Loading...
12-12-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES December 12, 1984 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman Mr. R. Garland Dodd Mrs. Joan Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Staff in Attendance: Mr. Stanley R. Balderson, Dir. of Planning Mrs. Doris DeHart, Legislative Coord. Mr. William Diggs, Real Estate Assessor Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Robert Masden, Asst. Co. Admin. for Human Services Mr. Richard McElfish, Dir. of Env. Eng. Mr. R. J. McCracken, Transp. Director Mr. Steve Micas, Co. Attorney Mrs. Pauline Mitchell, Dir. of News/Info. Services ~. Jeffrey Muzzy, Asst. Co. Admin. for Community Develop. Mr. Gary Patterson, Asst. Co. Attorney Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir. of Budget & Acctg. Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Exec. Asst., Co. Adm. Mr. David Welchons, Dir. of Utilities It is noted that the Board did not begin its meeting at 10:00 a.m. at Byrd Airport as adjourned from the November 28, 1984 meeting. The printed agenda also indicates the Board began its meeting at 12:00 noon but the scheduled meeting began at 11:30 a.m. after proper waivers were signed and changes announced. 1. WORK SESSION ON BUDGET Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m. at the Courthouse. He stated several months ago the County Administrator and the staff presented the Board with a proposed Capital Improvements Budget, it was rather comprehensive and through discussions it was agreed that the County should proceed with the financing of Powhite as it was an obligation given to the County by the voters. He stated the Board also decided to proceed with the Human Services, the Courts and the Data Processing buildings as soon as possible and appointed committees to assist with those projects. He stated the Board did not take any action on the balance of the CIP. He stated they did request the Budget and Audit Committee to discuss the future financial situation of the County, to identify the various projects necessary in the CIP and summarize the financial implications or revenues which might be necessary to fund those projects. He stated the Board also met with the School Board regarding what their needs were for the next five years. He stated the next step would be to combine the two sets of needs to see what.could be done as one Capital program and then the Board could begin 84-730 to discuss these items and set the course for future direction. Mr. Zook stated the recommendations in the CIP stem from the public facilities plan which attempts to identify the needs as the population grows and have those facilities located where this population will locate in the future years. He presented charts indicating the level of service provided, the need to maintain service levels, the types of funding for various projects, etc. Mr. Ramsey reviewed the overall financial impact of the CIP and the School CIP on the County. He stated that over the next five years if the same levels of service are maintained, the County could give the School System $50,000,000 but that would not include any capital facilities for the County. He reviewed various projects and alternatives for funding. After much discussion, the Board made the following conclusions in order to consider funding the County CIP and the top portion of the list of school projects, copies of which are filed with the papers of this Board: The Board did not want to consider funding roads in the County as that is a funding issue for the Commonwealth of Virginia; That staff be requested to prepare a report for the Board on the proration of personal property taxes; j It was generally agreed that the cost of vehicle license tags would be increased from $18 to $20; That staff determine what utility tax would be needed to fund the balance of the CIP after the proration and license fee revenues are determined; e That the Board is committed to the construction of a Courts, a Human Services and a Data Processing building and to the construction of Powhite Parkway Extended; The Board requested Dr. Sullins to review his entire program for pOssible revenue sources which may not have been considered; 7. That a spring or fall referendum is necessary; and That the Board agrees to proceed with $19,500,000 for school projects. It was agreed that after these issues are determined, the Board would decide when and for how much the bond referendum would be. The Board recessed to travel to the Board Room for the afternoon zoning session. Reconvening: Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order. He stated he would like for the Executive Session to be held after zoning this afternoon rather than at the end of the day. He stated he would also like the Executive Session to include the discussion of personnel~ matters and to consult with counsel on other legal matters regarding HMK vs. the County of Chesterfield because of the emergency nature of said matters. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board added the discussion of personnel matters and consultation with legal counsel regarding HMK vs. the County of Chesterfield to the Executive Session on the agenda due to the emergency nature of those issues and moved the Executive Session to immediately following the zoning cases rather than at the end of the meeting. Vote: Unanimous 84-731 Mr. Daniel stated Mr. Dodd would be presiding over the afternoon session per the established rules of the Board for rotating the presiding officer during zoning. Mr. Dodd disclosed that he is in the mobile home business, although not directly related to sales, and requested anyone purchasing a mobile home from his company, to please advise him so that he could abstain from voting to prevent a conflict of interest. 2. REQUEST FOR MOBILE HOME PERMIT 84SR206 In Bermuda Magisterial District, Howard T. and Nancy W. Bridger requested renewal of a Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which they own. Tax Map 136-2 (2) Home Acres, Block 9, Lots 1, lA, 2 and 2A and better known as 2600 Burgess Road (Sheet 43/44). Mr. Dodd stated the applicant had called him last night and indicated that he could not be present today. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request for a period of five years subject to the following standard conditions: The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home. No lot or parcel may be rented or leased for use as a mobile home site, nor shall any mobile home be used for rental property. Only one (1) mobile home shall be permitted to be parked on an individual lot or parcel. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing residence. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used. Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the Building Official. This shall be done prior to the installation or relocation of the mobile home. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the Mobile Home Permit. Vote: Unanimous 3. REQUESTS FOR REZONING 84S143 In Bermuda Magisterial District, ROLLING HILL DEVELOPMENT CORP. requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit townhouse development in a Residential (R-40) District on a 23.3 acre parcel fronting approximately 450 feet on the east line of Chester Road, approximately 2,400 feet south of Centralia Road. Tax Map 97-10 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 32). 84-732 Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a 30 day deferral of this request. Mr. Seaton, representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Barr, an area resident, was present and stated the deferral was acceptable. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board deferred this case until January 23, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 84S196 In Dale Magisterial District, GROVER C. AND ROSA H. KESLER AND LEWIS T. AND MARION F. WOODCOCK requested rezoning from Residential (R-7) to Convenience Business (B-l) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a convenience store on a 1.46 acre parcel fronting approximately 305 feet on the east line of Turner Road also fronting approximately 70 feet on Walmsley Boulevard, and located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 40-6 (1) Parcels 14 and 15 (Sheet 15). Mr. Danie~ stated the applicant's representative, Mr. Les Saunders, had requested a deferral for 30 days to allow the applicant to discuss with staff appropriate conditions for commercial use. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board deferred this case until January 23, 1985 to allow staff and the applicant to discuss conditions for this site and use should it be approved. Vote: Unanimous 83S201 In Midlothian Magisterial District, RICHMOND HONDA COMPANY requested a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit motor vehicle sales, service, and repair in an Agricultural (A) and Community Business (B-2) District on a 9.09 acre parcel fronting approximately 610 feet on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, approximately 1,200 feet west of Wadsworth Drive. Tax Map 28-2 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated this request had been to the Board once but, because of a mapping error, adjacent property owners were not legally notified and the Board sent it back to the Planning Commission to allow proper advertising. He stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Oliver Rudy was present representing the applicant and stated the applicant agrees with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. He stated this Conditional Use Planned Development is a proper use of the property in the area, is compatible with the area, the property is already zoned B-2 which would allow a multitude of uses, and this Conditional Use would give the County greater control and supervision. He requested that the Board approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone stated that she had several citizens contact her in opposition to the change in land use as they are very concerned with what goes on there now as there has been a great deal of problem with the operation of the landfill and the quality of the soil and the way the site has been managed/mismanaged. She stated Condition #9 for the landfill use says that "construction of any facilities over fill areas shall not be permitted unless soil engineering studies prove the suitability of such construction". She stated that she was concerned that this is a Conditional Use, it should be site specific, it should be very detailed, and there should be an engineering study accomplished to know what is being dealt with. She stated based on the attitude of the public and the concerns over the condition of the soil and the condition of the site, this zoning for another use 84-733 would jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied this request. Mr. Dodd stated that he had a concern for this site when he was on the Planning Commission. He stated he is also concerned now that the County has appropriated money to buy right of way for Powhite and inquired why the Highway Department has not purchased the site. Mr. Balderson stated staff has been communicating with the Department regarding Powhite. Mr. McCracken stated the Highway Department has been following the normal procedures and is in the process of obtaining it. Mr. Dodd stated when this came up last summer, it was indicated that the Highway Department make the approach and it should have been handled during that time. Mr. Micas stated the Board's decision in this zoning case should be confined to land use and proper zoning considerations and should not be based on any issue regarding on the Highway Department's acquisition or failure to acquire this property for right of way. When asked, Mr. Balderson stated across the street there was some vacant property and there had been a pipe storage operation on the Henshaw tract. Mrs. Girone called for the question. Mr. Rudy stated he felt something should be said for the basis on which the Board is considering denying the request--the quality of the soil. He stated he was aware of condition ~9 when the landfill permit was granted and they will agree that nothing will be built until a detailed analysis is made which is what the Planning Commission agreed to. He stated he felt the Board was setting a precedent by requiring a soil analysis on this property. Mr. Applegate inquired about the road network in the area and Mr. Balderson reviewed how the property was situated on Route 60. The vote on the motion for denial was as follows: Vote: Unanimous 84S156 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JOHN C. CULLATHER requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (0) plus Condi- tional Use Planned Development on a 0.44 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Turner Road, approximately 950 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 9). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. There was no one present regarding this matter. Mr. Balderson stated he thought the applicant was in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Applegate stated he had discussed this with the applicant but he was not certain Mr. Cullather was in agreement with conditions. It was generally agreed that this case be deferred until the end of the agenda to allow the applicant time to be present. 84S184 (Amended) In Bermuda Magisterial District, AMY M. PATE requested an amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 83S184) to modify Condition 3 (location of children at an existing child care center) plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (paving) in a Residential (R-7) District on a 0.75 acre parcel fronting approximately 150 feet on the west line of Quinnford Boulevard, approximately 100 feet north of Willis Road, and better known as Bellwood Baptist Church. Tax Map 82-5 (4) Bellwood Heights, Lot lA (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended acceptance of the withdrawal of the portion of the request .to allow the enrollment to be increased to 60 children, approved the 84-734 ~dment to conditional use (83S184) to allow school age ~hildren to be housed in space other than the fellowship hall and a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit an to the paving requirement subject to certain · Mrs. Pate was present and stated the recommendation conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board accepted ;ithdrawal of the portion of the request to allow the enrollment be increased to 60 children, approved the amendment to ~onditional use (83S184) to allow school age children to be in space other than the fellowship hall and approved a ~ditional Use Planned Development to permit an exception to the ~aving requirement subject to the following conditions: Children may be housed within any of the available facilities at the church. (Note: Ail BOCA and Fire Prevention Codes must be met. This condition supersedes Condition 3 of Conditional Use 83S184. (P)) The parking area shall be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone. (P) e This exception shall be granted for a period not to exceed three (3) years from date of approval. (P) Unanimous 84S185 In Bermuda Magisterial District, JERRY L. WOOD AND LEON H. REEDER requested rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3) on a 0.34 acre parcel fronting approximately 75 feet on the west line of Jefferson Davis Highway, approximately 75 feet north of Galena Road. Tax Map 81-12 (3) Quail Oak, Section 2, Block 5, Lot 2 (Sheet 23). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval subject to a single condition. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd stated the applicant had called him and could be present for the meeting but indicated the conditions were On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following condition: A twenty (20) foot buffer shall be maintained along the western property line. This buffer shall be landscaped and/or fenced to screen this use from the adjacent single family residence to the west. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning De- partment for approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S186 In Bermuda Magisterial District, NANCY TURNER requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use (Case 77S150) to permit a swimming pool plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit bulk exceptions (number and paving of parking spaces) in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 182 feet on the north line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 450 feet west of West Booker Boulevard. Tax Map 114-7 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Sheet 31). 84-735 Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of an amendment to Conditional Use (Case 77S150) to permit a swimming pool and approval of a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to required number of parking spaces and paving subject to certain conditions. Mr. Terry Turner was present and stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved an amendment to Conditional Use (Case 77S150) to permit a swimming pool and approval of a Conditional Use Planned Development to permit exceptions to required number of parking spaces and paving subject to the following conditions: The pool shall be located as shown on the plan submitted with the application. (P) Additional pavement shall be installed along Route 10, as deemed necessary by VDH&T and the Transportation Department, no later than June 1985. (T&CPC) (Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that the pool be enclosed with a security type fence or wall not less than four (4) feet in height, or the pool must be enclosed.) The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. (p) Driveways and parking areas shall be graveled with a minimum of six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone and shall be delineated by a permanent means (i.e., timber curbs, etc.) (P) This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted for a period not to exceed two (2) years from date of approval. (P) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S188 In Midlothian Magisterial District, KOGER PROPERTIES, INC. requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 84S109) to permit an eight (8) story motel in an Office Business (O) District on a 5.0 acre parcel lying approximately 630 feet off the north line of Midlothian Turnpike opposite Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map 17-6 (1) Part of Parcel 1 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Luther Kiger, general manager for Koger Properties, stated the conditions were acceptable. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone inquired if the traffic would be any greater if the amendment were approved. Mr. Balderson stated it would not be any greater than anticipated for the original request. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding the plan prepared by Hanbury & Company, P.C., revised September 21, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan for the motel. (P) Except as amended herein, conditions of Conditional Use 84S109 shall be adhered to. (P) 84-736 Prior to the release of building permits in excess of 750,000 square feet of office complex space or a 215 room motel and 664,500 square feet of office complex space, Route 60 shall be constructed as a six (6) lane facility from Providence Road to approximately 0.17 miles west of Huguenot Road. However, upon ninety (90) percent occupancy of the initial construction permitted herein, the developer may perform an analysis of the traffic generated by the initial phase. The results of this analysis may be used to project ultimate traffic generations for the entire development. If this study reveals that additional square footage can be accommodated, given traffic and road conditions at that time, the Planning Commission may modify this condition. However, the total square footage permitted shall not exceed 933,800 square feet of office complex space or a 215 room motel and 848,300 square feet of office complex space. (T) (Note: This condition supersedes Condition 12 of Conditional Use Planned Development 84S109). Vote: Unanimous 84S189 In Matoaca Magisterial District, SPENCER'S QUICK STOP, INC. requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 82S040) to permit a fast food restaurant plus amendment to Condition 8 to permit an internally lighted freestanding sign in a Residential (R-7) District on a 1.6 acre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the west line of Iron Bridge Road, approximately 2,600 feet north of Lewis Road. Tax Map 114-1 (1) Parcel 9 (Sheet 31). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of an amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (82S040) to permit an internally lighted sign and approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (82S040) to permit a fast food restaurant subject to certain conditions. iThere was no one present representing the case. There was no one 'present in opposition. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board denied the request for an amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (82S040) to permit an internally lighted sign and approved an amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (82S040) to permit a fast food restaurant subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, revised April 25, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P) The floor plan prepared by Furr Associates, dated May 1984, shall be the plan for the internal configuration of the fast food restaurant. (P) 3. There shall be no drive-in window. (P) 4. There shall be no motor vehicle repair permitted. (P) (Note: This supersedes uses originally permitted under Case 82S040) The previous conditions notwithstanding, all applicable conditions of Conditional USe Planned Development (Case 82S040) shall be adhered to. (P) Vote: Unanimous 84S191 In Matoaca Magisterial District, MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. 84-737 requested Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a communications tower plus a 300 foot exception to the 100 foot height limitation for towers in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.0 acre parcel lying approximately 2,150 feet off the north line of Beach Road, approximately 3,170 feet east of Qualla Road. Tax Map 110-8 (1) Part of Parcel 4 (Sheet 30). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Oliver Rudy was present representing the applicant and stated the conditions were acceptable as amended by the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant has lived there for many years, has preserved his 200± acres as a farm, etc. There was no opposition present. Mrs. Girone inquired about the purpose for the tower and if there would be a possibility of sharing its use. Mr. Rudy stated this tower would be used for the relay of long distance telephone calls. Mr. Paul Yesler stated that there could be a problem by sharing the tower with other users as all common carriers use the same frequencies. Mr. Hodge inquired if Police and Fire had been contacted with regard to interference with their communications system. Mr. Balderson stated this was forwarded through the Fire Department as usual and there were no comments made. Mr. Mayes inquired what the basis was for recommending approval. Mr. Balderson stated the property will develop single family detached use in the future; however, the development would occur knowing the tower is there; and in the broader scope of things, towers moreover belong in commercial developments but in this age of communications that becomes a mute point because once the area develops, major advancements in technology may render the tower obsolete. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be granted to and for MCI Telecommunications Corp. and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) e At such time as the tower is no longer used by MCI, it shall be dismantled and removed and the area restored to its original condition. (CPC) The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with the application shall be considered the Master Plan. (p) e A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained around the perimeter of the site. With the exception of a single access point to Beach Road, there shall be no other facilities permitted in this buffer. This buffer shall be maintained in its natural state with no clearing or grading permitted. (P) There shall be no signs permitted identifying this use. (P) The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a six (6) foot high chain link fence, designed to preclude trespassing. (p) The driveway leading to the tower shall either be paved or gravelled and maintained to eliminate dust problems for adjacent property owners. (P) Prior to release of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of FAA approval to the Planning Department. (p) In conjunction with the granting of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. (P) 84-738 Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he acts as trustee and noteholder on the sale of property across the street from the next case and excused himself from the meeting to prevent any conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. 84S192 In Matoaca Magisterial District, JAMES O. MARTIN, JR. requested a Conditional Use to permit a convenience store in an Agricultural (A) District on a 2.12 acre parcel fronting approximately 315 feet on the east line of Qualla Road, also fronting approximately 210 feet on Spring Run Road, and located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 93-5 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 30). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. Mr. Glen Ayers, representing the applicant, was present. He stated this request is to allow Mr. and Mrs. Martin to operate a family convenience store at the intersection of Qualla and Spring Run Roads. He presented renderings of the proposed site, improvements, parking, the layout and site plan. He stated the applicant feels there is a need for this store and reviewed mileage to other stores in the area which would reduce traffic on the County roads. He stated there are seven parcels adjacent to the parcel under discussion, one owned by the State who does not take a position, four of the six remaining are in favor, with two opposed. He presented the Board with letters in favor from the four adjacent property owners and indicated on the map where each is located. He stated the Andersons and the Dixons are opposed. He stated a store was operated on this parcel many years ago. He added further that a similar request was denied by the Board in 1980 for a convenience store. Mr. Glen White stated the building that was operated as a store was taken down in 1980 and the building that exists now is a residence. Mr. Ayers stated they met with the neighbors and they are opposed to any retail use in the area because of their concern as to what it will do to the quality of life in the neighborhood and about potential traffic to be generated. He stated the quality of life should not be affected as it is compatible with proper land use techniques to have limited commercial uses and residential uses co-existing, and there is existing screening and additional screening to minimize any visual impact this use would have on the Andersons. He stated the store is small, will be run locally, hours and days of operation would be as dictated by the business, it would not be a commercial interference in the area causing traffic problems, etc. He stated the Planning staff recommended denial as it is incompatible but the applicant feels with the use permit the County can control the use and it can enhance the neighborhood; General Plan 2000 is a statement of direction but it can be amended intentionally and by factors beyond control of the governmental planning; that this would not be spot zoning as ~his is a conditional use permit with proper controls and is a controlled use of the property; and it will not set a precedent for commercial growth as all corners are developed or are covered by subdivision restrictions. Mr. White stated in 1980 the Andersons did not object to the plans for a convenience store when they were purchasing their property and they have since changed their mind. He presented the Board with slides indicating the site distance and the speed zones and stated this store would not cause any traffic hazards. He stated there are no public phones in the area for five to eight miles which would also be a help. He stated according to the County Police Department and its traffic records, the area residents are somewhat following the law and this is basically a safe intersection. He presented a letter from Mr. C. L. Waller supporting this request. He presented a slide indicating the 84-739 houses in the various subdivisions and stated there are 267 )eople signing the petition in opposition which is less than half ~he area population by 1982 figures within 1.7 miles of the site. {e stated despite the recommendation of the Planning Commission ~nd the vote four years ago, this site is suitable for this ~evelopment with proper controls. He stated most of the leighbors who are opposed would not be in sight of the store. He ~tated the traffic concerns are unwarranted because of the speed limits and sight distances that are already enforced and it would not cause traffic and safety problems as indicated. Mr. Kyle Blankenship, a long time resident in the area, stated he felt the request should be approved as the site would be greatly improved from the existing structure which is a visual obstruction, it is five miles to Route 360 and the roads are dangerous to traverse during inclement weather, etc. Mr. James Martin stated for the record that he was not related to the applicant. He stated he lives on Qualla Road and he is in favor of this request because of the convenience, it will not create a lot of traffic because only the neighbors will use the store, and that if the request is granted, he would like to see the applicant dedicate property to construct a turn lane. Mr. Balderson stated did not know if a turn lane could be constructed at the location without further review. Mr. Daniel inquired why conditions were not prepared in the event the Board wanted to approve the request which was done for the convenience store at Kingsland and Hopkins Roads. Mr. Balderson stated the applicant did not proffer any particular conditions other than those in his master plan and rendering. He stated there were no conditions recommended as the staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial and felt there were no options or alternatives suitable for the location. He stated if the Board feels there should be considerations given to commercial use, as in the past it could be sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration in that fashion. There were approximately 7 people present in favor of the request. Mrs. Patricia Dorton stated represented her friends and neighbors in opposing this request for a conditional use permit and had indicated this by letter to the Board. She stated in 1975 efforts were made to rezone this property and 300 citizens opposed this and the applicant withdrew, in 1980 another request for this site was made and there were 500 citizens opposed and the Board denied the request. She stated they were opposed to business in the single family residential setting, the residents moved here to get away from business or commercialism, there has been no expression for the need for this business, it is contrary to the General Plan 2000, it is incompatible with the area, it encroaches into a single family area, it represents spot zoning, it would set a precedent for future business zoning, the Planning Commission denied the request, there were over 50 people present at the Planning Commission in opposition, etc. She stated a petition has been submitted to the Board signed by approximately 263 people in the area opposed, a copy of which Mr. Hedrick stated is filed with the papers of the Board. She requested the Board deny the request. There were approximately 12 people present in opposition. Mr. Mayes inquired if the existing home were improved and rented to a welfare family with 10 children' would area residents oppose. Mrs. Dorton stated there have been several families in there recently and there have been no problems and they would not object to a welfare family moving in but it could not accommodate 10 children as it is very small. She stated the residence is an eyesore but the property has been priced for commercial and not residential purposes. Mr. Ed Hudlocker of Plantation Trace Estates stated his opposition as they do not want any stores in the area as it will lead to the children staying at the store, trash being thrown, etc. He 84-740 stated they moved to the area to get away from convenience stores and they would like it to remain residential. Mr. R. E. Anderson, an adjacent property owner, stated that he did not oppose this in 1980 as he was not adjacent at the time but he has since purchased additional acreage which does adjoin. He stated that he had invested all his savings into his home and they do not want a convenience store adjacent thereto. He stated they would not oppose welfare residents in the home as there have been some such people living there previously. He stated he wanted to get away from stores and that is why he moved to this location. He stated Mr. White had sold the property and would not be living here but he and his family do. Ms. Lynn Dance stated in 1980 when there was a request before the Board, she thought an engineer from the County stated that Qualla was too narrow to accommodate a store. She stated she did not want this property to devalue hers, she moved away from the City and wanted the woods and natural look to remain. Mr. Philip Gunn stated of the adjacent property owners in favor of the store, two own property but do not live in the area. He stated that once the store is approved, it will not be moved. He stated there is another piece of property which could also be rezoned for commercial business once this sets a precedent. He stated his opposition to this request and suggested that the residence be improved for single-family purposes. Mr. Hedrick indicated that correspondence had been received and distributed to the Board in opposition to this request. Mr~. Ayers stated they met with the residents and they asked that they propose conditions and none were suggested as they are totally opposed. He stated that this property will not encroach on any other property, the other property owners do have an interest in the property that they own whether they live there or not, etc. Mr. Mayes inquired if the applicant would accept conditions such as donating land to the County, providing paved parking, satisfying drainage conditions, proffering no use of electronic games, etc. Mr. Ayers stated they would accept these conditions. Mr. Mayes stated that he had a problem in that Planning staff did not give the Board the option of considering conditions if the Board saw fit to approve it. He stated there is a dilapidated building and an eyesore to the community providing no revenue for the County and the applicant proposes to improve it and invest money and provide a service. He stated Matoaca District needs business and light industry, the non-polluting and non-congesting type, to raise the tax base. He stated he could not see how a convenience store with a conditional use, could change the character of the area. He stated four of the six people adjacent thereto agree to this and the opposing petitioners live further away. He stated Mr. Anderson should have a say as to what goes next to him but his reasons do not override the applicant's investment. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request subject to the applicant agreeing to donate land for a turn lane, paving the parking area, being responsible for drainage conditions, and eliminating electronic games and subject to the master plan being the plan of development for the site. Mr. Daniel inquired if there were any other major conditions in the Kingsland and Hopkins site regarding signs and if this could be amended by the Planning Commission to take specifics into consideration. Mr. Balderson reviewed the road conditions and site distance in the area and suggested that no access be permitted from the site onto Spring Run Road because of the bad traffic situation. He stated the sign should be limited in scope and scale, both in regard to freestanding and on the building, to not impose a harsh change in the community. He stated this would not go back to the Planning 84-741 ~ommission for review since it is a straight conditional use and the Board cannot include a condition to send it back to the g Commission. He stated the Board could refer this back the Planning Commission for conditions if the Board feels it is appropriate and then it would come back to the Board. Mr. 'es and Mr. Daniel withdrew their motion. motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board remanded this case back to the Planning Commission for recommended conditions under which the Board may or may not approve the request. Girone stated this is truly a residental area and when the ilpeople moved here they knew they would have to drive miles to the Istore and they truly like it that way. She stated also that ~here was no stop sign at this intersection several weeks ago as ~ell. Mr. Mayes stated he respects those people who say they ~ant to keep their neighborhood residential but on the other hand there needs to be some business development in Matoaca District. He stated those people who enjoy the rural areas, with low taxes is fine as long as we can maintain that. He stated this request is not for rezoning but for a conditional use to place one convenience store on the site which will improve it from what now ~xists. Mr. Daniel stated the arguments are the same as in 1980 ~nd he is not certain whether he will or will not vote for ~pproval of the request. He stated that this deferral will give time for discussion by all parties. He stated there are some ~safeguards which can be taken to protect the homeowners in the area if the Board chooses to approve it but the Board could still deny it. A yote being taken: Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Applegate. Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting. Mr. Micas disclosed to the Board that he is a homeowner in an adjacent subdivision and as a matter of caution declared a possible conflict of interest and excused himself from the meeting pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act. Mr. Gary Patterson, Assistant County Attorney, was present. 84S194 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, GEORGE B. SOWERS, JR. AND ASSOCIATES, INC. requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9) on a 21.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 1,300 feet on the north line of West Providence Road and also fronting approximately 730 feet on Adkins Road, and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map 38-8 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 14). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Sowers was present and stated he had presented proffers with conditions for minimum house sizes. He requested the R-9 be considered as they have self imposed R-15 densities and the R-9 will only give them flexibility in the setbacks. He stated the concern of Mr. O'Connor and other residents was principally the square footage to be built and the screening. He stated they have met with the Loch Braemar residents and they seem to be satisfied with conditions 3 and 4 which they have added regarding square footage and construction of a berm opposite entry to their subdivision. Mr. Ed Woolridge, President of the Loch Braemar Community Association, was present. He stated they are not in total opposition to the R-9 zoning request but at the Planning 84-742 Commission meeting they expressed their concerns about the R-9 zoning as a higher density housing would increase traffic problems already existing on Providence Road and it would be an improper zoning transition from Loch Braemar and the surrounding neighborhoods and would not ensure a quality home of similar size. He stated since that time they have had some meetings with the applicant and expressed appreciation for his cooperation in resolving this issue. He stated the applicant has proffered four conditions which have eased their concerns with regard to the density issue, the minimum housing square footage, and providing a proper visual barrier. He stated, in addition, he has shown a tentative layout of the subdivision and intends to develop it as closely as possible to the original layout. He stated they would like to, however, have input at the time of subdivision review and they would like to be notified of the review time. He stated they do not object to the R-9 zoning but the majority of the Board of Directors feel that R-12 is a more proper transition from their neighborhoods to this to insure a similar quality. Mr. Applegate stated that he met with the residents of Loch Braemar and the applicant and he felt the developer had overcome the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Balderson stated the density would conform to R-15. Mr. Applegate stated he felt the applicant requested the R-9 for flexibility in lot design and will insure that it will be a nice transition from R-7 to the west to Loch Braemar. He stated the subdivision review will be public. Mr. Balderson stated he would make a note to notify Mr. Woolridge of the hearing. Mr. Applegate inquired if the applicant could change his request for R-9 to R-12 and still have the flexibility with regard to density. Mr. Sowers stated he did not think so. He stated with the self imposed density restrictions, this might be a mute question as to whether it is R-9 or R-12 as the density is the same. Mr. Balderson explained the square footages in the districts and the layout. Mr. Applegate stated that staff has given him the assurance that the density proffers will insure that there will be 50-51 lots which could be achieved under straight R-15 zoning. He stated Mr. Woolridge would be given an opportunity to discuss the matter when it comes back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Woolridge stated they did not feel the R-12 would impact the layout much and the concern was more with the side yard footage. Mr. Applegate stated with the proffered conditions, the same number of homes would be permitted in this subdivision as in R-15. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel resolved that the Board approve the request for Residential (R-9) subject to acceptance of the following proffered conditions: Subject parcel will be developed so as not to exceed maximum R-15 densities of 2.48 units per acre. Excluding dedication for street widening, the overall average size of lots shall be no less than 15,000 square feet. The minimum finished square footage of the houses to be built on the subject property are: Two-Story - 1600 square feet Cape Cod, Tri-Level or Ranchers - 1400 square feet During development of the parcel and prior to acceptance of the roads into the state highway system, the developer will construct a landscaped berm from the corner of Adkins and Providence Roads to a point south of the intersection of Loch Braemar Drive and Providence Road. The berm shall be undulating at a minimum height of 4 - 6 feet and planted with white pines. Vote: Unanimous 84-743 ~r. Applegate expressed appreciation to the residents in Loch Braemar and the developer for their cooperation in this matter. Mr. Micas returned to the meeting. 84S195 ~n Bermuda Magisterial District, WILLIAM EPPERSON requested ~ezoning from Residential (R-7) to General Business (B-3) on a .33 acre parcel lying approximately 200 feet off the north line ~f Willis Road, approximately 280 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway. Tax Map 81-8 (1) Part of Parcel 14 (Sheet 23). ~r. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Jim Morris was present representing the applicant. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved ~his request. ~ote: Unanimous 4S197 In Matoaca Magisterial District, RICHARD L. JORDAN requested ~onditional Use Planned Development to permit a veterinary clinic ~nd bulk exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.38 ~cre parcel fronting approximately 200 feet on the north line of ~oodpecker Road, approximately 280 feet northwest of Bradley Bridge Road. Tax Map 147-13 (1) Part of Parcel 6 and Tax Map 61-1 (1) Part of Parcel 7 (Sheet 48). Ir. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended ~pproval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff ~ollins was present representing the applicant. He stated the ~onditions were acceptable but inquired if condition ~10 would lallow a partner or assistant. Mr. Balderson stated the condition would allow a partner or assistant but if Dr. Jordan disassociated himself from the business and another individual wanted to carry on the business, he would be required to come back through the process. Mr. Micas stated the property could not be conveyed to a partnership. Mr. Collins stated this was agreeable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. 14ayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the site plan prepared by Charles C. Townes and Associates, revised 11/6/84, shall be considered the plan of development. (P) 0 Prior to obtaining a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of the Woodpecker Road right of way, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) The proposed structure shall have a residential appearance. Prior to release of a building permit, colored renderings or elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) Other than animals requiring medical treatment, there shall be no overnight boarding. (P) 5. There shall be no outside runs or kennels. (P) A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along the north and west property lines. These buffers shall be landscaped and/or fenced to screen this use from adjacent property. In conjunction with site plan submission, a 84-744 landscaping plan depicting this requirement, shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) Except for emergencies, hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Sunday operation shall be prohibited. (CPC) One (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area, shall be permitted. The sign shall neither be luminous nor illuminated. The sign shall employ subdued colors and shall not exceed a height of five (5) feet. Prior to erection of the sign, a colored rendering shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P) e This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Richard L. Jordan, exclusively, and shall not be transferable nor run with the land. (P) In conjunction with the approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic approval of the Master Plan. (P) 11. The previous conditions notwithstanding, all Convenience Business (B-l) bulk requirements shall be adhered to. (P) (Note: This requires that all driveways and parking areas be paved.) Vote: Unanimous 84S198 In Clover Hill Magisterial District, ROWE PROPERTIES, INC. requested amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 82S039) to permit radio broadcasting studios and offices in an Office Business (O) District on a 3.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 388 feet on the southeast line of the western leg of Moorefield Park Drive, approximately 400 feet southwest of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 17-12 (1) Parcel 34 (Sheet 8). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request. Mr. Glen Moore was present representing the applicant and stated that WEZS would be moving its radio broadcasting studios from Richmond to the County. He stated the conditions were acceptable. Mrs. Girone inquired how they could broadcast without a tower. The operations manager was present and stated they have a tower across Midlothian Turnpike and send the signals over to it through telephone lines. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board approved this request. Vote: Unanimous 84S156 (Amended) In Clover Hill Magisterial District, JOHN C. CULLATHER requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O) plus Condi- tional Use Planned Development on a 0.44 acre parcel fronting approximately 100 feet on the west line of Turner Road, approxima%ely 950 feet north of Cloverleaf Drive. Tax Map 29-1 (1) Parcel 4 (Sheet 9). Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Cullather was present. Mr. Applegate stated he was concerned about the access and the adjacent property which may be developed for business use. He stated Mr. Cullather would be required to 84-745 build the entrance way and we are saying he would have to share access with the adjacent property owner. He inquired if Mr. Cullather would be in a position to recoup some of his costs or would the other property owner use it free and clear. Mr. Balderson stated at this time there is the only one application and when the other property develops, they will look at the development on both pieces and they will make some adjustment with respect to the access and there~will be requirements that could be above and beyond this original case and the second person would not be given a free ride by constructing a small road over to the other parcel. He stated he did not believe that a condition could be made that he pay Mr. Cullather money for the access. Mr. McCracken stated if this entrance is 30 feet it could be widened out to 50 feet if the other property comes in for an access. Mr. Cullather stated he thought he was being required to develop the property for access for both by the Highway Department. Mr. Poole stated when Mr. Cullather receives an entrance permit from the Highway Department it will be to provide a 30 ft. wide driveway at the right of way line and 50 ft. is the maximum the Highway Department normally gives and it could be expanded at the time of another development. Mr. Cullather stated he was comfortable with the conditions. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request subject to the following conditions: The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared by Youngblood, Tyler and Associates, dated March 21, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan. A thirty-five (35) foot buffer shall be maintained along the eastern property line adjacent to Turner Road. Other than the existing sidewalk and a single entrance/exit, there shall be no facilities permitted within this buffer area. The access to Turner Road shall be designed and constructed to allow shared access with the adjacent property to the south in the future. (P, T and VDH&T) Prior to obtaining a building permit, forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the centerline of Turner Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (T) Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE) One freestanding business sign, not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet and a height of six (6) feet shall be permitted identifying this use. This sign may either be internally lighted if the sign field is opaque with translucent letters or externally lighted. The sign shall employ subdued colors. Prior to erection, colored renderings shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. All other signs shall comply with Office Business (0) requirements. (NOTE: Parking must be provided based on total gross square footage of the building. The applicant has indicated that the basement will not be used and requested that parking not be provided for its square footage. This does not meet Zoning Ordinance requirements.) e In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of the Master Plan. Vote: Unanimous 12.K. EXECUTIVE SESSION On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board went 84-746 into Executive Session to discuss the acquisition or use of real property for public purposes, personnel matters and consulation with legal counsel pertaining to HMK vs. the County of Chesterfield, et al., pursuant to Sections 2.1-344 (a) (2), (1) and (6) respectively, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Vote: Unanimous Reconvening: The Board recessed for dinner at the Airport Crosswind Restaurant at 5:00 p.m. Reconvening: Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 4. INVOCATION Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend Daniel H. Quiram, Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church, who gave the invocation. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion o~ Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the minutes of November 28, 1984, as amended. Vote: Unanimous 6. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Daniel stated before the County Administrator makes his comments, he would like to make several. He stated it was his privilege and honor to receive the unanimous support of the Board to be its Chairman during 1984. He stated quite a few goals were established and some of the goals had met with tremendous progress while others still need to be worked on. He stated if 1984 was a good year, 1985 and beyond would be even better for the County. He stated ever since he came to the Board five years ago, he had supported the concept of the rotation of leadership on an annual basis and he continues to support that. He stated in conversation with the Board members, it appears the baton of leadership will be~passed on to Mr. Applegate as Chairman and Mr. Mayes as Vice Chairman. He stated he felt the Board would give this leadership the same enthusiasm to working on common solutions that will move the County through the 1980's. He stated he hoped unanimous support would be obtained when these two names were offered for nomination in January. He stated he felt the rules could be amended so that the Chairman can make all the appointments at that time rather than have nominations and then a two week lapse before action. He stated to the new team, the Board does offer its support and enthusiasm. Mr. Welchons introduced Mr. John "Jack" Waters who is the new Utility Controller and briefly outlined his educational and professional experience. Mr. Waters stated he looked forward to working with the County. The Board and Mr. Hedrick welcomed Mr. Waters to the County's employment. Mr. Hedrick recognized Mr. William Diggs who was recently named outstanding member of the year for the Virginia Association of Assessing Officers for 1984 and received a plaque to that effect. The Board and Mr. Hedrick congratulated Mr. Diggs for this award and for representing the County so well. Mr. Diggs stated he appreciated the Board's recognition but added 84-747 that it would not have been possible if the Board and Administration had not allowed him to participate and he expressed his appreciation to the Board. Mr. Masden introduced Mr. Mike MacNeilly, General Manager of Storer Cable. Mr. MacNeilly presented the Board with a check in the amount of $125.00 for the Department of Social Services for the purpose of providing emergency services to the elderly in the County. Mr. MacNeilly stated a year ago he indicated Storer was very much interested in becoming a part of the community. He stated they launched a new service last year and those who subscribed received a reduced installation cost and half of that fee was to be donated to a senior citizens group. He stated they will begin another campaign for next year and they have designated it to go to the Ethiopian Relief Fund. Mrs. McGuire was present and accepted the check on behalf of the County. The Board and Mr. Hedrick expressed appreciation to Storer for this donation. 7. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE Mr. Appleuate stated he had received calls from approximately 75 citizens requesting relief from the leaf burning ordinance. He stated he had indicated to them that he would approach the Board with an emergency ordinance to allow additional time to burn the leaves. He stated he talked with the County Attorney and there is a mechanism to accomplish this. He offered this as an emergency i%em to be considered which would allow leaf burning from December 12, 1984 - December 24, 1984. Mrs. Girone stated she appreciated the desire to respond to the citizens as she has also received a lot of calls. She stated there have been numerous public hearings regarding this matter and a lot of public input was received which was considered to establish the current law. She stated she had a serious problem with the Board extending the burning period without having a public hearing and without allowing the citizens the opportunity to speak as there are many, many citizens affected by the smoke from burning. She stated for those to find out in the morning that the Board had extended the burning period would be a breach of faith. She stated this law has been so controversial and to act on an emergency basis would be wrong. Mr. Mayes stated he, too, felt this problem is too emotional and will show a lack of faith to those who came to the public hearings. Mr. Daniel stated he supported the feelings of Mr. Mayes and Mrs. Girone and informally stated this item did not meet sufficient votes by the Board for inclusion on the agenda as an emergency item. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, because of the emergency nature of two issues the Board waived its rules and regulations to allow the addition of Item 12.H.7., Authorization for Execution of Sales Agreement for Purchase of Magnolia Grange Property and Item 10.A., Public Hearing to Consider Restriction of Through Truck Traffic on Kingsdale Road between Jefferson Davis Highway and Chester Road, an additional resolution regarding the same issue; and deleted 12.I.3.a., Condemnation Proceedings for water line easement across property of Lucille F. and Hurley E. Smith and Shirley F. and James L. East, Beechwood Avenue, and deleted 12.I.3.c., Consider Request from Calvin F. Seaton, Jr., Representing Rolling Hill Development, to Aid in Acquiring a Sewer Easement Across Rollingwood Estates Apartments; and further the Board adopted the agenda as amended. Vote: Unanimous 8. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION Mr. Hedrick indicated there were no resolutions of special recognition scheduled for this meeting. 84-748 9. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS A. MR. MORRIS MASON AND MR. JOSEPH MATYIKO, REGARDING HEARING ON HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC FLOW STUDIES Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Matyiko was unable to be present at the meeting due to an illness in his family. He stated that on June 22, 1983 a resolution was adopted by the Board regarding the interchange of Powhite Parkway and Coalfield Road. He stated he and Mr. Matyiko would like a study such as was contemplated by said resolution which was to be made at the expense of the property owner for an alternative design over Powhite Parkway which involved a pistol flyover and outlined reasons and background information in detail. He stated that a great deal of money is being spent and he is unaware of any public knowledge of what is going on. He presented the Board with a letter which he read addressed to Mr. Hedrick, a copy of which is filed with the papers of this Board as well as attachments referred to. He stated their interest is in knowing if and when information can be made available concerning the study that was to be made by the County or others. Mr. Hedrick stated that he was unaware of anyone contacting him regarding the issues listed in the letter. He stated the preliminary study/initial draft is being completed and they will be contacting the landowners in the very near future to arrange meetings to~ review those plans. He stated once that has been completed, it will come back to the Roads Subcommittee and the Board and there will be a full slate of public hearings at that time. Mr. Daniel stated implementing that, involved the continuing dialog, the fact finding of the consultant engineering company, etc., which had to be reduced to a written report which is just coming to the County and will be released very shortly. He stated that will also be in the form of continuing public hearings and there can be no formal movement of the Board until that process is carried out which will allow them ample opportunity to raise the questions mentioned in the letter to Mr. Hedrick. Mr. Mason inquired if that would be within the next 30-60 days. Mr. Daniel stated it would. Mr. Mason thanked the Board for its time. B. JOHN SMITH REGARDING ROADS Mr. Smith asked for clarifications regarding the letter read by Mr. Mason. Mr. Hedrick stated that the letter was addressed to him from Mr. Mason and he would not feel comfortable having the interpretation of that letter made by anyone else other than the person who signed the letter. Mr. Smith stated he lives in Midlothian and it has too many traffic lights and he is not in favor of anymore. He stated from the east on Courthouse Road to the west to north and south beyond the entrance to the high school, there is no traffic going from north to south, and there is an offset. He discussed offsets, the traffic, the cost of additional lights and maintenance. He discussed new zoning in Midlothian, existing zoning and traffic conditions and stated if you take the existence of what there is in Midlothian as any criteria at all, the County is not planning for traffic correctly in Midlothian. He stated traffic in Midlothian is a serious situation and the current plan, as he sees it, is doing absolutely nothing about it. He discussed the Route 288 and Route 60 areas and the need for comprehensive planning and the ownership of property in the immediate area. 84-749 Mr. Daniel stated the Board does share his concern. Mr. Applegate, a member of the Roads Committee, stated that most of the road issues mentioned by Mr. Smith have been addressed in the Transportation Study. Mr. Balderson stated the issue addressed by Mr. Mason regarding Powhite and Route 288 is answered in this study which is underway and is being reviewed thoroughly by the Roads Committee and once it has gone through the process it will be forthcoming and they will be getting back to other property owners within 60 days. Mr. Smith, as Board Chairman of Matyiko Investment Corporation and Chesmid Matyiko Incorporated, stated he has been advised that they are within their rights under the provision of the existing ordinance of the County to apply to have this considered and that is their purpose in being here. He stated this is a corporate decision and he is sorry that they have been delayed in appearing before the Board. The Board thanked Mr. Smith for his comments. 10. DEFERRED ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON KINGSDALE Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Kingsdale Road between Jefferson Davis Highway and Chester Road. Mr. McCracken stated the Highway Department policies require the Board to hold a public hearing prior to their considering action on the restriction. Mr. Linwood Carroll, on behalf of the Kingsdale Road Area Civic Association, stated 80% of the residents are present in favor of the restriction. He stated after Del Rio and Osborne Road were restricted all the truck traffic began using Kingsdale Road. He stated they use excessive speed and have been stopped by the police, they are overloaded, they throw gravel and sand over the neighborhood, the residents are concerned about the safety of their children as the road has shallow shoulders and they have to catch the bus, there have been accidents with trucks, the traffic on the road has increased tremendously and they have about 70 trucks per day with traffic backups as tlhey are slow moving onto Jefferson Davis Highway, the higher noise levels of trucks vs. cars, the exhaust systems violate the emission control regulations, and they generally disrupt the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood. There were approximately 35 people present in favor of the restriction of truck traffic. He stated there was a petition signed by 100% of the residents. Mrs. Brenda Briggs, an area resident, stated she is the mother of a small child and the daughter of an elderly man who cannot come to the Board meeting to express their concerns. She stated that the children have expressed concern regarding the safety of the area and the sound vibrations as it affects activities in the home of both groups. She stated that the children cannot even walk to church because of the dangerous situation. Mr. Morris Mason stated that he frequently travels Kingsdale Road and has lost several windshields from trucks passing and throWing gravel. He stated that this road was not designed for this type of traffic, it is a safety hazard and they cannot stop if they needed to because of the loads they carry and there is very little margin for error as they are almost as wide as the roadway. There was no one else present to address the Board. opposition present to this request. There was no 84-750 Mr. Dodd stated there are a lot of people who would like to speak tonight but in consideration of the Board's time they agreed to only a few speakers. He stated the road is not designed to handle the type of traffic that is using it. He stated drivers have to dodge rocks, it is dangerous for your vehicles as well as the safety of the people. He stated that we are dealing with a symptom in the County that is a real illness in Chesterfield County, Virginia. He read a proposed resolution for adoption by the Board. He stated until Route 288 is constructed, therein lies the problem and the crisis of the County. He stated our people suffer and take lives at undue risks which is the fault of the Department of Highways and/or State. He stated that he hoped the Board would adopt the resolution and stated he would like to know when Route 288 will be constructed. He stated he read in the paper that Temple Avenue is being constructed and that the contract is being let for the bridge to cross the Appomattox River. He stated Temple Avenue is needed for that community for which he is not against, but he wanted to know when Route 288 or the County's part is to be built and when will the County's part of the agreement be put forth, will it be last or will be it done in a timely fashion. He stated he hoped these concerns could be conveyed. He stated that until Route 288 is decided, he cannot do anythihg but offer this resolution at this time. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adopted the following resolution and authorized that it and the discussion be sent to the Legislative Delegation and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: Whereas, the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County has received requests from citizens to restrict through traffic on Kingsdale Road (Route 1495), from Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) to Chester Road (Route 145), by any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer combination, except pick-up or panel truck; and Whereas, the Board has conducted a public hearing on the question; and Whereas, the future construction of Route 288 may reduce the use of Kingsdale Road by through trucks, thus eliminating a need for a restriction; and Whereas, until Route 288 is constructed, an unacceptable volume of through trucks will use Kingsdale Road. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Kingsdale Road (Route 1495) from Jefferson Davis Highway (Route 1) to Chester Road (Route 145). Vote: Unanimous B. INDUSTRIAL/RECREATIONAL ACCESS PROJECT Mr. McCracken stated the 1984-85 CIP includes a $150,000 appropriation for right of way acquisition and utility relocation on industrial and recreational access projects. He stated the County currently has four active projects:: Enon Church Road Recreational Access Project, the Willis and Coach Road Industrial Access Project, the Iron Bridge Park Recreational Access project and the Beach Road recreational access project and he outlined financial facts about each. He further stated that VDH&T would expect the County to be responsible for all costs in excess of the original allocation for the Iron Bridge Park project and that VDH&T's practice is to award a contract if the bid price is within 10%± of the estimated cost. Mrs.' Girone inquired what the Undesignated Capital Improvements Funds account was. Mr. McCracken stated that was $150,000 that the Board has routinely allocated in the CIP for recreational access projects and staff calls it undesignated because it has not been allocated to a project at this point and it is there. Mrs. Girone inquired where the anticipated 1985-86 Capital Improvement Allocation 84-751 for industrial/recreational projects will come from that will be used to reimburse the general fund--as that is not real. Mr. McCracken stated staff has assumed the Board would continue as in the past to allocate this amount in accordance with the CIP over each fiscal year. Mrs. Girone stated the Board has not done this yet. She stated further that with all the road needs in the County, does the Beach Road project deserve $150,000 at this time. She stated the funds for the County for roads is inadequate and is this that important. Mr. McCracken stated that this project was approved in 1977 and at that time the Highway Commission allocated to the County an additional $200,000 of recreational access funds that the County would not have normally received if this had not been approved as a recreational access project. He stated from that standpoint the County is receiving funds that we would not normally get to rebuild Beach Road. Mr. Daniel stated he raised this question in 1980, but he was told it had to go there as it is in a separate category and if it was not done that way, it probably would not be done. Mr. McCracken stated this would improve Beach Road from Route 10 to the creek by widening the shoulders and straightening the curves. He stated plans which cost $50,000± have been approved by the Highway Department. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board: Allocated $20,000 of the 1984-85 undesignated capital improvement fund account to the Willis/Coach Road Industrial Access project. Allocated $130,000 of the 1984-85 undesignated capital improvement fund account to the Iron Bridge Recreational Access project. Allocated $10,000 of the unappropriated surplus of the general fund to the Beach Road project with the understanding that the anticipated 1985-86 capital improvement program allocation for industrial/recreational access projects will be used to reimburse the general fund. Further the Board authorized the County Administrator to forward to VDH&T a letter of intent indicating the Board's desire to proceed with the Beach Road project, providing funds are available in July, 1985. Vote: Unanimous 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS o RESTRICTION OF THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON SMOKETREE DRIVE Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public hearing to consider the restriction of through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive. Mr. McCracken stated this would include the restriction on Smoketree Drive from Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive. Mrs. Ann Domyan, Vice President of Smoketree Association, was present in favor of this restriction. She stated the residents are concerned about the trucks using the subdivision as a thoroughfare, they are concerned about the safety of their children walking to and from the schools, there is no current construction in Smoketree that warrants hauling through the subdivision, the main route passes through an area were there are two schools and a tot lot, the trucks do not adhere to the speed limit signs, they spread debris in the area, the heavy loads damage the streets, etc. She stated they are hauling and dumping the materials in the landfills off of Coalfield Road and Lucks Lane. She stated this is not a safe alternate route for these trucks and they should use Lucks Lane and Coalfield which are wider and more accustomed to traffic of this nature. She stated construction on Coalfield Road and Lucks Lane is not a temporary 84-752 situation as it will be there for a long time, and that the Board is putting off the inevitable by not widening Lucks Lane now. She requested that the Board not wait until there is an accident before stopping the misuse of Smoketree Drive. Dr. Terry Williams, an elected member of the Board of Smoketree, was present in favor of this request. He stated that there are three roads involved when you turn in off of Courthouse Road onto Smoketree Drive and there is a church which has over 1,200 members, there is a community pool with over 300 family members with children who ride their bikes to the facility and there are two schools as well with children walking to the schools, there is a tot lot, etc. He stated there are over 100 homes along this direct route used by the trucks and the residents are concerned that a tragedy may occur. Mr. Jerry Gray, a resident, homeowner and father, expressed his concern for his children's safety in the neighborhood and other children in the area. He expressed his support of this request. Mr. John Smith requested a definition of through truck traffic and it was explained. He inquired what the alternate was which has not been discussed and inquired if it were Berrand Road or Lucks Lane which he felt were both bad areas as well. He stated the speed limits and the load limits are not being enforced which he felt should be. He stated by closing this road, it would eliminate all the construction in the area and there is a lot of undeveloped property. There was no else present to address this matter. Mr. Applegate stated he was familiar with the area and there are some alternatives to moving traffic such as Route 60 and Coalfield Road; Lucks Lane; or Route 360, Genito and Coalfield. He stated there are some other alternatives which would not be good such as Lucks Lane from Spirea to Courthouse Road. He stated if we close Smoketree there will still be a problem with Lucks Lane and the Roads Committee has talked about this. He inquired how traffic would be moved from Monacan Hills that is adjacent to Smoketree to the south and has a road that runs to Lucks Lane. Mr. Balderson stated from Monacan Hills to Lucks Lane and then out. Mr. Applegate stated there are alternatives and that we need to take into consideration the two schools and the church. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the Board has to deal with the issue of Smoketree Drive and the fact that the subdivision is made up of families with school age children. She stated there is Monacan High School, Gordon High School, a church, a tot lot, a swimming pool/community center and 100 houses all on the same road and it is no place for dump trucks. She stated she realized Lucks Lane is not the best but it certainly does not have these problems. She stated the Highway Department and staff can discuss the alternative route or routes that are needed. She stated she had written records of the serious problems and the speeding issue has been addressed many times with as many as 70 tickets issued in one week. On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board requested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Smoketree Drive from Courthouse Road to Durrington Drive. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel introduced Mrs. Verona Dodd, Mr. Dodd's mother, and Mrs. Wray, County Treasurer Arline McGuire's mother, who were present at the meeting. 12. NEW BUSINESS 12.A. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR STORER CABLE INCREASE Mr. Hodge explained the current procedure for rate increases for 84-753 cable in the County is to have the request presented to the Board for the establishment of a public hearing date. He stated the company would like to have an increase effective February 1, 1985 as outlined in the paper presented. He stated the increase would be for basic service from $7.45 per month to $8.20 per month and the expanded basic from $9.95 per month to $10.95 per month and it would not affect the paid subscription fees. Mr. MacNeilly was present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board set the date of January 9, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. to consider a rate increase for Storer Cable. Vote: Unanimous 12.B. SCHOOL BOARD BUDGET REQUESTS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board: Accepted the Title IVb Emotionally Disturbed grant in the amount of $64,000 and appropriated the revenue and expenditures for this state grant. Increased Federal revenue and expenditures for the FY85 Head Start Summer program in the amount of $13,680 and increased Federal revenue and expenditures for the FY85 Head Start program by $22,625. Decreased Federal Revenue and expenditures for FY85 Chapter I grant in the amount of $13,988. Appropriated Federal revenue and expenditures in the amount of $88,880 as well as accepted the Capital Area Training Consortium In-School Youth grant for FY85. Vote: 'Unanimous 12.C. COUNTY MANAGEMENT OF HOUSING SUBSIDY PROGRAM Mr. Masden stated that currently the County is administering 158 subsidized housing units in the County and with the renovation of Park Lee Apartments there will 430 more families placed in housing subsidy programs. He stated staff would like to administer this program because if we do not the Virginia Development Housing Authority would. He stated by the County doing it, preference can be given to local residents in need and also avoid some of the complicated human services programs that go along with a major development such as this. He stated there would be no County funds needed but there will be needed additional personnel as it takes about one person for every 100 units for the complex process. He stated they would like to negotiate with the Virginia Development Housing Authority to administer these units and will bring back the actual budget for final approval. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the County Administrator to negotiate an agreement with the Virginia Housing Development Authority to administer the Park Lee Housing Subsidy Program within the County and to establish an appropriate administrative unit within the County structure to operate the program. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated he felt this was a step in the right direction and it will help eliminate some of the problems that have been experienced in other developments. Mrs. Girone stated that the County has always taken care of its own through the Nursing Home, Social Services, etc. with care and concern and that administration locally is best. Mr. Applegate inquired if the 84-754 federal funding were stopped, what would happen to the program. Mr. Masden stated the contract would be renegotiated each year and the Board would have to approve the renegotiation. 12.D. ACCEPTANCE OF 1983-84 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Mr. Ramsey presented the Board with the 1983-84 annual financial report. He stated the report contains an unqualified opinion (no exceptions found) by the County Auditors, Peat Marwick and Mitchell. He stated the County had been awarded a certificate of conformance by the Municipal Finance Officers Association of America for the past three years and staff is almost certain the report tonight will earn the certificate again. He stated the County staff does prepare the report and staff is proud of that fact. He pointed out the Management Letter which was also included in the information. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board accepted the 1983-84 annual financial report and commended staff on a job well done. Vote: Unanimous 12.E. CONSENT ITEMS 12.E.1. EAST AVENUE RURAL ADDITION PROJECT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adopted the following resolution: Whereas, Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia as amended allows counties to establish new roads and become a part of the Secondary System of State Highways; and Whereas, Chesterfield County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation have determined that East Avenue qualifies for acceptance into the State Secondary System under Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended; and Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors desires that East Avenue from Route 10 to 0.80 mile south of Route 10 to cul-de-sac be added to the Secondary System in accordance with Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Now, Be It Resolved, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to accept East Avenue a length of 0.80 mile into the State Secondary System in accordance with Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, and the cost to construct East Avenue to the Department's minimum standards be financed from the Department's Rural Additional Fund for Chesterfield County. Be It Further Resolved, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors does guarantee to the Commonwealth of Virginia a 50 foot unrestricted right-of-way on this street with the necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. This right-of-way is recorded as follows: Deed Book 1251, Page 22, May 9, 1977. Deed Book 1261, Page 504, July 5, 1977. Deed Book 1493, Page 852, September 19, 1980. Deed Book 1534, Page 48, April 8, 1981. Deed Book 1632, Page 457, November 9, 1983. Deed Book 1681, Page 5, October 30, 1984. Deed Book 1062, Page 360, October 26, 1982. Deed Book 1252, Page 485, May 17, 1977. Deed Book 1252, Page 488, May 17, 1977. Deed Book 1271, Page 741, August 29, 1977. Deed Book 1273, Page 456, September 6, 1977. Deed Book 1273, Page 460, September 6, 1977. 84-755 Deed Book 1292, Page 53, December 14, 1977. Deed Book 1489, Page 832, September 2, 1980. Deed Book 1450, Page 465, January 29, 1980. Deed Book 1305, Page 395, March 10, 1978. Deed Book 1247, Page 434, April 20, 1977. Vote: Unanimous 12.E.2. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE this day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his examination of Scottingham Drive and Scottingham Court in Solar I, Section 4, Phase II, Clover Hill District. Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, it is resolved that Scottingham Drive and Scottingham Circle in Solar I, Section 4, Phase II, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are established as public roads. And be it'further resolved, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to take into the Secondary System, Scottingham Drive, beginning at intersection with McAden Place and going 0.06 mile northwesterly to intersection with Scottingham Court, then continues 0.06 mile northwesterly to tie into proposed Scottingham Drive in Solar I, Section 2; and Scottingham Court, beginning at intersection with Scottingham Drive and going 0.16 mile southeasterly to a cul-de-sac. This request is inclusive of the adjacent slope easements. These roads serve 34 lots. And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right of way for all of these roads. This section of Solar I is recorded as follows: Section 4, Phase II. Plat Book 43, Page 17, May 27, 1983. Vote: Unanimous 12.E.3. GRANT APPLICATION FOR DETENTION HOME On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to apply for and accept, if approved, a grant in the amount of $14,000 from the Department of Corrections for the purpose of improving programs in the Juvenile Detention facilities. Vote: Unanimous 12.E.4. BINGO AND/OR RAFFLE PERMITS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved requests for a bingo and/or raffle permits for calendar year 1985 from the Cavalier Athletic Club, the Bensley-Bermuda Rescue Square, St. Edward's Knights of Columbus Council ~6546, and Manchester-Richmond Lodge ~699, Loyal Order of Moose. Vote: Unanimous 84-756 12.F. APPOINTMENTS 12.F.1. COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board reappointed the following people to the Community Services Board ~ffective January 1, 1985 until December 31, 1988 as follows: ~r. John R. Grundy, Bermuda District Ms. Mary Jo Lux, Clover Hill District Mr. W. Clinton Pettus, Matoaca District Mr. Richard Spencer, Midlothian District Vote: Unanimous 12.F.2. PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appointed Dr. Bruce Fleming to the Personnel Appeals Board effective January 1, 1985 until December 31, 1987. Vote: Unanimous 12.F.3. CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board ~deferred nominations to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee until January 9, 1985 since some of the existing members could not be reached for comment as to their willingness to continue to serve. Vote: Unanimous 12.G. HIGHWAY ENGINEER Mr. Charles Perry, Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present. Mr. Dodd stated that comments made earlier this evening were not directed at Mr. Perry personally but at the political hierarchy in the Highway Department. Mr. Perry stated Route 288, from Route 1 to Route 10, is scheduled for advertisement in November, 1985 which is 6.1 miles; from Route 1 to Route 95 is scheduled for advertising in June, 1986 which is 1.1 miles; and Route 10 to Route 360 is not on the schedule at this time. He stated he understood the Route 360 portion had been approved in the legislation but the funding is not available but when it is, the legislation is in place for that as well. Mrs. Girone inquired about the Parham-Chippenham connector. Mr. Perry stated he would find the information and give it to Mrs. Girone. Mr. Perry stated the traffic signal at Pocoshock and Elkhardt is warranted and he has authorized installation of a signal; that Reams and Courthouse Road as well as Buford and Pinetta warrant a traffic signal and they will be reviewing the area before installing the signals because of geometric changes. He stated they will probably come back to the Board in preparation for ~he budget next year and make recommendations that we include funding for these improvements in next year's budget for the signals and make the necessary adjustments at the intersections. He stated the Pocoshock-Route 360 meets the criteria for a signal. He stated the problem is the inadequate sight distance along Route 360 and the Department has a project which is scheduled for advertising for February, 1986 and he recommended that the traffic signal be included in that project once the sight distance is provided in the west bound lane. He stated they have also finished overlaying Charter Colony Road last week with the assistance of APAC. He stated the State Police will be helping with the tracking of mud on the roads where construction 84-757 is being done and taking whatever action is necessary to eliminate the problem. Mr. Mayes thanked Mr. Perry for his cooperation with staff. Mr. Applegate thanked Mr. Perry for the traffic light studies and added another to be reviewed which is the intersection of Providence and Courthouse Road. He stated that he was concerned with Route 360 and Manchester High School ingress/egress and has received numerous calls as there were three accidents last week. Mr. Perry stated he would check into these matters. Mrs. Girone thanked Mr. Perry for the Buford and Pinetta signal light and inquired when it would be installed. Mr. Perry stated it takes about six months from time of authorization to installation. He stated he had anticipated coming back to the Board and if the money is not in the budget to make it a priority in next year's budget and having all the planning finished at this time. He stated six months is the earliest possible date but he would have to check on other items. Mrs. Girone stated it ~s very serious at the area. Mrs. Girone inquired if Charter Colony and Route 60 would warrant a light as citizens are requesting it. She stated that perhaps timing on Winterfield or Crowder could be adjusted to allow an interval for vehicles coming out of Charter Colony. Mr. Perry stated he would check with the traffic engineer but he did not feel it would meet the criteria for a traffic signal light. Mrs. Girone inquired about the widening of Route 147 and Robious and the clearing of trees next to the railroad. Mr. Newcomb stated all the trees will be cleared as they proceed with the project as they are doing it in phases. Mr. Dodd thanked Mr. Perry for his cooperation with Mr. Stith. He stated appreciation for the traffic light at Route 10 at Old Stage and for the speed limit signs in Chester. 12.H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS 12.H.1. REVENUE BONDS TO JOHN J. CHRETIEN COMPANY Mr. Muzzy stated on December 10, 1984 the Industrial Development Authority approved the issuance of $6,500,000 in revenue bonds for John J. Chretien which is a substitute for the application of the Midlothian Ramada Inn Associates. He stated this would be 150 room hotel with related functional facilities to be called a Comfort Inn to be operated as a Quality Inn. Mr. Applegate stated there have been a strange chain of events with the changing from a Ramada Inn and now from a Quality Inn to a Comfort Inn. He inquired what type of facility this was. Mr. Otis Brown, representing the developer, was present. He stated the Comfort Inn is a Quality Inn facility and is an all suite complex designed toward the business community, it is the same economic level and construction cost as a Ramada Inn, etc. He stated the Midlothian Ramada Inn proposed a 160 room facility, this will be 150-170 room suite facility, John J. Chretien Company has developed a contract with the original developers to shift to a Quality Inn facility which is an economic situation, etc. He stated it is essentially the same facility and cost wise it is basically the same per square foot. He explained in detail the interior of the rooms. Mr. Hedrick stated that he understood the Comfort Inn of the Quality Inn facilities is along the same lines of the econo-line motel with minimum staffing, single entrance, and he did not feel this was the same standard as a Ramada Inn. Mr. Brown stated the cost, the furnishings, the size, etc. would be essentially the same as was being proposed by the Ramada Inn and it is not the economy level of hotels. Mr. Hedrick stressed the importance of the quality in the area of Powhite and Route 60 which will be the gateway to the County in that area. Mr. Daniel inquired if it would be appropriate to request supporting information before approval as to what 84-758 the facility would look like, etc. Mr. Micas stated the Board could request any information they so desired. He stated there is some problem with the cap on industrial development bonds and if it were deferred past January 1, 1985 it might risk the ability to take advantage of the excess bonding capacity available for 1984. Mr. Brown stated sketches, types of rooms, furnishing of rooms, cost, etc. was submitted to the Industrial Development Authority. He added this property had been zoned for 10-12 years. He stated it will be an all brick facility, will not have balconies, will have a similar Williamsburg look to fit the Richmond concept, will be totally enclosed, it is not an econo-lodge, it is 40-50% unit cost higher than the economy level, it will be four stories, the unit cost does not include the land, etc. Mr. Hedrick strongly recommended the Board see a Comfort Inn structure before approving this application. Mr. Dodd inquired if Mr. Brown would agree to address the Board's concern during schematic plan approval if the Board approved this today. Mr. Balderson stated the staff during site plan procedure could not guarantee quality with respect to the structure that the Board might be perceiving between a Ramada Inn, Quality Inn, Comfort Inn, etc. as that is not part of the process. Mr. Brown stated they would be happy to agree to quality construction. He stated this application did not have to come back to the Board but he felt it would be best to bring the revised application back to the Board and the Industrial Authority and lay it all out. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, resolved that this matter be deferred until December 19, 1984 in order to allow Mrs. Girone and Mr. Applegate meet with the applicant and their representatives. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel disclosed to the Board that the next item involves a company who will be a competitor to his regular employer, Philip Morris, and declared a possible conflict of interest pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Act and excused himself from the meeting. 12.H.2. SALES CONTRACT TO PMB, INC. AT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute a contingent sales contract for the conveyance of a one acre parcel in the Airport Industrial Park to PMB, Inc. in the amount of $25,000 per acre. Ayes: Mr. Applegate, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes. Absent: Mr. Daniel. Mr. Johannes C. A. Verhappen, President of PMB, Inc., was present and briefly outlined his company's operation. The Board welcomed Mr. Verhappen and his company to the County. Mr. Daniel returned to the meeting. 12.H.3. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board approved the street light installation cost at Hemlock Road and appropriated $1,337.00 from the General Fund Contingency account. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Dodd stated this was an old street light approval but that he would not commit for any more in the near future. 84-759 12.H.4. STREET LIGHT REQUESTS motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board )roved the installation of a street light at the intersection Midlothian Turnpike and Charter Colony Parkway with any associated costs to be expended from the Midlothian District Street Light Funds. ,re: Unanimous 12.H.5. PAGING SYSTEM FOR HAYWOOD-CLARKE PORSCHE-AUDI DEALERSHIP It was generally agreed by the Board that the matter of the outside public address/paging system for the proposed Haywood-Clarke Porsche-Audi Dealership be forwarded back to the Planning Commission for their decision on this issue. 12.H.6. PLANT MIX OVERLAY FOR CONNECTOR ROAD BETWEEN ROCKAWAY ROAD AND ROCKCREST ROAD On motion'of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board appropriated $4,500.00 from the Midlothian District 3¢ Road Funds for the overlay of the connector road between Rockaway Road and Rockcrest Road and requested that the Highway Department perform the plant mix overlay on an accounts receivable basis with the cost not to exceed $4,500.00. Vote: Unanimous 12.H.7. SALES CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF ~GNOLIA GRANGE Mrs. Lucille Moseley, on behalf of the Chesterfield County Historical Society, expressed appreciation for the confidence the Board will be indicating by action proposed to be taken in the purchase of Magnolia Grange. She stated the Society pledges to continue to raise funds until they have raised $100,000 to the County for reimbursement. She stated they have raised approximately one-third of the funds at this point and that they plan to produce a museum house of high quality and one that is very much needed in the area. On motion of the Board, the Board approved and authorized the Chairman of the Board to execute a contingent sales contract for the purchase of the Magnolia Grange Property in the amount of $181,000 ($180,000 purchase price and $1,000 closing) which funds are hereby appropriated from the General Fund Balance. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Daniel thanked all involved for bringing this issue to a conclusion and bringing it to the public sector. Mrs. Mary Ellen Howe was present and presented the Board with the keys to Magnolia Grange. 12.I. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT ITEMS 12.I.1. PUBLIC HEARING TO VACATE PORTION OF RUNNYMEDE, SEC. A Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been advertised for a public' hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of 16 foot easements across Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Runnymede, Section A. There was no one present to discuss the matter. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board adopted the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE to vacate a portion of two (2) 16' easements across Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Runnymede, Section A, Clover Hill Magisterial District, 84-760 Chesterfield County, Virginia, as shown on a plat thereof duly recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County in Plat Book 20, at pages 73, 74, 75, and 76. WHEREAS, Coates Homes, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia to vacate a portion of two (2) 16' easements across Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Runnymede, Section A, Clover Hill Magisterial District, Chesterfield, Virginia more particularly shown on a plat of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of said County in Plat Book 20, pages 73, 74, 75, and 76, made by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated May 8, 1973. The portion of easements petitioned to be vacated is more fully described as follows: A portion of two (2) 16' easements across Lots 1 and 2, Block A, Runnymede, Section A, as shown on a plat made by Charles C. Townes and Associates, dated November 1, 1984, and revised November 28, 1984, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance. WHEREAS, notice has been given pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, by advertising; and, WHEREAS, no public necessity exists for the continuance of the portion of easements sought to be vacated and the vacation will not abridge the rights of any citizen; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA: That pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the above described portion of easements hereby vacated and no longer necessary for public use. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect in accordance with Section 15.1-482(b) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and a certified copy of this Ordinance, together with the plat attached hereto shall be recorded no sooner than thirty (30) days hereafter in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield, Virginia pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The effect of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 15.1-483 is to destroy the force and effect of the recording of the portion of the plat vacated. This Ordinance shall vest fee simple title in the easements hereby vacated in the property owners of the lots free and clear of any rights of public use. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall be indexed in the names of the County of Chesterfield as grantor and Coates Homes, Incorporated or their successors in title, as grantees. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.2. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS 12.I.2.a. UNDERWRITER FOR SEWER AND WATER BONDS On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board authorized the County Administrator to enter into an agreement with E. F. Hutton & Company for underwriting services related to sewer and water financing which is anticipated in April-May, 1985 which fee will not exceed $30 per $1,000 of debt issued. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Hedrick expressed special appreciation to Messrs. Ramsey, Hodge, Welchons and Muzzy for their assistance in this matter. 12.I.2.b. WATER SERVICE ON PARKWAY LANE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board 84-761 approved the construction of the extension of public water service on Parkway Lane and appropriated $20,500 from 563 surplus to 380-1-65071-4393. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Applegate requested that Mr. Welchons contact the residents advising them of the action of the Board. 12.I.2.c. SEWER SERVICE IN BRIGHTON GREEN SUBDIVISION On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the Utilities Department to survey a portion of the Brighton Green Subdivision for public sewer service with contracts to determine the number of homeowners who will connect if service is made available. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.3. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS 12.I.3.b. COUNTEROFFER FOR EASEMENT ON SOUTH COURTHOUSE ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board accepted a counteroffer from Robert E. Burks and Blanche May Burks for the purchase of a water line easement across their property at 533 South Courthouse Road in the amount of $2,000. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4. CONSENT ITEMS 12.I.4.a. SEWER CONTRACT FOR ELK ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for sewer contract No. S84-107C/7(8)4074, Elk Road Sewer Extension, to Best Backhoe and Excavating, Inc. who submitted the low bid of $31,523.00 and appropriated $35,000 from 574 surplus to 380-1-73074-4393. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR FREDERICK FARMS On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following sewer contract: $84-180CD/7(8)4805, Frederick Farms, Offsite Sewer Developer: William B. Duval & Gene H. Duval Contractor: Piedmont Construction Co., Inc. Total Contract Cost: $50,829.15 Total Estimated County Cost: $50,829.15 Refund through connections No. of Connections: 1 Code: 574-1-00556-0000 Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.c. PRESSURE REGULATOR ON RIVER ROAD On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any 84-762 necessary documents for Water Contract No. W85-8C/6(8)5081, for the construction of a pressure regulator and vault on River Road, to Best Backhoe and Excavating, Inc., in the amount of their low bid of $11,193.15, and further $13,000 was appropriated from 563 surplus to 380-1-65081-4393, which includes a 10% contingency. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.d. WATER LINES ON BEECHWOOD AVENUE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for Water Contract No. W84-42B/6(8)4427, Water Lines on Beechwood Avenue, to Best Backhoe and Excavating, Inc., in the amount of their low bid of $40,842.60. It is noted no additional appropriation is necessary. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.e. WATER LINES FOR COURTHOUSE COMMONS On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W85-16CD/6(8)5162, Installation of Water Lines for Courthouse Commons Developer: Magnolia Investment Associates Contractor: Lyttle Utilities, Inc. Total Contract Cost: Total Estimated County Cost: Estimated Developer Cost: No. of Connections: 10 Code: 380-1-65162-7212 $53,163.50 5,837.65 Cash Refund $47,325.85 And further the Board transferred $6,500 from 380-1-62000-7212 to 380-1-65162-7212. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.f. WATER LINES FOR ENON CONVENIENCE CENTER On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board awarded and authorized the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents for the following water contract: W85-17CD/6(8)5172, Installation of Water Lines for Enon Convenience Center Developer: Thomas G. Neal Contractor: Prince Paving Company Total Contract Cost: $5,744.50 Total Estimated County Cost: 1,227.00 Cash Refund Estimated Developer Cost: $4,467.50 No. of Connections: 2 Code: 380-1-65172-7212 And further the Board transferred $1,400 from 380-1-62000-7212 to 380-1-65172-7212. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.4.g. VEPCO EASEMENT AT DUTCH GAP WATER TANK SITE On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved a request from Vepco for an easement across County property at the Dutch Gap water tank site at the corner of Arcadia Avenue and Elokomin Avenue at the Dutch Gap Water Tank site to allow for maintenance of a proposed power line and . 84-763 authorized the Chairman of the Board and County Administrator to execute the agreement on behalf of the County. Unanimous 12.I.4.h. UTILITIES ADJUSTMENT AT HULL STREET AND CHIPPENHAM On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved an agreement for adjustment of utilities at the interchange of Hull Street and Chippenham Parkway, Project: 0150-020-101, C503, Phase I, and authorized the County Administrator to execute this agreement subject to approval by the County Attorney. Vote: Unanimous 12.I.5. REPORTS Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator. .J. REPORTS Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the general fund contingency account, the general fund balance and the JLARC Highway Construction Allocation Study. Mr. Hedrick informed the Board that the County had been officially notified that the following addition was accepted into the State Secondary System, effective November 20, 1984: Additions Length Beginning at intersection with Midlothian Turnpike, U.S. Route 60, and extending 0.84 mile southwesterly to a dead end. 0.84 mi. Midlothian High School - From Route 950-N To Route 950-S 0.29 mi. 13. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board adjourned at 9:35 p.m. until 12:00 noon on December 19, 1984 in Room 502 of the Administration Building. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. Hedrick County Administrator Harry G./Daniel Chairma~ 84-764