (10) feet. The total number of trees
shall not be less than one (t) for each 200 square feet,
or fraction thereof, of required interior landscaped area.
The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, ground
cover or other authorized landscaping material. Land-
scaped areas shall be located so as to divide and break up
the expanse of paving. The area designated as required
setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped
area. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review.
Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval within ninety (90) days of
clearing and rough grading. (P)
14. A minimum of a seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be
maintained adjacent to residentially zoned property. With
the exception of public utilities which run generally
perpendicular through the buffer and jogging trails, there
shall be no facilities permitted in the buffer. The
buffer shall consist of features which are sufficient to
adequately screen driveways and parking areas from the
adjacent residential property. A conceptual landscaping
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval in conjunction with
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days
of clearing and rough grading. (P)
15. Ail building mechanical equipment shall be screened from
view of public roads and adjacent properties outside of
the project. (P)
16.
Prior to, or in conjunction with, the first schematic plan
approval, a conceptual pedestrian walkway plan for the
development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval. This plan shall facilitate pedestrian
movements throughout the development. The plan shall be
implemented in conjunction with development of any tract
which adjoins the pedestrian system. Detailed plans for
construction of each phase of the system shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction
with submission of final site plans. (P)
17.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a one
(1) foot exception to the ten (10) foot parking space
width requirement shall be granted for parking spaces
which are located within parking decks, provided that
required handicapped parking spaces shall be a minimum
of 12.5 feet in width. Landscaping shall be accom-
plished around the perimeters of parking decks similar
to landscaping around the perimeters of office build-
87-324
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
ings. Conceptual plans depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. Detailed plans
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
within ninety (90) days of clearing and rough grading. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a 0.5
foot exception to the ten (10) foot parking space width
requirement shall be granted for a maximum of 90% of
parking spaces not located in parking decks. The
remaining 10% of the surface parking spaces, which
shall be included in the first 10% of the required number
of parking spaces for each building and, the required
handicapped parking spaces shall be located closest to the
building. These spaces shall be reserved for visitor
parking only. (Note: Required handicapped parking spaces
shall be a minimum of 12.5 feet in width.) (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
following use exceptions shall be permitted:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Membership club and restaurant with meeting facil-
ities;
Outdoor recreational facilities including tennis
courts, jogging and exercise trails, and outdoor
gathering area;
Food facilities (cafeterias) for use by employees;
Health and wellness facilities;
Nature trails and natural preserves;
Restaurants, when located within office buildings.
(p)
The Master Plan submitted with the application shall be
considered the Master Road Plan. Approval of the plan by
the County does not imply that the County gives final
approval of any particular road alignment or section. (T)
In addition to submission of road construction plans to
VDOT and Environmental Engineering, the plans shall also
be submitted to, and approved by, the Transportation
Department. (T)
Any additional right of way (or easements) required for
identified improvements in the Traffic Impact Study,
"Gateway Centre," prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associ-
ates, dated 3/17/87, 4/8/87, 4/14/87, and 4/15/87
shall, subject to their availability, be dedicated to
and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unre-
stricted. Dedication shall occur in accordance with
the approved phasing plan. (T)
The maximum density of this development shall be 500,000
square feet. (T)
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
phasing plan for required road improvements, with support-
ing traffic analysis, shall be submitted to the Transpor-
tation Department for approval. (T)
Subject to the availability of adequate right of way, the
developer shall be responsible for the following
improvements or modifications thereof, as approved by
the Transportation Department:
(a)
An additional through-lane (i.e., 4th through- lane)
along westbound Route 60 beginning along the front of
Luskins, Inc. property and continuing in a westerly
direction, tieing into the proposed on-ramp for the
northbound Powhite Parkway.
87-325
(b)
An exclusive right-turn lane along westbound Route 60
in front of Luskins, Inc. property into the Eastern
Site Road entrance.
(c)
Full cost for signal installation, if warranted, at
the Hechinger/Route 60/site road intersection. (T)
(d)
The developer shall bear the costs of any right of
way acquisition necessary to accommodate required
road improvements. (T)
26.
Specific roadway improvements, as set forth herein, are
required at the time of full site development and are to
be constructed in accordance with the phasing plan ap-
proved by the Transportation Department. The developer
shall provide the Transportation Department with addition-
al traffic studies upon completion of each phase, if
requested. Roadway improvements shall be increased or
decreased by the developer, as required by the Transporta-
tion Department, if these studies demonstrate that traffic
generation rates and distributions solely by this develop-
ment are materially different, as determined by the Trans-
portation Department from projections set forth in the
traffic study prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates,
dated 3/17/87, 4/8/87, 4/14/87, and 4/15/87. If satisfac-
tory improvements cannot be provided, the Planning Commis-
sion may reduce the permissible densities to the extent
that acceptable levels of service are provided, as de-
termined by the Transportation Department. (T)
And further, the Board accepted the
conditions:
following proffered
No portion of any building or parking lot shall be con-
structed within seventy-five (75) feet of the boundary of
the Office Business (0) property where it adjoins residen-
tially-zoned property.
There shall be no direct vehicular access to or from the
Office Business (0) property to or from the internal
streets of Bon Air Hills Subdivision, including onto
Mayflower Drive.
Parking lot and recreational facility lighting shall be
provided by directional fixtures, which shall be posi-
tioned in such a manner as to minimize the impact of
such lighting off-site and which produces a lighting
intensity of a maximum of one-half (0.5) foot candle at
the boundaries of the Office Business (O) property
where it adjoins residentially-zoned property except as
otherwise required by the Planning Commission at the
time of Schematic Plan review.
No building or parking lots shall be constructed on the
property north of Mayflower Drive or on existing Lots 35
through 40 inclusive, Block E of Bon Air Hills Subdivision
located south of Mayflower Drive.
No outdoor recreational facility, other than jogging or
fitness trails, nor any freestanding restaurants, shall be
located within two hundred (200) feet of the boundary line
of the Office Business (O) property where it adjoins
residentially-zoned property.
Trash dumpsters and loading docks visible from residen-
tially-zoned property adjacent to the Office Business (O)
property shall be properly screened from view therefrom.
The owner of the Office Business (O) property shall give
written notice to the President of the Bon Air Hills Civic
Association (as listed with the State Corporation Commis-
sion of Virginia) on or before submission to Chesterfield
County, Virginia, for schematic plan approval for the
87-326
construction of any buildings on the Office Business (0)
property.
No freestanding structured parking deck shall exceed
twenty-five (25) feet in height within two hundred (200)
feet of the boundary line of the property zoned Office
Business (0) where it adjoins residentially-zoned
property.
And further, the Board approved rezoning from Residential
(R-15) to Community Business (B-2) of 4.0 acres, Conditional
Use Planned Development on this tract plus a 3.7 acre tract
currently zoned Community Business (B-2), and a twenty-five
(25) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot parking setback
requirement along Route 60, subject to the following
conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Higgins & Associates, Inc., dated March 16, 1987,
shall be considered the Master Plan for the Community
Business (B-2) tract. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a twenty
(20) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot parking setback
requirement along Route 60 shall be granted. (P)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the
plan prepared by J.K. Timmons & Associates, dated 3/6/87
for the Community Business (B-2) tract· (P)
Vote: Unanimous
87S010
In Midlothian Magisterial District, BONARCO ASSOCIATES, MR. AND
MRS. WILLIAM A. KLINE, SR., AND H. LOUIS SALOMONSKY requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business (B-2) and
Office Business (O) with Conditional Use Planned Development on
a 40 acre parcel fronting along the north line of Midlothian
Turnpike across from Farnham Drive. Tax Map 16-6 (1) Parcel 7
and Tax Map 16-10 (1) Parcels 6, 7, 8, and 9 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions and
acceptance of proffered conditions.
Mr. Jay Weinberg stated the current zoning request was prompted
by an application by Whitten Realty, property which lies
adjacent and to the east of the subject property, and which
received approval of B-2 zoning with Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit an automobile dealership. He stated, at
the time of consideration of the Whitten zoning, concerns were
expressed that the depth of B-2 zoning was inconsistent with
the adopted Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan;
however, it was noted that a mix of commercial, office and
residential land uses may be appropriate if an overall Master
Plan and zoning proposal were developed for the area bounded by
Route 60, Olde Coach Village, Old Buckingham Road and Falling
Creek. He stated, during consideration of the Whitten zoning,
it was generally agreed that an application would be submitted
incorporating much of the land area. He stated, while the
current application did not include all the property in the
immediate area, it did include the bulk of the land and a
Master Plan was developed which would assure compliance with
the spirit and intent of the land use designations of the
Northern Area Land Use Plan, which established the limits of
office and commercial development, assures proper transition
toward future single family residential development to the
north and minimizes the impact on existing adjacent residential
development. He expressed appreciation to all those indivi-
duals involved for their diligent efforts and cooperation in
the preparation of this request.
87-327
Mr. Mark Sowers expressed concerns relative to the proposed
uses on the northwestern portion of the Community Business
(B-2) tract, indicating that, due to topographical conditions,
it would be extremely difficult to provide effective buffers to
screen the proposed development from Millstone Creek
Subdivision. He voiced opposition to the request but stated
that should the Board decide to grant approval he would request
consideration be given to restricting uses along the western
and northwestern boundaries of the Community Business (B-2)
tract to office development, as well as the buffers along the
western property line, to negate the Planning Commission's
ability to modify these requirements at the time of schematic
plan review.
Mr. Weinberg stated he feels that Mr. Sowers' concerns have
been addressed in that the recommended conditions include-three
specific conditions designed to address his concerns and he had
understood that those conditions were satisfactory to Mr.
Sowers. He stated he could not agree to Mr. Sowers' request
that the Planning Commission not be permitted to allow the loop
road because he has proffered a condition which states public
access must be provided to adjacent properties to the north
through use of the loop road to restrict the use of Old
Buckingham Road. He stated there is a 400 foot distance from
the rear of the nearest home in Millstone Creek Subdivision to
the rear of the nearest building in the proposed development
which, with proper buffering and screening, will effectively
screen and protect the neighborhood from the development.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the recommended conditions, as
outlined in the Request Analysis and Recommendation,
particularly Conditions 19 and 21, which respectively addressed
modifications to the existing crossover(s) to accommodate
adequate left-turn lane(s) and developer responsibility for
one-half the cost of signalization at the intersection of Route
60 and the loop road, if warranted, as well as the proffered
conditions, were acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Weinberg
stated all the recommended conditions, including Conditions 19
and 21, as outlined in the Request Analysis and Recommendation,
and the proffered conditions were acceptable to his client.
Mr. Girone inquired if Mr. Weinberg would object to eliminating
the last sentence of Condition 23. Mr. Weinberg stated that
statement provides the applicant flexibility to present a plan
at the time of schematic plan review, after proper notification
to the appropriate persons, which will take into account the
height of the building, the use, the intensity of the use, the
intensity of the landscaping, etc., and places the onus on the
developer to bear the burden of proof that his development will
be superior before he can vary conditions and if he cannot bear
that burden of proof then the developer should not prevail.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt Mr. Sowers' has legitimate
concerns; however, the recommended conditions are such that his
interests are taken into consideration and protected. She
stated there have been a number of meetings/discussions with
surrounding area property owners and she feels that the
planning of the entire area has been well managed. She stated
she felt this project will be a quality development that will
be compatible with existing development and not adversely
impact the residential environment.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Clower Associates, Inc. dated November 5, 1986,
and the Textual Statement dated November 7, 1986, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
Development shall be limited to the available sewer capac-
ity which is 16.5 persons per acre. (U)
In conjunction with each schematic plan submission, a
report shall be submitted which certifies that there is no
existing underground mine shaft, pit, or cavern which
87-328
10.
would cause ~any detriment or danger to the development.
(SS)
A seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be maintained adja-
cent to Parcel 11 on Tax Map 16-6 and Parcel 10 on Tax Map
16-10. This buffer shall consist of existing vegetation
supplemented with additional vegetation where necessary to
affect property screening.
A minimum of a seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be
maintained along those boundaries reflected on the Master
Plan. The seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall consist of
existing vegetation, supplemented with additional vege-
tation where necessary to affect proper screening.
Buffer widths shall be exclusive of any utility easements.
Fencing may be installed within buffers. Utilities shall
be permitted in buffers, provided they run generally
perpendicular through the buffer. Further, the proposed
loop road and access to adjacent properties may encroach
into the buffer upon approval by the Planning Commission
provided appropriate screening is accomplished on both or
either sides of the road. At the time of schematic plan
review, the Commission may modify the buffer requirements
if adjacent property has been zoned and/or developed for a
nonresidential use.
A conceptual plan depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. Prior to any
clearing or grading, the buffers shall be flagged and
the Planning Department shall be contacted to inspect
the buffers. Within ninety (90) days of rough clearing
or grading, detailed plans depicting these requirements
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval. (P)
Ail buildings and parking areas shall be set back a mini-
mum of fifty (50) feet from Route 60, unless modified by
the Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan
review. The Commission may reduce this setback if, upon
review of detailed plans, they determine that the spirit
and intent of the fifty (50) foot setback can be met in a
lesser width. Within the setbacks along internal roads
and Route 60, ornamental trees and shrubs shall be plant-
ed. AlSo, landscaping shall be installed within parking
areas so as to break up the expanse of parking. A concep-
tual landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed land-
scaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval within ninety (90)
days of rough clearing or grading. (P)
There shall be no outdoor speaker or paging system. (P)
In conjunction with schematic plan review, renderings/ele-
vations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval in conjunction with schematic plan review. All
buildings shall be compatible in materials, color, and
style. Building facades visible to public roads shall
employ decorative masonry and/or glass. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
traffic. (EE)
The developer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation, showing existing drainage and the
impact this project will have on this site and the sur-
rounding area. The developers shall submit a construction
plan to Environmental Engineering and VDOT providing for
87-329
on-site and off-site drainage facilities. This plan shall
be approved by the Environmental Engineering Department
and VDOT, and all necessary easements shall be obtained
prior to any vegetative disturbance. (EE)
11.
Road construction plans for the entire loop road, which
are separate from other plans (i.e., schematic, site plan,
etc.), shall be submitted to VDOT and Environmental Engi-
neering for approval. The plans shall be approved by VDOT
and Environmental Engineering prior to release of any
building permits. Right of way for the loop road may be
dedicated in phases upon approval by Environmental Engi-
neering, VDOT, and the Transportation Department. (EE)
12.
The existing vertical or horizontal configuration of the
100 year floodplain on Falling Creek shall not be altered
by this development unless modified by the Planning Com-
mission at the time of schematic plan review. (EE)
13.
If retention/detention is employed, prior to the release
of any building permits or recordation of right of way
and/or subdivision plats, ownership and maintenance of the
retention/detention basin(s) shall be established as the
responsibility of private entities. An indemnification
agreement shall be submitted to the Environmental Engi-
neering Department to save the County harmless of vectors,
maintenance, and replacement responsibilities, etc. Upon
completion of construction of the detention/retention
basin(s), it shall be certified by a professional engi-
neer. (EE)
14.
The existing 48 inch pipe under Route 60 shall not be
enlarged or supplemented. The storm water management for
the development shall create hydraulic conditioning which
will accommodate development upstream of the culverts
without causing VDOT drainage standards to be exceeded.
(EE)
15.
Improvements downstream of the existing 48 inch culvert
under Route 60 shall be made to those drainage facilities
not capable of meeting County minimum 10 year storm crite-
ria. (EE)
16. Additional pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed
along Route 60 for the entire property frontage. A phas-
ing plan for these improvements may be submitted to the
Transportation Department for approval in conjunction with
the first schematic plan submission. (T)
17.
Access to this property shall be as shown on the Master
Plan. Specifically, other than the loop road, there shall
be no access to Route 60. This condition may be modified
at the time of schematic plan review to allow one addi-
tional access to Route 60. (T)
(Note: This condition
Proffered Condition 5.)
has the effect of deleting
18.
The loop road shall be designed and constructed as a
public road. The public road shall also be designed and
constructed to accommodate future access into surrounding
properties. (T)
19.
The developer shall be responsible for modifications to
the existing crossover(s) to accommodate adequate
left-turn lane(s). (T)
20.
In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission, a
road plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval. This plan shall show right of way, typical
section and points of access. (T)
21. The developer shall be responsible for one-half the cost
87-330
of signalization at the intersection of Route 60 and the
loop road, if warranted. (T)
22.
If requested, a traffic impact analysis for the entire
development shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Transportation Department prior to any schematic plan
approval. (T)
23. Within the Community Business (B-2) tract, development
adjacent to the western and northwestern portion of the
loop road, beyond a depth of 350 feet north of Route
60, shall be restricted to those uses permitted in the
Office Business (O) tract. Further, uses along these
boundaries shall front the internal loop road. This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the time of schematic plan review, if documentation is
submitted which proves that the uses can be adequately
screened from Millstone Creek Subdivision. (P)
24. The architectural treatment of visible portions of the
exterior walls of each building constructed north and
northwest of the loop road shall be similar in archi-
tectural treatment and materials. No such visible
portion of an exterior wall shall consist of untreated
cinder block. (CPC)
25.
Notice of an application for schematic plan review shall
be given to all adjacent property owners. The aforesaid
notice shall be sent certified mail, return receipt re-
quested, to the applicable lot owner of record as de-
termined by the Chesterfield County Assessor's records, at
least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission
meeting to consider such application for schematic plan
review. (CPC)
(NOTE: Prior to obtaining final site plan approval or
building permits, schematic plans must be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval.)
And further, the Board accepted the
conditions:
following proffered
No building within two hundred (200) feet of the western
or eastern boundaries of the property adjoining residen-
tially zoned land shall exceed three (3) stories in
height.
In conjunction with schematic plan review, renderings/ele-
vations shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval.
Parking lot lighting shall be provided by directional
fixtures, which shall be positioned in such a manner as to
minimize the effect of such lighting off-site, and which
produce a lighting intensity of a maximum of one-half
(1/2) foot candle along the boundaries of the property
abutting residential uses. Parking lot lighting shall be
reduced to no more than a security level, following clos-
ing of business operations on the property.
Parking lots constructed on the property shall be land-
scaped, including, but not necessarily limited to, the
planting of shrubbery and/or trees in islands located
within such parking lots.
Vote: Unanimous
87S020
In Matoaca Magisterial District, DOUGLAS R. SOWERS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 92.5
acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the north line
87-331
of Bailey Bridge Road, approximately 3,800 feet southwest of
Quailwood Road, also located at the eastern terminus of Master
Stag Drive. Tax Map 76-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Residential R-9, with acceptance of proffered
conditions 2 and 3 and denial of Residential R-9 and proffered
condition I.
Mr. Doug Sowers stated he accepted the staff and Planning
Commission recommendation. He stated there was an adjacent
property owner present who was not in opposition but wished to
express concerns regarding this request.
Mrs. Henry voiced concerns that if the subject property were
zoned, as proposed, a sewer easement would be needed across her
property. She stated she does not object to the rezoning;
however, she does object to the sewer easement as there already
are several utility easements that cross her property and she
would prefer not to have anymore.
Mr. Micas stated, primarily, it is the obligation of the
developer to reach an agreement with the property owner with
respect to the location of easements; however, if those
communications break down, then government can intervene.
Mr. Jacobson stated the appropriate location of utility
easements is discussed at the time of subdivision review.
Mr. Dodd inquired why the developer is requesting Residential
(R-9) zoning on 10,000 square foot lots for this project. Mr.
Jacobson stated this request was evaluated in relation to other
developments in the general area. He stated Deer Run
Subdivision is zoned R-12 with Conditional Use Planned
Development that would allow lots as small as 10,000 square
feet and Triple Crown Subdivision is zoned R-12 with lots that
range from 12,500 square feet to 29,900 square feet and 15,900
square feet in area. He stated staff is of the opinion that
area development should continue in a similar fashion as Deer
Run and Triple Crown and should transition to larger lot sizes
as the development approaches Bailey Bridge Road.
Mr. Daniel stated existing residential development is zoned
R-15 and R-12 and he felt the requested R-9 zoning was neither
compatible with nor comparable to existing area development and
adjacent subdivisions. He stated this tract of land is large
and, in his opinion, should be zoned Residential (R-15). He
stated he would not be in favor of zoning for anything less
than R-15 on this tract.
Mr. Mayes inquired how R-12 and R-15 zoning are compatible with
R-9 zoning. Mr. Jacobson stated staff is recommending that the
northwestern portion of the property be rezoned Residential
(R-9) with acceptance of proffered conditions that will ensure
compatibility with Deer Run Subdivision, while the southeastern
portion be rezoned Residential (R-15) to a depth of 700 feet
off Bailey Bridge Road to ensure compatibility with adjacent R-15
zoning. Mr. Mayes stated he did not agree with that rationale.
He questioned if the developer was aware of Mrs. Henry's
problem with respect to the sewer easement. Mr. Sowers stated
he had not been aware of the Henry's situation until
approximately thirty days ago. Mr. Mayes stated he did not
look favorably upon situations that would adversely affect the
residents of the Matoaca District. Mr. Jacobson stated the
County is attempting to encourage the provision of water and
sewer for developments where it is feasible as it is in the
best of interest of the County for the future. Mr. Sowers
87-332
stated 90% of the subject property can be provided the
necessary service without obtaining an easement from Mrs. Henry
and if that is what the Board feels is appropriate then he
would seek alternative routes for the easement. Mr. Mayes
inquired if the applicant would offer that as a proffer. Mr.
Micas stated the applicant could not offer that proffer at this
time, however, the Board could decide to defer the request to
allow the applicant and staff to amend the proffered
conditions.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until May 27, 1987, to
review the R-9/R-12/R-15 zoning and the availability of sewer.
Vote: Unanimous
87S021 (Amended)
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOMMERVILLE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION requested amendment to Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 80S092) relative to permitted uses, buffer
requirements, and setbacks in a Light Industrial (M-l) District
on a 38 acre parcel fronting in two (2) places on the north
line of Midlothian Turnpike for a total of approximately 2,200
feet, across from Otterdale Road. Tax Map 15 (1) Parcels 34
and 36 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that his company is
involved in the sale of the subject property, declared a
potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia
Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from
the meeting.
Mr. Jim Hayes, with J.K. Timmons and Associates, stated the
recommended conditions, including the addendum, were
acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
Uses shall be limited to those permitted in the Light
Industrial (M-l) District, plus the following use excep-
tions:
Ail Convenience Business (B-I) uses
Wholesale greenhouses
Carpenter and cabinet shops
Contractors' offices and display rooms
Electrical, plumbing and/or heating shops,
sales and service
Fraternal, philanthropic, and charitable uses
Health clubs
Laboratories
Printing shops
Repair services, except of automobiles
Schools - commercial, trade, music, dance,
business, vocational and training
Tool and equipment rental
Communication studios and stations (not towers)
Exposition building or center, stadiums, arena
Feed, seed, fuel, and ice sales
Recreational establishments, indoor
Veterinary hospitals or clinics
Wholesale trade (P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
east and west property lines where adjacent to residen-
87-333
tially or agriculturally zoned property. No buildings,
parking or other facilities shall be permitted within
these buffers. Public roads and utilities may be per-
mitted through these buffers upon approval by the
Planning Commission at the time of schematic plan
review. At the time of schematic plan review for each
individual lot, which abuts the buffer, a conceptual
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval. This condition may be mod-
ified by the Planning Commission at the time of sche-
matic plan review if adjacent property has been zoned
for a similar use or if it is determined that adequate
buffering can be accomplished in a lesser width.
Detailed landscaping plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval within ninety (90) days
of rough clearing and grading. (P)
(Note: This condition supersedes Condition 2 of Case
80S092.)
At the time of schematic plan review, outside storage may
be permitted by Planning Commission if sufficient documen-
tation is submitted which verifies that the storage area
will be screened from view of public roads and residen-
tially or agriculturally zoned property. (P)
A stub road shall be provided to the adjacent parcel to
the northeast (i.e., Tax Map 15 (1) Parcel 4). (T)
If requested by the Transportation Department, a traffic
analysis shall be submitted for approval in conjunction
with schematic plan review for each site. (T)
Other than the two (2) existing rights of way, there shall
be no other access to Route 60. (T)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a
twenty-five (25) foot exception to the twenty-five (25)
foot interior side yard setback requirement shall be
granted. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Girone.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
87S027
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, SUNCREST DRIVE INVESTORS
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 1.1 acre
parcel fronting approximately 180 feet on the north line of
Hull Street Road, also fronting approximately 289 feet on
Suncrest Drive, and located in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcels 11 and 14
(Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. John Henson, representing the applicants, stated the
recommended conditions were acceptable, with the exception of
Condition 12. He requested that Condition 12, which requires
that access for this development shall be limited to a single
entrance/exit on Suncrest Drive and that this access shall
align with the existing entrance/exit to the adjacent commer-
cial development to the west (County Bank of Chesterfield), be
deleted.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Applegate stated the applicants have attempted to comply
87-334
with the requirement that access to Route 360 be limited by
combining two parcels and proposing shared access to the
adjacent property; however, one of the involved parties is
unable to sign the agreement at this time. He questioned if
the request could be approved contingent upon the applicant
providing staff with a signed agreement for shared access. Mr.
Micas stated the zoning could be approved contingent upon
receipt of a deed of easement for shared access. Mr. Applegate
stated he had no problem with the applicant's proposed plan for
ingress/egress off Suncrest Drive as opposed to staff's
recommendation.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., dated December
22, 1986, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
Signs shall comply with the requirements of the Special
Sign District for shopping centers or similar groups of
buildings in a Community Business (B-2) District.
Landscaping shall be provided around the base of the
freestanding sign. Sign colors and styles shall be
compatible with the architectural style of the build-
ings. Prior to the erection of any signs, a complete
sign package depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines
necessary within the project. All junction and access
boxes shall be screened with appropriate landscaping. All
utility pad fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site
plan. The necessity for utility connections, meter boxes,
etc., shall be recognized and integrated with the archi-
tectural elements of the site plan. (P)
Loading areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings
shall be oriented so as to minimize the visibility of
loading areas from adjacent property to the north or
public rights of way. (P)
Driveways and parking areas. Driveways and parking areas
shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or
other similar material. Surface treated parking areas and
drives shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and gutter
shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways
and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed so as not
to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (P&EE)
Exterior lighting. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination
does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured
at the lot line of the adjoining Agricultural (A) parcel
to the north or public rights of way. Lighting standards
shall be of a directional type capable of shielding light
source from direct view. A lighting plan shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department in conjunction with final
site plan review. (P)
Architectural treatment. The building shall have an
architectural style as depicted in the renderings prepared
by Allen H. Mushinsky, dated 4/23/86. The architectural
treatment of the building shall be such that no building
facade (whether front, side, or rear) consists of archi-
tectural materials inferior in quality, appearance, or
detail to any other facade of the building. No portion of
the building constructed of unadorned cinder block or
corrugated and/or sheet metal shall be visible from any
adjoining property, or public right of way. Mechanical
87-335
equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, shall be
shielded and screened from public view and designed to be
perceived as an integral part of the building. Detailed
renderings depicting these requirements shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction
with site plan review. (P)
The following bulk exceptions shall be granted:
A twenty (20) foot exception to the thirty (30) foot
rear yard building setback requirement along the
eastern property line (adjacent to Tax Map 49-7 (1)
Parcel 10). Within the ten (10) foot setback,
landscaping shall be installed so as to effectively
break up the expanse of the building as viewed from
the adjacent property to the east and along Route
360.
A twenty-five (25) foot exception to the fifty (50)
foot parking setback requirement along Route 360.
Within the twenty-five (25) foot setback along Route
360 and the fifteen (15) foot setback along Suncrest
Drive, the following landscaping shall be installed:
(i)
At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet and at least one evergreen tree for
each thirty lineal feet;
(2)
At least one small deciduous tree
thirty lineal feet;
for each
(3)
At least one medium shrub for each ten lineal
feet; and
(4)
Low shrubs and ground cover dispersed
throughout.
OR:
(1)
A minimum four (4) foot high undulating berm;
and
(2)
At least one large deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet and at least one evergreen for each
thirty lineal feet;
(3)
At least one small deciduous tree for each fifty
lineal feet;
(4)
At least one medium shrub for each fifteen
lineal feet; and
(5) Low shrubs and ground cover dispersed
throughout.
(c) Plant Materials Specifications.
(1) Quality.
Ail plant materials shall be living and in a
healthy condition. Plant materials used in
conformance with the provision of these
specifications shall conform to the standards of
the most recent edition of the "American
Standard for Nursery Stock," published by the
American Association of Nurserymen.
(2) Size and Type.
(a) Small Deciduous Trees. Small deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an average
minimum mature crown spread of greater than
twelve (12) feet. A minimum caliper of at least
87-336
10.
11.
two and one-half (2 1/2) inches at the time of
planting shall be required.
(b)
Large Deciduous Trees. Large deciduous
trees shall be of a species having an
average minimum mature crown spread of
greater than thirty (30) feet. A minimum
caliper of at least three and one-half (3
1/2) inches at the time of planting shall
be required.
(c)
Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall
have a minimum height of five (5) feet at
the time of planting.
(d)
Medium shrubs. Shrubs and hedge forms
shall have a minimum height of two (2) feet
at the time of planting.
(3) Landscaping Design.
(a)
Generally, planting required by this
section should be in an irregular line and
spaced at random.
(b)
Clustering of plant and tree species shall
be required to provide a pleasing
composition and mix of vegetation.
(c)
Decorative walls and fences may be
integrated into any landscaping program.
The use of such walls or fences, when
having a minimum height of three (3) feet,
may reduce the amount of required plant
materials at the discretion of the Director
of Planning.
(4) Tree Preservation.
(a)
Preservation of existing trees is
encouraged to provide continuity, improved
buffering ability, pleasing scale and image
along the Corridor.
(b)
Any healthy existing tree may be included
for credit towards the requirements of this
Section.
A detailed landscaping plan depicting these requirements
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
in conjunction with site plan review. (P)
A five (5) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
northern property line adjacent to Tax Map 49-7 (1) Parcel
12. Except for utilities, which run generally perpen-
dicular through the buffer, a fence and landscaping, there
shall be no other facilities or improvements permitted
within this buffer area. A minimum six (6) foot high,
solid board fence shall be installed along the southern
boundary of this buffer. Between the fence and the north-
ern property line, landscaping shall be installed to break
up the expanse of the fence as viewed from the adjacent
property to the north. A detailed landscaping plan de-
picting these requirements shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review. (P)
Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
Except where necessary for proper entrance geometrics, the
building and parking lot areas shall drain to the storm
sewer paralleling U.S. Route 360. Storm sewer shall be
extended to connect with the existing storm sewer system
87-337
to the east. There shall be no vegetative disturbance of
the site until drainage construction plans have been
approved by VDOT and the Environmental Engineering
Department. (EE)
12.
Additional pavement, curb, and gutter shall be constructed
along Route 360 and Suncrest Drive. (T)
13.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, thirty (30)
feet of right of way measured from the centerline of
Suncrest Drive shall be dedicated to and for the County
of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T)
14. With the provision of landscaping described herein, park-
ing space size may be reduced to 171.0 square feet.
Minimum width shall be 9.5 feet; minimum length shall be
18 feet. Parking areas shall have at least twenty (20)
square feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each
required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100
square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
feet. The primary landscaping material used in parking
areas shall be trees which provide shade or are capable of
providing shade at maturity. Each required landscaped
area shall include at least one small tree of a species
having an average minimum mature crown spread of greater
than twelve (12) feet. Trees shall have a minimum caliper
of at least two and one-half (2-1/2) inches at the time of
planting. The total number of trees shall not be less
than one for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. Any healthy existing
tree may be included for credit towards these require-
ments. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs
and other vegetative material to compliment the tree land-
scaping. Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout and located so as to divide and break up the
expanse of paving. The area designated as required
setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped
area. A detailed landscaping plan depicting these re-
quirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval in conjunction with site plan review. (P)
15.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the Master Plan subject to the conditions stated herein.
(p)
Vote: Unanimous
87S029
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, THE ASHMONT COMPANY
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9)
on an 8.0 acre parcel fronting approximately 490 feet off the
west line of Adkins Road, measured from a point approximately
200 feet north of South Wagstaff Circle. Tax Map 38-8 (1)
Parcel 1 and Part of Parcel 9 (Sheet 14).
Mr. Jacobson stated the
approval of this request.
Planning
Commission
recommended
Mr. Delmonte Lewis, representing the applicant, accepted the
recommendation.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request.
Vote: Unanimous
87-338
87S030
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, WILLIAM E. SCHUILING
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Community Business
(B-2) with Conditional Use Planned Development on a 6.5 acre
parcel fronting approximately 543 feet on the south line of
Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 650 feet east of Johnston
Willis Drive. Tax Map 17-11 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions.
Mr. John Henson, representing the applicant, stated the
recommended conditions were acceptable. He stated the
conditions relative to the public address system, the 140
square foot freestanding business sign, reduction of the buffer
at the rear of the property, and a cross easement agreement
will be address in detail at the time of schematic plan review.
There was no opposition present.
Mr. Applegate inquired as to the feasibility of the cross
easement agreement between the applicant and the adjacent
property owner to the west. Mr. Jacobson stated the intent of
the cross easement is to allow vehicles to travel between the
two developments without traveling along Route 60 and it is
hoped that the cross easement can be designed so as not to
present a traffic hazard.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, P.C., dated January
14, 1987, and the Textual Statement shall be considered
the Master Plan.
2. Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
The storage volume in the 100 year floodplain of Pocoshock
Creek shall not be decreased by this development. (EE)
Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved with con-
crete, bituminous concrete, or other similar material.
Surface treatment shall be prohibited. Concrete curb and
gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all
driveways and parking areas. Drainage shall be designed
so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic. (P&EE)
One (1) freestanding business sign shall be permitted to
identify the use. The signs shall not exceed an area of
140 square feet and a height of thirty (30) feet. The
sign may be illuminated, but shall only be luminous if the
signfield is opaque with translucent letters. All other
signs shall be as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance for
Community Business (B-2) Districts. All signs shall be
similar in color, design, and lighting. Prior to the
erection of any signs, a package showing typical signs
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval. (CPC)
Freestanding lighting shall not exceed a height of
twenty-four (24) feet. All exterior lights shall be
arranged and installed so that the direct or reflected
illumination does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above
background measured at the lot line of any adjoining
residential district or Route 60. Lighting standards
shall be of a directional type capable of shielding light
source from direct view. A lighting plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department in conjunction with
final site plan review. (p)
87-339
10.
11.
12.
The buildings shall be as depicted in the renderings
submitted with the application. (P)
With the provision of landscaping described herein, park-
ing space size may be reduced to 9.5 x 18 feet or 171
square feet. The parking areas shall have at least twenty
(20) square feet of interior landscaping for each space.
Each required landscaped area shall contain a minimum of
100 square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least
ten (10) feet. The primary landscaping material used in
parking areas shall be trees which provide shade or are
capable of providing shade at maturity. Each required
landscaped area shall include at least one (1) small tree
(i.e., a species having an average minimum mature crown
spread of greater than twelve (12) feet and at the time of
planting, a minimum caliper of at least two and one-half
(2-1/2 inches). The total number of trees shall not be
less than one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction
thereof, of required interior landscaped area. The
remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs and other
vegetative material to compliment the tree landscaping.
Landscaping areas shall be reasonably dispersed
throughout, located so as to divide and break up the
expanse of paving. The area designated as required
setbacks shall not be calculated as required landscaped
area. In conjunction with final site plan review, a
detailed landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
No body shop shall be permitted in conjunction with the
automobile dealership. (P)
There shall be no outside public address system. However,
at the time of schematic plan review, this condition may
be modified by the Planning Commission upon submission of
proof that a public address system will not be audible
from residential development to the south. (P)
In conjunction with approval of this request, a twenty-
five (25) foot exception shall be granted to the fifty
(50) foot driveway and parking area setback requirement
along Route 60. Within the twenty-five (25) foot
setback, a landscaped berm shall be installed. The
minimum height of the berm shall be 2.5 feet above the
elevation of the parking area or of Route 60, whichever
is greater. Landscaping shall consist of a mixture of
ornamental trees, shrubs, and ground cover. A concep-
tual landscaping plan depicting this requirement,
including typical sections through the berm, shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. A detailed
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval in conjunction with final site
plan review· (P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
southern boundary of this site. This buffer shall consist
of landscaping having a sufficient initial height, and of
a species which will provide year-round screening, and a
solid board fence. Other than utilities, which run
generally perpendicular through the buffer, there shall be
no other facilities permitted in this buffer. A
conceptual landscaping plan depicting this requirement,
including typical sections through the buffer, shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval in
conjunction with schematic plan review. The Commission
may increase or decrease the buffer width at the time of
schematic plan review if it is determined that a greater
or lesser width can provide adequate screening of the use
from adjacent residential development to the south. A
detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with site
plan review. (CPC)
87-340
13. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement and curb and gutter shall be constructed along
Route 60 for the entire property frontage, as deemed
necessary by the Transportation Department at the time of
schematic plan review. (T)
14.
Access shall be limited to one (1) entrance/exit to Route
60. The exact location of the access point shall be
determined and approved by the Transportation Department
at the time of schematic plan review. (T)
15.
Prior to the release of a building permit, a cross ease-
ment agreement shall be recorded. This easement shall
allow access between the request parcel and the adjacent
property to the west (Tax Map 17-10 (1) Parcel 13). At
the time of schematic plan review, this condition may be
modified if the Commission determines that access between
the two (2) parcels is not desirable. (P)
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit or final site
plan approval, schematic plans must be approved by the
Planning Commission.)
Vote: Unanimous
87S031
In Midlothian Magisterial District, FAST FOX CORPORATION
requested a Conditional Use Planned Development in a Community
Business (B-2) District on a 0.6 acre parcel fronting ap-
proximately 280 feet on the north ~line of Midlothian Turnpike,
across from Grove Road. Tax Map 16-12 (1) Part of Parcel 4
(Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions.
The applicant's representative
conditions were acceptable.
stated the recommended
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
pared by Robert K. Carter, Consulting Engineer, dated
January 13, 1987, shall be considered the Master Plan.
(p)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian access. (EE)
Ail storm drainage shall be directed either to the exist-
ing storm sewer or Route 60. (EE)
Signs shall comply with the requirements of the Special
Sign Districts for individual businesses in a Community
Business (B-2) District. Landscaping shall be provided
around the base of the freestanding sign. Sign colors
and styles shall be compatible with the architectural
style of the building. Prior to the erection of any
signs, a complete sign package depicting these
requirements shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for approval. (P)
The architectural style of the building shall be compati-
ble with the existing buildings located on adjacent prop-
erty to the east. The front, side, and rear walls shall
be constructed with primarily brick and glass. Elevations
87-341
or renderings depicting this requirement shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction
with final site plan review. (P)
No outdoor speaker system shall be audible from the adja-
cent property to the north. (P)
Lighting shall be of a directional type capable of shield-
ing the light source from direct view. A lighting plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
in conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
Within the setback along Route 60, a mixture of ornamental
trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be installed. A
plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final
site plan review. (P)
In conjunction with approval of this request, a ten (10)
foot exception to the thirty (30) foot rear yard building
setback requirement along the northern property line shall
be granted. (P)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance permits the averaging of the
required fifty (50) foot setback along Route 60 with the
existing building set back to the west. Based on infor-
mation available to Staff, the adjacent structure is set
back 35.14 feet, thereby allowing a 42.57 foot setback for
the proposed structure.)
10.
Access shall be limited to an entrance only opposite the
existing crossover at Grove Road and an exit only towards
the westernmost property line. (T)
11.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement and curb and gutter shall be installed along
Route 60 for the entire property frontage. In addition, a
left turn lane, from eastbound Route 60, shall be con-
structed at the existing crossover at Grove Road. (T)
12.
In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning
Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the
Master Plan, subject to the conditions recommended herein.
(p)
Vote: Unanimous
87S044
In Midlothian Magisterial District, R.H. STAPLES requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (0) of 3.4
acres, rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Office Business (O)
of 5.8 acres, plus Conditional Use Planned Development on the
entire 9.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 600 feet on the
east line of Huguenot Road, across from Featherstone Drive. Tax
Map 16-4 (1) Parcels 7, 8, and Part of Parcel 9 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Jacobson stated the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this request, subject to certain conditions,
including the addendum which requires notification of the
President of the Olde Coach Village Civic Association of the
time and date of any schematic plan hearing.
Mr. John Bender stated the recommended conditions, including
the addendum, were acceptable.
There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request, subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan pre-
87-342
pared by Worley Associates, dated February 18, 1987, and
the Textual Statement submitted with the application shall
be considered the Master Plan. Commercial uses, as per-
mitted by the Textual Statement, shall be designed and
located such that they are perceived to be integral with
office development and not a commercial complex. (P)
Except as noted herein, signs shall comply with the re-
quirements of the Special Sign District for shopping
centers, office parks, or similar groups of buildings
in a Office Business (0) District. Individual build-
ings shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign each,
not to exceed five (5) feet in height and ten (10)
square feet in area. These signs shall be positioned
and located so as not to be legible from Huguenot Road.
Landscaping shall be provided around the base of
freestanding signs. Sign colors and styles shall be
compatible with the architectural style of the
buildings. Prior to the erection of any signs, a
complete sign package depicting these requirements
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval. (P)
Utility lines underground. Ail utility lines such as
electric, telephone, CATV, or other similar lines shall be
installed underground. This requirement shall apply to
lines serving individual sites as well as to utility lines
within the project. All junction and access boxes shall
be screened with appropriate landscaping. All utility pad
fixtures and meters shall be shown on the site plan. The
necessity for utility connections, meter boxes, etc.,
shall be recognized and integrated with the architectural
elements of the site plan. (P)
Loading areas. Sites shall be designed and buildings
shall be oriented so as to minimize the visibility of
loading areas from adjacent property lines or public
rights of way. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestri-
an traffic. (P&EE)
Exterior lighting. Ail exterior lights shall be arranged
and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination
does not exceed 0.5 foot candles above background measured
at the lot line of the adjoining Residential (R-7) parcel
and/or public rights of way. Lighting standards shall be
of a directional type capable of shielding light source
from direct view. A lighting plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department in conjunction with final site
plan review. (P)
Architectural treatment. The building shall have an
architectural style as depicted in the renderings prepared
by Worley Associates dated February 16, 1987. The archi-
tectural treatment of any building shall be such that no
building facade (whether front, side, or rear) consists of
architectural materials inferior in quality, appearance,
or detail to any other facade of the building. No portion
of any building shall be constructed of unadorned cinder
block or corrugated and/or sheet metal. Decorative metal
roofs, as depicted in the elevations, shall be permitted.
Mechanical equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop,
shall be shielded and screened from public view and de-
signed to be perceived as an integral part of the build-
ing. Elevations depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in con-
junction with site plan review. (P)
The parking area(s) shall have at least twenty (20) square
feet of interior landscaping for each space. Each re-
87-343
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
quired landscaped area shall contain a minimum of 100
square feet and have a minimum dimension of at least ten
feet. The primary landscaping material used in parking
areas shall be trees which provide shade or are capable of
providing shade at maturity. Each required landscaped
area shall include at least one small tree. The total
number of trees shall not be less than one for each 200
square feet, or fraction thereof, of required interior
landscaped area. The remaining area shall be landscaped
with shrubs and other vegetative material to compliment
the tree landscaping. Landscaped areas shall be rea-
sonably dispersed throughout, located so as to divide and
break up the expanse of paving. The area designated as
required setbacks shall not be calculated as required
landscaped area. A detailed landscaping plan depicting
this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning De-
partment for approval in conjunction with final site plan
review. (P)
Buffers and Setbacks
(a)
A twenty (20) foot exception to the fifty (50) foot
parking setback requirement along Huguenot Road shall
be granted. Within the thirty (30) foot setback,
landscaping, ornamental wall(s), continuous hedge
form(s), and/or other similar treatment shall be
installed so as to minimize the visibility of parking
from property to the west and Huguenot Road. The
exact treatment shall be approved by the Planning
Commission at the time of schematic plan review.
(b)
A ten (10) foot exception to the twenty (20) foot
building setback requirement along the north property
line shall be granted.
(c)
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along
the eastern property line. With the exception of
utilities, which run generally perpendicular through
the buffer, and a fence, located along the western
edge of the buffer, there shall be no other
facilities or other improvements permitted within
this buffer. Existing vegetation within the buffer
shall be supplemented with landscaping and/or a solid
board fence so as to minimize the view of driveways
and parking areas from residential property to the
east.
A conceptual landscaping plan depicting these
requirements shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval in conjunction with the first
schematic plan review. A detailed landscaping plan
depicting these requirements shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval within thirty
(30) days of rough clearing and grading. (P)
Parking requirements shall be calculated on the basis of
4.4 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area for all uses. (P)
Drainage shall be designed to flow to the existing paved
ditches which are contiguous with the property. (EE)
Any driveway crossing of the paved drainage ditch shall be
via a bridge or clear span. The existing paved ditch
shall remain intact and there shall be no culverts in-
stalled in the ditch. (EE)
Public water and sewer shall be used. (U)
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, sixty (60)
feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of
Huguenot Road, and thirty (30) feet of right of way,
measured from the centerline of Green Spring Road,
87-344
15.
shall be dedicated to and for Chesterfield County, free
and unrestricted. (T)
16.
Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, additional
pavement, curb, and gutter shall be installed along
Huguenot Road to accommodate a right turn lane. (T)
17.
In conjunction with the "Future Second Phase" of develop-
ment, access shall be~provided to Green Spring Road. This
requirement may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the time of schematic plan review for the "Future Second
Phase." Phasing and location of this access shall be
approved by the Transportation Department at the time of
schematic plan review for any site located in the "Future
Second Phase" area. (T)
18.
In conjunction with construction of access to Green Spring
Road, additional pavement, curb, and gutter shall be
installed to accommodate turn lane(s) along Green Spring
Road. (T)
The developer shall notify the President of the Olde Coach
Village Civic Association of the time and date of any
schematic plan hearing. (CPC)
Vote: Unanimous
86S148
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ERA HUNT REALTORS requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on an 18.8
acre parcel fronting approximately 795 feet on the west line of
Qualla Road, approximately 130 feet south of Ridgerun Road.
Tax Map 63-7 (1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 21).
Mr. Mayes requested this case be deferred for thirty days since
neither the applicant nor his representative had appeared.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
deferred consideration of this request until May 27, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
12. ADJOUR~R4ENT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
adjourned at 5:45 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 1987.
Vote: Unanimous
ne B. Ramsey
Acting County AdminiStrator
87-345
Ha~ry- G/ Daniel
Chairman