The URL can be used to link to this page

09-28-77 PacketCorn pa 4001 Fitzhugh Avenue Richmond. Va. 23230 Tel: (804) 359-1331 ~;ept~mber 9, 1977 Mr. Robert B. Augustine ~ugustine Insurance Agency P. O. Box 1478 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dear Robert: Re: Board of Kupervisors, Chesterfield County Water/Sewage Insurance Study At the last meetin~ we held with the members ef the Chesterfi.e]~ County Water and Sewage Department it was suggested that we recoup our proposals so that it may be offered to the BOARD for consi~!er~tion. We wantec! to spproach the subject in the following fashion: 1. We speak of general liability coverages and premiums only. 2. Property coverages for the water treatment f~cil~tie~ the sew;~ge treatment plants. 3. Water storage tanks. 4. The two dams being Swift and Falling Creek. Various deductibles were to be considered, and as we euote our price for the above mentioned categories each will be done in a fashion to exhibit the various deductt, bles applicable. The end result wi]] be reached by simply adding up premiums applicable to the various categories. While there is no deductible applicable under the biltty portion we would permit selection of deductibles in categories two, three and four simply because the deductible ]imits may be higher in one instance then another. Also at this time I would like to again caution you that we would feel that it would be consistent with our underwriting practices to provide coverage for both li8bility and property exposures. We would not want to consider just one or the other. SE:P 1 19'/7 -2- We were asked to consider three proposal~ for the liability coverages. The Brandermill project and property damage XCU were excluded. Coverage is quoted as follows: Liability Coverage 1. limit 300/300/5ingle Limit 100/lO0/qingle Limit Annual Premium $36,912 ~.~.,~--~' 28,163 We bad been asked by the committee to offer a third ~uote under the liability section for $1,000,000 limit. To do this necesi- tmtes facing too many problems and Roy Cope, our supervisor in Com- mercial lines has suggested that we go the other route, (i.e. through Atlas). It is felt that they could probably do a better job at the million dollar limit. Property coverages are quoted with the following deductibles: Building and Contents 2.. Amount of Insurance Deduct ible Annual Premium $]2,867,186 $ 50,000 $12,558 12,816,338 100,000 9,381 10,881,342 500,000 7,301 10,881,342 1~000,00C 6,338 Coverage for the tanks is provided as follows: Tanks 3. .~nount of Insurance Deductible Annual Premit~ $2,884,830 $ 50,000 $4,754 2,884,830 100,000 3,565 Cuotations for the two dams referred to earlier ~s item ~4 is as follows: Amount of Insurance D~tms Deduct ible Annual Premium $1,500,000 $ 50,000 $6,750 1,500,000 100,000 6,000 1,500,000 500,000 5,250 -3- The cuestion seems to be which deductible would be more suitable; and I think that this has to be left up to the BOARD to make the decision. Sincerer" ii T. S. Parspns, Jr. Marketing/Representative TSP :cmn UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTEtLFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 II. III. IV. VI. VII. Consideration of liability and property insurance for the water and sewerage systems. Approval of County participation water contracts: 1. W77-82CD Cabin Creek, Section ,'A" $33,069.65 Developer: Newby's Bridge LTD. Partnership Contractor: Alpine Construction Corporation County Cost: $11, 238. 40~~q~~ ~'~,u~J~ ~ Code: 366-11684-8071 ~ ~'~~ Clover Hill Recommend approval Award of contract for the installation of fire hydrants on Chester Road. Bermuda Award of water Contract W76-36C for the replacement of water lines in Matoaca in the amount of $68,907.50 to T & E Construction Co., Inc. Matoaca Request to have T & E Construction Co., Inc. replace water lines in Percival Street at the unit prices bid on Contract W76-36C. Bermuda Request from Meadowbrook West Civic Association for a water meter at reduced cost to be installed at the subdivision entrance. Dale Approval of County participation sewer contracts: 1. S77-25CD 'Loch Braemar, Section "B" $11,796.00 Developer: Braemar Company Contractor: Van Doren Brothers County Cost: $11,796.00 Code: 380-77000-8071 Recommend approval Clover Hill Agenda - Utilities Department Page 2 September 28, 1977 VIII. IX. XI. 2. S77-26CD Trueheart Heights, Section 5 & $36,907.35 Off-site Developer: J. L. Longest Contractor: Piedmont Construction, Inc. County Cost: $13,659.25 Code: 380-77000-8071 Recommend approval Bermuda Consideration of a request from Dominion Tank and Iron Company for an additional $1,400.00 for painting the Chester Tank. Bermuda Consideration of a request from Mr. C. Aubrey Featherston, II, agent for the Brookwood Corporation, for the County to assist in acquiring off-site sewer easements to serve a proposed subdivision just north of Route 147 which adjoins the City/ County line. Midlothian Consideration of the counter-offer to be made to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the purchase of 288 right-of-way at the County Airport Industrial Complex. Dale Miscellaneous Report of developer water and sewer contracts approved and executed by the County Administrator. 4001 Fitzr;ugh Avenue Richmond. Va. 23230 Tel' (804) 359-1331 ~'ept¢',mber 9, 1977 Mr. Robert B. Augu=tine 'Augustine Insuravce agency P. O. Box 1~78 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dear Robert: Re: Board of Kupervisor~, Chesterfield County Water/Sewage Insurance Study At the last meetin~ we he]d with the members of the Chestprfiel4 County WCter end ~ewage Department it was suggested thnt wp r~,c~,p our propes~.ls se that it may be offered to the BOAKD for eons,~dpr:~tion. We wc. nted to ~,pproach the subject in the following fashion: 1. We speak of general liability coverages and premiums onlz. 2. Property coverages for the water treatment faci]$tie,~ and the sewage treatment plants. 3. Water storage tanks. 4. The two dams being'Swift and Falling Creek. Various deductibles were to be considered, ~nd as we cuote our price for the ~bove mentioned categories each will be done in a fashion to exhibit the various deductibles applicable. The end result be reached by simply adding up premiums applicable to the various categories, k%ile there is no deductible applicable under the lia- bility portion we would permit selection of deductibles in categories two, three and four simply because the deductible limits may be higher in one instance then another. Also at this time I would like to again caution you that we would feel that it would be consistent with our underwriting practices to provid¢ coverage for both liability and property exposures. We would not want to consider just one or the other. We were asked to consider three proposal,-~ for the liabi]ity coverages. The Brandermill project and property damage XCU were excluded. Coverage is quoted as follows: Liability Coverage Limit Annual Premium 300/300/Single limit $36,9]2 lO0/]O0/qingle Limit 28,163 We h~d been asked by the committee to offer a third ~uote under the liability section for $1,000,000 limit. To do this necesi- tate~ facin~ too many problems and Roy Cope, our supervisor in Com- mercial lines has suggested that we go the other route, (i.e. through Atlas). It is felt that they could probably do a better jOb at the million dollar limit. Property coverages are quoted wil'h the follo,xin~ deductibles: Buildin~ and Contents Amount of Insur~,nce Deductible Annual Premium $12,867,186 $ 50,000 S12,558 ~2,8] ~,,33~, ~0q,ceo 9,38~ v 1C,881,342 500,000 7,301 10,881,342 Coverage for the tanks is provided as follows: Tanks 3. ~kmeunt of Insurance Deductible Annual Premium $2,884,8.30 $ 50,060 $4,754 · 2,884,830 100, CO0 3,565 Cuotaticns for the two dams referred to earlier a;s item ~,& is as loll ows: .~anount of Insurance $1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Deduct ible 50,000 lO0,OCO 500,000 Annual. Premium $6,750 6,000 5,250 The ouestion seems to be which deductible would be more suitable; and I think that this has to be left up to the BOARD to make the decision. T. S. ParsOns, Jr. Marketing~epresentative TSP :cmm June 30, 1977 LIABILITY INSURANCE FUND S,m~ar7 of Fund Sources From Water Funds From Sewer Funds Less Amt. Borrowed Balance June 30, 1977 $576,328.20 500,000.00 $425,273.00 76,328.20 $501,601.20 FIRE INSURANCE FUND Sure. tory of Fund Sources From Water Funds From Sewer Funds Balance June 30, 1977 $460,708.42 151,893.67 $612,602.09 UTILITIES DEPART~.~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 ITEM NO. II (1) CO~TRACT NUP~ER: LOCATION: W77-82CD DISTRICT: CABIN CREEK: SECTION "A" NEWBY'S BRIDGE LTD. PARTIfERSHIP DEVELOPER: CLOVER HILL CONTRACTOR: ALPINE CONSTRUCTION CORP. COST: TOTAL CONTRACT COST: EST. COUNTY COST: EST. DEVELOPER COST: CODE: $33~069.65 $11,238.40 $21,831.25 366-11684-8071 VICINITY SKETCH UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~EETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 ITEM NO. III Description: Award of contract for the installation of fire hydrants on Chester Road. Dis t r ict: Bermuda County estimated these three (3) fire hydrants could be. installed for $3,750 or $1,250 each. At the June 8, 1977, Board meeting, $3,750 was appropriated from the Unappropriated Surplus of the General Fund (code 111-17150-2920) for the installation of these hydrants. When bids were received the low bid on the installation of these fire h~drants was from William M. 'Harmon in the amount of $5,025. Three (3) bids were received. Fire Chief Eanes recommends that an additional $1,275 be appropriated and the contract be awarded for the installation of the three (3) fire hydrants. If the Board elects to delete any one (1) of the fire hydrants, the contractor agrees to install the two (2) fire hydrants for a total of $3,600. x, 'x. CH~T~ .JOIN'5 / / / I / / / / / / // CHESTER 41 1,00 CARVER .X~//._.X.,._._ii DR COUNTY LAND FILL I ,.,, \\ \ \ / Oo UTILITIES DEPART~[ENT COUi;TY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE !'%ETING OF THE EOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEmbER 28, 1977 ITEM NO. IV Description: District: ~ard of water contract W76-36C for the replacement of water line in Matoaca in the of $68,907.50 to T & E Contruction Co., Inc. Matoaca Base Bid .............. $6'8,907.50 10% Contingencies .......... 6~890.75 Total Encumbered Funds ....... $75,798.25 There are to be 10 fire hydrants installed on this project. Cost of these fire hydrants ..... $9,000.00 10% Contingencies .......... 900.00 General Fund Encumbered Funds .... $9,900.00 I ll'.bq I%C - Zq 2..0' Total Encumbered Funds ....... $75,798.25 General Fund Encumbered Funds .... $ 9,900.00 (code: not available) Utilities Encumbered Fund~ ..... $65,898.25 (code: 380-61000-2340) >5\TOACA AREA WATER LINE REPLACEMENT t OC ATIO__N_ MATOACA VICINITY SKETCH IT~ INSTALL ~ 1 8" asbestos c~em~ water pipe 1,170 L.F. 2 6" asbestos cemen~ water pipe 3,451 L.F. 3 4" asbestos cemen~ water pipe 1,45~ L.F. 4 8" ca~t iron water p~pe Cla~ 90 L.F. 5 ~" cast iron water pipe C18~ 1~4 L.F. ~ 8" valve R.T., 7 &"x 6" tappiug sleeve, tappLog valve R.T., valve box 8 6" valve R.T., valve box and 9 4" valve R.T., valve box and 3 each 20 flre hydrant~ and neceaaary 10 each 25 Pr~ R.C. 250 ~ 0.30 gal/aq yd atone ~68 R.C. 250 ~ 0.30 gal/aq yd, ~gone 26 Pr~e R.C. 250 stye {68 ~ 25 Ibs/mq yd, meal R.C. 250 ~ 0.30 gal/aq ydm, l:one UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 ITEM NO. V Des'cription: Request to have T & E Construction Co., Inc. replace and improve the water lines in Percival Street at the unit prices bid on W76-36C. District: Bermuda This project consist of replacing the old existing 1" and 2" water lines on Percival Street between Dodomeade and Gill Streets with a 6" water line and changing services to the new water line. Estimated project cost .......... $7,670.00 10% Contingencies ............. 767.00 Total Encumbered Funds .......... $8,437.00 (code: 380-61000-2340) The water services are to be changed by County forces. This ;0 o VICINITY "CHESTEF I0 MA P ~"-- 3400' UTILITZES DEPART~fENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE Y~ETING OF THE BOARD, OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 ITEM NO. VI Request from Meadowbrook West Civic Association for a water meter at reduced cost to be installed at the subdivision entrance. District: Dale j! U'T'TT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~EETING OF THE BO~Q OF SUPERVISORS Septemb. er 28, 1977 ITEM NO. VII (1) Contract Number: S77-25CD District: Clover Hill Location: Loch Braemar - Section "B" Developer: Contractor: Braemar Company Van Doren Brothers County Cost: ~$11, 796, 00 :T'o. tal Cost:$ 11~796.00 Code: 380-77000-8071 UTILITIES DEPARTmeNT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD nGm~',DA FOR THE ~mm~i~o OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 ',' . (2) ITEM ~,0 VII Contract Number: S77-26CD District: Bermuda Location: Trueheart Heights - Section 5 & Offsite Developer: J.. L. Longest Contractor: Piedmont Construction, Inc. County Cost: $13~65.9.25 Code: 380-77000-8071 Total Cost: $ 36~907.35 UT ILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 ITEM NO: VIII Recommend approval of Dominion Tank and Iron Company's request for an additional $1,400.00 for painting the Chester Tank. The paint specified in the bid price was not acceptable to E.P.A. and paint approved by the E.P.A. cost approximately $4.00 per gallon more. District: Bermuda UTILITIES DEPARTME~NT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF %]{E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 ITEM NO: IX A letter from Mr. C. Aubrey Featherston, II, agent for the Brookwood Corporation, requesting County assistance in acquiring off-site sewer easements to serve a proposed subdivision just north of Route 147 which adjoins the City/County line. We recommend approval subject to the Board of ~upervisors entering into a contract with the Developer whereby the Developer agrees to pay all costs in obtaining the sewer easement. Also, it appears that the Developer has made a reasonable attempt to obtain this easement. See Attached Letter District: Midlothian Consultant/Planner Land Development Drainage Studies Feasibility Reports c. aubrey featherston !1 professional land surveyor September 15, 1977 · ~/~ '47 25105 Mr. William Wright County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia, 23832 Re: Request for Sewer Easements Dear Bill: Gene Williams and Doug Farr, of Brookwood Corporation, have been negotiating for easements across Parcel #9-6-(1)-3 with the owner, Mr. John Orgain III. Mr. Orgain indicated that he would agree to release the easement for $125,000.00. We did not feel that this was a reasonable amount. We have tried for the past month and a half to reach an agreement, but Mr. Orgain has not responded. On August 31, our attorney drew up an agreement and we met with Mr. Orgain and presented this contract to him. The contract we offered is enclosed with this letter. We felt that $10,000.00 was a more than reasonable sum. Mr. Orgain has never responded to the contract. I have also enclosed sheet 9-6 from the Tax Assessors Office. It clearly shows the subject parcel. If there was any other way to serve the watershed we would pursue that course. However, the natural watercourse and existing sewer are to Mr. Orgain's property and we have no other alternatives. We have made numerous efforts to come to an agreement with IRt. Orgain, but feel that $125,000.00 is not a reasonable amount for 1,100 feet of easements. We therefore, request that the County of Chesterfield, acquire the easements necessary along this natural watercourse, so that orderly develppment can continue in this area. If there are any questions concerning this request, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Yours tr~u4~ . C. AubreyX-F~erston II CAF/bpf cc: Gene Williams Encl: (2) ITEM NO. X UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE ~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 SUBJECT: Consideration of the counter-offer to be made to the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation for the purchase of 288 right-of-way at the County Airport Industrial Complex - Dale District. As directed by the Board by resolution on July 27, 1977, I have met with the County Assessor, Director of Community Development and County Attorney to arrive at a counter-offer to the Highway Department for the purchase of the 288 right-of-way in the County Airport Industrial Complex. After careful consideration we arrived at the following figures: Land in Industrial area Difference in gas line easement Land adjacent to Rt.~10 Damage to Residue Rt.~10 11.72 AC @ $15,000/AC 0.23 AC @ 0.66 AC @ 27.7 AC @ 20,000/AC 20~000/AC 20,000/AC 554,000 X 20% damage TOTAL $175,800 4,600 13,200 44,320 $237,920 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD AGENDA FOR THE IfEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 28, 1977 ITEM NO. XI (1) Report of developer water and sewer contracts approved and executed by the County Administrator: W77-83D Beaufont Mall Shopping Center Developer: Beaufont Investment Corporation Contractor: Bass Construction Company $2,500.00 Midlo thian o W77-84D Brandermill Club House Developer: Brandermill Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors $4,319.00 Clover Hill W77-75D Glen Wood, Section "B" Developer: Newby's Bridge Associates - A VA Partnership and Richard N. Nelms - General Partner Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Co., Inc. $5,437.50 Clover Hill W77-85D Seaboard Coast Line Industrial Park Developer: Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. Contractor: F. G. Pruitt (I.P.K. Excavating) $17,636.00 Bermuda o W77-73D Salem Woods, Section "B" Deverloper: Diversified Development Corp. Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors $21.000.00 Dale W77-40D William Gwyn Estates, Section "A" Developer: W. G. Speeks Contractor: Lewis H. Easter & Co. $14,465.20 Clover Hill S77-68D Colonial Pines, Section "A" Developer: Colonial Pines, Inc. Contractor: Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. $84,489.15 Matoaca CHEST E R FI E L D CO~ NTY BOARD Of SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT:- Consideration of Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Issue COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Detailed information will be provided on Monday, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - ATTACHMENTS: - E] YES ~J] NO SIGNATURE:_ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: The.HOnorable Board of Supervisors Nicholas M. Meiszer, County Administrator September 26, 1977 Background Information for Agenda Item 3, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds I have attached several items which are background information for the issuance of Water and Sewer Bonds. We have indicated the three options which are open to the Board and recommended one for your consideration, The total authorization for Water Bonds is $9,000,000 of which $5,000,000 should be issued immediately and the remaining $4,000,000 at the most opportune time in the near future. The Board will be free to designate specific projects from these funds. The' Sewer Bond proceeds will be used entirely to finance the County's portion of building the Falling Creek Treatment Plant. The County must provide matching funds in order to obtain the federal grant for this project. We have provided some information on the County.-wide growth rate for .both water and sewer, showing actual growth from 1970-1977 and projected growth until 1981. Should it become necessary, we can relieve the pressure on the Falling Creek Plant by pumping effluent to the Proctor's Creek Plant or to the City of Richmond's Plant. There are substantial cost differences and the benefit is minimal but circumstances could require serious consideration of this alternative. Attachments CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SEWER AND WATER BONDS WATER $2,380,227 outstanding in unpaid, water revenue bonds with a coverage ratio of 1:4 and with various interest rates from 3% to 4% Water rates effective July 1, 1977 will permit borrowing of up to $9,000,000 while continuing to meet the 1.4 coverage test. Options: 1. Refund existing bonds and issue additional bonds with a lower coverage ratio: undesirable because of favorable existing interest rates. 2. Close off existing water revenue bonds and issue junior lien series of additional bonds: apparently not permitted under existing bond resolutions. 3. Issue as soon as possible an additional $5,000,000 in water revenue bonds on par with the eXisting bonds with a 1.4 coverage ratio. (Assumes that with the additional debt service we 'would still meet the 1.4 coverage test for the last two fiscal years). The Utilities Department will probably want to issue the additional $4,000,000 of revenue bonds at some time in the near future. Recommendation: Recommend Option ~3. Likely to be the quickest and cheapest alternative, although at some point, a total additional amount that can be borrowed under existing bonds will be reached. SEWER $24,062,250 in outstanding "double-barrelled'' general obligation bonds with interest rates ranging from 3% to 6%. $1,800,000 Brandermill Bond Anticipation Note at 8%% interest rate to be converted into 20 year revenue bond at 8%% interest rate. Current sewer rates were estimated to permit issuance of $3,000,000 in "GO" bonds now and $2,000,000 in "GO" bonds two years from now. 'Qp'tions: Issue $3,000,000 or $5,000,000 in double-barralled general obligation bonds as soon as possible by calling a special election: most inexpensive approach but requires voter approval in referendum. Issue $3,000,000 in revenue bonds pledging the revenues from a portion of the County sewer system as was done for the Brandermill issue: not recommended because most expen- sive approach and leads to further compartmentalization of the County sewer system. Begin issuing a new series of revenue bonds pledging the revenues of the County sewer system. The initial amount borrowed would be $5,000,000 with 'an estimated coverage rate of 1:25 to 1:4 and an estimated interest rate of 6% to 7 3/4%. Keep in mind that the consultants' sewer rates were based on relatively inexpensive general obligation bonds and this approach might necessitate a rate increase. Re comme'nda tio n: Proceed with a referendum to issue $5,000~000 in general obli- gation sewer bonds, however, if the issue is voted down~ pro- ceed with Option ~3. The Board might consider refunding the Brandermill revenue bond from additional borrowing. Refunding bonds do not require the voters' or court's approval, although the issue must be approved by the State Commission on Local Deb t. Exhibit 1¥-2 MAJOR CAPfTAL IMPROVEMENTS Water Utility IV. I. 1976-1977 Centralia Road (Centralia Gardens to Route 144) ............... Matoaca Area (Stuart, Mahone, Hill, etc. ) W75-31GD Dutch Gap Tank, including drain lines and piping Miscellaneous [Projects ................... Land Acquisition for Salem'G~urch fnd Penmar t~p Stat;o~ ........ Matching Funds Route 147 from Route 60 to Old Coach Village MisceLlaneous (Powderham, Glenwood, Penwood, etc. $ 35,000 150,000 Total Matching Funds Total Water Improvements 1977-1978 Buford Road l:hlrnp Station and Elkhardt Pump Station (Additional Capacity) ......................... Cenito Road Area (High Pressure from Courthouse Road) .......... Providence Road Water Line Harrowgate Road Area Water Line (Parallel Water Line) Matching Funds for Oversize Water Mains Total Water Improvements 1978-1979 Transmission Line (BO-inch) from Appomatox to Courthouse Area (one-half of Project Cost) ..................... Penmar lZhlmping Station Matching Funds for Oversize Water Mains Total Water Improvements 1979-1980 Transmission Line (30-inch) from Appomatox to Courthouse Area (one-haH of Project Cost) Salem Church Pump Station__ .................... Roams Road Connection (Archwood tl GateWo°d) . . ............ 1Matching Funds for Oversize Water Mains ................. Total Water Improvements 1980-1981 Connector Line (Route 10 from Airport to Wilmoth Road) Improvements West of Matoaco, including tank Matching Funds .......... ~ Total Water Improvements $ 114,000 60,000 450,000 zoo;ooo 20,000 185~000 $1,029,000 $ 60,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 150~000 $ 710,000 $1,684,000 500,000 150~000 $2,334,000 $1,684,000 300,000 48,000 150~000 $2, 182,000 $ 186,000 1,857,000 150~000 $2, 193, 000 TOTAL FIVE-YEAR PLAN ..................... $8e448t000 Exhibit II- 2 l~age 1 of 2 MA3OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Sewer Utility 1976-1977 Revenue Sharing Projects: S74-43C Div. 2 Sonthaven Sewer ................... S73-33T Div. B Timsbury Collectors ................. · S76-34CD Bexley Sewer ....................... S74-39T Sheringham Drive Sewer ................... 6511-7A River Road Collectors West of Matoaca ............ Additional Projects Authorized by Board: Bon Air Hills ............................ Dwayne Lane ......... 7032-ZB Div. B Crestwood Farms ................. S76-28T Pocoshock Boulevard and Surrywood ............. Obligated Projects: 7032-18A Kingsland Creek Trunk from Bellwood Lagoon to Route 1 .... Colonial Heights Pumping Station Petersburg Treatment Plant .............. 7032-23B Johnson's Creek Pumping Station .............. 7032-23A Johnson's Creek Force Main ................ S74-35T Johnson's Creek Trunk ................... S73-IT Gravel Brook Subdivision .................. Promised by Board of Supervisors: 7032-2B Crestwood Farms-Jahnke Place Projects (Other Than Federal Aid) Under Contract: 573-27T Swift Creek Trunk from Route 360 to Bailey Bridge ....... S73-33T Div. A Timsbury Collectors .................. S74-42C Kingsdale Road Collectors .................. Falling Creek l&I Evaluation ..................... Federal and State Aid Projects Under Contract: S73-Z6T Redwater Trunk to Proctors Creek and Proctors Trunk to Treatment Plant ................ 7032-5B Proctors Creek Sewage Treatment Plant ........... 7032-17A Kingsland Creek Trunk from Proctors Treatment Plant to Bellwood ................ . . . 7032-17B Kingsland Creek Trunk from Proctors Treatment Plant to Bellwood ................... 7032-12 Proctors Trunk-Redwater to Route I ............. 7032-14 Proctors Creek-Chester Road to Centralia Creek ....... 7032-15 Harnlin Creek from Proctors Creek to Chester Lagoon ..... 7032-24 Old Town Creek Trunk' from Lagoon to Colonial Heights ..... Projects Held in Escrow: 576-1C Cattle Run Subtrunk to gan Cou?t ........... · .... 6511-2Z Garland Heights Sewer .................... S76-2T Deerfield Sewer ....................... S76-1C Osborne, gan Court and Shady Springs ............. S76-3T Chester Sewer ........................ 7032-27 Chester Sewer ....................... $ 214,000 140,000 90,000 30,000 474,000 $ 52,600 33,600 89,400 284,200 $ 459,800 $ 236, 300 117,000 125,000 488,000 738,000 555,300 295,000 $ 2,554,600 $ 194, 000 600,000 205,000 80, 000 30, 000 915, ooo $ 300,000 300,000 280,000 700,000 550,000 200,000 289,200 300,000 $ 2,919,200 ~ $ 250,000 412,300 610,900 1,419,300 844,300 974,500 $ 4,511,300 Exhibit II- 2 Page 2 of 2 MAJOR CAPITAL IMpROv~--M~-NTS Sewer Utility .H. III. IV. Ye 1976-1977 (continued) HUD Contracts: 7032-28 Ampthill Gardens Collectors ................. $ 104,400 S74-33T Wagstaff Circle ....................... 130,000 S75-24T Aldridge Avenue ...................... 90,000 $ 324,400 Federal Aid Projects Not Under Contract: 7032-5 Proctors 4-mgd Sewage Treatment Pla~t (F.A.) ......... 3,418,000 Matching Funds: Oversize and Off-site Improvements Total Sewer Improvements 1977-1978 Federal Aid Projects Not Under Contract: 7032-5 Proctors 4-mgd Sewage Treatment Plant (F.A.) M~tching Funds: Oversize and Off-site Improvements T~tal Sewer Improvements ....................... 1978-1979 Federal Aid Projects Not Under Contract: 7032-5 Proctors 4-mgd Sewage Treatment Plant (F. A. ) Matching Funds: Oversize and Off-site Improvements Total Sewer Improvements ....................... 1979-1980 Federal Projects - Future: Falling Creek Treatment Plant Addition eeeleee, eeeeeteee 1V~tching Funds: Oversize and Off- site ImProvements Total Sewer Improvements ....................... 1980-1981 Federal Projects - Future: Falling Creek Treatment Plant Addition Matching Funds: Oversize and Off- site Improvements Total *ewe r Improvements 200~ 000 $15,970, 300 $ 3,460,000 200t 000 $ 3,660, 000 $ 760,900 200t 000 $ 960, 9OO $ 6,650,000 200~ 000 $ 6,850,000 $ 6, 000, 000 200,000 $ 6, zoo, ooo TOTAL FIVE YEAK PLAN - ' $33 641 200 Appr. oved for the Prime Sponsor By (Signature) (SEAL) W. S. Dewhirst Acting County Manager (Name and Title) (Date) Approved by the Subcontractor By (Signature) E. Merlin O'Neill Chairman Chesterfield Board of Supervisors (Name and Title) County (Date) I, W. G. Broaddus , the County Attorney , forHenrico County , certify that W. S. Dewhirst , ~vhose signature appears above, has the legal authority under State and local law to enter into this Subcon- tract. Signature Date (SEAL) I, .qt~v~ M{nas , the Co~1~ ~y Attnrnoy forChesterfield County , certify that E. Merlin O'Neill , whose signature appears above, has the legal authority under State and local law to enter into this Subcontract. Signature Date (SEAL) HENRICO-CHESTERFIELD-HANOVER CETA CONSORTIUM SL"~';ONTRACT BUDGET STATEI'""%NT It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for performance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of Re budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part of this Subcontract. III. Subcontractor Chesterfield County Program Title Consolidated Title I Program Budget Statement for Period ADMINISTRATION Elements Oct. ]: ]976 - Sept. 30, 1977 A. Wages (staff) B. Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. Electricity J. %Vater & Sewerage K. Other SUBTOTAL ALLOWANCES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL WAGES Elements A. Enrollee Wages SUBTOTAL Sub contract No. 51 - 7 - 203 - 10 - 04 Title of Funds Title I Function as indicated on sub- budgets BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A ~UDGET .. $113,492 $113,492 -5- CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COSTS YEAR 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 1980 ITEM Prepare plans and Specs for construction of 18,400' fo 16" water line from Turner Road to new Airport Storage Tank - complete 1979 Prepare plans and specs for construction of 18,400' of 16" water line from Church and Hanes Road to new Matoaca West Storage Tank-vicinity of Graves and River Road - Complete 1978 Prepare plans for 2000' section of 30" pipe from ARWA plant to Church and flanes Road. Complete 1978 Prepare plans and specs for construction of 1MGD Storage Tank -?~vicinity of Graves and River Road .Complete 1979 - Matoaca West Prepare plans and specs for construction of 2 MG storage tank vicinity of Airport - Complete 1979 Prepare plans and specs for construction of 2 MG storage tank vicinity of Dutch Gap - complete 1979 Complete 7,500' - 16" line in Providence Road - complete 1979 Prepare plans and specs for construction of 73,600' of 30" transmission main from ARIVA to Airport Tank - Complete by 1981 PFepare plans and specs for 25,000'._24,, p~rallel to 8" from Dutch Gap to Defense General Supply Center Complete 1982 ESTIMATED COST $ 552,000 §52,000 118,000 200,000 350,000 350,000 225,000 4,342,000 950,000 1980 1981 Plans and Specs for S,000' - 16" frbm PRV @ East Hundred Road to Enon Church Road - Complete 1981 Plans and Specs for 1S,O00' of 24" fn Route 10 from Lewis Road to Chester - Complete 1982 150,000 570,000 1982 1982 1983 Prepare plans and specs for 28,400' extension of 24" through Brandermit-~'~o Route 60. Complete 16" line in Huguenot Road - 4,000' Prepare plans and specs for 1MG Storage Tank in the vicinity of Bermuda Hundred and Route 10 'Complete 1983 1,349,000 120,000 200,000 - 48 - TABLE X~ (Continued) Construction Schedule and Costs YEAR ITEM ESTIF~TED COST 1988 1989 1990 Prepare plans and specs for 2 MGD expansion of Swift Creek Plant - Complete 1991 Prepare plans and specs for 30" line'.'paralleling 30"- 75,600' ARWA - Centralia Road - ComPlete 1992 Pr6pare plans for booster pump station from Airport Storage Tank to Elkhardt Road Ground Tank $,000,000 4,994,000 200,000 TOTAL - $18,222,000 - 49- COUNTY-WIDE GROWTH RATE (A) PAST. July 1, 1970 July 1, 1977 WATER SEWER 11,573 4,571 23,255 13,066 (C) PROJECTED GROWTH WATER 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 SEWER 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 CONNECTIONS UNITS 1473 2166 1473 2166 1473 2166 1473 2166 CONNECTIONS UNITS 1259 2020 1260 2021 1259 1920 1260 1921 NOTE: Projected growth taken from R. W. Beck and Associates Rate Study 9/26/77 id Cost of Pumping from Falling Creek STP to Proctors Creek STP Propose to use pumps and motors from Pocosham Creek Pump Station. Pumping Capacity approximately 1MGD Cost Estimates: Remove pumps & motors & repair Remove Pump controls from Pocosham Pump Station and install in Falling Creek STP Pour concrete base for pump Adjust Jack Shaft Install steady beam for jack shaft Knock hole in wall for force main Install F.M. piping in dry well incl.hangers & blocking Bore 1-95 - 200' @ $100 Misc. fittings Sub. Total 4 air relief valves @ $1,500.00 14,000' - 14" D.I. Force Main @ $18.50 ($11.00 pipe cost + $5 installation + 2.50 cir. etc.) Engineering Easement plats Easements Total If flow is pumped to Richmond instead of Proctors Creek, the cost for installing pumps would be the same, pumping capacity would increase slightly and the distance would be less. Cost Estimates Pump installation 6600' - 14" D.I. Force Main @ $18.50 2 air relief valves @ $1,500.00 Engineering Easement Plats Easements $ 4,000.00 2,500.00 2,000.00 300.00 1,000.00 400.00 5,000.00 20,000.00 4~000.00 $ 41,200.00 6,000.00 259,000.00 306,200.00 16,600.00 4,200.00 10,000.00 337,000.00 $ 41,200.00 122,100.00 .... 3,000.00 $ 166,300.00 $ 9,000.00 2,0D0.00 5~000.00 Total .... $ 182,300.00 MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact ~9.2-2 of the Chesterfield County Subdivision Ordinance of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, as Amended, Relating to the Requirement of a Second Public Road Access COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Since this is a Public Hearing, no recommendation is made until additional information can be provided° SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The Public Hearing relating to the Proposed Ordinance was deferred from the August 24th meeting. ATTACHMENTS:- [~] YES r"] NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTRAT~,~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT §972~2 OF THE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1975~ AS ~MENDED, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SECOND PUBLIC ROAD ACCESS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That §9.2~-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Code of the County of Chesterfield~ 1975~ as amended~ is amended and reenacted as follows: §9 2-2 Arrangement a. All streets shall be properly integrated and coor- dinated with existing streets, and the proposed system~of streets within and contiguous to the subdivision, and dedicated rights-~°f-way as estab- lished on the General Plan of the County of Chesterfield, as amended, b. All thoroughfares shall be properly related to special traffic generators such as industries, business districts, schools, churches, and shopping centers; to population densities; and to the pat- tern of existing and proposed land-uses. c. Local streets shall be laid out to conform as much as possible to the topography, to discourage use by through traffic, to permit efficient drainage and utility systems and to require the minimum number of streets necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property. d, The rigid rectangular gridiron street pattern need not necessarily be adhered to, and the use of curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, or U-shaped streets shall be encouraged where such use will result in a more desirable layout. e. Proposed streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided, unless pre- vented by topography or other physical conditions, or unless in the opinion of the Planning Commission such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts. f. In business and industr.ial developments the street~ and other accessways shall be planned in connectio~ with the grouping of buildings, locations of rail facilities, and the provision of alleys, truck loading and. maneuvering areas, and walks and Bark- ing areas so as to minimize conflict of movement between the various types of traffic, including pedestrian. Ail subdivisions shall provide for a second public road access' prio'r to the recordatfon of any sub- division' plat if the cumulative total' of the lots in that' subdivision'is in excess of 59 lots In ~d~ition, the' County shall not issue more than 50 buildin'g pe~rmits in any' subdivision until the sub- divider or developer completes construction of an approved second public road access. MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESYE RFIELD COIJNtY BOARD Of sUPeRVISOFI$ September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: o To Consider Modifications to the Fiscal 77, Title I Program Subcontracts COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Under the provisions of the subcontract, the Henrico-Chesterfield- Hanover CETA Consortium will reimburse Chesterfield County in-an amount not to exceed $171,029 to be paid from federal funds. This contract modification increases previously obligated funds by $29,755. Copies of the contract will be available at the meeting for your review. ATTACHMENTS: - ri YES r~ NO SIGNATURE: UNTY ADMINISTRATO~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY 01. Ht 3/ ICO HENRICO-CHESTERFIELD-HANOVER CETA CONSORTIUM W. E. COLEMAN Admlnlsfra'~or August 31, 1977 Mr. Nicholas M. Meizer County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Meizer: Enclosed for your review are three copies of modifications to your Fiscal 77 Title I Program Subcontracts. Please obtain the signature of the Chairman of the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors and coordinate with the county attorney. If you will return all three copies to my office as soon as possible, I will obtain the signature of the Henrico County Manager and return fully executed copies to you within the near future. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, W. E. Coleman SL/jwc Enclosures 565l South Laburnum Avenue, Richmond, Va. 23231 Area Code 804-226-1941 August 31,.1977 Mr. Nicholas M. Meizer County Administrator ............ Chesterfield County Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Meizer: Enclosed for your review arc.three copies,of modifications to your Fiscal 77 Title .I.,Program.Subcontracts.. Please obtain the signature of-the.Chairman.of~theChesterfield Board of Supervisors and,,coordinate with.the~county.attorney. · If you will return all three.copies.to my office as soon as possible, I will obtain ,the,signature of the.Henrico County Manager and return fully,execut&d copies.to you~within,the near future Thank you for your cooperatiou .... If you haveany questions, please contact me Sincerely, ~ W. E. Coleman SL/Jwc ..... Enclosures Augus~ 31,.1977 ~. Nicholas M. Meizer County Administrator Chesterfield County Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Mr. Meizer: ..... Enclosed for your review~are three coptes~of modifications to your Fiscal 77 Title I Program. Subcontracts. Please obtain the signature of..the.Chairman~ofthe~Chesterfield Board of Supervisors and~coordinatewith.thecounty~.attorney. If you will return all three~copies.to my office as soon~as possible, I will obtain the~signature of the Henrico County Manager and return fully,execut&d~copies to you within.the near future ....... Thank you for your cooperatiom.. If you havaany questions, please contact me ....... Sincerely,, SL/Jwc Enclosures W. E. Coleman I/Y] of[i-J] SUBCONTRACT SIGNATURE SHEET Subcontract No. 51r7r203-10-04 lV~odification No. 1 Prime Sponsor Henrico-Chesterfield- Hanover CETA Consortium 5651 S. Laburnum Ave. Richmond, VA 23231 Subcontractor Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Chesterfield Courthouse Chesterfield, VA 23832 This Subcontract is entered into by and between the Henrico-Chesterfield-Hanover CETA Consortium, hereinafter referred to as the Prime Sponsor and Chesterfield County, Board of Supervisors hereinafter referred to as the Subcontractor. In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the Subcontractor hereby agrees to perform the functions set forth under the terms and conditions established in this Subcontract and the Prime Sponsor hereby agrees to pay the Subcontractor allowable costs incurred in the performance of this Subcontract, in an amount up to but not to exceed $ 171, 029 to be paid from Federal funds received. This Subcontract consists of the Signature Sheet, Budget Statements, a %Vork Statement, .General and Special Provisions, and Assurances and Certifications. Ae Obligation (1) The. Prime Sponsor shall reimburse the Subcontractor from its current CETA Grant 1977. 51-7-203-10 Year No. in an amount not to exceed $ 171~029 -1- This an'~ount will rebnburse tlc Subcontractor for 'formal;cc dur' ~, thc period~h~l,,,]9~ .... throug]', SeRtember 30, 1977 The Prince Sponsor shall obligate fox- thc Subcontract the follow,ring an]ounts specified by title and fiscal year: t~is cal Year TOTAL Title I Title II .Tl_t.~_e._I_I..l Title VI :tOTAl, 171,029 .... $1-7-1~2~J (4) The Prime Sponsor shall reimburse the Subcontractor from its fiscal year .N/A CETA grant in an anaount not to exceed $ N/A (5) This amount will reimburse the Subcontractor for performance durin§ thc period N/A _ through N/A -2- B. Modification (1) This modification ~increases [--] decreases [--] does not change the to a total obligation of funds pre~ousl¥ ob~gated, by $ 29,755 $ 171,029 . Brief description of modification: The purpose of this modification is to provide sufficient funds for Title I'program operation in Chesterfield County and to allocate costs according to the correct cost category and in accordance with the recent modification to the Consortium Title I Grant.(See (Z) This modification provides for the N/A increment offunding for Belox the Subcontract within the total obligation as stated herein. ' a. ) The Prime Sponsor shall reimburse the Subcontractor from its current CETA Grant N/A $ N/A . b. ) This amount will reimburse the Subcontractor for performance during the period N/A through N/A . in an amount not to exceed x B (1) continued In addition, this modification will change the names of the contracting, parties as follows: Prime Sponsor: Henrico-Chesterfield-Hanover CETA Consortium Subcontractor: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors -3- HENtLICO- C~'~,,STERFIELD-IIAiNOVF~R CIgT"~CONSORTIUM SO.CONTRACT BUDGET STATEi~.iCNT ' IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements F.I.C.A. B. Workman' s Compensation C. Unemployment Insurance D. Retirement E. Group Life Insurance F. Hospitalization O. Travel (Title VI) I-K Other SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training ,I). On-the- Job Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent ti. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care 2. Travel 3. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Oth e r SUBTOTAL BUDGET A. $7,100 B.~ .1,600 C. 1,168 $9 .'868 BUDGET N/A BUDGET A. $37,082 ~. 5,060 C. 2,432 D. 13 E. 666 2. 2,416 $47,669 TOTAL BUDGET OF SUBCONTRACT $171~029 HENRICO-CHESTERFIELD-HANOV3~R C]£TA CONSOiI'IqUM SUw"~O1NTtLACT BUDGET STATElC~IT It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for per£ormance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor £or an amount in excess o£ the budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part o£ this Subcontract. II. Ill. Subcontractor Program Title Intake Center Oct. Budget Statement for Period Chesterfield County G0vernmCDtSubcontract No. 51-7-203-10-04 I Title of Funds 1,1976-Sept. 30Function 19'77 49782 I. ADMINISTi~kTIOlq Elements BUDGET A. Wages (staff) Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent PI. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water ~ Sewerage K. Other SUBTOTAL ALLOWANCES Elements N/A BUDGET A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incen~ve SUBTOTAL WAGES }Elements N/A BUDGET A. Enrollee Wages SUBTOTAL N/A -7- HENRICO-CHESTERFIELD-HANOVER CETA CONSORTIUM SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEMENT VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements A. F.I.C.A. B. Workman' s Compensation C. Unemployment Insurance D. Retirement E. Group Life Insurance F. Hospitalization O. Travel (Title VI) Other SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the- 3ob Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. ' Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care 2. Travel 3. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Oth e r SUBTOTAL Total for SUB-BUDGET BUDGET "~N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET A. 37,082 B. 5,060 C. 2,432 D. 13 E. 666 F. -0- G. -0- H. -0- I. -0- J. -0- K. -0- . $45,253 $45,253 SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEM]gNT It is understood.and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for perfo~-x~tance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of the budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to flmis Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part of this Subcontract. Subcontractor Chester.field County Government Program TitleAdult Work Experience Budget Statement for Period 10-1-76 - 9-30-77 Subcontract 1No. 51- 7 - 203 - 10- 04 I Title of Funds Function 49789 - 2170 · I. II. III. ADMINISTRATION Elements A. Wages (staff) Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone O. 1Rent II. Fuel I. Electricity Water g~ Sewerage K. ' O~her SUBTOTAL ALLOWANCES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL WAGES Elements A. Enrollee Wages BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A , BUDGET $19,704.00 SUBTOTAL $19,704.00 HENRICO- CH,~4~TERFIELD-HANOVER CETA,~ONSOI~TIUM SUL JONTRACT BUDGET STATEM IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements A. F.I.C.A. B. Workman' s Compensation C. Unemployment Insurance D. Retirement E. Group Life Insurance F. Ilo spitalization G. Travel (Title VI) Other SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the-Job Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent II. Fuel I. Electricity 3. Water & Sewerage K. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care 2. Travel 3.. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment ' 6. Other L. Other SUBTOTAL Total for SUB-BUDGET BUDGET A. $1,200 B. 300 C. 213 F. -0- G. -0- H. -- -0- $1,71'3,.00 BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A $2!, 417. O0 HENRICO-CHESTERFIELD-HANOVER CETA CONSORTIUM SUI"~DNTRACT BUDGET STATEM"~T It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for performance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of the budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part of this Subcontract. Subcontractor Chesterfield County GovernmentSub¢ontract 1Wo. 51-7-203-10-04 Program Title 01der Worker Title of Funds I Budget Statement for Period Oct 1,76-Sept. 30,77 Function 49784-2170 ADMINISTRATION Elements BUDGET A. Wages (staff) Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Other II. III. SUBTOTAL A LLOWANC ES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL WAGES Element s A. Enrollee Wages SUBTOTAL N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET _$26,732 $26,732 $ ENRI CO- CH. ~]7 ERFIE LD- HANOV ER CETA ~DNSORTI UA4 SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEMENT IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements A. F.I.C.A. B. %irorkman' s Compensation C. Unemployment Insurance D. 1{etir ement E. Group Life Insurance F. Hospitalization G. Travel (Title VI) Other SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the-Job Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. l~ent Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage Supportive Services (Enrollee) Le 1. Day'Care 2. Travel 3. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Otb e r SUBTOTAL BUDGET A. 1,600 B. 400 C. 324 D. -0- E. -0- F. -0- G. -0- H." -0- $2,324 BUDGET BUDGET N/A $29,056 Total for SUB-BUDGET HENRICO- CH;~TERFIELD-HANOVER CETA,~fONSOI{TIUM SUt~,~OiNTRACT BUDGET STATEM~qT It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for performance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part of this Subcontract. Subcontractor Chesterfield County Government Program Title Supportive Services Budget Statement for Period Oct. 1,76-Sept. 30,77 Subcontract No. 51-7-203-10-04 Title of Funds I Function 49790-2999 II. III. ADMINISTRATION Elements A. Wages (staff) Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. ]Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Other SUBTOTAL ALLOWANCES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL WAGES Elements A. Enrollee Wages SUBTOTAL BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A HENRICO- CH ~"]7 ERFIELD-HANOVER CETA~DNSORTIUM SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEMENT IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements E. F. G. F. I. C. A. Workman' s Compensation Unemployment Insurance Retir em ent Group Life Insurance I-Io spitalization Travel (Title VI) Other SUBTOTAL TRAINING Element s A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the-Job Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care Z. Travel 3. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Oth e r SUBTOTAL Total of SUB-BUDGET BUDGET -- ! ~'-N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET 2. $2,416 $2,416 $2,416 H ENRICO- CH~'~'TERFIELD- HANOVER CETA ~NsoRTIUM SUB~ONTtLACT BUDGET STATEMmNT'~"' It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for performance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of the budgeted mount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement and made a part of this Subcontract. Subcontractor Chesterfield County Government Program Title0ut of School Youth 10-1-76-9-30-77 Budget Statement for Period Subcontract No. 51-7-203-10-04 Title of Funds I 49788,2170 FunctiOn L ADMINISTRATION Elements A. '6rage s (staff) Fringe' Benefits (staff) C.Travel (staff) D.Supplies E.Equipment F..Telephone G.Rent H.Fuel I. Electricity %¥ater ~ Sewerage K. Other SUBTOTAL II. ALLOWANCES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL III. WAGES Elements A. Enrollee ~Vages SUBTOTAL BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET $46,000.00 $46,000.00 HENRICO- C} 3TERFIELD-HANOVER CET~ 'ONSORTIUM SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEMENT IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements B. C. D. E. F. G. F. I. C. A. Workman' s Compensation Unemployment Insurance Retirement Group Life Insurance Ho spitalization Travel (Title VI) O~her SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Referral (LTCS) B. Vocational Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the- Job Training SUBTOTAL SERVICES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits C. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage I<. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care 2.. Travel 3. Uniform s 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Other SUBTOTAL Total for SUBrBUDGET BUDGET A. $3.000 B. 6O0 C, 400 D. -0- E. -0- F. -0- G. -0- H. -0- $4,ooo_ BUDGET BUDGET N/A $50,000.00 HENRICO- C}'"~TERFIELD-tlANOVER CETY~,ONSOI~TIUM SUBCONTRACT BUDGET STATEMENT It is understood and agreed that the Prime Sponsor shall pay to the Subcontractor the amounts as listed in this Subcontract Budget Statement for performance in accordance with the terms and conditions as set forth in this Subcontract. In no instance shall the Prime Sponsor reimburse the Subcontractor for an amount in excess of the budgeted amount for any category or in excess of or deviant from the Detailed Cost Statement for each line item attached to this Subcontract Budget Statement. and made a part of this SubContract. Subcontractor chesterfield County GovernmentSubcontract No. 51-7-203-10-04 Program Title In School Youth Program Title of Funds I Budget Statement for Period Oct. 1,76-June,77 Function 49783-2170 ADMINISTRATION Elements BUDGET A. Wages (staff) Fringe Benefits (staff) C. Travel (staff) D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent . H. Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Other III. SUBTOTAL ALLOWA1NCES Elements A. Basic B. Dependent C. Incentive SUBTOTAL WAGES Elements Enrollee Wages SUBTOTAL N/A BUDGET N/A BUDGET $21.056 · $21,056 HENRICO- CI-~""~TERFIF. LD-HA~OVER CETA~ONSORTIUM SUBGONTRACT BUDGET STATEM~T IV. VI. FRINGE BENEFIT (Enrollee) Elements A. F.I.C.A. B. Workman' s Compensation C. Unemployment Insurance D. Retirement E. Group Life Insurance F. I-Io spitaliz a~ion G. Travel (Title VI) Obher SUBTOTAL TRAINING Elements A. Individual Re£erral (LTCS) B. ¥oca~ional Education C. Classroom Training D. On-the-Job Training SUBTOTAL sERvIcES Elements A. Wages B. Fringe Benefits G. Travel D. Supplies E. Equipment F. Telephone G. Rent H. 'Fuel I. Electricity J. Water & Sewerage K. Supportive Services (Enrollee) 1. Day Care 2. Travel 3. Uniforms 4. Tools 5. Equipment 6. Other Other SUBTOTAL Total for SUB-BUDGET BUDGET A. 1,300 B. 300 C. 231 D. -'0- E. -0- F. -0- G. -0- H." -0- . 1,831 BUDGET N/A BUDGET N/A $22,887 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6. A. SUBJECT: - 1977-78 Budget Requests COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:- Fiscal year 1976-77 was the first year that Chesterfield County had an encumbrance system. The encumbrances for all outstanding purchase orders, construction contracts, and other contracts after the close of the County books at June 30, 1977 are as follows: 111 General 212 Revenue Sharing 516 County Airport 717 County Garage 718 County Storeroom 522 Nursing Home 727 Two-Way Radio Shop 141 School Operating 561 Water Operating 366 Water Meter Installation 768 Water Central Stores 569 Ettrick Utility 571 Sewer Operating 330 County Capital Projects 340 School Capital Projects 380 Utility Capital Projects $ 166,538 261,400 19,886 249 1,182 11,147 3,785 106,492 33,545 7,873 69,237 955 12,135 567,633 8,612,359 8,310,230 TOTAL $18,184,646 Requested Action: Appropriate from the Unappropriated Surplus of the various funds the amounl of the June 30, 1977 encumbrances. The detail of the encumbrances is on file in Central Accounting. ATTACHMENTS:- r']YES ~']NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY /3, DMINISTR~ CH ES I ERFI ELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT:- 1977-78 Budget Requests COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Item I. On April 1, 1977 the County Health Department received a grant to provide nutrition for expectant mothers, mothers of infants, and children in the first four years of their lives. It was recently learned that this grant will be-administered by the County rather than the State. A budget amendment is required to provide for the receipt and expenditure of the funds. Item II. The 1977-78 budget was prepared with $335,000 as one item under Miscellaneous Functions for the cost of the Cost of Living salary increase given on July l, 1977. Please authorize the Budget Department to spread this item back to the various departmental budgets. The amount for each department has been calculated and is on file in the Budget Department. Also, please establish account 111-31400-9991 Contingencies and transfer the unneeded portion of the salary adjustments to that account. This amount is $56,000. Item III. In past years the telephone service costs for the General Fund have been budgeted and paid for from one account in the Buildings and Grounds Department. During the 1977-78 Budget process, we decided that these costs should be reflected in the various departmental budgets. We did not have time to determine the costs before the budget was adopted. We have determined the cost for each department and ask that a budget amendment be approved to spread this budget item to the various departments. Item IV. The Sheriff did not budget enough for the liability insurance premiums and surety bonds for the Sheriff and Jail budgets. He has requested that funds be transferred within his budget. (Continued) ATTACHMENTS: - r'~ YES [] NO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMIN ISTR~ ~~'~j 1977-78 Budget Requests September 28, 1977 Page 2 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION (Continued): Item V. The Board of Supervisors approved furnishing vehicles for the sanitarians at the Health Department and gave them two surplus vehicles. No consideration was given to the operation of those vehicles. The State will reimburse the County the cost of operating those vehicles at a rate of $75 per month plus 7¢ per mile. The budget needs to be amended to reflect the operating costs and receipt of the reimbursement. ACTION REQUIRED: Item I. Increase Planned Budget Revenue account 111-00000-8372 WIC Grant by $105,035 and appropriate $105,035 to: 111-09220-3230 Administrative Costs 111-09220-2990 Client Services $17,505.00 87~5.30~00 TOTAL $105,035.00 Item II. Transfer $335,000 from Planned Budget Expense account 111-31400-9990 Salary Adjustments to 111-31400-9991 Contingencies ($56,000) and the various departmental salary accounts(S279,000). Item III.Transfer $116,000 from Planned Budget Expense account 111-31400-2170 Telephone Service to the various General Fund departmental telephone accounts. Item IV. Decrease Planned Budget Expense: 111-06210-4001 Repl. Motor Vehicles 111-06240-2150 Repairs & Maintenance TOTAL DECREASE Increase Planned Budget Expense: $1,500.00 3i350~00 $4,850.00 111-06210-2112 111-06210-2120 111-06240-2112 Liability Insurance Surety Bond Liability Insurance $1,350.00 900.00 2~600.00 TOTAL INCREASE $4 ~ 850.00 Item V. Increase Planned Budget Revenue account 111-00000-7412 Reimbursed Services by $3,000 and appropriate $3,000 to Planned Budget Expense account 111-09230-3120 V~hicle Operation. LBR/lar MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD Of SUPebVi$Ob$ September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: o SUBJECT: - Approval of Memorandum of Agreement Between Crater Planning District Commission and Chesterfield County COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The enclosed Memorandum of Agreement provides for the reimbursement of the County by Crater Planning District Commission for labor costs incurred, by County employees in providing data to Crater to prepare the annual 3-C transportation planning agreement. The maximum reimbursement amount is $500.00. ATrAC.M ~TS:- I'flYES []NO SIGNATURE:. COUNTY ADMIN~ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This agreement made Sept. 28,1977 between the Crater Planning District Commissionand Chesterfield County. The Crater Planning District Commission desires to enter into an agreement with Chesterfield County to produce the 3-C annua% report in accordance with the 3-C transportation planning agreement between the Crater Planning District Commission and Chesterfield County dated June 25, 1976. The County of Chesterfield agrees to have 1977 inventory data and map furnished to the Crater Planning District Commission by June 1, 1978 for approval by the Transportation Policy Committee. The method of payment will be: The Commission agrees to pay up to the maximum amount of $500.00 in pass-through funds from the Federal Highway Administration and as matched by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for the service to be performed by Chesterfield County as per the FY 1978 Tri-~ities Area Transportation Work Program, item #3.33. Payment will be~ based on documentation provided by Chesterfield $ County of expenditures for direct payroll costs (bare labor plus payroll burden). This agreement is subject to all provisions contained in the FY 1978 Agreement for Utilization of PL Funds contract between the Crater Planning District Commission and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written. Principal Planner (Title) CRATER PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION / Executive Director (Title) ATTES · , BY :~ Planner-Engineer (Title) CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Cdunty Administrato~ ~/ (Title) COUNTy ~TTOItN E y ChE STERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8. A. SUBJECT:- Appointment of Police Officers and Special Police Officers COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - It is recommended that the Circuit Court Judges be requested to make these appointments for an indefinite rather'than a four year period. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - See attached, ATTACHMENTS:- r~YES r-lNO SIGNATURE: COUNTY ADMINISTR/ - ~S~~ COLON'EL J. I:'. PITTMAN. JR, CHIEF OF POLICE COUNTY OF CHESTE CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA po LIC !=' D I:' PA R T MEN T September 14, 1977 MAJOR C. F. RICHTER RF'IELD Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, VA 23832 Dear Board Members: I respectfully request the reappointment of the attached list of Police Officers beginning November 1, 1977 for a four year term. Also, you will find attached two Special Police Officers that I request for reappointment for one year. I would appreciate your approval of this matter at the next Board of Supervisors'meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~olonel J. E. Pittman, Jr. Chief of Police JEPj r/vh Attachment List of Police Officers for Bond Renewal November 1, 1977 Adams, W. L. Akers, O. F. Jr. Allen, E. L. Andrews, J. A. Applewhite, J. W. Areheart, R, R. Ashworth, III, J. T. Bartle, III, G. L. Bartley, R. E. Beasley, D. S. Jr. Berry, Alice E. Bishop, A. L. Blackburn, D. C. Bosher, C. G. Brown, J. E. Bucka, J. R. Burgess, B. R. Burkett, R. L. Carraway, R. W. Chalkley, ~M. T. Cheek, T. J. Clapp, J. M. Jr. Clarke, R. K. Condrey, J. W. Cowardin, B. F. Credle, C. M. Darby, C. D. Davis, A. C. Davis, D. W. Davis, S. E. Dickerson, III, H. H. Doyle, R. B. Driskill, W. V. Dudley, J. M. DuVal, M. W. Eagar, W. R. Bstes, Jr. T. E. £yler, J. F. Foster, R. G. French, R. C. Friedline, D. K. Gettings, E. L. Gleason, T. R. Grappone, J. M. Greene, O. B. Goodman, Jane T. Griffin, D. C. Hall, Sr. C. W. Hamner, Jr. L. C. Hazzard, E. W. Heaton, M. L. Jr. Henry, J. B. Jr. Herndon, Sr., H. M. Herndon, N. J. Hirsch, T. M. Holland, III, H. O. ~ ~'Page- 2 - Hope, D. P. Johnston,II!, J. H. Jones, B. C. Jones, Sr. C. E. Jones, W. A. Judd, S. T. Karnes, D. L. King, W. F. Koren, R. L. Lalich, Jr. ,N. Layne, J. W. Jr. Lewis, J. E. Lovelady, Sr., W. L. Maddra, III, A. V. Marable, J. H. Matthews, L. S. Mitchell, J. E. Moore, C. L. Morgan, W. A. Morse, M. L. Mutispaugh, J. W. McDonald, D. G. Neace, R. L. Norris, T. W. O'Shields, R. C. Ott, III, A. E. Owens, Harrison Pace, . C. D. Parrish, L. M. Patterson, T. L. Paul,III, G. F. Phillips, J. A. Phillips, Terence Pittman, Jr., J. E. (Chief) Proffitt, Dennis S. Puckett, R. E. Richardson, D. M. Richter, B. E. Richter, C. E. Robinson, R. M. Roach, J. M. Rudd, J. M. Samuels, R. H. Scruggs, Jr., W. A. Shelley, R. B. Shelton, H. M. Showalter, W. F. Simmons, J. A. Smith, S. D. Spraker, M. L. Stewart, E. L. Stiles, T. E, Tarantino, M. A. Terrell, J. T., Jr. Thompson, A. W. Trader, L. C. Trueheart, J. G. Vaughan, L. H. Vaughan, M. G. Page-3- Ward, C. W. Watkins, R. H. Welton, W. C. Williams, C. G., Jr. Wilson, M. E. Wolford, J. M. Starnes, M, L. Special Police Nichols, W. D. Williamson, P. W. CHESTERFIELD CO;NTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8. B. SUBJECT:- To Consider the Appointment of a Personnel Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - No recommendation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The Personnel Ordinance which was adopted at the September 14, 1977, meeting provides for the appointment of a three member Personnel Board. It is desirable that these appointments be made as soon as possible. The individuals appointed may not be County employees and the term of office is for three years, however, the initial appointments are for 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively. ATTACHMENTS: - E] YES [] NO SIGNATURE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CH ESTERFIELD C BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 10. Request for Adootion of Resolution Opposing SB35 and HB 4514 COUNTYADMINISTRATOR'SRECOMMENDATIONORCOMMENTS:_ It is recommended that the proposed resolution be approved. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - On motion of , seconded by , be it resolved that the Board of Super- Visors of Chesterfield County strongly opposes the passage of Senate Bill 35 and House of Representatives Bill 4514, which would needlessly expand the exposure of local govern- ment officials, as well as local governmental units, to frivilous lawsuits arising out of Title 42 ~1983 and further directs the County Administrator to communicate the Board's position to our Virginia Senators and Representatives. The effect of these bills would be to permit an individual to file suit against the County for alleged violations of his or her civil rights. ATTACHMENTS:- r-]YES [~NO SIGNATURE:__. TY ADMI NISTR~A~ll~J MEETING DATE: ,, SUBJECT: - CHEST ERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: To consider the Disbanding of the Financial Task Force COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - It is recommended that the Financial Task Force be disbanded, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The work of the Financial Task Force has been completed and the duties a~d responsibilities which it performed can appropriately be transferred to the staff. The specific accomplishments include: 1. The employment of a Director of Central Accounting; 2, The establishment of the position of Budget Director and filling it; 3. The selection and implementation of a new accounting system which is now in process; and 4. The selection and leasing of new data processing hardware, ATTACHMENTS:- r-]YES r~NO SIGNATURE:. COUNTY ADM INISTR~A~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 11. SUBJECT: - Amendments to §§4-3, 4-4, 16-3, 16-4, 18-3, 18-4, 19-3, 19-4, 22-3 and 22-4 of the Zoning Ordinance COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - It is recommended that these amendments be sent to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - The attached ordinance will transfer authority to hear various special exceptions from the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Board of Supervisors by changing the zoning classification to conditional uses. Prior to Board consideration, the proposed ordinance must be sent to the Planning Commission for appropriate action. ATTACHMENTS: - I~] YES r'"] NO SIGNATURE:, COUNTY ADM. INISTRA/~~ AN ORDTN}~CE TO AMEND. AND REENACT SECTIONS ~.-3, 4-4, 16-3, 16-4, 18-3, 18-4, 19-3, 19-4, 22-3 ~2ND 22-4 OF ~{E ZONING ORDINANCE OF T~E CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CI{ESTERFIELD, 1975, ~g A.~.~-~DED, RELATING TO US~S ALLO!<ED BY SPECI~J~ EXCFPTIONS A~-~ CONDITIONAL USES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfi~ld County: (1) That ~4--3, 4-4, 16-3, 16-4, 18-3, 18-4, 19-3, 19-4, 22-3 and 22-4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1975, is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 4-3 Uses allowed by Conditional Use s~oject to the provisions of Section 28-2. ' unit. (a) Stock farms. (b) Kennels. (c) Multiple-family dwellings. (d) A dwelling unit separated from the principal dwelling (e) Public and private profit making cl~xbs, golf courses, and other recreational facilities. (f) Planned Developments. (g) Mass Transportation. (h) Two family dPwel!ings. (i) }lospitals, clinics, sanitari~m~s, medical and dental labor~t~i~S ~ .......... .......... ~ ~ ~ ' ..... D} .... RP~rep.~.0..pa1 f~ci~itips and grounds, appurtenant the re to. gartens. and p~ Landfill o to include the of Section 4-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the provisions of SectiOn 27-5. (ha) Non-profit legal service facil~t~..s (~5) Philan~ropic and charitable institutions. (~) Non-profit civic, social and fraternal cl~s and lodges ~-~ee~e~ ~$~-~ee~es-am~- ~~ (ed) Cemeteries, crematories and other places for the disposai of the dead. (~) ~ergency rescue squad and fire station buildings and gro~ds. (6f) Utility uses, including but not limited to solid waste (i~posal; co~nicatlon; water utilities ~nd irrigation sewage disposal: electric, gas an~~ telephone transmission and pipeline rtghts-of-ways~ gas and pipeline pressure ~ntrol sta- ~ electricity regulating s~stati~ utilities. Before the Board grants such Special Exception, it shall first obtain a re~rt f~m the Co~ty Planning Commission as to whether or not the facility would be consistent wi~ a comprehensive plan of development for the County or would interfere with any of the proposals in such plan. ~e County Planning Co~isston ~st submit its report within sixty (60) days from the receipt of such request for a Special Exception, o~e~ise, it shall be dee~d to have app~ved such a~lication. Se~ice lines, cables, buried wires or pipes in easements on px~lic roads, or on p~lic roads or on the premises of indivi- dual consumers shall be pe~itted without obtaining a Special Exception. (h~) C~vernment buildings. (Ah) Greenhouses, hothouses, and plant nurseries at which the products thereof are sold or offered for sale. (9i) A business operated, on a lot or parcel inside or outside-of a dwelling unit or accessory building and not a home occupation, provided the owner or operator of the business resides on the premises. (~)~ A mobile home to be located for a ~rtod not to exceed nine ~nths, providing the location of said mobile ho~ i~ necessa~ because the principal reSiden~ located ~n ~e premises has been ren4e~d uninhabit~le by fire or other Act of C~d. (mk) Reserved. (el) Group Care Facility. (~) Backyard, attic, and garage sales which exceed seven (7) days in duration. Section 16-3 Uses allowed by Conditional Use, subject to ~he provisions of Section 28-____2. (1) Commercial automobile parking (2) Mass transportation (3) Planned developments (4) Public and private profit~~makin~ clubs and indoor recreational facilities (5) Family day-care homes, child-care centers, and (6) Medical and dental laboratories _(7) ~ecreati°nal faci. .. li ties~ (8) Private .ethylS, colleges, and muse~s~ Section 16-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the pro%isions of Section 27-5. (1) Same as Section 4-4 (~f_) ~P--Pam&~-~ey-ee~e-hemes?-eh~-ea~e-eem~eesv Non-profit civic, social, and fraternal clubs, and Philanthropic and charitable inee~e..~ ........... .... Section 18-3 Uses allowed by Conditional Use, subject to the provisions of Section 28-2. (1) Any Conditional Use allowed in the B-1 District. (2) Indoor recreational establishments. Section 18-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the ------ provisions of Section (1) Any Special Exception allowed in the B-1 District. (~) Outdoor ad~rtising si~s, p~vided ~hat they shall not be erected wt~in two hundred (200) feet of park or school and shall be le~s th~ ~enty-five (25) feet in height. (43) P%~lic garages (See Sec. 24.~-1). Outside storage of building and construction mater- ials. (~5) Utility trailer ~d t~xck rental. (9~) Freight fo~arding, packing, and crating ~e~ices. Section 19-3 Uses all--ed by Conditional Use, s~ject to the ...... provisions of Section (1) ~y Conditional Use allowed in the B-2 District, unless previously allowed in Section 19-1. (2) Material ~clamation receiv~centers ~aluminum, glass and paper products only. (~ Recreational est~lishments, outdoor. Section 19-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the provisions of Section ~7~. (1) Any Special Exce9tion allowed in the B-2 District, unless Previously all~ed in Section 19-1 or 19-~. (~2) Any other retail business not permitted in this dis- trict i~cluding any kind of manufacturing incidental and secon- dary to the conduct of a retail business on the same premises. Section 22-3 Uses allowed by Conditional Use, subject to the provisions of Section (1) Any Conditional Use allowed in the M-1 District. (~) Sand, gravel or clay pits, quarries, mines, an~ other extractive operations includin~ top~oil re~val, subject to Section 24.3-2. (3) St a~m generation plants producing steam for others. (4) Marine Terminals. Section 22-4 Uses allowed by Special Exception, subject to the provisions of Section .27-____5. (1) , Any Special Exception al/owed in the ~-~ District. (2) Acetylene manufacture or storage for sale to others. (3) Storage of L,P.G. in excess of 18,000 gallons total or any amount h~ld for distribution for sale .~o others. (4) Bulk storage of petroleum ~products in excess of 50~.000 gallons total or any amount held for ~istribution for sale to othe rs. ~ ~ MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 12. SUBJECT:- Erroneous Tax Claims COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - There are three erroneous tax claims amounting to $110~95~ ATTACHMENTS: - ~ YES r~l NO SIGNATURE: MEETING DATE: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13. SUBJECT: - GAME CLAIMS A. Mrs. Sharon Gregory, 3808 W. HundredRoad (Bermuda District) B. Mr. and Mrs. J. E. Coffey, 12913 Lewis Road (Matoaca District) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Ao It is recommended that the amount ($30.00) suggested by the Animal Control Department be paid~ It is recommended that the amount ($25.50) suggested by the Animal Control Department be paid, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - This request is for payment of one milking goat, 6 months old, that was killed by a dog that could not be identified._ This request is for payment of 17 Rhode Island Red Pullets, 4 months old, that were killed by a dog ~that ¢onld notlbe identified. ATTACHMENTS:- r'"~ YES ~NO SIGNATURE: I, Warden Mrs. Sharon Gregory ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY CLAIM INVESTIGATION REPORT D,L. Rose Date September 9, 1977 on this date investigated the claim of Address 3808 W,.Hundred Road for 1 milking goat, 6 months, 35 pounds No. ...... Description (kind,'age, w~ight) ~which occured on September 9~ 1977 I estimate value of $ 30.00 19 in Chesterfield CQunty. each, total valueS 30.00 Authority Mr. Dick Balender State A~r. Department I (~$, did not) Witness the actual (killing am~ot~x~l~) of the animals claimed. The guilty (dog, ~J~ (have, ~~) been (caught, ~) and are described as follows: one lar§e ~ black & whites male, ~ixed Damage was done in the following manner: Goat W~ chained to a cinder blnnk in back yard. The do§ was possibly in the area because of afemale in ~masmn behind Mrs. Gregory's house. As a result of maining, 0 of the total claimed above were destrosed by the owner, or by me at the ow--~-H~'r-rs request. Following are witness: Mrs, Sharon Gre~or.¥ . I have investigated this claim as thoroughly as possible. I (have, ~~) viewed the remains of the animals claimed. I (have, ~~) viewed the area where said animals w~e attacked along with other physical evidence and I (have, ~a~x~d~) questioned available witnesses. Respectful ly, I, Warden R.S. McTague M r. & Mrs. J.E. Coffey ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY CLAIM INVESTIGATION REPORT Date September22,19?7 on this date investigated the claim of Address 12913 Lewis Road for 17 No. Rhode Island Red pullets~ 4 months DeScriPtion (kind, age, We~ight) which occured on AuguSt 7, 19 77 in Chesterfield County. I estimate value of $ 1~50 each, total values 25.50 Authority Mr. Dick Balender State Agr.. Department I (Ya~t~X, did not) witness the actual (killing ~D~X~(~) of the animals claimed. The guilty (dog, d~X~X~K) (YX~I(~X~(, have not) been (caught, ~%~) and are described as follows: Damage was done in the following manner: 17 chickens. The dog went over fence and killed As a result of maining, 0 of the total claimed above were destroyed by the owner, or by me at the ~s request. Following are witness: I have investigated this claim as thoroughly as possible. I (t~, have not) viewed the remains of the animals claimed. I (have, be~) viewed the area where said animals w~e attacked along' with other physical evidence and I (have,~fce~) questioned available witnesses. Respectfully, CHESTE RflELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: SUBJECT: - Bingo and/or Raffle Permit Applications A. Enon Elementary School P.T.A. B. Chesterfield Volunteer Fire Department (Co. 11) C. Virginia Belles Softball Club (Matoaca) D. Ettrick-Matoaca Rescue Squad (Matoaca), E. Cavalier Athletic Club (Matoaca) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - 14. A. &B. Recommend approval for both applications, coUnty Attorney has recommended approval of C, D, and E which are additional applications. Mr,~ O~Neill,~ is aware of the applications. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - A. This is a new application for the P,T~A to hold raffles. B. This is a renewal for a bingo permit, C, D, and E gte new applications and were not on the agenda. ATTACHMENTS:- r-]YES SIGNATURE: APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles. 1. The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit) 2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. The applicant further states that it has read all of the conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply therewith. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: APPL I CANT By ,~ .~ ko Mj~ ~.C~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 197 o · ....... , My commission expires: NOtary PUblic Chesterfield Volunteer Fire Department 6036 Ironbridge Road Richmond, Virginia 23234 September 20, 1977 Mr. Nicholas M. Meiszer County Administrator County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Dear Mr. Meiszer: I am requesting a Bingo Permit Renewal for Chesterfield Volunteer Fire Department - Dale, Company 11. Enclosed is a check for $10.00. Thank you, ~ayne Sprouse Chesterfield Volunteer Fire Department Enclosure 23 Sept 77 Virginia Belles Softball Club c/o Mildred Burrell 8310 Hopkins Road Richmond, Virginia 2323~ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Virginia Belles Softball Club formed over six years ago, is a non-profit organization that takes an active part in the community. We are currently, and have for the past three years, operated a bingo in the City of Petersburg. However, since most of our membership is from Chesterfield County, and since there is now a facility in the southern end of the county, we would like to move to the county. The purpose of our club is to better the game of amateur softb~l~ and serve a useful purpose in the community. In recent years we have sponsored two girls youth softball teams in Colonial Heights and have donated to both the Bensely and Ettrick Youth Softball teams. We helped sponsor the Ettrick Baptist Church Softball team and frequently help other youth organizations. The Virginia Belles also assist the Chesterfield Christmas Program by adopting some unforbunate child, and we also donate to the Petersburg Christmas Fund. In addition we have made donations to the Heart Fund and other community organizations. The Virginia Belles sponsor a women' s youth softball tournament and are a member of the United States Slo-Pitch Softball Association. We want to advance opportunities for women in athletics with a special aim towards the youth. Sincerely, MILDRED BURP~L Manager and President My commission expires: Virginia Belles Monthly Board Meeting 26 August 1976 On a motion by Shirley Jackson and a second by Bobbie Pittman, we will try to get a permit to move our Bingo from Petersburg to Ettrick. After much dicussion, members decided the facilities are much better in Ettrick. Mildred Burrell was instructed to look into the matter and apply for a permit in Chesterfield County. Respectfully submitted, Betty Sheffield Secretary, Va. Belles Softbsll Club APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles. 1. The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit) The Virginia Belles Softball Club 2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18.1-316 of the 19S0 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. The applicant further states that it has read all of the conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply therewith. APP L I CANT STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 197__o My commission expires: day of NOtary PUbliC COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County for a one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles. 1. The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit) ETTRICK MATOACA RF, SCUE SQUAD 2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18,1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. The applicant further states that it has read all of the conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply therewith. STATE OF VIRGINIA APPL I CANT COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22 1977__~ day of Se tembe~ My commission expires: My Commission Expires July 6, 1981 NCt ffry Public TELEPHONES EMERGENCY 526-7960 BUSINESS 526-7966 ETTRICK-MATOACA RESCUE SQUAD, INC. CHESTERFIELD DISPATCHER TELEPHONE 748-6240 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Ettrick-Matoaca Rescue Squad, founded 10 years ago, serves the Southern end of Chesterfield County with emergency medical and ambulance service. A volunteer organization, we provide all services free of charge to the public. We depend on community donations and support to continue operation. All proceeds from bingo will go toward operation of our Rescue Squad. TELEPHONES EMERGENCY 526~7960 BUSINESS 526~7966 ETTRICK-MATOACA RESCUE SQUAD, INC. CHESTERFIELD DISPATCHER TELEPHONE 748-6240 On a motion by President, Jimmy Watkins and a second by Dennis Reed, the squad will start bingo if suitable arrange- ments can be made. The finance committee will apply for a permit and make a report on location. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE APPLICATION FOR BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMIT The undersigned applicant, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, hereby petitions the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County'for a one-year permit to conduct Bingo games and/or raffles. 1~ The applicant, in support of this petition, says that it is a proper organization to conduct such Bingo games and/or raffles because (state here the kind of organization requesting said permit) CAVALIER ATHLF, TIC CLUB 2. An authenticated copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors or other governing body of said organization requesting said permit is attached hereto, together with supporting evidence that said organization is an organization permitted to conduct said Bingo games and/or raffles under Section 18.1-316 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 3. The applicant further states that it has read all of the conditions which will be a part of said permit and agrees to comply therewith. APP L I CANT STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY of CHESTERFIELD, to-wit: Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1977 o 22 day of Sept;embe:r' My commission expires :My Commission Expires July 6, 1981 Cavalier Athletic Club 20910 James Street Ettrick, Va. 23803 DEAR SIR: The Cavalier Athletic Club, the oldest and finest in Virginia, bas been in operation since 1948 serving Central Virginia. We have sponsored numerous athletic teams, including' our own softball and vollyball teams. In addition we support many youth teams and activities. The Cavalier Athletic Club is a non-profit club and our p~oceeds go to the advancement of amateu~ athletics and othe~ community projects. Since o~r club will celebrate ottr 30th birthday this yea~ we a~e fiz~mly established in the comn~auity and have an out standing reputation. The Cavalier Athletic Club will hold a bingo each week at the ~N B~ilding in ~ttricke The Club will start bingo as soon as possible in Fall, afte~ to~naments are over in the falle Notion by Dennis Blick and second by Jerry Springfield. September 27, 1977 Mrs. Brenda ElBe 146Z9 Sir Peyton Drive Chester, Virginia Z3831 Dear Mrs. Ellis: Your request for the Enon PTA to hold a raffle at that school on November 14 is approved subject to permission being given to you by the count), administr&tor~s office. After you have received this permtslton, pllase file the proper papers with our director of buildings and grounds, Mr. John Kopko, Sincerely yours, HOS/hrnb cc County Admintstrator*e Ob'ice Mr. John Kopko Dr. Howard O. Sullins Division Superintendent MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 28, 1977 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: Dead End Sign for Dwayne Lane 15. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - Recommend approval. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: - Mrs. Girone has asked that the Board adopt a resolution requesting the Highway Department to install a yellow "Dead End" sign on Dwayne Lane in the Midlothian Magisterial District. ATTACHMENTS: - r-~ YES I~ NO SIGNATURE: COUNTYADMINI$:I'R~- $~~ HESTE RFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: September 28, 1977 Reports A. Proposed Recreation Program SUBJECT: - AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 16. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR COMMENTS: - A. Information Only. SUMMARYOFINFORMATION:- A. See attached. ATTACHMENTS: - SIGNATURE: r'~a YES r"'~ No BOARD OF SUPERVISORS E. MERLIN O'NEILL. CHAIRMAN IMATOAC& DIE, TSICT .JOAN GIRONE. VICE CHAIRMAN MIIDLOTH lAN DISTRICT C. L. BOOKMAN J. RUFFIN APPERSON GARLAND DODD COUNTY ADMIN ISTNATION C. G MANUEL 804.748.1~11 OF CHESTERFIELD CHESTERFIELD. VIRGINIA 23832 August 29, 1977 Board of Supervisors County of Chesterfield Chesterfield, Va. Attention: Nicholas Meiszer, County Administrator P~.~posed Winter Recreation Program We would like to have a place available where County resi- dents, adult male, adult female and students could go at least once a week or more for a Recreation period during the winter months. Our winter program this past year drew more than sixty three thousand participants.~ The gymnasiums will be open from 7pm until 10pm on Monday nights for adult males omly, under the supervision of a Recrea- tion Instructor for basketball, exercises, volleyball, and gym- haSSles, representing every area in the county. A total of fif- teen schools will be open. On Wednesday nights from 7pm until lOpm the above services will be open to women. This will be a period of four and one half months starting on Novmeber 14th and ending April 1st. Saturday mornings, 9am until lpm, will be open to students only, with the activities available under the supervision of a recreation instructor. At least four of the schools will be open for the $outhside Churches Basketball league, (men and women) and custodian will be furnished by the Recreation Department. The Chesterfield County Youth Basketball league will have nights for their practice sessions, and Saturdays for their games. Custodians and supervisors will be furnished by the Recreation Department. The compensation of Recreation Instructors will be $3.50 per hour. The salaries for the entire period, including in- structors for little league basketball, church league, gym- nastics, and the Mentally Retarded program at Hening will be approximately $12,000.00. Estimated cost for custodians from the school board, in- cluding Church and Little League, will be approximately $15,000.00. A total cost of $27,000.00 for keeping the gym- nasiums available for a four and one half month period. Sincerely, Carl W. Wise, Director, Recreation and Parks TAKE NOTICE S. September 28, 1977 That the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, on Wednesday, September 28, 1977, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in the County Board Room at Chesterfield Courthouse, Virginia, will take under consideration the rezoning and the granting of Conditional Uses on the parcels of land described herein. · 77S100: In Midlothian Magisterial District, MYRA A. CAMPBELL requests an amendment to Condition ~3 of a rezoning case (Case #76S047) to allow the use of the buffer area in an office Business (O) District on a 2.87 acre parcel, fronting 243.3 feet on Robious Road, fronting 559.1 feet on Bon Air Road, located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map Sec. 17-8 (1) 10 (Sheet 8). '77S049: In Clover Hill and Midlothian Magisterial District, BRANDERMILL requests an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use for a planned ~eveloDment (Case ~74S021) to permit an additional public road access from Old Hundred Landing Village to Hull Street Road. This reauest is on a 2443.53 acre parcel fronting approximately 8850 feet on Hull Street Road, approximately 7700 feet on the south line of Genito Road and being located on the west line of Old Hundred Road~!~etween Genito Road and Hull Street Road. Tax Map 36 (1) 4; 46 (1) 23-1 & 32-1; 47 (1) 6, 8 & 9; 61-12 1 & 6; 61-16 (1) 5; and 62 (1) 20 (Sheets 13 & 20). '77S021: In Bermuda Magisterial District, FLORINE A. STRICKLAND requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business (B-l) of a 1.0 acre parcel, fronting approximately 250 feet on Iron Bridge Road, located appro- ximately 200 feet west of its intersection with Womack Road. Tax Map Sec. 115-9 (1) 14-1 (Sheet 32). '77si44: In MidlOthian Magisterial District IMOGENE A. PURDY requests re- zoning from Agricultural (A) to General BuSiness (B-3) of a 0.80 acre parcel fronting approximately 140 feet on Midlothian Turnpike located approximately 160 feet west of its intersection with Pocono Drive. Tax Map Sec. 17-7 (1) 18 (Sheet 8). '77S145: In Bermuda Magisterial District, MR. & MRS. WAYNE L. MYERS request rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) of a 0.37 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on Willis Road fronting approximately 185 feet on Burge Avenue, located in the southeast quadrant of the i~tersec- tion of these roads. Tax Map Sec. 82-5 (5) 2, Dale Heights, Block A. Lot 2 (Sheet 23). 77S146: In Bermuda Magisterial District, LOUISE M. BURGE requests rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) of a 4.0 acre parcel, front- ing approximately 95 feet on southside of Willis Road, also fronting approx- imately 650 feet on westside of Burge Avenue and fronting 460 feet on east- side of Burge Avenue and known as Dale Heights Subdivision. Tax Map Sec. 82-5 (5) Dale Heights, Block A, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 and Block B, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 (Sheet 23). *These cases were deferred by the Board at a previous meeting to their September 28, 1977 meeting. 1 B. S. September 2~, 1977 77S150 In Bermuda Magisterial District, RICHARD M. ALLEN requests a Conditional Use to permit Indoor and Outdoor Tennis Courts and related facilities in an Agricultural (A) District on a 3.9 acre parcel, Part of a larger parcel, fronting approximately 1650 feet on Iron Bridge Road, fronting apProximately 1250 feet on Chalkley Road, located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 114-7 (1) 5 (Sheet 31). 77S163 In Matoaca Magisterial District~, MARY S. WHITMORE requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7) of a 14 acre parcel, fronting approximately 500 feet on River Road and being located approximately 25 feet west of its intersection with Trojan Drive. Tax Map 181-15 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 53/54). 77S165 In Bermuda Magisterial District, REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY requests rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l) of a 7.449 acre 'parcel fronting approximately 1,680 feet on Reymet Road also fronting approx- imately 1200 feet on Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike and being located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax MaD 82-13 (1) Parcel 26 (Sheet 23). 77S166 In Matoaca Magisterial DistNlict, DAVID E. FARMER requests rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) to Ge'~eral Business (B-3) of a 1.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on Woodpecker Road and being located approximately 1900 feet west of its intersection with Elko Road. Tax Map 174 (1) Parcel 3-1 (Sheet 49). 77S167 In Bermuda Magisterial District, TALLEY NEON AND ADVERTISING requests rezoning from General Industrial (M-2) to General Business (B-3) of a .16 acre parcel fronting approximately 2450 feet on Shell Road and being located approximately 20 feet northwest of its intersection with Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike. Tax Map 67-12 (5) Lot E-1 Bellwood Revision (Sheet 23). 77S169 In Date Magisterial District, THO~S M. HICKS, SR. requests a Conditional Use to permit the construction of 4 multiple-family units in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.64 acre parcel fronting approximately 250 feet on Pembroke Street fronting approximately 100 feet on Goolsbv Avenue and also fronting approximately 100 feet on Brampton Way and located in the eastern quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax MaD 53-3 (3) 1,2, 27 and 28, Dupont Square, Block C, Lots 1, 2, 27 and 28 (Sheet 16). 77S171 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, Ms. NANCY GOODE SPIVEY reauests a Conditional Use to permit the operation of a Craft Shop in an Agricultural (A) District on a 2.11 acre parcel fronting 240.66 feet on Genito Road and located approximately 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Otterdale Road. Tax Map 45 (1) 4 (Sheet 12). 77S173 In Midlothian Magisterial'District, BRIARPATCH OF VIRGINIA, INC., requests an amendment to a Use Permit (Case #68-37C) to permit a free stand- ing business sign in a Residential (R-40) District on a parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on Robious Road located approximately 160 feet east of its intersection with Wiesinger Lane and known as 11621 Robious Road (Briarwood Club). Tax Map 8-16 (1) 1-1 (Sheet 2). Copies of ~these amendments are on file in the Department of Community Development, DevelOpment Review Division, 7714 Whitepine Road, Airport Industrial Park, Chesterfield virginia, for public examination between the hours of 8:30.a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business day. APPLICANT AND/OR AGENT MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARING. All persons favoring or opposing the granting of the above requests are invited to appear at the time and place herein stated. Stanley R. Balderson, Jr., Chief Division of Development Review skh CloSE NUMBER: 77S100 ~'~YP3. A. CAMPBELL September 28, 1977 (B.S.) rEQUEST & PROPOSED USE: An amendment to Condition ~3 of a rezoning case (C~e~=~76S047) to allow the use of the buffer area in an office Business (0) District. GENETC&L I.OCATIOI~ & TAX MAP IDEntIFICATION: In Midlothian Magisterial Distr_ct, this parcel fronts along the northeast line of Robious Road and the nortkwest line of Bon Air Road and is located immediately ncrtk of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Tax Map 17-8 (~) Parcel 10 (Sheet 8). ACP~EAGE, EXISTIIfG ZONING, E)~iSTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): 2.70 acres; zoned =='~ O~e Business (0); vacant. D~JACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Property to the west and north Residential {R-7) and is vacant. Property to the east is being considered fcr rezoning to Community Business (B-2) and for development as a shopping center. Property to the south and southwest Community Business (B-2) and occupied by various commercial uses. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DkAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: This request will have no impact on unilities, soil, drainage or off-site eas~n~ents. PUBLIC FACILITIES: If the request is approved, it will hmve no detrimental impact on either existing or future area public facilities. TRANSPORTATION ~ TP~FFIC: This request will have no detrimental impact on the traffic pattern in this area. GENERAL PLAN: Single family, multiple f~mily and commercial use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is representing Roger de la Burde, the property owner, requests an amendment to Condition ~3 of a rezoning case (Case ~76S047) to allow the use of a buffer area in an Office Business (0) District. The Applicant requests that 25 feet of ~he buffer along the east and 20 feet along the north lot lines be used for parking, and that 10 feet of the buffer along the west property line be used for a paddle ball court. ALTERNATIVES & ~[ITIGATING MEASURES: On April 28, 1976, the Board of Supervisors, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission approved the rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (0) of the subject parcel. In approving this request, buffer strips along all property lines where imposed. The Applicant, in developing final site plans for the proposed use, has found that due to the intent of the development, it is difficult to maintain these buffers and provide the required parking for office use. This above note~ s~cuation holds true for the ~equired buffers along the east and north property line~ however, the Applicant is also requesting that ten feet of the Buffer along the west property line be used for a paddle bali court. Buffer strips are governed by Section 2~.3-~ of the Zoning Ordinance and it is specified that suct~ buffer strips, when required, shall not be used for nny purpose other than enumerated in the Ordinance. One of these permitted uses allows recreational areas ~ithout structures. A structure is defined as "any- thing constructed or erected which has a permanent location on the ground or which is attached to something having a permanent location on the ground". With respect to this defination, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed paddle ball court could not be constructed within the buffer are unless expressly permitted by amendment of the previously imposed buffer requirement. Given existing and probable future use of the adjacent property to the east, and the density of existing vegetation on the parcel, Staff is of the opinion that reducing the buffer along the north property line to 15 feet and along the east property line 10 feet, is reasonable and can be justified; however, because it was indicated that rezoning and office development of the subject parcel would constitute the limit of commercial expansion westwardly along the north side of Robious Road, Staff is of the opinion that the 35 foot buffer along the west property line should be maintained as originally required. Encroachment in this area, even for limited recreational use, is felt to be inappropriate. STAFF RECO~5~ENDATION: Staff would recommend that the ADDlicant be Dermitted to encroach uDon the buffer striD alon~ the north and east DroDert¥ to Drovide required Darkinq onlv. The buffer along the north line may be reduced to not less than 15 feet and the buffer along the east property line may be reduced to not less than 10 feet. These reductions shall occur only for the area needed for required parking, where driveways and parking lots are not provided, the originally imposed 35 foot buffer strip shall be retained. The maintenance of the buffer area shall be the same as prescribed in the approval on April 28, 1976. Staff further recommends that the request for reduction of the buffer area along the west property line be denied. C.P.C. 5 17 77: B.S. -6 22 77: Applicant 7 18 77: B.S. 7 27 77: 'CASE HISTORY AND PAST CO~.~4ISSION AND BOA~ ACTION ON THIS REQUEST. Denial of the request was recommended. Deferred further hearin~ at %he request to July 27, 1977 meeting. Requested that hearing of this matter be further deferred to September 28, 1977. At the request of the applicant the Board deferred further hearing to September 28, 1977. e MH-I i i I Branderrnill P.O. Box 287, Midlothian, Virginia, 23113 (804) 739-2225 A Sea Pines Community September'l, 1977 TO: Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County cc: Stan Balderson Dear Sirs: We respectfully request that the hearing for the amendment to our Master Plan regarding a second entrance into Brandermill from Route 360 (Case No. 77S049) be postponed for 60 days until the November meeting of the Board of Supervisors. CP/bsh We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Clarke Plaxco Director of Community Planning Sea Pines Plantation, South Carolina; Hilton Head Plantation, South Carolina; River Hills Plantation, South Carolina; Palmas del Mar, Puer[o Rico; Amelia Island Plantation, Florida; Brandermill, Virginia; Big Canoe, Georgia; Nantahala Lake Park, North Carolina CA'SE NUMBER'~ 77S049 Septe~er 28, 1977 (B.S.) APPLICANT: BRANDERMILL REQUEST AND PROPO'SED USE: An amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use for Planned Development (Case %74S021) to permit an additional public road access from Old Hundred Landing to Hull Street Road. GENERAL LOCATION AND TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Clover Hill and Midlothian Magisterial Districts, this request is on part of a parcel of land fronting along the northwest line of Hull Street Road, and. being located west of its intersection with Old Hundred Road. Tax Map 36 (1) Par 4; 46 (1) Par 23-1 7 32-1; 47 (1) Par 6 & 9; 61 (1) Par 6, 8, & 9; 61-12 (1) Par 1 & 6; 61-16 (1) Par 5; 62 (1) Par 20 (Sheet 13 & 20). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): The area of this request lies along the north side of Hull Street Road in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision of Thornridge. This subdivision was given tentative approval by Planning Co~m~ission on January 25, 19771 This land is zoned Residential (R-7) and is presently vacant. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: The land to the east of Thornridge Subdivision is zoned Convenience DuSiness (B-i). The area to the south and west is zoned Agricultural (A), while land to the north is zoned Residential (R-7). Lying between Thornridge Subdivision and the Village of Bright Hope is the Swift Creek Water Filtration Plant. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: This request will have no effect on public utilities. Soils are sandy loam; sloping to moderately steep and a moderate chance for erosion. Soils are well drained and well suited for roadways, except for an area marked ll0-C-1 (see attached soil map). These soils have a high swell potential. Before any clearing begins, a road plan, erosion control plan and siltation agreement must be approved. PUBLIC FACILITIES: This request will have no effect on either existing or future area public facilities. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Because Brandermill is a Planned Co~u~unity, a significant portion of the recreational and commercial trips generated from the Community to households will be destined within the Villages comprising the Community. Internally generated traffic should not travel on roads external to the. Community. To use external-access (Route 360) would create an unreasonable traffic burden on a whose primary function is that of a arterial highway and not a local collector street. With this access, Bright Hope is not an integral part of Brandermill, but merely an adjacent development which will adversely impact Route 360 traffic. Route 360 is a major concern for traffic planners. Creating another access from Mill ridge Parkway area to Route 360 does not appear to offer any traffic flow advantages at the proposed location. 1. over This location is only .W~) feet from the existing'~.cess to Brandermill, which presently includes divided roadwavs, deceleration lanes and alignment with existing crossover. Extension of Thornridge Road does not align with an existing crossover. Rather those motorist using Thornridge to get to Route 360 east, must travel west and U-turn east, and those traveling east on 360 wishinq to use Thornridge Road must U-turn west at the existing Millridge Parkway crossover. In addition, no deceleration lanes are indicated on Route 360 at the proposed extension of Thornridge Road. The Highway Department's 1975 Primary Road Traffic Count in no way indicates the density of traffic in the area of this request. Obviously, as Brandermill grows, vehicular traffic both'east and'west along Route 360, in the area of the request, will increase, thereby intensifying the impact of eliminating an internal road between Old Hundred Landing and the Village of Bright Hope and increasing the traffic hazard of another access from Thornridge Subdivision onto Route 360. A great consideration should be the vertical curvature in US 360 in this area. The plan for the three villages is a basic L-shape. Ail of the non-residential land uses, except for the elementary and middle school and fire station tract are clustered around the ends of the L. The specific area of concern is the relationship between the activities in Bright Hope Village at.one end of the L, and the activities in the rest of Brandermill, and what transportation facilities are necessitated by these relationships. The most striking function difference between Bright Hope and the rest of Brandermill is the concentration on commercial activity in Bright Hope Village as opposed to Old Hundred Landing and St. Ledger. 23% of the land in Bright Hope is devoted to commercial activity, as opposed to 6% in St. Ledger and less than 1% in Old Hundred Landing. Bright Hope has 58.5% of all the commercial acreage in the three villages. The total commercial area in the 3 villages is 119,700 square feet. Using trip factors provided by Kimley Horn (60 ADT/1000 square feet of community retail area) one may calculate that this total commercial acreage represents 7,182 2-way ADT. Dividing this by the total dwelling units in the three villages (6060 units) yields a factor of 1.185 2-wayADT/dwelling unit for community commercial activity.. c~u~unity co,~u.ercial activity in Bright Hope will attract an ADT of 4200 (70 acres x 60 ADT/acre), and the demand by occupants of Bright Hope for community commercial trips is 1.185 x 1177, or 1395 ADT. This.leaves approximately 2800 ADT destined for the Bright Hope community commercial area originating in Old Hundred Landing area. The It is the Staff opinion that this 2800 ADT would utilize the planned collector steet between Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing. In addition, the only high school in the area is located next to Bright Hope so that all high school students in Old Hundred Landing and St. Ledger could use the collector street, rather than 360~ This estimate, as provided by Staff, is considerable higher than the 1400 ADT estimated by the developer's consultants for this collector street. Based on the development data as provided by the developer's consultant, the Staff feels that the developer's estimate of the traffic on the collector between Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing is iow. Apart from the estimat~, of traffic demand, then are general guidelines for collector street planning specified in the proposed General Plan 2000 as has been presented to and reviewed by the Planning' Commission. Policy 5G states: "Encourage the design of collector routes so that congestion on arterial roads is ameliorated." GENERAL PLAN: This parcel lies in an area approved-for the development of a Planned Community. ~LTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: When the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors originally considered the Conditional Use Planned Development, rezoning and Master Plan proposal for approval of Brander- mill, a great deal of concern centered around the impact that this developmen~ would have on area traffi=. From the on set, the Master Plan showed a collector road paralleling : Route 360 between the Villages of Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing. In addition, the approved Plan allowed for a predominance of residential and recreational development in the Old Hundred Landing Village and a predominance of commercial and multi-family development in the Bright Hope Village. The developers of Brandermill argued that the-collector road should be eleminated from the Masker Plan thereby f~neling traffic genernted between the two villages onto Route 360. Both the Commission and Board of Supervisors were presented with the same arguements as are ~ade in support of the current application fer elimination of this' collector road. However, at the time the ?lsnned Development was approved, the Commission and Board saw fit tc reject this proposal and resolved that the connecting collector be retained. It was reasoned ~hat without the connection the the impact of development in both the Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing Villages would be such, given the scope of the proposed land use, that an adverse traffic situation would result along Route 360 in this area. It was further resolved, that no additional-public road access be .provided to Route 360 by means other that the Millridge Parkway collector in Old Hundred Landing and a major collector serving Bright Hope Village. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: be denied. Staff would recommend that the Applicant's reauest 3. (over) CASE ~ISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST. C.P.C. 3 15 77: Staff 3 23 77: Staff 4 11 77: ~.P.C. 4'19 77: C.P.C. 5 17 77: C.P.C. 6 21 77: Deferred by the Commission to provide the Applicant time for further study and justification of the request. Staff met with Applicant and suggested ways and means by Which the need for this request could be eliminated, or justification to support the request could be developed. The Applicant has not attempted to respond in a positive manner or propose any alternatives to eliminating the connector.road between Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing,-nor has any alternatiwe to additional access to Route 360 been proposed. _ Deferred 30 days at the request of the Applicant~ The Applicant withdrew the first part of the original request which was to eliminate the condition requiring construction of a-residential collecto~ road between the Villages of Bright Hope and Old Hundred Landing. Deferred by the Commission to .provide the Commission time to consider a one-way entrance from Route 360 as opposed to a two-way access_road. Recommended denial of this application. B.S. 7 27 77: Applicant 9 1 77: At the request of the applicant this case was deferred to the September 28, 1977 meeting. Requested an additional deferral to NOvember 22, 1977. / / \ I // ,/ '/ 77S021 September 28, 1977 (B.S.) · 3~LICA::T: FLORINE A. STRICKLA~ RE~:JE£? ~ PROPOSED USE: Requestz rezoning from Agricultural (A) ~c Convenience' Business (B-l). It is the intent of the applicant to construct a real estate office on this parcel. GEiTEP3.L LCCATION & TAX b~P IDE~:?Z~iCATION: In Bermuda Magisterial Diszric~, this parcel ironts aiong the north line of Iron Bridge Road, located approximately 2G0 feet west of the intersection with Momack Road. Tax Map 115-9 (1) Parcel .14-1 (Sheet 32). ACP_--AqE, EXISTING ZONING, EXIST!::G LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL) : The parcal is 1 acre in area, is zoned A~ricultural (A) and is presently vacant. ~D3ACE~;T & AREA ZONI~G & LAND USE: Adjacent property to the east is zone5 Convenience Business lB-l), while all other property is zone~ for Agricultural (A). Adjacent property to the east is occupie~ by a real estate office, wlnile all other adjacent property is occupied by single family-dwellings or remains vacant. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE & EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS Public water is located alon~ ~oute 10, approximately 300 feet west of Buckinghmm Street. Water is approximately 1200 feet from the subject parcel. The Engineer advise~ that public water is available for development and if extended by the developer would cost approximately $24,000. An off-site water easement will b~ required along Koute 10. The Engineer reco~uends tha~ the use of public ~ water be investigated by the applicant.. This parcel lies in the Proctors Creek drainage area. The use of public sewer on this parcel is not feasible. At the present time-, there are no existing off-site drainage or erosion problems on this parcel nor should th~ proposed project. cause erosion problems. No drainage easements will be required. Soils on this parcel are loamy clay and sand in nature, and the property gently slopes towards Route 10. There is a slight erosion ch=_racterist of the soil. These soils are well suited for roadways and good to fair for building foundations. It is reco~nded that if a septic tank system is used on this property, thmt tke drainfield area be located before clearing for'construction takes.place. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Development of the parcel in question under cor3.ercial zoning should exercise no additional impact on either existing or future area public facilities. T?;.[:EP%?TATIO~ & T.--J.?FIC: Althou?h prelim;~ary plans have not ---can suzr~t{%e"~ x;-_ th this application, ~[-~ anticipated that ~he F. rcF. osed ~tructure will front along ~ ute 10, and access to the oarcel %:ould be by Womack Road which is located, to the east. Staff notes that Womack ?.oad is in the State system; ho:.;ever, it remains an unimproved dirt road. It intersects with Route 10 and continues to the north for a distance of approximately 300 feet. There are no plans for a crossover at the intersection of Womack Road and Route 10. Route 10,~ itself, at this location has been approved for a 4-lane divided highway. GE:~_RAL PL~/~: This parcel lies in an area des.ignated for single .=ar_~ly residential use. REQUES? ANALYSIS: The applicant has a real estate purchase contract with Norman J. Crowder, the present property owner. The applicant states that this land is adjacent to the office of Strickland Realty Company, and if the request is approved, she intends to add to the present real estate building at a future time. ALTE~iATIVES & MITIGATING MEASURES: On January 9, 1974, the Board cf Supervisors approved the rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Convenience Business (B-l) on the parcel directly adjacent and to the east of the subject request. The Planning Commission in considering the previous applicantion (Case Number 73S153) noted that the rezoning of the subject parcel might set a precedence for strip co~mercial zoning and use along the newly realigned location of Route 10. It was pointed out by Planning Staff that such use and development would not conform with desirable development' trends intended for the Route 10 corridor between the village of Chester and the County Courthouse Complex. In considering the request, the Commission resolved to recommend that the rezoning be denied but a Conditional Use under the existing agricultural classification be granted for operation of a real estate and prefessional office subject to a number of conditions. When the matter was presented to the Board, Staff argued that strip commercial zoning would result if B-1 rezoning was approved. In the request now being considered, the applicant is the same individual who requested B-1 rezoning on the adjacent property in 1974. Staff is of the opinion that the current application represents an example of the concern that was expressed in the 1974 case. If this-request is approved, strip co.nunercial zoning cannot be forstalted along RoUte 10 and without some sort of planned land use control pattern for this artery, commercial development thereof and resulting problems already experienced by the County will be similar to those problems resulting from the lack of planning for commercial development along the Route 1 and Route 60 corridors. If the westerly route for proposed 1-95 is established, the crossing of Route 10 in this area may prove a more proper location for commercial development. In a~dition, since the intended use ~s for an office building, rezcnin~ t~e ~'~cel to the B-1 class~fica'~on is neither appropriate nor justified since this use u~n be accomplished in the Office Business (0) zone. ~n0ther'land use option would be as previously recommended by the Co~nission in the 1974 req~.uest to grant a Conditional Use fcr office operation subject to appropriate conditions. ST~3F RECO:.~ENDATION: DENIAL OF THE REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED. CASE HISTORY AND CO~MISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST. C.P.C. 1 18 77: At the request of the Applicant, this case was deferred° 30 days. The purpose of the deferral was to provide the Applicant time in which to obtain a Contract of Agreement with the property owner. The Applicant has also indicated that rezoning to the Office Business (O) District would be acceptable. C.P.C. 2 15 77: Note: Deferred at the request of the Applicant. After reviewing the Applicant's request for a third deferral, of consideration of this matter, Planning Staff is of the opinion that the Commission should not defer this request any longer. Our office cites that each instance of deferral requires re- notification as prescribed by ~aw, and ~his process is both expensive and cumbersome. In addition, the Commission's docket as of late has been extremely heavy_ and continued deferrals tend to impede the Commission's review and recommendation process. Wh~t is of more concern however, is the appropriate- ness of the application in light of the property owners-apparent attitude relative to pursuing closing the real estate purchase contract upon which the Applicant is establishing vested interest in making this rezoning request. In light of these facts, the Division of Development Review would recommend to the Commission that they hear this case on its merits at their March'15, 1977 meeting and all other considerations being equal, dispose of the matter by making the appropriate recommendation and referring the case to the Board of Supervisors for their determination. .P.C. 3 15'77: The Applicant requested that the Commission de'fer this request 120 days in order that she would have time to resolve the contract agreement pr6blems associated with the purchase of this property. Staff is of the opinion that the Applicant is now prepared to move on with the hearing ~f this request a~d' would accept rezoning of this parcel to the Office Business (O) classification.. C.P.C. 7 19 77: It was resolved to recommend Office 'Business (O) zoning · -- subject to the following conditions: 1. A buffer strip having a width of not less than 50 feet shall be provided along VA Highway 10. This buffer shall remain in a natural state and shall not be used for locating buildings, driveways, or parking lo_ts. I~j~q~ ~ ~~~ ~_ A~c~~~ ~t hi~s~rOc e l~s h a~l 1~ ~~a .- .--- T ...... ~ 2. O ' ck Road. No access to this parcel shall be permitted either now or in the future from VA 10. B.S. 8 24 77: At the request of the applicant this case was deferred to the September 28, 1977 meeting. 4 September 28, 1977 (B.S.) CASE NUMBER: 77S144 APPLICANT: IMOGENE A. PURDY REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: The rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3). The Applicant has not stated what type of use she plans to make of this property. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Midlothian Magisterial District, this parcel fronts along the north line of Midlothian Turnpike and is located approximately 160 feet west of its intersection with Pocono Drive. Tax Map 17-7 (1) Parcel 18 (Sheet 8). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approximately 0.80 acres in area, zoned Agricultural (A) and occupied by a single family dwelling. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property is zoned Agricul- tural (A). Property to the west is occupied by a Mobile Home Park while the remainder of the properties are occupied by single family dwellings or remain vacant. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Public water is on site and available to serve this property. inch water line is located along Midlothian Turnpike. A 16 This parcel lies in the Pocoshock Creek Sewer Drainage Area. The closest trunk sewer is located along Pocoshock Creek. It will cost approximately $40,000 to bring sewer to this property. This property will be served by the Falling Creek Sewage Treatment Plant. Soils are gravelly fine and sandy loam, gently sloping and under present conditions have only a slight chance for erosion. These soils are well suited for the proposed use. This parcel lies in the Powhite Creek Drainage Pattern. Due to topo- graphy, drainage and erosion problems are anticipated during construction. No clearing or construction shall begin until a site plan and an erosion control plan have been approved by the County. Off-site easements will be required for sewage and drainage. PUBLIC FACILITIES: This property will be served by the Midlothian Fire Station, Company #5, which is a volunteer unit. Fire service capability in this area is adequate to serve this project. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: In the area of the request, Midlothian Turn- pike is in good condition. It should be noted that the Highway Depart- ment's 1976 Primary Road Traffic Count show that the average dailey traffic in this area was 18,475 ADT. 'GENERAL PLAN: ~Commercial use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is the property owner, requests the rezoning from Agricultural (A) to General Business (B-3). At present, the Applicant has no specific use in mind for the property. ALTERI~TIVES & MITIGATING MEASURES: In this particular situation, the parcel in question lies within an area that within all probability will be developed for commercial use. Intermittant properties, fronting along Midlothian in the vicinity of the request, have been commercially zoned; however, the Applicant has not demonstrated that there is either a i need or justification for zoning the subject parcel to the requested General Business (B-3) classification; this is the highest intense commercial zone. Since no use is intended, the B-1 classification might be the more appropriate classification until such time as a specific use might warrant increased zoning. Moreover, the propertY to the north, fronting Robious Road will be effected by zoning permitted on the subject parcel. Higher intensity zoning and the resulting land use may have an adverse affect on this adjacent property resulting in pressures for further commercial zoning along Robious Road which heretofore, both the Commission and Board has considered inappropriate. Therefore, as an alternative to the request, the Commission should consider recommending a lesser zoning and/or reasonable buffering along the north property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the requested General Business (B-3) zoning be denied and that approval of no higher classifi- cation than Community Business (B-l) be allowed. If a higher commercial classification can, at this time, be justified, then Staff would further recommend that a buffer or not less than 50 feet be provided along the rear property line. This buffer shall consist of the retention of existing vegetation with no trees or shrubs being cut, removed or otherwise disturbed. Areas within the buffer which are clear for 200 square feet or greater shall be planted with evergreen plants and trees. C.P.C. 7 19 77: B.S. 8 24 77: CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST It was resolved ~o recommend Convenience Business (B-l) Zoning subject to.the condition that a 35 foot wide buffer be provided along rear property line. This buffer shall consist of the retention of the existing vegetation with no shrubs being cut, removed or otherwise distrubed. Areas within the buffer which are clear for 200 square feet or greater shall be planted with evergreen plants and trees. This buffer shall remain until the property to the rear is zoned for business use. This case was deferred to the September 28, 1977 Board mee{ing due to the applicant's failure to have the case represented. A MH-I CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: 77S145 & 77S146 September 28, 1977 (B.S.) MR. & MRS. WAYNE L. MYERS (77S145) LOUISE M. BURGE (77S146) REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: Business (B-3) The rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General GENERAL LOCATION AND TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Bermuda Magisterial District, this property fronts alon~' the south line of Willis Road and along the east and west lines of Burge Avenue, and is located south of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Tax Map 82-5 (5) Dale Heights, Block A, Lot 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 and Block B, Lots 2,3,4, 5, 6, & 7 (Sheet 23). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approximately 4.37 acres in area, zoned Residential (R-7) and occupied by 2 commercial buildinas and 4 single family dwellings. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property to the north, west and south is zoned General Business (B-3), property to the east is zoned Residential (R-Y). Commercial properties are occupied by commercial buildings and the residential properties are occupied by single family dwellings. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASF~LENTS:_ Public water is on site and available to serve this property. A 16 inch water line is located along Burge Avenue and is fed by a 6 inch water line. At some point in time, heavy water use in this area will be limited. This property lies in the Kingsland Creek Sewage Drainage Area. The closes~ trunk sewer is located at the intersection of Willis Road and Burge Avenue and will provide public sewer for this property. The sewer trunk is served by the Proctor's Creek Treatment Plant. Soils are sandy loam, nearly level and under present conditions, have only a slight chance for erosion. This property is poorly suited for development. The seasonable water table is at 0 to 6 inches depth. This parcel lies in the James River Drainage Pattern. Due to topography, drainage and erosion problems are anticipated during construction, therefor~ no clearing or construction may begin until a site plan and erosion control plan have been approved by the County. Off-site easements Will be required for sewage and drainage. P%~LIC FACILITIES: This property will be served by the Bensley Fire Station, Company #3, which is volunteer unit. Fire service capability in this area is adequate to serve this property. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Willis Road and Burge Avenue are in fair con- dition. The State Highway Department's 1976 Secondary Traffic Counts are shown on the attached traffic map. GENERAL PLAN: Commercial and single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicants, who are the property owners, are reques- ting the rezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) (Myers & Burge) Industrial (M-l) (Burge only). The Applicants have not stated their intent as to the type of use or uses they plan to make of this ' property. ALTERNATIVES & MITIGATING MEASURES: The original application (Case Number 77S146) for LOUISE M. BURGE, requested rezoning to the Light Industrial (M-l) classification for a part of the parcel owned by Mrs. Burge, however, prior to the July 19, 1977 Planning Commission hearing. Staff noted that if this parcel were rezoned to the M-1 classification the set backs required from the adjacent (R-7) district (Bellwood Manor Subdivision) would preclude use of those parcels fronting the east line of Burge Avenue. As a result of discussing this situation with the Applicants, they requested deferral of both cases in order that they be amended to request a more appropriate zoning. The Applicants have now requested that the entire parcel considered in Cases 77S145 & 77S146, be rezoned from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3). In analyzing the proposal, it is important to consider past zoning actions in the area. Most of the adjacent and surronding properties have over the past several years been rezoned from Residential to Commercial on a piece- meal basis. As can readily be observed, either Commercial or Industrial zoning almost entirely surrounds the subdivision of Bellwood Manor. The rezoning of the subject parcels would be in keeping with what has been previously permitted in this area. However, Staff believes that the Commission should consider appropriate buffering along the rear of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Block A which fronts the east line of Burge Avenue. These lots back to the residentially developed lots fronting Periwinkle and Russell Roads. In this respect, it is important to note that on December 20, 1976, the Board of Supervisors approved a request (Case Number 77S212) by John H. Ingrim and Wilbur R. Cross for rezoning to the General Business (B-3) classification of a parcel south of the current request also fronting the east line of Burge Avenue. In approving this request, the Board required that a chain link fence, having a height of no less than 6 feet, be constructed along the rear property line. This fence was to be slatted and to serve as a screen between the future uses of the Commercially zoned parcel and the Residentially developed lots to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of both of these requests is recommended subejct to a chain link fence being erected along the east property lines of lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Block A. This fence shall not be less than 6 feet in height and shall be slatted to create a solid ficade. This fence shall be erected simultaneously with commencement of clearing and construc- tion on the site. CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMIS'SION AND BOARD ACTI0~ FOR THIS REQUEST C.P.C. 7 19 77 Both requests were deferred to the August 16, _ Commission meeting at the request of the applic~ (see Alternatives and Mitigating Measures). C.P.C 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of General Services Business (B-3) zoning subject to the condition that a chain link fence be erected along the east property lines of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and $ of block A. This fence shall not be less than 6 feet in height and shall be slatted to create a solid facade. This fence shall be erected simultaneously with commencement of clearing and construction on the site. cORPS 'OF* £N$11fEE~ I I' 9"6 I : 4~ ~ I ! 82-9 BF_..~,IUDA D~$TRICT . SECTION September 28, 1977 (B.S.) CASE RUMBER: 77S150 APPLICANT: RICHARD M. ALLEN REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: A Conditional Use to permit indoor and outdoor tennis courts 'and related facilities. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Bermuda Magisterial District, this parcel fronts along the north line of Iron Bridge Road and the east line of Chalkley Road and is located northeast of the intersection of the aforementioned roads. Tax Map 114-7 (1) Parcel 5 (Sheet 31). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJE. CT PARCEL) : Approximately - 3.9 acres, zoned Agricultural (A) and occupied by a number of barns, accessory buildings and a tennis building. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property is zoned Agri- cultural (A), except for that to. the southeast which is zoned Community Business (B-2). All adjacent property is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacant, except that to ~he southeast which is occupied by the Buxton Swim Club. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Public water is located at Chalkley Road and Bethlehem Drive, approximately 1200 feet from this parcel, and is available to serve this property. This parcel-lies in the Great Branch, Proctor's Creek Sewage Drainage Area. The closest trunk sewer is located at the intersection of Great Branch and Hamblin Creek; therefore, due %o distance and economics, it is not feasible to serve this property with public sewer. Soils are sandy loam, gently sloping and under present conditions, have only a slight chance for erosion. These soils are fair to good for foundations. Septic tank drainfields must be located Drior to construction commencing. This parcel lies in the Great Branch Drainage Pattern. Due to topography, drainage and erosion problems are anticipated during construction; therefore, no clearing or construction should begin until a site plan and an erosion control plan have been approved by the County.. Off-site drainage easements will be required. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Chester Fire Station, Company gl, operated by County employees, wii1 serve this property. Fire service capability for %his project will be limited if public water is not used. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Iron Bridge Road and Chalkley Road are in good condition in the area of the request. 1-95 AAT will effect this location. The State Highway Department's 1976 Primary and Secondary Traffic Co~n.t~ are shown on the attached traffic map. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is the property owner, requests a Conditional Use to permit indoor and outdoor tennis courts and related facilities. Specific site and operation plans have not been submitted. ALTEP~ATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: In December of 1976, the Applicant requested and was granted a building permit (~76-4092) for an indoor tennis court. This use is permitted in an Agricultural (A) District if there is an existing residence and the tennis court is for personal use. The Applicant indicated that this building permit request represented such a situation and therefore a structure containing approximately 8,400 square feet of floor area was erected on the parcel. The Applicant is now makinq this current request to include use of an existinq barn (built for that purpose) and the existing tennis building (called a tennis barn) as well as a r~quest for a 120 X 204 foot 3-court expansion building. In 1974, the Applicant was party to a Special Exception request (Case #74A051- granted to LaVerne C. Cole and Richard M. Allen) to operate an indoor and outdoor sports club on a parcel (Tax Map 114-11 (1) Parcel 1-1) directly across Route 10 from the proposed facility represente~ by this current application. Prom this Special Exception evolved the Buxton Swim and Racquet Club. The Special Exception permitted the construc- tion of 4 indoor tennis court. These have not been built. As of January 1, 1977, Allen and Cole were listed as the owners of this property. Planning Staff is concerned about the reasonableness of maintaining such uses in the County. National studies indicate that there is a decline in the use of such facilities since many public facilities for this recreational use have been provided. Chesterfield has been extremely active in this respect. In addition, National studies also indicate that in order to show a profit, such tennis facilities must be utilized at least 70% of the time. It should also be noted that in 1973, (Case 973S147) a Conditional Use was granted to Chesterfield · ndoor Tennis Club, Inc. (Applicant T. R. Hiller). This Conditional Use permitted the construction of an indoor tennis club on Route approximately 1.5 miles north of this request site and the Buxton Club. This facility was recently offered for sale to the County. Due to the County's desire to control commercial development along Route 10, and because of the Special Exception previously granted the Applicant which permits construction of 4 indoor tennis courts across the street, Staff does not believe this request should be approved. It is felt that if the Conditional Use is granted and the proposed operation fails, pressure would be brought to bear whereby a more intense of the land would be sought. CASE HISTORY AND PAST 'COMMISSION AND BOARD A~CTION FOR THIS REQUEST C.P.C 7 19 77: The Commission deferred this request 30 days to give the applicant time to meet with Mr. Currin and Staff to determine what specific activities Mr. Allen wishes to conduct on this property. As of this writing the applicant has not contacted Staff and we would assume by his inaction that he either no longer wishes to pursue this request or his circumstances dictate a further deferral. C.P.C. 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of a Conditional Use to permit indoor and outdoor tennis courts and related facilities as requested by Mr. Allen in his August 12, 1977 letter to Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. 2 ~ARVEfi N EIG"r~ OR. AVE.. // // / Illll_lll Ill lllllllllll'~ llllllllll m o~ F ADDENDUM 77S150 RICHARD M. ALLEN Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting on August 16, 1977, it has been requested that the Development Review Staff.make a further analysis of this application and submit additional recommendations for possible consideration. This has been accomplished and as a result it is recommended that should the Board see fit to grant approval of this use, the operation be subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of four (~) indoor tennis courts shall be permitted. These courts shall be located as shown on the plan prepared by Allan and Company and filed with the application. 2. A maximum of ~ (,~ outdoor courts shall be permitted. These courts shall be setback a minimum of ~ofeet from all property lines. 3. A minimum of four (4) parking spaces per tennis court shall be provided. All parking areas shall be paved, setback at least 50 feet from the southern property line (coterminus with the Route 10 right-of-way line) and screened from all adjoining property by existing buildings, the planting of evergreen shrubs and trees or the erection of a solid board fence. This.screen shall be no less than five (5) feet in height. v~4. No additional buildings other than those now.existing on the parcel shall be permitted by this Conditional Use. 5. This operation may include but shall be limited to: a. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts and/or platform tennis courts. b. Shower, restroom and dressing facilities. c. A private (members of club-exclusively) pro shop and related storage. ~An indoor a_~rea for snack m~ch~ne~ and seatingl~rma31~n~__~ -e.. ' ' - '~--s _(r_estaurant~.~cercis& '"~S-,~eting roo_~ms, or~ ~ g~e rooms shall be Pe~itted~ 6. ~ighted ~ free standing sign shall be pe~itted no larger than 100 square feet, 7. The above noted conditions not Withstanding all bulk requirements as applicable in the Convenience Business (B-l) zone shall be required in this development. LLEN ANn E DMPANY REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS. BROKERS AND CONSULTANTS RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23234 ^u§ust 1:~; 1977 Mr. C. F. Currin, Jr. 4303 W. Hundred Road Chester, Virginia 23831 Re: Request for Use Permit Tennis Club, 3.9+ Acres Rt. 10 at Chalkley Road Chester, Virginia Dear Mr. Currin: As per your request, after our meeting last evening, I list below more explicitively and hopefully in sufficient detail the intended use I hope to exercise and request use permission for, on the referenced property. To use the plated 3.9 acres of land, as per plat earlier submitted, to use the existing indoor tennis barn and buildings attached as an indoor tennis club. In addition, I would like the right to expand as shown on plot plan, as the need may arise, three additional indoor tennis courts. Also, the right to con- struct additional outdoor tennis courts or platform tennis courts as the need arises. I would also like the right to sell tennis rackets, tennis clothes and related tennis items only to members of said club and to install drink and snack type machines only, for the convenience of the members. I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE ANY RESTAURANT or permanent type eat- ing facilities at this club. This request is for the above listed uses only and is not intended to be construed for any other business use and the only transferrable right to any possible other owner would be for same tennis club use only. I trust the foregoing is explicit enough and will meet with the boards approval. Yours truly, RMA:mr ~lgust 16, 1977 (C.P.C.) CASE NUMBER: 77S163 APPLICANT: MARY S. WHITMORE REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: The rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7). The Applicant plans to subdivide this property for construction of 31 single family dwellings. The Planning Commission gave tentative approval for the proposed subdivision of Bryce Estates on July 26, 1977. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Matoaca Magisterial District, this property fronts along the north line of River Road and is located approximately 25 feet west of its intersection with Trojan Drive. Tax Map 181-15 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 53/54). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approxima- tely 14 acres in area, zoned Agricultural (A) and presently occupied by an old wooden frame house. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Old Town Creek lies along the north boundry of this parcel. Property to the north is zoned Agricultural (A) and for most part is vacant. Property to the east is zoned Residen- tial (R-7) and is occupied by Trojan Wood Subdivision. Properties to the south are zoned Agricultural (A) and for mos% part are vacant. Property to the west is zoned Residential (R-7) and is occupied by Perdue Property Subdivision. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Public water (6 inch water line) is on site and available to serve this property. It is estimated that development of this parcel under the Residential (R-7) classification with the use of public water would permit a density of 31 single family dwellings. The Utilities Department current- ly reports that an average single family residence uses 240 gallons of water per day, therefore, 7,440 gallons per day would be utilized by this development. These per unit flows are not line design flows because peak flow plus fire service flow must be considered for design purposes. This parcel lies in the Old Town Creek Sewage Drainage area. Public sewer is available and on-site to serve this property. The Utilities Department calculates per capita sewage flow at 100 gallons per day for design purposes. Based on an average of 3.5 persons per single family dwelling unit, approximately 10,850 gallons per day of sewage affluent sould be generated for treatment by the proposed subdivision. These sewage treatment figures are greater than the water used because infiltration and inflow. The project will connect to the Old Town Creek Lagoon treatment facility. Soils on this perperty are fine sandy loam, gently sloping to sloping and under present conditions have only a moderate chance?for~erosion. Soils are suitable for the proposed use if public sewer is used. However, if spetic tanks are used, soils are unsuitable for this use. The soil conditions will require a detailed drainage plan which will allow positive outlets for foundation drainage on each structure. This parcel lies in the Old Town Creek Drainage area. Drainage on this parcel is poor due to existing topogrophy. Drainage and erosion problems are anticipated during construction due to existing topogro3hy, therefore, prior to clearing or construction a site plan and an erosion control plan must be approved by the County. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Based on the 1977 average of 0.90 public s~hool students per single family dwelling, approximately 28 pupils would be generated by this development. This subdivision is now within the Matoaca Elementary, Matoaca Middle School and the Matoaca High School attendance zones. This project will be served by the Ettrick Fire Station, Company #12, which is operated by County employees. Existing fire service capabilities are adequate to serve this project if public water is used and fire hydrants provided by the developer. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC: Single family development under the proposed plan will result in the generation of approximately 303 average daily traffic based on an estimate of 9.8 trips per single family residence. These vehicular movements would be distmibuted over River Road now adjacent to the proposed development. River Road is in fair to good condition, in the area of this request. The State Highway Departments 1976 Primary road traffic counts in this area are noted on the a~tached map. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-7). The Applicant plans to subdivide this property for construction of 31 single family dwellings . The Planning Commission gave tentative approval for the proposed subdivision of Bryce Estates on July 26, 1977. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: Staff finds that Trojan Woods Subdivision, which is zoned 'ReSidential (R-7), lies to the east of this property, and Robertsons Place Subdivision, which is zoned Residential (R-7), lies to the west of this property. Staff notes that the property lying to the north and south is zoned Agricultural (A) and is large vacent property with a good potential for future subdivision. Staff notes that even though the property in Trojan Woods and Robertsons Place is zoned Residential (R-7), the lots in these subdivisions are larger than those proposed for Bryce Estates. Staff reviewed the Tentative Subdivision Plan approved by the Planning Commission for Bryce Estates and finds that the smallest lot (80 feet wide and 10,000 sq. ft. in lot area) exceeds the minimum lot size (75 feet wide and 9,000 sq. ft. in lot area) for Residential (R-9) zoning. In view of this, Staff believes that the Commission should consider zoning the subject property to the Residential (R-9) classification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: CLASSIFICATION. RECOMMEND REZONING TO THE RESIDENTIAL (R-9) C .P.C CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMI:S:SION AND':BOARU ACTION FOR T~I'S REQUE~ST 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend Residential (R-9) zoning. ¢0~P5 II OF 775/05. 0oo' t9 r'o ,~--7" 1 L .-- --"/ CASE NUMBER: 77S165 ~-~3~-- ~-,- {~7~- - ~-. ~ ~ ) September 28, 1977 (B.S.) APPLICANT: REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: The rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-l). The Applicant propose~, to locate a new Technology Center on this property. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Bermuda Magisterial District, this parcel fronts along the south line of Reymet Road and the east line of Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike, and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 82-13 (1) Parcel 26 (Sheet 23). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approximately 7.449 acres in area, zoned Agricultural (A) and presently occupied by a Packaging Pilot Plant facility. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Addacent property to the north is zoned Agricultural'""(A) and is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacant. The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike lies to the west of this property; the property lying along the west line of the Turnpike is zoned Residential (R-7) and Light Industrial (M-l). Property to the east of the Subject parcel is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-3) and is occupied by various Reynolds Metals facilities. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Depending upon usage, public water may or may not be available to serve this project. A 6 inch water line is located at Pams Avenue and is available to serve this property. This property lies in the Kingland Creek Sewage Drainage Area. The closest trunk sewer is located at Brown Bavaria facilities. Public sewer is not considered feasible because it would cost $230,000.00 to extend sewer to this property. Soils on this property are fine sandy loam, gently sloping and under present conditions, have only a slight chance for erosion. Soils are well drained and are suited for ~oundations and roadways, but are very doubtful for a septic tank and drainfield system. If septic tank is used, drain- fields must be located before clearing starts. This parcel lies in the Proctor's Creek Drainage area. Prior to any clearing or construction a site plan anderosion control plan must be approved by the County. PUBLIC FACILITIES: This project will be served by the Bensley Fire Station, Company #3, which is a volunteer unit. Fire service capability is adequate to serve this project. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC: Reymet Road, in the area of request, is in fair to good condition. The State Highway Departments secendary road traffic count in the area of request is noted on the attached map. GENERAL PLAN: Industrial Use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: Th= Applicant, who is the pru~erty owner, requests the rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light Industrial (M-I). The Applicant plans to locate a new Technology Center on this property which is presently occupied by a Packaging Pilot Plan%. The Technology Center will be a labatory type facility, employing approximately 50 professional scientists and technicians, who will be doing development work on pack- aging materials for the Packaging Division of Reynolds Metals Company. The facility will be a one story building located between an area zoned Heavy Industrial (M-3) and Interstate 1-95. The Technology Centers operating hours will be different from the adjacent industrial plants, therefore, effect on traffic will be minimal. See attached Site Plan and Building Elevation drawings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request is recommended. CASE HISTORY AND PAST' COMMI:S:SI'ON ANUBOARD ACTION FOR THIS' REQUEST C.P.C. 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of Light Industrial (M-l) zoning. m il ~EfNOLDS c ~,LS FEET r ADDENDUM 77S166 DAVID F. FARMER It has been suggested that this use might be permitted by rezoning the subject parcel to the Agricultural (A) classification and allowing a Conditional Use for the proposed auto repair operation as well as all B-1 uses. Therefore, Planning Staff offers the following recommendation: Should the Board see fit to grant approval of additional commercial activity on this parcel, then it is suggested that the parcel be rezoned from Convenience Business (B-l) to Agricultural .(A) and in addition a Conditional Use granted subject to the following: 1. This Conditional Use shall include but be limited to all permitted and accessory uses allowed in the Convenience Business (B-l) District plus a Conditional Use specifically permitting the operation of an automobile transmission repair shop and automobile service station (subject to Section 24.3-1 of the Zoning Ordinance). 2. The portion of this Conditional Use permitting the Convenience Business (B-l) uses and automobile service station shall run with the parcel. However, the portion of this Conditional Use permitting an automobile transmission repair shop shall be granted to David F. Farmer, exclusively and shall not be transferrable or run with the land. 3. By this Conditional Use, no other motor vehicle repair such as engine repair, body and fender work, muffler installation, etc. shall be permitted. 4. This operation shall be limited to a single service bay facility. 5. Ail automobiles awaiting repair, in the process of being repaired or having been repaired shall be parked within an area located north of'and behind the existing building. This area shall be entirely enclosed by a solid board fence having a height of not less than six (6) feet. 6. No more than five (5) motor vehicles awaiting repair, in the process of being repaired or having been repaired shall be parked on the parcel. 7. No outside storage of junk automobiles, parts thereof, equipment, supplies or other materials or debris shall be permitted. 8. The above noted conditions'not withstanding all bulk requirements as applicable in the Convenience Business (B-l) zone shall apply to this use. Se~'~mber 28, 1977 (B.S.) CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: 77S166 DAVID F. FARMER REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: General Business (B-3). automotive repair shop. Rezoning from Convenience Business (B-i) to The Applicant plans to expand an existing GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Matoaca Magisterial District, this parcel fronts· along the north line of Woodpecker Road and is located approximately 1,900 feet west of its intersection with Elko Road. Tax Map 174 (1) Parcel 3-1 (Sheet 49). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approx- imately 1.5 acres, zoned Convenfence Business (B-l) and occupied by a General Store and Service Station. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property is zoned Agri- cultural (A) and is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacant. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Public water and sewer is not available to serve this Property. Soils are sandy loam, gently sloping to sloping, and under present con- ditions have only a slight chance for erosion. Soils are well suited for the proposed use, they are good to fair for foundations and road ways. This parcel lies in the Swift Creek Drainage pattern. Prior to any clearing or construction, a site plan and erosion control plan must be approved by the County. A drainage easement will be required. PUBLIC FACILITIES: This property is served by the Ettrick Fire Station, Company ~'12, which is operated by County employees. Fire service capability to serve this property is limited due to the lack of public water. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC: Woodpecker Road, in the area of request, is in fair condition. The State Highway Department's Secondary road traffic count on Woodpecker Road is shown on the attached map. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is the property owner, request the .rezoning from Convenience Business (B-l) to General Business (B-3). He states that he plans to expand an existing automotive repair facility which is part of a general store facility. See attached site plans and floor plans. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: Staff has determined that prior to January 1, 1977 the parcel in ~aestion was zoned General Business (C-2) and a small convenience grocery was being operated thereon. Upon adoption of the major zoning ordinance revision, the parcel was then reclassified Convenience Business (B-i). This zu~ing was sufficient to permit the operation of the grocery. However, over the past several years the owner of the business has expanded the operation to include a gasoline filling station and limited public garage operation. The Applicant's request for rezoning to General Business (B-3) will supply the necessary land use control to accomodate existing and intended future expansion (the Applicant desires of making a structural addition adding a service bay to the building) but permitting such a heavy 'Commercial Zone may not be in the best interest of future development of the area. It should be noted that no Commercial rezoning has been per- mitted in the va~inity of this parcel and to rezone from Convenience Business (B-i) to General Business (B-3) would not be compatable with adjacent area and residential development which is expected in the future. Therefore, the Commission may wish to consider recommending that the parcel be rezoned no higher than Community Business (B-2) thereby permitting the Applicant to seek a Special Exception (Section 18-4, Sub section 4) permitting a public garage. Under the Special Exception, this use can be regulated so as to cause a minimum adverse impact on existing and future area development. Should the Commission be able to justify recommending ~hat the parcel be rezoned as requested, then they may also wish to consider recommending appropriate buffering of the use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the request to rezone to the General Business (B-3) classification be denied and that approval of no greater a commercial zone than Community Business (B-2) be permitted. CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST C.P.C 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend Denial of this request. !/ 7 ? $t66 -/ . , I Sept ber 28, 1977 (B. S.) CASE NUMBER: 77S167 APPLICANT: TALLEY NEON AND ADVERTISING REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: Rezoning from General Industrial (M-2) to General Business (B-3)i' The Applicant plans to locate a billboard advertising sign on this property. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Bermuda Magisterial District, this parcel fronts 'along the northeast line of Shell Road and is located approximately 800 feet north of its intersection with Bellwood Road. ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approx- imately 0.16 acres, zoned General Industrial (M-2) and presently vacant. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: The Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike lies to the east of this' parcel. Property east of the turnpike is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-3) while all other property is zoned General Industrial (M-2). Adjacent property is industrial or vacant. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: This request will have no detrimental effect on the present traffic pattern in this area. It will not create a line of site problem for the traffic along Interstate 95. GENERAL PLAN: Industrial use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant has signed an agreement with the prop- erty owner, Usry Incorporated, to erect a billboard sign on this parcel. The billboard sign would have 672 sq. ft. in agregate area. The sign will be 25 feet above the road grade of 1-95 and will be located along 1-95 so as to call attention to various commercial businesses, see attached plats and sign drawings. ALTERNITIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: On April 5, 1977 the Applicant Withdrew a request for a Special Exception to erect a billboard sign on this property. Ail adjacent property as well as the surronding neighborhood is zoned for Industrial use. The Applicants have noted, that in their opinion, such zoning is compatable with the proposed sign. However, staff is of the opinion that such an analogy is purely subjective and self serving. It is intended, for the sign in question, to be located a minimum of 1,500 feet from any other advertising signs along Interstate 95. It is also proposed that the sign be located 65 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. The subject parcel is a small triangle area containing 0.16 acres. The Applicant further noted, that in their opinion, because of the size of the parcel, the use thereof is severly restricted within the General Industrial (M-2) zoning district. It is important to note, however, that the subject parcel is part of an overall tract and creation of this parcel is only intended to accomodate the subject sign. Staff is of the opinion that this parcel, in conjunc~ tion with the overall tract, could under existing zoning, indeed be used for purposes other than reflected by this application. The Commission should be aware that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a Special Exception by the Applicant to erect a billboard sign approx- imately 4,100 feet north of the subject site. It should also be noted that, in traveling this section of Interstate 95, it can readily be determined that other billboard and advertising signs lie between the sign approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the propsoed sign. In considering his request, the Commission may wish to recommend that the property be rezoned to the Agricultural (A) classification and a Conditional Use for the proposed sign also granted which would be sub- ject to certain conditions governing the location and appearance of the sign. The Commission may also recommend that in their opinion the request should be denied since the proposed use can be obtained by receiving approval of Special Acception from the Board of Zoning Appeals under the existing zoning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. However, should the Commission see fit to recommend rezoning to the Agricultural (A) classification with a Con- ditional Use for the proposed sign, Staff is of the opinion that the following conditions should be imposed: Only one sign shall be approved by the granting of this Conditional use. e Location of the sign shall be such that it shall be separated from any existing billboard sign by distance of not less than 1,500 feet. This sign shall be set back a distance of not less than 50 feet from the right of way of Interstate 95, and not less than 380 feet from the right of way of Elliham Avenue (south property line). 4. The sign may be luminated but shall not be luminous. 5. The sign shall have an agregate area no greater than 672 sq. ft. 6. The height of the sign shall not be greater than 25 feet above the grade of the Interstate 95 right of way. 0 The above noted conditions, notwithstanding, the appearance of the sign and its position and location of the parcel shall be similar to the prelimanary site plans and renderings submitted with the Special Exception application (Case Number 77A075) received on February 24, 1977. C .P.C. 8 16 77: CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST It was resolved to recommend approval of General (B-3) zoning. /I//-J il X,l× ?, -2 ,z/~ ?.5----I SCALE RALEIGH E. PHELPS NEON AND ADVERTISING COMPANY HIGHWAY ADVERTISING · NEON AND PLASTIC SIGNS 1908 CHAMBERLAYNE AVE. · P.O. BOX 27551, RICHMOND, VA. 23261 · PH 649-0325 o~ NEON AND ADVERTISING COMPANY HIGHWAY ADVERTISING · NEON AND PLASTIC SIGNS 190B CHAMBERLAYNE AVE. · P.O. BOX 27551, RICHMOND, VA. 23261 · PH 649-0325 .1 S~ ~ember 28, 1977 (B.S.) CASE NUMBER: 77S169 APPLICANT: THOMAS M. RICKS, SR. REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: A Conditional Use to permit construction of 4 mu~tiple"famiiy units. 'GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Dale Magisterial District, This parcel"fronts alon~ ~he soUth line oS Goolsby Avenue and the east line of Pembroke Street, and is located in the eastern quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 53-3 (3), Dupont Square, Block C, Lots 1, 2, 27 and 28 (Sheet 16). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approx- ,imately ~.64 acres in area, zoned Residential (~'7) and occupied by two, four unit each, brick apartment buildings. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: All adjacent properties are zoned Residential (R-7) except for that to t--he northwest which is zoned Community Business (B-2). Adjacent property is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacent. UTILITIES, SOIL PROFILE, DRAINAGE AND EROSION, REQUIRED OFF-SITE EASEMENTS: Public water is available to serve this property. A 3 inch water line is located along Pembroke Road and on site to serve this property. A minimum additional amount of water will be used by this development. This parcel lies in the Falling Creek Sewage Drainage area. A trunk sewer is located on Groolsby Avenue to serve this property. A new sewer lateral may need to be installed to serve the proposed use. A minimum amount of sewage affluent would be generated by this project. Soils are sandy loam, gently sloping, and under present conditions, have only a slight chance for erosion. These soils are poorly drained with seasonable water table less than 18 inches in depth, January thru April. This project will require detailed drainage plans for each structure, for foundation drains. This property lies in the Grendale Creek Drainage area. The topography in this area is very flat causing poor drainage. Drainage and erosion problems are anticipated during construction, therefore, prior to clear- ing or construction, a site and erosion control plan must be approved by the Environmental Engineering Division. PUBLIC FACILITIES: A minimal number of public school students will be generated by this project. This project will be served by Bensley Fire Station, Company #3, which is a volunteer unit. The fire service capability in this area is adequate to serve this property. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC: Goolsby Avenue and Pembroke Street in the area of the request are in fair condition. The State Highway Departments 1976 Secondary road traffic counts in this area are shown on the attached map. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is the property owner, requests a Conditional Use to permit construction of 4 multiple family units. -He proposes to use these four efficiency apartments for rental purposes. See attached site plan. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: The Co~m~Lission may desire to re- commend that only a duplex unit be permitted, however, the parcel in question will accomodate the proposed four unit structure and it should also be noted that the area incompassing the request site has been developed with mixed single family, two family, and small multi-family use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the request is recommended subject to the implementation of the following conditions: The following conditions, notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by Robert M. Blankenship, III, dated April 28, 1977, and submitted with the application, shall be considered the plan of development for this use. The structure to be erected on the parcel shall be of brick con- struction and have an appearance similar to the two existing four unit buildings. e A Landscaping Plan for the entire parcel shall be submitted to and approved by the Chesterfield County Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved and all walkways shall either be paved or set with stone. c.P.C, 8 16 77: CASE HISTORY AND PAST COM~{ISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST It was resolved to recommend approval of' a Conditional Use to build one structure containing four (4) apartment units subject to the following conditions: The following conditions, notwithstanding, site plan prepared by Robert M. Blankenship, Iii, dated April 28, 1977, and submitted with the application, shall be considered the plan of development for this use. 2 · 2: The structure to be erected on the parcel shall be of brick construction and have an appearance similar to the two existing four-unit buildings. A Landscaping Plan for the entire parcel shall be submitted to and approved by the Chesterfield County Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved and all walkways shall either be paved or set with stone. LA. E r ~R~MPTC) N WAY Se 'ember 28, 1977 (B.S.) CASE NUMBER: 77S171 APPLICANT: MRS. NANCY GOODE SPIVEY REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: A Conditional Use to permit the operation of a Craft Shop. 'GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Clover Hill Magisterial District, this Parcel fronts along the north line of Genito Road, and is located approximately 1 mile northwest of its intersection with Otterdale Road. Tax Map 45 (1) Parcel 4, (Sheet 12). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): Approx- imately 1 acre in area, zoned Agricultural (A) and occupie~ by a single family dwelling and a number of accessory buildings. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Adjacent property is zoned Agricultural (A) and is occupied by single family dwellings or remains vacant. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC: Genito Raod, in the area of request, is in poor to fair condition. The State Highway Departments 1976 Secondary road traffic dount along Genito Raod, in the area of request, is noted on the attached map. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant, who is the daughter of the property owner, Sydnor B. Goode, requests a Conditional Use to permit the opera- tion of a craft shop on this property. The Applicant plans to open a small shop specializing in country crafts, made on consignment and predominently in the Mosely area. The Applicant states that this will be a part time business open 2% to 3 days a week. See attached site plan. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: Staff reviewed records and notes that the building in which the craft shop is to be operated is a historical landmark in Chesterfield County. This building is known as Otterdale School, and was erected around 1912 and operated until 1922. Conditions protecting this historical landmark from any adverse activity associated with this use, should be considered by the Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff is of the opinion, that properly res- tricted, this use should offer no determint to either the area in question nor the subject property. Therefore, approval is recommended,'' CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST C.P.C. 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of a Conditional Use to permit the operation of a craft shop subject to the following conditions: e e Se e This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Mrs. Nancy Goode Spivey exclusively and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. This Special Exception shall be granted for a period of five years and may be renewed subject to making the appropriate application and demonstrating that this operation has not proved a detriment to either the existing structure or surrounding properties. No employees other than the Applicant and her immediate family shall be permitted to be engaged in this operation on the parcel in question. Ail goods and items for sale and all materials and supplies and equipment associated with this use shall be stored in the interior of the dwelling located on the parcel. No outside sales, displays, or storage shall be permitted. Ail parking areas and driveways shall be graveled. Only one sign, no larger than 2 sq. feet shall be permitted. This sign shall neither be luminated nor shall it be luminous. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Sunday operation shall be restricted to between 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. No exterior change, modification, addition or construction associated either directly or in- directly with this use shall be permitted. 2 i'1 II I! F_STAT 5 u] %° ~7. oo' ~o~---:-~oo.o: GEN ITO SCALE :- l",= 60t MAP OF O.790-ACRE OF LAND , . WI T}{ NO IMPROVE-- MENTS, SITUATED ON THE NO.RTRR. RN SIDE OF GENITO ROAD, IN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT OF C~RSTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIAt BEING A PORTION OF TI{E PROPERTY OF SY-DN~R B. GOODE. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: 77S173 September 28, 1977 (B. S.) BRIARPATCH OF VIRGINIA REQUEST & PROPOSED USE: Amendment to an Existing Use Permit (Case number 68-37C) to permit a free standing sign in a Residential District. GENERAL LOCATION & TAX MAP IDENTIFICATION: In Midlothian, parcel fronts the southwest line of Robious Road 160 feet east of its intersection with Wiesinger Lane. Tax Map 8-16 (1) Parcel 1-1 (Sheet 2). ACREAGE, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USE (SUBJECT PARCEL): This property is zoned Residential (R-40) and is occupied by the Briarwood Tennis and Swim Club and the Berkeley Club Restaurant. ADJACENT AND AREA ZONING AND LAND USE: Property to the west is zoned Residential (R-15) and is occupied by the Briarwood Subdivision. The property to the northwest is zoned Residential (R-25) and is occupied by single family dwellings. Property to the northeast is zoned Res- idential (R-40) and is occupied by the Robious Schools. Property to the east is zoned Convenience Business (B-l) and is occupied by a grocery store. GENERAL PLAN: Single family residential use. REQUEST ANALYSIS: The Applicant request an amendment to a Use Permit (Case ~68-37C) to permit a free standing business sign in a residential district. This property belongs to Earl H. Wicker and is occupied by the Briar- wood Swim and Tennis Club and the Berkeley Club Restaurant. The proposed sign, which will be located at the entrance to ~he Briarwood facility, will advertise the Berkeley Club Restaurant. The sign will stand 14 feet high and be 20 sq. ft. in agregate area. See attached drawing. ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATING MEASURES: Staff reviewed this application and determined ~at the use permit granted on this property to operate the Briarwood Club Sports facility did not include a provision for erecting a business sign to advertise the facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the request is recommended subject to the implementation of the following conditions: The conditions stated below, notwithstanding, approval of this request shall be restricted to erection of a sign similar in appearance to the drawing prepared by Acme Neon, dated July 8, 1977, and submitted with this application. 2. The sign may be luminated but shall be non-luminous. The sign face, post, and jib shall be constructed of wood· Lctt~-- face of the s~ CASE HISTORY AND PAST COMMISSION AND BOARD ACTION FOR THIS REQUEST C.P.C. 8 16 77: It was resolved to recommend approval of an amendment to Use Permit 68-37C to permit a free standing sign subject to the following conditions: The conditions stated below, notwithstanding approval of this request shall be restricted to erection of a sign similar in appearance to the drawings prepared by Acme Neon, dated July 8, 1977, and submitted with this application. 2. The sign may be luminous. e The sign face may be of plexiglass and the mounting post and jib shall be constructed of wood. This amendment to the Use Permit shall'be granted for a period not to exceed 3 years from date of approval and may be renewed upon satisfactory re- application and the demonstration that this sign has not proved a detriment to the neighborhood. .f itl> IRO'BI 0 US S C H OOLS I I I! il II MUR Rb'~ 8-2 THt B RK. LL:. Y The Old! Dominion Re~teur~.'nt 7-8 --77 ACME NE~I~ COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD VIRGINIA MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: The Honorable Board of-Supervisors Nicholas M. Meiszer, County Administrator September 23, 1977 Establishment of an Office of Economic Development At the September 14, 1977 Board meeting, there was some discussion concerning the establishment of an Office of Economic Development and I was requested to provide the necessary background information for the project. We have prepared a tentative budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year (Nine months--October, 1977, through June, 1978). The Director's salary should be in the range of $15,000-$18,000 per year initially with an increase to a range of $20,000-$25,000 annually as the office develops its potential. Director's Salary Clerical Salary Office Equipment Advertising. Travel Special Car Allowance ($100/mo.) Postage ABIDCO Dues Richmond Chamber Dues Other memberships, etc. Rent at Airport $ 13 700 6 066 1 500 5 000 3 000 1 200 50O 7,500 26,300 300 -0- $ 65,066 Office space must be provided at additional cost unless we utilize County-owned space at the Airport. The initial work program should emphasize: A. Promotion of the County's Airport Industrial Park; Bo Providing staff assistance to the Industrial Development Authority; Me~-r~ol-i-g~-R~¢-hmo~l Chamberf;of Commerce and t~e_p_ro.po~sec~ Metropolitan Economic Develop~,e,n_t Co_unc~l;~ .~i~~d~'~ ~ D. Establish a good working relationship with local industrial and commercial interests, public utilities and transportation interests; E. Establish various files on existing and potential industrial sites, information on the availability of utilities and other services which might be required. F. Contact all realtors, particularly those specializing in commercial and industrial clients, in order to assist and provide a resource for any potential prospects; and G. Establish a pub'lic relations program with the various news media and, particularly, trade journals to promote the County as a site for locating and expanding industrial projects. The above described work program will occupy the first year and a more aggressive outreach and selling program could be develop- ed thereafter with a solid basis of factual information. The individual appointed should be given maximum flexibility to develop his own program of activities and must have the full confidence of the Board of Supervisors along with the ability to draw on all County departments and agencies as the need arises. The Personnel Department will develop a job description but this, too, will be so written as to permit maximum flexibility. A position of this type requires a particular personality and interest in addition to the factors such as education and experience. The individual must be highly motivated and be willing to work at all hours. Recruitment can begin immediately if the Board so directs. Nicholas M. Meiszer County Administrator