2016-11-29 MinutesA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 29, 2016
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Stephen A. Elswick, Chairman
Ms. Dorothy A. Jaeckle, Vice Chrm.
Mr. Christopher M. Winslow
Mr. James M. Holland
Supervisor Absent:
Ms. Leslie A. T. Haley
Dr. Joseph P. Casey
County Administrator
Planning Commission Members
in Attendance:
Dr. Edgar Wallin, Chairman
Mr. Gib Sloan, Vice Chairman
Ms. Gloria L. Freye
Mr. Michael Jackson
Mr. Peppy Jones
CALL TO ORDER
Staff in Attendance:
Ms. Janice Blakley,
Clerk to the Board
Mr. Clay Bowles, Director,
General Services
Mr. Kevin Bruny, Chief
Learning Officer
Mr. Allan Carmody, Finance
Director
Mr. William Dupler, Deputy
County Administrator
Mr. Garrett Hart, Director,
Economic Development
Mr. George Hayes, Director,
Utilities
Lt. Col. Dan Kelly,
Police Department
Mr. Louis Lassiter, Deputy
County Administrator
Mr. Mike Mabe, Director,
Libraries
Mr. Jeffrey Mincks,
County Attorney
Ms. Susan Pollard, Director,
Communications and Media
Chief Edward L. Senter,
Fire and EMS
Ms. Sarah Snead, Deputy
County Administrator
Mr. Scott Smedley, Director,
Environmental Engineering
Mr. Kirk Turner, Director,
Planning
Dr. James Worsley, Director,
Parks and Recreation
Mr. Scott Zaremba, Deputy
County Administrator
Mr. Elswick called the meeting to order at 1 p.m., on behalf
of the Board of Supervisors.
Dr. Wallin called the meeting to order on behalf of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Elswick expressed appreciation to the Planning
Commission, on behalf of the Board, for the outstanding job
they do in working through zoning cases before the Board of
Supervisors considers them.
16-684
11/29/16
CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATUS
Mr. Dupler stated the implementation process for the 2012
Comprehensive Plan Update has been very successful. He
stated 78 percent of the implementation items have been
started or completed, and staff is well on the way to
completing the implementation process. He stated many of the
implementation strategies received extensive citizen support
and input. He then introduced Mr. Steve Haasch to begin the
presentation and noted that Mr. Kevin Bruny would facilitate
the discussion throughout the work session.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS
Mr. Haasch provided details of State Code requirements
relative to comprehensive plans and discussed what the Plan
does and what it does not do. He stated the current
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2012, and has been amended
several times, including the Ettrick-VSU Special Area Plan,
Bon Air Special Area Plan and the Bikeways and Trails
Chapter. He stated the Plan is reviewed on a five-year cycle
so that it remains current and relevant. He provided details
of the implementation process for the 2012 Plan. He then
discussed the county's population trends. He stated although
the county's growth rate has slowed since the 1970's peak
change, we are still holding a 1.5 percent annual growth
rate. He noted that projections forecast a continued slowing
of this rate due to aging of the nation. He stated the
county's population is not only growing, but also changing.
He further stated more households do not have children than
do, and single -headed households have increased dramatically.
He stated the county will continue to diversify and although
Chesterfield remains one of the most affluent counties in the
region, we are also seeing increases in poverty. He further
stated Baby Boomers and Millennials are the dominant housing
market influences, and both groups desire to be in more
active, urban areas. He stated as our population changes,
our services, programs, built environment and infrastructure
should also change.
Ms. Jaeckle stated it appears the county's infrastructure
troubles began during the years of rapid growth in the 1970's
and 19801s. She inquired what percentage of growth would be
considered a level at which a community could keep up with
its infrastructure.
Mr. Haasch stated staff could look at that, acknowledging
that one of the problems the county has is its geography. He
further stated where the growth is occurring is as important
as the growth rate. He then provided details of Blueprint
Chesterfield results from a planning perspective. He stated
the community is interested in growth management, quality
design and lifestyle options. He noted that suburb fatigue
is becoming apparent and inquired whether more options could
be provided to the community than typical subdivisions and
strip shopping centers.
In response to Mr. Sloan's question related to the
description of suburb fatigue, Mr. Haasch stated one of the
questions on the Blueprint Chesterfield survey was, what
should the county focus less on over the next five years, and
the number one response was residential growth and
16-685
11/29/16
1k
9
It
A
A
development, and another response was strip commercial or
typical suburban shopping centers. He noted that another
question posed was, what should the county focus on, and the
responses included better planning and better design, new and
innovative development. He stated the responses indicate
that the residents are looking for new options for
development. He then reviewed the guiding principles for
updating the Plan, including keeping the current format;
making it clear, concise, and understandable; using the most
current data available; incorporating flexibility; and
tracking citizen comments.
Mr. Elswick stated citizen engagement should be added to the
list of guiding principles.
Mr. Haasch stated staff will definitely reach out to the
community for comments and there will be opportunities for
engaging citizens. He then provided details of the Plan
update process and stated the Plan should be substantially
complete and considered by the Planning Commission by the end
of 2017, and by the Board of Supervisors in early 2018.
GOALS/VISION DISCUSSION
Mr. Kevin Bruny then facilitated a discussion related to the
goals/vision for the plan. His first question was, "what do
we want to look like in 20 years?"
Mr. Holland stated when he was first elected in 2007,
infrastructure was well behind the growth. He further stated
the county now has more residents without students in the
school system and expressed concerns relative to funding
public facilities appropriately for that aging demographic.
He stated he is focusing on more immediate needs in terms of
funding, noting that the budget drives the public facilities
needed for that demographic. He stressed that we not repeat
what was done before with regards to massive growth.
Mr. Winslow stated the Board has been focused on the topic of
revitalization since its retreat, which is a broad topic and
includes many things. He stated the county should encourage
infill development in places where infrastructure is already
in place. He stated this focus can be seen through the cash
proffer reform policy that the Board adopted and the quality
standard which is currently in place. He further stated the
Board will be holding a public hearing on the tax abatement
program for rehabilitation, and he supports a tax credit
program. He noted that these things are critical in making
the county appealing, increasing property values and
decreasing crime.
Mr. Elswick stated in 20 years, we want to be a leader in
producing high -paying jobs in the region.
Mr. Sloan stated if we are successful in enhancing the
Comprehensive Plan, it will be a good tool to assist the
Board with capital improvement project planning,
revitalization, etc.
Ms. Freye stated the county needs more mixed-use development,
which will address a number of issues, including density.
11/29/16
Ms. Jaeckle stated many residents being employed at good jobs
would impact the quality of life in the county. She
expressed concerns that the numbers in Title 1 schools keep
increasing, and inquired how we can go back to community -
supported schools where people are attracted because they
value education and are community -minded. She stated
pedestrian and bicycle access would attract young families.
She further stated she would like to see the county remain
family -friendly and community -oriented because that is what
attracts residents.
Mr. Bruny stated the second question is, "what do we want to
be known for in 20 years?"
Dr. Wallin stressed the need for fiscal responsibility before
determining where we want to go or what we want to do. He
stated we must attune ourselves to the diversification and
changing demographics of society and look carefully at the
needs of those constituents, with schools being a prime
example. He further stated, for schools to maintain its
current status and enjoy the wave of the future, the public
at large must embrace the value of education, including
constituents without students in the household. He
referenced creative land use and inquired whether we should
look at areas to invest in for future industrial development.
He stressed the importance of having an appropriate ratio
between residential and commercial development.
Ms. Jaeckle stated we really need to look at the type of
commercial development we want in the county and also areas
that might already have too much commercial development and
why more commercial development is being required there,
along with new residential development.
Mr. Bruny stated the next question is, "what do we want to be
known for in 20 years?"
Mr. Jackson stated 20 years from now, he would not want to
see the county being known as the largest locality in the
state investing the least in education. He stated he would
like to see the county being less dependent on real estate
revenue for budgetary needs, and would also like it to be
known as one of the most citizen -friendly localities in the
state.
M
Mr. Holland stated if the county provides a good quality of
life and schools, the population will come. He further
stated affordable and adequate housing stock is critical, as
is quality. He stated the quality of facilities being
constructed, including housing stock, should not be
compromised. He further stated the need for transportation
and transportation models is critical and inquired how the
county will accommodate senior residents who are no longer
able to drive.
Mr. Jones stated the county wants to be known in 20 years as
a phenomenal place to work in industrial and unique
commercial jobs that have been created. He further stated we
want to be known for having one of the finest, if not the
finest, school systems in the state. He stated the county
has five unique villages that cannot be found anywhere else
in the region, and he would like to see those villages become
weekend destinations for residents in the region, rather than
16-687
11/29/16
IN
county residents attending weekend events in neighboring
localities.
Mr. Elswick stated Chesterfield wants to be known for being
the most business -friendly county in the state and a place
that people do not want to move from, but to move to.
Mr. Sloan stated there are opportunities within the county to
continue fostering relationships with higher learning
institutions, which could result in a great impact on the
local economy. He further stated there are unique
opportunities with Virginia State University and high-density
urban agriculture development, which is going to be a wave of
the future.
Mr. Jackson stated the county should be known for sports
tourism, noting that we have invested a lot of time and
resources into this initiative.
Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to re-creating
existing mixed -used developments and stated she would like to
see a balanced community rather than areas of poverty and
isolated areas of higher -income residents. She further
stated if you have the type of population that you want, they
will be supportive of schools.
Mr. Elswick stated we also want to be known as the safest and
most secure community in the state.
Mr. Bruny then posed the question, "Is there something that
we don't have that we want?"
Mr. Elswick stated if the county wants to keep certain areas
rural with open spaces, then residents should be able to sell
development rights so that developers can purchase property
and provide the density level that we are looking for.
Mr. Holland stated if quality development is not required,
that will become known in 20 years, and we will regret not
emphasizing quality standards with development.
GROWTH DISCUSSION
Mr. Haasch provided details of the acreage of vacant zoned
land. He stated once the 288 corridor develops out, that is
our last opportunity at good -quality, high-density
employment -type of uses. He then provided details of the
number of units and square footage of retail, office and
commercial development at Plan buildout.
In response to Ms. Jaeckle's suggestion for an overlay on the
growth map, Mr. Haasch stated staff could provide that
information.
Mr. Elswick suggested that the proposed Powhite Extension be
added to the map, across Route 360 and all the way down to I-
95. He stated that extension would also create another
opportunity for development in future years.
Mr. Haasch provided details of potential constraints,
including environmental regulations; public water and sewer
16-688
11/29/16
facilities and capacity; road network; and public
infrastructure.
Mr. Bruny stated the next question to consider is, "Where
should we grow/not grow?"
Ms. Jaeckle stated the availability of transportation is
important in determining where growth should occur.
Dr. Wallin stated the county needs to try to promote and
incentivize growth in the areas where infrastructure is
currently available, and economic growth and revitalization
will begin to take care of itself. He noted that quality is
not strictly related to the price of a home. He stated staff
should look at our existing areas of growth and determine the
potential for that growth.
Mr. Sloan stated as the county continues to grow, it should
be more balanced growth. He further stated the county has
capitalized on the true suburban model and we are also seeing
some very attractive infill projects, including Stonebridge,
Colony Pointe and Moore's Lake. He mentioned the relationship
between Economic Development and Planning as the county
attracts commercial development, and how it can be partnered
with the larger development community.
Mr. Holland stated he concurs with Dr. Wallin regarding
revitalization and preservation, citing the success of the
redevelopment of Cloverleaf Mall into the Stonebridge
development. He further stated we can no longer afford to
neglect transportation and the quality of roads. He stated
the Route 1 Corridor and other major corridors should be
enhanced so that people will want to live in those areas. He
stressed encouraging medium and small businesses in the
county, thereby providing jobs for residents, and he
suggested less regulations and costs associated with these
businesses as a mechanism to promote this type of growth.
Ms. Freye suggested that the county invest in growth at its
gateways where the tone is set for further investment
internally. She noted that Stonebridge is a wonderful
statement of what Chesterfield is and can be.
Mr. Jackson stated the county is looking at significant
incentives to develop in revitalization and preservation
areas and stressed the necessity of requiring quality
standards in those areas. He mentioned the various gateways
to the county, noting that some of them are located within
Special Area Plans, but those that are not are at risk with
the revitalization incentives that are currently in place.
He stated he would like the discussion to also include how we
grow, as well as areas where special area plans may be needed
that are not currently in place.
Ms. Jaeckle stated she thinks it is more important to
consider what we want to see in areas as they are
redeveloped, rather than where we should grow and not grow.
Mr. Jackson noted that the Meadowbrook area is a gateway for
the county, but it does not currently have a special area
plan, which would state what we want the area to look like.
16-689
11/29/16
K
PI
A
Ms. Jaeckle stated revitalization is really a second shot at
land use, so it is very important that it be done properly.
She provided the example of a lost opportunity at developing
the 7-11 on the Jefferson Davis Corridor, which is basically
a gateway, because no one knew what we wanted in that spot.
She stated she thinks we should focus on the entire city
line, as well as the entire Jefferson Davis Corridor, and
determine what we want to see there.
Mr. Elswick suggested discussing how and where we should grow
and when, noting that he does not think we have the vision or
the wisdom to determine places where we should not grow.
Dr. Wallin stated we should capitalize on the assets we
already have. He mentioned the historical significance of
certain locations in the county and expressed concerns that
they have never been woven together with a good design. He
suggested focusing on our unique villages, identifying other
areas to include in special area plans, and beginning to put
together a network.
Mr. Bruny stated the next question is, "Where should housing,
employment be located and at what density/intensity?"
Ms. Jaeckle stated she concurs with Ms. Freye regarding
mixed-use development, noting that it needs to be inter -woven
and connected.
Mr. Elswick stated the market is going to help determine
where development will occur, and there should be a balance
between the market and planning efforts.
Ms. Jaeckle stated when she moved to Chesterfield in the
19701s, Meadowdale was an upscale area and inquired about
land use decisions, such as allowing too many apartments in
the area, that changed the Meadowdale area. She further
stated we should research that area and what occurred there
to prevent this type of deterioration from happening in other
areas of the county.
Mr. Jackson stated the outer suburbs is the first area where
people leaving urban areas moved to. He noted those areas
are now aging, so the county is challenged with suburban
revitalization. He stated schools was a big driver in the
migration of western development in the county. He further
stated revitalization is not just incentivizing infill
development, but there is also a large social component that
must take place with the revitalization in those outer suburb
areas.
Mr. Holland stated in terms of employment/housing, it is
important that the county work in conjunction with schools
regarding skill -sets. He stressed the importance of showing
that county residents are job -ready.
LEVELS OF SERVICE DISCUSSION
Mr. Haasch provided data related to the current Comprehensive
Plan's levels of service for public facilities.
16-690
11/29/16
In response to Mr. Winslow's
River City Sportsplex is not
for parks levels of service.
question, Mr. Haasch stated
included in the data provided
In response to Mr. Elswick's question, Mr. Haasch stated he
would consult with Parks and Recreation and provide a
response to Board members related to how the 9 -acre figure
for parks levels of service was determined. He further stated
staff would also look at adding Pocahontas Park to the levels
of service parks data and provide that information to Board
members, noting that Pocahontas Park is available to all
county residents.
Mr. Bruny stated the next question to consider is, "what
service levels should we strive for?"
Mr. Elswick stated the service levels should be realistic.
Ms. Jaeckle inquired whether square footage is the key to
what we are looking for. She noted that libraries have
changed in terms of the materials that are offered and
inquired whether 0.82 square foot per person is appropriate.
Mr. Elswick suggested that staff go back and validate the
levels of service data provided and determine whether it is
correct today.
Mr. Holland inquired whether trailers are included in the
schools' functional capacity and whether the school
population is declining, growing or is steady. He noted
there are many factors in determining levels of service, and
he does not know if the data provided is based on national or
local statistics.
Mr. Elswick requested that staff determine the difference in
cost between the level of service and reality. He stated the
levels of service may need to be re-evaluated.
Mr. Sloan cautioned staff regarding the positioning of data.
He inquired whether the level of service for libraries was
just associated with stand -along community libraries, or if
school libraries were also included in the data.
Regarding the schools' level of service, Mr. Jones inquired
what would be the reality if school district lines were to
change slightly.
In reference to Mr. Elswick's remarks regarding service -level
costs, Mr. Jackson inquired whether the levels of service
should be aspirational or financially feasible and whether
the forward thinking of the plan should be limited from a
planning standpoint to just what is financially feasible.
Dr. Casey stated he would like to think the levels of service
relate to the community's level of service and what provides
the basis for a good quality of life for the community. He
further stated the next question is, what is our role in
achieving that? He stated parks is a great example of that
since we have a great state park, historical attractions, and
many faith -based communities that offer their land for
recreational activities, indicating that all of that supply
should be accounted for and then we have to define what is
the demand towards the whole supply. He further stated staff
16-691
11/29/16
F1
P]
must define the community's definition of levels of service
and the government's role in that.
Mr. Jackson stated parks is a good example, and inquired
whether the YMCA, ACA and other free-market opportunities for
recreation should be included in the data. He further
inquired whether we get to a point where we determine there
are enough facilities for recreation and we do not need to
invest in it any longer.
Dr. Wallin stated he recognizes upfront that levels of
service will provide challenges for people to think about.
He further stated we should consider how to share,
incorporate and capitalize more on facility uses than we
have, and he thinks the public is going to demand it. He
suggested that public-private arrangements be considered for
multiple uses of new facilities, as they are constructed.
Mr. Sloan stated the 2012 Comprehensive Plan revision is
unique in that the needs of all five districts were
incorporated into a unified county plan. He further stated
as we move forward and plans are revised, the document should
help us improve at forward planning and forward thinking, and
the conversations around the roles of the different levels of
service will become more clear.
Mr. Bruny then inquired, "how should we handle infrastructure
impacts from growth?"
Ms. Jaeckle stated one of her original questions was, at what
level of growth can you afford the infrastructure impacts.
She further stated she does not know that the level would be,
but an economist should be able to figure it out based on the
county's tax rate. She noted that the school population is
leveling off.
Mr. Jackson stated he and Mr. Erbach (Dale District School
Board representative) shared concerns about better aligning
schools with development and also agreed that schools should
have a formal role in the process when the time is right. He
further stated there are incentives for development to be
spurred in the county and expressed concerns relative to some
schools being over capacity and others being under capacity.
He inquired how we better align schools to match with the
growth we are experiencing and whether the Comprehensive Plan
has adequately addressed this issue.
Dr. Wallin stated we may need to begin to think differently
about selling facilities and building facilities where
students are located, approaching it from a business
standpoint.
Ms. Jaeckle stated the reality is if you want to be a county
that attracts residents because of schools, they are not
going to like the county if we shift students every two or
three years due to pockets of growth. She noted that moving
students is one of the most emotional government functions.
Mr. Jackson inquired if economists identified at what levels
of service the current revenue structure could support, what
we do with the information and whether we would stop growth
beyond that point or increase revenue to address that growth.
16-692
11/29/16
Mr. Holland stated we should use all possible tools and have
a real discussion on the expected levels of service and
whether we are willing to pay for it.
Mr. Winslow stated governments will always plan to spend
every dollar that comes in if guidelines are not set, so
there must be a discussion about fiscal responsibility and
what that means as tax decisions are made.
Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Elswick mentioned early on having
citizen input and not just tracking citizen comments. He
stressed the importance of providing the community an
opportunity to engage in the update process. He stated we
must be honest with the community in terms of what they are
asking for in a level of service and what it is going to take
to provide that. He further stated he agrees with being
fiscally conservative, but does not know how we reconcile all
of the actions we take with making government smaller.
Mr. Winslow stated we do that by prioritizing spending as it
relates to levels of service. He further stated you take the
community's input into consideration and then prioritize
spending. He stated there are many examples of how this was
done during the past year.
Mr. Bruny stated today's exercise was a beginning of the
conversation regarding the Comprehensive Plan update, and the
Planning Commission and Board members will be provided
additional opportunities throughout the process.
WRAP UP/NEXT STEPS
Mr. Haasch stated staff looks forward to working with
Planning Commission and Board members and the community over
the next year to set our course. He provided details of next
steps, including Board of Supervisors constituent meetings
and beginning chapter revision with the Planning Commission
members in January. He inquired what would be the next
appropriate check-in time.
Discussion ensued relative to citizen involvement throughout
the process.
Mr. Holland inquired about the number of opportunities for
citizen participation.
Mr. Haasch stated this is an update, not a complete overhaul
like the 2012 process, and staff would like to bring the
entire plan to the community rather than piece by piece, as
was done in 2012 because it caused disruption in the
community as people lost sight of how things were connected.
Dr. Wallin stated he thought the Planning Commission's view
was that there would be opportunities for community input as
the development of the Plan update occurred, rather than
waiting until it was all together. He further stated there
needs to be more discussion regarding this.
Mr. Haasch noted it is on the Planning Commission's December
20th agenda.
16-693
11/29/16
Mr. Sloan stated he was under the impression that the orange
blocks in the timeline provided by staff were times when the
Commissioners would be soliciting community input.
Mr. Elswick suggested that when constituent meetings are
held, a draft of the plan be placed on the website for
feedback and comments. He stated he does not want to slow
the process down, but does not want to make the citizens wait
for the information.
Mr. Holland suggested also using the county libraries to
disseminate the information for citizen input.
Dr. Wallin suggested considering placing a statement in
utilities bills that the process is beginning and staff is
seeking citizen input.
Mr. Hayes stated staff could look at a utilities bill insert,
but it would only reach the residents with public utilities.
Ms. Pollard noted that social media has been very successful
in reaching many people.
Mr. Elswick suggested that the next check-in should be
halfway through the process, unless Dr. Wallin advises him
otherwise, noting that he is going to rely on the Planning
Commission to take the lead on the process.
Mr. Holland suggested also inviting the School Board to
provide input.
In response to Mr. Jackson's question regarding the
availability of a land use map, Mr. Haasch stated the updated
land use map would be provided somewhat early in the process.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Dr. Casey thanked Planning staff for preparing and presenting
the information. He stated the Blueprint process was good
practice for citizen engagement. He further stated each
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan is important. He stated we
need to focus in on demographics and the reality of how they
are changing. He further stated Millennials and empty nesters
are two populations that we need to determine how to keep
them in Chesterfield. He stated we also need to determine
the type of housing that would attract Millennials to come to
Chesterfield. He expressed concerns relative to the 30,000
residents who leave Chesterfield every day to go to jobs in
other localities and stated we need to create the jobs that
reflect the talent of current residents, as well as the
people who will move here. He stated we have to find the
companies that create other ways in which they generate
business. He further stated where the schools are crowded,
we need to determine how Millennials and empty nesters can
live close to them, and where they have capacities, plan for
housing for families. He stated Chesterfield is an excellent
place to raise a family, and we need to determine how to plan
for walkability that the empty nesters and Millennials
desire. He stressed the importance of reducing commute times
for county residents by providing jobs for them in the
county.
16-694
11/29/16
Mr. Elswick thanked the citizens who attended the meeting, as
well as staff for providing the opportunity for the Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission to express their thoughts
regarding the Plan update.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Elswick then adjourned the Board of Supervisors meeting
at 2:57 p.m. until December 14, 2016, at 3 p.m. for the next
regularly scheduled meeting.
Dr. Wallin adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 2:57
p.m. until December 12, 2016, at 6 p.m. for a special
Planning Commission meeting.
Steph A. Elswick
Chairman
16-695
11/29/16
PC
191