1993-05-26 Packetr~
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
AGENDA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ARTHUR S. WARREN, CHAIRMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
EDWARD B. BARBER, VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
J. L. McHALE, III
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL
DALE DISTRICT
WHALEY M. COLBERT
MATOACA DISTRICT
LANE B. RAMSEY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: r2AY 2 6 , 19 9 3 PUBLIC MEETING ROOM TIME: 3 : 0 0 P . P'! .
1. ~ip~rAO ~al~~ of Minutes
~. Nib V ~~, r 93•
2. County A inistrator's Comments
3. Board Committee Reports
4. Requests to Postpone Action, Emergency
Additions, or Changes in the Order of
Presentation
5. Work Sessions
Paae
A. Quarterly Performance Report . ............ 1
B. Solid Waste Management C~?Pla~.~.) .............. 11
C. Update and Review of Shrink/\
Swell Soil Activities. Gf~e~~~l ............. 45
6. Deferred Items
7. New Business
A. Consideration of Claim of
Mr. Ronald Wooten ......................... 46
B. Appointments.~CRMP.~~3KE~? Mf~~(~~MEN?•$o~K~?,~ • • • 49
C. Streetlight Installation Cost
Approvals.......• .............•........... 51
D. Consent Items
1. Ratification of Amendments
to the By-Laws of the
Greater Richmond Transit
Company ("GRTC") ...................... 63
2. Amendment to Minutes of
April 14, 1993 ........................ 73
3. Appropriation of $26,000
Interest on Bond Proceeds
for Payment of Rent for
the Coalfield Soccer
Complex for FY94 .............•........ 75
,. . _ . -~
.r ` ~,,~
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
Page 2
Page
7. New Bus iness (continued)
D. Con sent Items
4. Appropriation of Anticipated
State Reimbursement for
Construction of a Jail
Annex ................................. 77
5. Adoption of Resolution
Requesting the Virginia
Department of Transportation
to Install a Traffic Signal
at the Chalkley Road/Route
10 Intersection .... .................. 78
6. Adoption of Resolution to
Prohibit "Through the
Fence" Operations on
Property Adjacent to the
County Airport ........................ 81
7. Approval of Change Order
to Design Collaborative
for Midlothian Branch
Library ..... ......................... 86
8. Street Name Change .................... 88
9. Agreement for Maintenance
of Stormwater Drainage
System and Best Management
Practice Facility for
Timbermill North .. ................... 90
10. Requests for Permission
a. From Gary H. and Noriko
Loving to Construct an
All-Weather Driveway
Within Two Existing
Fifty Foot Rights of
Way Known as Riverview
Drive and Riverview
Court and to Encroach
Within Existing
Easements ......................... 94
b. From John C. Petree, Jr.
to Install a Water Service
Within Two Unimproved
Dedicated Rights of Way
Known as Riverview Court
and Riverview Drive ............... 97
11. Conveyance of an Easement to
Virginia Electric and Power
Company ............................... 100
..-
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
Page 3
Pave
7. New Business (continued)
D. Consent Items
12. Approval of Water and Sewer
Utilities Contract for
Timbermill North ..................... 103
13. Acceptance of a Parcel of Land
Containing 0.74 Acres from
Tarmac Mid-Atlantic, Inc ............. 105
I~. /~W/;RD Of C'Cn/ST,2UC?'io/v CYarV?]Zl1C'~TD Wq?LFUGYi G'GNST2UCr-(.~N CiDMOAN~ fG~ THE ~ENOVAT~G''V
8. Hearings of Citizens on IInscheduled °f MFRQoa~OR~ C%~i~2ARY
Natters or Claims 15 • ~E7 Pu~3uc trr;Ae; ruc ~ C'o n;sr~2
THE ~EFFEPZScn1- Dftvi 5 C~oRK; vlp~ pLpW
A ~ Ric ~a 108 Q~~ur
9. Reports ................................. ~.{~
I(o • a''DK~FOr° PU~3LC Htr9~~wG?b
Move 10. Executive Session Pursuant to Section Co~vs~a~2 THE SourNE~en~ f+N~
.J(~~ 2.1-344 (a) (7) , Code of Virginia, 1950, WE~~~'V °~'~~ P~~ qNO ~E(ATtD
oF~oP as Amended, for Consultation with o~u;w,avvc~ H~tFa'V~MENTS
~' Legal Counsel Regarding County v.
Woodlake. et al ............................... 119
11. Dinner at 5:00 p.m.
Administration Building, Room 502
12. Invocation at 7:00 p.m.
Reverend Friend Wells, Pastor
Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church
13. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flaq
of the IInited States of America
14. Resolutions and Special Recognitions
o Introduction of the Winners of the
Department of Utilities Annual
Poster Contest ..... ....................... 121
,~, C(~11N1y ~tphtlN~5T12AT(~R'S CoMMEa,TS ~1~~snh~l~+its Sevdice5 p~rxtvcC +2e~,r+~
15. Public Hearings
A. To Consider an Amendment to
the FY92-93 Budget to
Appropriate $52,399,544 in
Bonds for the Refunding of
Debt and Related Issuance
Expenses for the County
and Schools ............................... 124
.~-
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
Page 4
15. Public Hearings (continued)
Page
B. To Consider an Amendment to
the FY92-93 Budget to
Appropriate $1,270,000 in
Anticipated Revenue to be
Received in Relation to the
Design of Genito Road and
Courthouse Road Widening .................. 125
16. Requests for Mobile Home Permits
and Rezoning
A. 93SR0209 - Donna W. Lewis, Dale
District
B. 91SN0230 - James F. Hubbard,
Midlothian District
C. 93SN0161 - Caddy Shack, Inc.,
Midlothian District
D. 93SN0171 - Branch Estates, Inc.,
Clover Hill District
E. 93SN0172 - The Chesterfield County
Planning Commission,
Bermuda District
F. 93SN0173 - The Chesterfield County
Planning Commission,
Bermuda District
G. 935N0178 - Carolyn R. Bryant,
Matoaca District
!0 • t>r ECuTiVi= SESSicx/
17. Adjournment
~•
Chesterfield County
Disability Services Board
~Rp,F`(
THE GOAI.
IS INCLUSION
Disability Services Board
SixYearReport
June 1, 1993
Executive Summary
The goal is inclusion.
Those with physical or sensory disabilities, just as those without such
disabilities, want the opportunity to be included in all aspects of community life.
Inclusion means getting a job... and getting around. It means an accessible home...
and acceptable health care. And it means an excellent education... and rewarding
recreational opportunities.
The Chesterfield County Disability Services Board was created to further the
goal of inclusion, to help discover ways to build the independence and self sufficiency
that allow those with physical and sensory disabilities to become a part of, and
contribute to life in our county and its communities. The first part of that task is the
assessment of need. Although the Board was appointed in January of this year, we
have gathered and analyzed a substantial amount of data in the months since.
Through review of existing survey and statistical data, informal surveys of
organizations concerned with those having physical and sensory disabilities, and
public hearings, we have laid a strong foundation for future analytical and research
efforts and have identified a number of specific needs. We have also noted ways the
county might respond to some of these needs.
Significantly, we have found that Chesterfield County has substantial re-
sources, as well as substantial needs. However, the available resources, both
material and organizational, offer a variety of complex alternatives to potential
consumers. They present a complex web of sometimes obscure, sometimes overlap-
pingoptions. They also present the county with a relatively inexpensive opportunity
to significantly increase services through a centralized information and referral
service and resource coordination.
• Through the development of local financing options, the county can help some
of those with physical and sensory disablities acquire the technological assistance
they need to hold down jobs and participate in the community. Through something as
simple as administrative support for self-help and support groups, to something as
obvious as a careful review of procedures or policies that exclude rather than include
those with disabilities from county help or education programs, the county can make
a difference.
• Transportation remains a major, unmet need. Since those with disabilities
frequently need help in getting to work, to the store, or to recreational areas, a county-
wide, reliable transportation would be of great value. Clearly such a system in a large
county would represent a major financial commitment. However, there are already
many independent and overlapping transportation resources operated by various
non-profit and service agencies within or near the county. Some county assistance
with the coordination of these existing resources could pay big dividends without a
large financial commitment.
Based on the needs discovered and acutely mindful of the fiscal constraints on
government today, the Disability Services Board recommends that the county begin
working toward the kind of inclusion so important for those with physical and sensory
disabilities by allocating funds for the employment of afull-time person to work with
the Board on establishing a resource directory, on coordinating diverse transporta-
tion resources and helping to initiate public/private partnerships. Such a position
would, at minimal cost, return substantial benefits by making existing county
resources known, accessible and more efficiently managed.
Over the years ahead, the goal of inclusion for those with physical and sensory
disabilities will demand some careful resEarch, planning, and resource management
-- as well as the allocation of funds. Taking the first step now by strengthening the
county's role as coordinator and information source will send a clear signal that
Chesterfield County's remarkable quality of life is open to and includes all its citizens.
1
Table Of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................. 2
Board Information ....................:................:............................. 3
Assessment Methodology ........................................................ 4
Resources ................................:...:............................................ 8
Findings: Survey Results ......: ................................................. 10
.......................
Findings: Public Hearing Results ...................
....................
Findings: Life Patterns Report ..........................
Recommendations and Priorities .....................
lusions
n
C 20
,
c
o
A
Appendices ............................................................................. .
Pale 2
Introduction
As a result of its work, The Commission on the Coordination of the Delivery of
Services to Facilitate the Self-Sufficiency and Support of Persons with Physical and
Sensory Disabilities (the Beyer Commission) identified three significant barriers to
the delivery of services to persons with physical and sensory disabilities, barriers
which have great importance to the ultimate design of a locally developed, consumer-
centered service system. The barriers identified were:
• unnecessary bureaucratic and complex eligibility criteria;
• gaps in services and poor coordination of services; and
• few incentives in the system to reward independence and self-sufficiency.
Additionally, the Beyer Commission Report stressed four themes that should
provide a foundation for the development of a_ locally developed consumer-centered
service system:
• The consumer is the central focus of the process; making the decisions,
taking responsibility for those decisions, and being a full partner in the costs of these
decisions. State government assumes responsibility for the quality of the public
services and programs, ensuring that service providers are good managers of
resources. Providers should fulfill their mission to serve the consumer with imagina-
tion and creativity and assure that the unique needs of the consumer are met to
catalyze self-sufficiency and independence.
• There will be a long term shift of public dollars from consumption to
investment through a shift in emphasis to funding programs which promote self-
sufficiencyand independence. The short term investments of general fund dollars will
reap long term benefits.
• The design of a service delivery system must be community based. This
affords the opportunity for decisions and planning to be done with the lowest common
denominator for the most effective result.
• Finally, the existing agencies within the Commonwealth must work
together to coordinate services to persons with physical and sensory disabilities.
It is from this perspective that we present our findings, conclusions and recom-
mendations for the Chesterfield County Disability Services Board's six-year plan.
3
Chesterfield County
Disability Services Board
Area Served: Chesterfield County Date Submitted: June 1, 1993
Time Period Covered: January, 1993 through May, 1993
Name of Staff Contact Persons:
Ms. Margaret Dexter (DRS)
Program Coordinator for Disability Determination Services
Dr. James McKinnell
Chesterfield County Interagency Services Administrator
Phone Number and Mailing Addresses of Staff Contact Persons:
Department of Rehabilitative Services
Disability Determination Services
4900 Fitzhugh Avenue
Richmond, Virginia 23230
(804) 367-0180
Chesterfield County Government
P.O. Box 40
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
(804) 748-1350
Disability Services Board Members:
Member [Term of Appointment]
Lee Deal, Chair [12/31/95]
Ann Tennent, Secretary [12/31/94]
Doug Cochran [12/31/93]
Robin Hoerber [12/31/93]
Cindi Jackson [12/31/95]
Davis Martin [12/31/94]
Darlene Pantaleo [12/31/93]
Kimberly Morton, Vice Chair [12/31/93]
Alfred Cobbs [12/31/94]
Barbara Hignut [12/31/94]
Thomas Howerton [12/31/93]
Jay Lowden [12/31/95]
Robert Masden [12/31/95]
Garnett Sarver [12/31/94]
Disability Services Board Advisory Council:
Carolyn Caudle [12/31/93]
Gayle Wells [12/31/93]
John Coates [12/31/94]
4
Assessment Methodology
Local Information
Chesterfield County is the fourth largest county in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and the sixth largest governmental jurisdiction. The county covers a land
area of approximately 446 square miles and may be characterized as urban, suburban
and rural. The county experienced a tremendous population growth during the 1980s.
Over that decade, Chesterfield County's population increased from 141,372 to
209,274. The most concentrated growth occurred in the Midlothian, Brandermilll
Woodlake, Robious and Chester areas. The county continues to experience a net
annual population growth rate of 3 percent to 4 percent.
Chesterfield County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors and has an
appointed county administrator form of government.
Employment within the county increased by 62 percent during the 1980s,
however the majority of county residents are employed outside of the county. Within
the county, the primary jobs growth occurred in the retail, professional and manufac-
turing sectors.
Chesterfield County Public Schools saw a 31 percent growth in the number of
children attending county schools during the 1980s. With 50 schools, the county's
system is the largest in the Richmond metropolitan area and the fourth largest in
Virginia.
The Chesterfield County Disability Services Board was created by the Board
of Supervisors in January 1993 in accordance with state legislation to provide
information to state and local agencies on service needs for persons with physical and
sensory disabilities.
Social Indicators
The various source documents regarding disability statistics are often conflict-
ing and may be misleading in some instances. A recent Rehab Brief on "Disability
Statistics" (1993) noted that "... the definition of the term, and therefore the statistics
on the size of the population of individuals with disability, depend on various program
statistics serving selected eligible people, on information collected in surveys address-
ingbroad social purposes, or on interpretation of data designed to achieve particular
programmatic purposes."
5
Data collected from agencies of the federal government (the Census, Congress
-- most recently the Americans with Disabilities Act, the President's Committee on
the Employment of Persons with Disabilities, or other agencies); from the Louis
Harris andAssociates Disability Survey (1986); from the Beyer Commission; from the
Virginia Disability Survey; and from state agencies (the Department of Rehabilita-
tive Services or the Department of Education) may vary because the definitions used
and/or the purposes of surveys or reports commissioned by these various organiza-
tionalentities vary. In other words, the number of persons with disabilities will vary
dependent on the source.
As an example of such variances, the Census found the number of Virginians
with disabilities to be 297,515 or 4.8 percent of the total state population. Congress,
in the preamble to the Americans with Disabilities Act, found that approximately 43
million persons or 17 percent of Americans have one or more physical or mental
disabilities. While such a discrepancy may seem quite large, it merely reflects the
methodology the surveys use. In this case one data set considers all persons who have
disabilities (ADA) while the other considers only persons 16 through 64 years of age
(Census).
The definition of disability and-- the manner in which that definition is
presented to respondents also determines the magnitude of disabilities reported.
Without providing respondents with qualifying information or criteria to determine
what is and what is not a disability, what one person considers to be a disability,
another may not. Surveys which rely on self report or that define disability narrowly
will affect the reported magnitude of disability. Obviously, statistics must be viewed
in the context in which they are presented.
For our purposes, we believe the finding of the United States Congress that 43
million persons, or approximately 17 percent of the U.S. population has disabilities
to be an appropriate estimate of disability found throughout the life span. Further,
we believe that the Harris Poll appropriately found that approximately 44 percent of
all persons with disabilities have physical disabilities and 13 percent have sensory
disabilities. Extrapolating these statistics to Chesterfield County, the total number
of disabilities within the county would be 35,577 persons. Of this number, 15,653
persons would have physical disabilities and 4,625 would have sensory disabilities.
This figure is more than twice the estimate of the Census data (6,035 persons with
mobility limitations and 2,109 with self-care limitations). Most of the variance may
be explained by the delimiting nature of the Census survey methodology (i.e.,
considering that only non-institutionalized persons ages 16-64 were included and in
view of the nature of questions asked).
Within Chesterfield County, 2,209 persons are receiving Social Security
Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits (1,474 Disability Insurance Beneficiaries and
735 Supplemental Security Income Recipients). Nationally it is estimated that 14.2
million persons, or approximately 15 percent of the 43 million Americans with
disabilities, have reported that their disabilities have interfered with or precluded
employment. Stated another way, about 1 person in 11 (9 percent) has some work
6
r,, disability. Among those reporting a work disability, approximately one half are
receiving SSDI benefits and the remainder are handicapped in securing or maintain-
ing employment. (Disability Statistics Abstract, Number 4, May, 1992) These data,
when extrapolated to Chesterfield County, are reasonably consistent with the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research estimate (2677 v 2209)
of persons with a work disability (defined as not working at all or receiving SSDI
benefits).
The Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services reports that, for the
period July 1991 through March 1993, it served a total of 950 Chesterfield County
residents with disabilities. To date, 462 persons continue as active cases; physical and
sensory disabilities account for 133, or 28.8 percent of this number.
Persons with physical and sensory disabilities who applied for and/or received
vocational rehabilitation services during this period and whose cases were subse-
quently closed were dosed in one of the below noted categories:
• Closed with Placement
(successful employment outcome) 43
• Closed Ineligible
(did not meet eligibility criteria) ~ 68
• Closed without Placement
(unsuccessful employment outcome) - 24
• Closed without Services
~' (cases closed before services could be completed due
to refusal of services employment found independently,
referral to another agency or relocation) 15
From the census data, we know that rates of disability increase as persons age
(age related disabilities) and may interfere with or completely handicap a person's
ability to engage in employment. Note, for example, the percentages of persons
reporting disabilities that handicap them in gaining or maintaining employment
within the various age ranges from 16 through 64:
Age Range Percent Reporting Disability
16-24 3.7 percent
25-34 5.7 percent
45-54 7.8 percent
55-64 21.9 percent
These data do not consider those persons under age 16 or over age 64, nor does
it indicate that males are more likely (slightly) to incur work related disabilities and
to experience a greater percentage of severe or total work limitation. Whites and
Page 7
blacks tend to have equal percentages of work disabilities but African-Americans
tend to experience a higher percentage of total work disability than do whites.
Chesterfield County Public Schools report that a total of 5,961 children have
disabilities.Of this number, 1,923 children have sensory disabilities (deafness, hard
of hearing, speech/language disabilities and visual disabilities) and 718 children have
physical disabilities (orthopedic disabilities, multi-disabilities, other health impair-
ments and traumatic brain injuries). These figures may reflect an underestimate of
the number of children with, in particular, physical disabilities since only children
receiving special education services are reported. In other words, if a child has a
disability and is being served through the regular school program, that child is not
counted as having a disability. Appendix 1 contains a summary of the December 1992
Child Count maintained by Chesterfield County Public Schools.
Children with disabilities, whether enrolled in special education or in regular
education, face considerable barriers in gaining employment and/or post-secondary
training and education. The issue of transitioning has been given national attention
in the re-authorization of PL 94-142, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The
Department of Rehabilitative Services and the Department of Education have given
emphasis to this issue as reflected in these agencies' joint receipt of a major federal
grant (Project Unite) focusing on the development of best practices to facilitate
transitioning for youth with disabilities as they exit the secondary school system.
In summary, there are approximately 20,278 Chesterfield County residents
with physical and sensory disabilities with service needs that vary according to a
myriad of factors such as age, onset of disability, functional limitation imposed by
disability and attitudinal barriers faced by persons with disabilities. In subsequent
sections of this report, findings, conclusions and recommendations ofthe Chesterfield
County Disability Services Board will be presented which further define and articu-
late the service needs of Chesterfield County residents with physical and sensory
disabilities.
P
Resources
The Needs Assessment Committee of the Chesterfield County Disability Services
Board conducted this assessment.
Assessment Instruments and Information Sources
The following informational sources were reviewed and activities were con-
ducted by the Needs Assessment Committee in the preparation of this report:
• DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
• Department of Rehabilitative Services Source Materials
• Disability Services Board Needs Assessment Training
• Disability Services Board Member Manual
• Glossary of Terms
• A Guide for Making Needs Assessment Decisions
• Directory of Resources
• Estimates of Disability
• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Chesterfield County Census Data
• Disability Statistics Abstract, Number 4, May 1992
• Estimates of Disability Population, Briefing for the
Beyer Commission
• Louis Harris and Associates, "A Profile of the Sample of 1,000
Disabled Americans by Key Measures of Disability", 1986
• Social Indicators for Use in Needs Assessment of Persons
with Physical and Sensory Disabilities
• Rehab Brief, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, Volume XIV, Number 8, 1993
• Virginia Disability Survey: Preliminary Findings
• Disability Reports/Surveys
• The Commission on the Coordination of the Delivery of Services
to Facilitate the Self-Sufficiency and Support of Persons
with Physical and Sensory Disabilities, House Document
Number 11, Commonwealth of Virginia, 1992
• Life Patterns: A Report on Life and Service Satisfaction of
Virginians with Developmental Disabilities, The Consumer
Empowerment Project, Department of Rehabilitation Counsel
ing, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1989.
Page 9
• ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
• Telephone Survey of Local Resources, Planning Districts 15 and 19
(See appendix 2 for a complete listing of resources contacted. Two
VCU graduate students in Rehabilitation Counseling, Ms. Liz
Perry-Varner and Ms. Beth Philips, conducted the telephone
survey.)
• Public Hearings
• April 12, 1993, Robious Middle School
• April 13, 1993, C.E. Curtis Elementary School
• April 14, 1993, O.B. Gates Elementary School
• April 15, 1993, Swift Creek Elementary School
(See appendix 3 for "Notice of Public Hearing" brochure and Chesterfield
County Disability Services Board Needs Assessment brochure.)
Time Frame of Data Collection
February, 1993 through May, 1993
10
Findings
Three distinct sources of data were reviewed by the Disability Services Board;
1 -The results of a survey of local public and private organizations and
advocacy groups vis-a-vis the twelve core service areas identified in the
Beyer Commission Report,
2 -The results of four public hearings held to receive comments from consumers
and others regarding the twelve core service areas identified in the Beyer
Commission Report as well as other comments and concern: and
3 - A review of the findings of the Life Patterns report as they apply to
Chesterfield County residents who have physical and sensory disabilities.
Survey of Public and Private Organ_ izations
and Advocacy Groups
Core service areas necessary to promote self-sufficiency and independence for
persons with physical and sensory disabilities were identified by the Beyer Commis-
sion in its report to the Virginia state legislature.
Local public and private organizations and advocacy groups within Chesterfield
County (see Appendix 2 for a listing of organizations contacted) were surveyed by the
Chesterfield County Disability Services Board on the existing service needs of
consumers, as well as on any gaps perceived in the service delivery system. The
following narrative is a discussion of each core service area with the added dimension
of local comments regarding service needs gathered during the telephone survey.
Assistive Technology
Individuals with sensory and physical disabilities should possess the informa-
tionand means to purchase needed assistive technology services and equipment. The
most significant problem areas associated with assistive technology according to 85
percent of service providers is the securing of funding. Key informants, including
consumers, family members, service providers, advocates and vendors, can help to
identify gaps in services and funding and where demands exceed service capacity.
Such gaps can and do lead to "Catch 22" situations where an individual with a
disability cannot seek or acquire employment without assistive technology, and
cannot afford that technology without employment.
11
Counseling
Counseling is difficult to isolate from the basic service delivery process. The
establishment of a relationship between an individual or family members and a
service provider affords the opportunity for service planning and provision. The
counseling relationship is crucial if the person with a physical and/or sensory
disability is to be empowered, to be moved toward self-sufficiency and independence.
While it may be very difficult to assess counseling outside of the context of the related
service, it is important that the need for such a counseling component of service be
explored and that providers offer consumer driven and responsive systems.
Employment
Employment services encompass an array of prevocational and vocational
preparation activities, new technologies which allow individuals with severe disabili-
ties to compete in the workplace, and work-site adaptations. Also included in this
category of services are job development, placement, supported and sheltered employ-
ment, and employer support services to promote the hiring and adjustment of persons
with disabilities. -
Among many advocacy groups, employment was a major concern. The nature
of many disabilities makes driving or obtaining consistent transportation a barrier
closely related to obtaining or maintaining employment. Working at home is obvi-
ously an attractive alternative for many with disabilities to avoid the transportation
dilemma. However, despite the advanced electro-technologies that make such home
employment both practical and productive, old policies withinbusiness organizations
and even within governmental bodies frequently discourage or prohibit such home-
based employment. -
Housing
The goal is a continuum of affordable, accessible housing options for persons with
physical and sensory disabilities that foster the opportunity to live as independently
as possible. This goal is repeated frequently among advocacy groups, making housing
a problem equal to those of transportation and employment.
Medical and Therapeutic
Persons with physical and sensory disabilities usually require health care
services to treat existing conditions and to prevent future health problems. Clearly,
as the nation struggles to identify and respond to a health crisis, the lack of sufficient
trained health care providers, limited medical care for medically indigent children
with disabilities, affordable private health insurance, and the high cost of medical
care are particularly acute concerns for those with disabilities and members of their
families.
12
Both anecdotal and statistical evidence indicates a continuing need for available,
affordable health care services from qualified providers, including a full range of
physical, cognitive and behavioral rehabilitation services.
Training
The management and operation of systems providing services fostering the self-
sufficiency of persons with disabilities demand qualified, well-trained provider
staffers. Such training is complicated by the fact that the areas of training need are
as diverse as the situations confronted by those with disabilities.
Training both prior to the delivery of service and in-service is vital. Providers
must be trained in the nuances of the services they will offer and in obtaining
information from other, outside sources (see Case Management).
Sources of training for such services within Chesterfield County include some of
the providers, local colleges and universities, and the community colleges. Greater
effort is needed to ascertain the exact services available or absent within the county.
Case Management
Case management is the active, two-way-cooperation between a provider and a
person with a disability to use and strengthen the abilities and strengths of
consumers to help them identify their-own needs, seek appropriate services, and work
toward their personal goals. It demands a strong awareness among providers of the
consumer's overall needs and the facilities, organizations and individuals within the
area that can respond to those needs. Such awareness is the product of area-wide,
coordinated efforts to provide services and sound training.
This aspect of service for those with disabilities usually involves a central point
of contact linking a wide variety of evolving services. It must be community based,
consumer centered, innovative and flexible. And, most importantly, it must be
available.
More than a fourth of those questioned in another survey indicated that they saw
a need for increased case management. Respondents indicate that not only should
case management be offered to those in need, it can also build a helpful mutual
awareness of services available.
Education
The Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975 provided that all children with
disabilities have equal access to the educational services provided their peers without
disabilities. As rewritten in 1990, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act also
encompasses a basic requirement for transition services to facilitate the student's
shift from a public school situation to the post-school environment and use of available
Page 13
r+~
services. Meeting this requirement requires cooperative efforts involving education,
rehabilitation and other service providers.
In a time of increasing scrutiny on school expenditures at all levels, it is crucial
that educational services appropriate to the needs of youth with physical and sensory
disabilities be protected. Consumers, their families and representatives of providers
must become partners with the schools to insure the vitality of such services for what
will always be a relatively small proportion of the school population.
Family Support
Family support services offer a flexible, varied network of solutions and informa-
tion useful for maintaining a family that includes a member with a disability.
Services should include comprehensive and well coordinated in-home and sup-
port services and should empower families and persons with disabilities to maintain
or gain control over their own and their family's lives. The benefits of such programs
have been proven by the Office of Mental Retardation through existing Community
Service Boards across the state. A similar system would be of value within the realm
of those with physical and sensory disabilities.
Independent Living
Independent living services include information and referral, independent living
skill training, peer counseling, advocacy, community education, and a variety of other
services designed to help persons with severe physical and sensory disabilities
function in their communities. Of these independent living skills, almost all advocacy
groups seem to feel that advocacy and community education are of most importance.
Without these two particular aspects of independent living, the community as a whole
would not treat persons with disabilities with the respect and equality to which they
are entitled.
A public more aware of and sensitive to people with disabilities, and people with
disabilities who know about services and their rights are both critical elements in
fostering the self-sufficiency of individuals and the consumer focus of the service
system.
Personal Assistance
Persons with severe physical functional limitations need special services if they
are to fully participate in all aspects of daily living. While the nature of such special
services varies as much as the consumer's abilities and disabilities, the services may
include those helping with activities such as bathing, communicating, cooking,
dressing, eating and housekeeping.Such affordable personal services are offered now
Page 14
in part by such groups as local social services agencies, Area Agency on Aging and
other, similar organizations.
Transportation
Persons with physical and sensory disabilities require coordinated, specialized
and public transportation that meets local needs and conditions and is both affordable
and accessible for persons with such disabilities. No less than those without disabil-
ities, mobility is absolutely vital if individuals are to lead productive, rewarding lives.
A county like Chesterfield, with its contrasting urban and rural areas, poses a
particular challenge for consistent transportation services. There must be a county-
wide public transportation service capable of handling those with physical and
sensory disabilities, then it must be made both consistent and affordable.
Recreational Opportunities
Services must be available in the community to ensure recreational opportuni-
ties for individuals with physical and sensory disabilities. Very few agencies are
addressing the need for recreational opportunities. Problems with transportation
previously cited are closely related to the inability to access the few opportunities
which are available. .
Insurance
Waiting periods, eligibility barriers, and insufficient leverage and costs continue
to be persistent problems for persons with physical and sensory disabilities who wish
to obtain private insurance. The problems also extend to those with serious medical
problems.
Insurance needs for lifelong disabilities and terminal illnesses such as cancer and
AIDS often "drop through the cracks" and are not addressed effectively by the current
private or public assistance insurance programs.
Lack of Funding for Research
Lack of funding for research was cited as a strong need by the American Cancer
Society and the AIDS representatives contacted. Federal budget cutbacks have
severely impacted research grants and personnel staffing. While Chesterfield County
cannot launch its own research to explore alternatives for those with disabilities, it
can and should promote such funding on the state and federal levels through
consistent pressure on area elected representatives.
15
Results of the Public Hearings
Public hearings were conducted by the Chesterfield County Disability Services
Board at four Chesterfield County Middle and Elementary School locations on April
12, 13, 14, and 15, 1993. Each meeting was convened at 7:00 pm and closed at 9:00
pm. Publicity for these hearings was accomplished by the following:
• A notice and article published in the Apri18, 1993 issue of the Chesterfield
PLUS supplement to the Richmond Times Dispatch;
• Multiple video announcements on the Storer Cable Community TV News;
• Voice mail recording and TDD telephone availability; and
• A specially developed brochure which was distributed at the hearing sites,
public schools, various libraries and churches.
Board member attendance at each hearing was never less than five, including the
Board Chairman and the Needs Assessment Committee Chairman.
Attenders included individuals who represented parents of children with dis-
abilities, persons with disabilities, disability support group members and public
sector service providers. Testimony received from attenders ranged from a compari-
son of services provided locally to services provided in other states to problems
incurred resulting from misinformation from local service providers.
Specific concerns centered on:
• Transportation--lack of
• Accessibility--physical
• Knowledge of and availability of services--how to find and access services
• Need to support advocacy groups
• Support of prevention activities
• Assistive technology--how to find and access
• Employment opportunities--access to and maintenance of jobs, restrictive
policies which seem to screen people with disabilities out
• Independent living services--limited opportunities
• Financial support systems--lack of
• Need for greater interagency cooperation and coordination
• Transitioning needs of youth with disabilities
• Recreation--limited opportunities
"" I On May 6, 1993 the draft "Disability Services Board Six Year Report" was
presented to Board members and was open to the public for comment.
16
Review of Life Patterns Report
The Life Patterns Report produced by the Consumer Empowerment Project
located in the Department of Rehabilitation Counseling at Virginia Commonwealth
University profiles the service satisfaction of Virginians with lifelong disabilities and
contains findings regarding the needs for services and the current status of efforts to
increase independence, community inclusion, and productivity among consumers.
This study included all disability categories (i.e., physical, sensory, cognitive and
mental) and was representative of all age groups and geographical locales within the
Commonwealth. For the purposes of this report only those findings related to physical
and sensory disabilities were considered.
The findings of the consumer satisfaction survey were categorized along the
dimensions of Targets for Improving Services and Targets for Improving
Quality of Life. Even though these data are presented as statewide findings, they
are equally applicable to Chesterfield County. They mirror the concerns noted in the
Beyer Commission Report and confirm the concerns expressed by consumers, advo-
cates and service providers who responded to our telephone survey and public
hearings.
Targets for Improving Services
1. Consumers with lifelong disabilities are dissatisfied with sitting on the
sidelines of life. They want the services and supports that will allow them to be active
and included members of their communities. They require such things as community
living assistance or training, self-help or support groups, and community support
services. Yet, though over 80 percent of adults rate community inclusion as important
to their lives, the data indicate limited social community integration among members
of the sample.
2. Services and supports related to financial welfare dominate perceptions of
satisfaction and need. Respondents indicate high levels of need for income assistance,
food assistance, financial management assistance, private health insurance, pay-
ment for medication, and payment for provision of medical equipment. In short,
general financial support holds the key to personal independence, but that ideal is
little more than a dim hope for many: adult respondents to the survey had an
estimated average annual projected income of $5,600.
3. While satisfaction with Virginia's direct services is generally high, satisfac-
tion with supports--often required to use services effectively--runs far lower. Assis-
tance to Virginia's consumers comes in two forms. Services, such as sheltered
employment, aim to mitigate the effects of a consumer's disability. By contrast,
supports, such as an on-site attendant, aim to increase the effectiveness of the service
and/or to contribute to the quality of life of the consumer.
Page 17
Over the past decade, Virginia has begun gradually to move from a system
offering the same service mix to virtually all persons in a category of disability, to a
system more inclined to offer a unique set of services and supports tailored to the
specific needs of the consumer.
Nevertheless, the persistent discrepancy between satisfaction with services and
supports underlines the continuing need to do more. For example, 72 percent of
consumers receiving income assistance (i.e., SSI) are satisfied with that assistance,
while only 55 percent are satisfied with the supports that help them make the most
of income (i.e., financial management assistance).
Educationally, satisfaction with regular school classes and career and profes-
sionaleducation was 75 percent and 77 percent, respectively. By contrast, satisfaction
with attendants and after-school tutors was 55 percent and 50 percent respectively.
Similar relationships held for services and supports for transportation and work. This
pattern suggests a need for increased emphasis on improving supports in the service
of major life roles and activities.
4. Virginia's service system often fails to target its resources with appropriate
differentiation across disability groups. P_ erhaps as a consequence, satisfaction with
and needs for services often differ for different disability groups. Persons with
physical and sensory disabilities, for example have a big need for transportation
services, but other groups may not.
Fortunately, Virginia's service system is designed to provide different services for
different disabilities. Unfortunately, it often fails to provide services that are needed.
When asked why they were not receiving needed services, respondents commonly
replied "not eligible by type or degree of disability".
Targets for Improving Quality of Life
5. The absence of available work forms a major barrier to increasing productivity
and quality of life for many persons with lifelong disabilities. Less than a third of
adults in the sample worked full time, earning an annual projected income of just over
$12,000. An additiona112 percent worked part time. Yet only 25 percent of the sample
rated themselves as unable to work or retired. That means that 31 percent, almost a
third, are available for work but are not working--despite the fact that eight of every
ten consumers rated productivity as an important life value to them. That motivation
notwithstanding, almost a third of the adult consumers felt generally unproductive.
The practical consequences of these statistics are stunning. Only 28 percent of
adult consumers own their own home (compared to about 65 percent of 1980
households in Virginia). Over two-thirds of adult consumers reported continuing to
live with relatives, and over half described their primary caregiver as either a relative
or service provider, strongly suggesting the daily implications of inadequate financial
resources. Though a large percentage indicated a need for additional education,
18
America's touted means for "lifting oneself up," a consistent theme for not obtaining
such services was "service is too expensive to obtain."
6. The social support networks of most consumers are extremely limited. Current
psychological literature strongly suggests that social networks positively contribute
to life satisfaction. They may also contribute to physical health. Yet involvement in
social networks by most persons with lifelong disabilities is quite limited. The
neighborhood social contacts of both children and adults with lifelong disabilities
appear constricted when compared to those of peers without disabilities.
Many life roles, which serve to establish social networks--parent, worker,
student, for example--are either less available or more isolated from the mainstream
for consumers. Only 23 percent of adults are members of consumer or advocacy
groups, despite a high satisfaction rating from persons who are members and a high
level of stated need by consumers who are not members.
7. The commitment of Virginia's primary caregivers and service system to the
independence of persons with disabilities is limited by the vested interests of the
caregivers and service systems. Consumers show a very high level of independence in
certain life activities but considerably less independence in other activities, such as
handling personal finances. Lower levels of independence are often associated with
the potential for inconvenience or liability on the part of caretakers or the service
system. Assistance to increase independence in such activities as choosing one's own
attendant or service provider and handling personal finances is limited and sporadic
for many.
8. The current service and family environment meets the physical and emotional
needs of youth fairly well, but, in doing so, often instills dependence, a potentially
important barrier to future life satisfaction. Children and adolescents are, for the
most part, satisfied with their lives. Most live in warm, loving family settings and
spend a great amount of their time in school. They are often given special assistance.
For example, with 70 percent of youth in school, only 14 percent are in classrooms not
providing special assistance. That we provide this care for our children should comfort
us. But how well do we ensure that children grow up believing they can be
independent?
Relatively few youth are members of consumer groups, though over half of their
parents have joined at least one group. The discrepancy between life values and
reality becomes more sharply defined with the recognition that, while eight of every
ten consumers endorsed independence as an important life value, over half of these
same consumers characterized themselves as dependent.
9. Many consumers remain isolated and limited in their involvement in "real
world" roles and environments. Adults seem somewhat less satisfied than children
with their lives. The data indicate the change may derive from changes in life
involvement. Children's lives revolve around the roles of child, student, and leisure
person.
Page 19
By contrast, adults are traditionally engaged in additional roles. Many roles
taken for granted by persons without disabilities are simply not available to persons
with lifelong disabilities. Seventy-nine percent of consumers had never married, 40
percent had divorced (spouse role). Only 32 percent of adult consumers living in multi-
family homes or institutions were allowed to choose their leisure activities on
weekends and evenings (leisure role). Yet pleas for participation in the "real world"
abounded in the survey. The issue begs for resolution: over 80 percent of adult
respondents indicated that inclusion into the community is important to their lives.
Page 20
Conclusions, Recommendations
and Priorities
Those with physical and sensory disabilities, like those without disabilities, want
to be a part of their community, they want to be included in the community's daily
activities. Regardless of age or gender, persons with physical and sensory disabilities
and their families seek the opportunity to be educated, to work, to shop and to play
in the community of their choice.
Productive, independent inclusion in the mainstream of American life is a goal
no less important to those with disabilities than to those without. It is, however, a goal
that is perhaps more difficult to attain. -This difficult results not so much from the
limitations associated with a particular disability as from the architectural, attitu-
dinal and procedural barriers that exist within society.
Disability Services Boards were created as a mechanism to afford people with
physical and sensory disabilities the opportunity to exert more choice and control over
their lives, more opportunity for greater inclusion in the day to day activities of
community life. Clearly the road to such inclusion will be long. But it is no less clear
that such a goal will never be reached unless we take that proverbial first step. We
believe that the following recommendations, could constitute that step, and could set
the stage for the kind of progress that will make Chesterfield County a richer, more
inclusive place to live -- for those with or without disabilities.
Inclusion: Recomending Action
Assistive Technology
Assistive technology is truly the great equalizer for persons with disabilities. The
ready availability on accessing, locating and financing such technology is crucial. The
Virginia Assistive Technology System represents a giant step in the right direction
toward the requisite availability. However, it is vital that each Chesterfield County
school and each service provider be familiar with this resource and what it can mean
for so many of those with disabilities.
Local financing options should be developed to facilitate or ease acquisition of
assistive technology for potential beneficiaries. Strategies must be developed to allow
Page 21
purchase or leasing of assistive technology for persons who do not qualify for
assistance based on need but who nevertheless do not have the disposable income to
purchase needed assistive technology.
In some cases certain assistive technology services should be made available
to those who require such services, and those who work with them. For example, in
the final preparation of this report, it was found impossible to obtain a prompt,
affordable Braille translation of drafts for review by those on the board or in the
community with visual disabilities. Such communications or support services that
are made not only possible but comparatively inexpensive through modern technol-
ogy should be provided to persons with disabilities by government or non-profit
sectors, or both. In many cases such services may not require a significant financial
commitment, but rather a leadership sensitivity or commitment.
Accessibility
The physical accessibility of public and private facilities is of utmost concern to
persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act clearly mandates that
shopping, employment and recreational facilities conform to standards set within the
act. However, the goal at the local level must be more.than compliance with the letter
of the law. Rather it must be an abiding determination to live up to the spirit or intent
of that law. A carefully planned marketing strategy should be undertaken to present
persons with disabilities as consumers of goods with dollars to spend, not as a special
group that must be accommodated by the marketplace.
Administrative Support of Self-Help/Support Groups
The benefits of advocacy and self-help groups have been amply demonstrated
throughout our review of existing reports, the survey of local resources, and through
testimony received at the public hearings. These groups, however, routinely need
administrative support to continue or enhance the peer support they provide and the
basic information they offer consumers on services and supports available within the
Chesterfield County community. The provision of limited office space and access to
computers, copiers, phones and other office equipment could produce benefits far
beyond the modest costs of such space or equipment. Such facilities would also appear
to lend themselves to joint public-private efforts.
Employment
Community inclusion may hinge on employment. Pre-vocational experiences and
vocational training opportunities are crucial employment precursors for those with
physical and sensory disabilities. It is essential that such services be expanded to
accommodate all who seek them.
22
The limited number of persons who are currently being served by the Department
of Rehabilitative Services must be dramatically increased if community inclusion is
to become reality for Chesterfield County residents who happen to have physical or
sensory disabilities. Concurrent with this recommendation is the realization that
restrictive or rigidly applied policies (e.g., financial needs tests particularly for youth
who reside with parents) may exclude rather than include persons with disabilities
and should be reviewed.
Transportation is a major barrier to employment, even for those who have
marketable skills. Chesterfield county has no public transportation system. Histori-
cally, Para-transit systems have proven unable to offer the consistent, ontime service
essential to permanent employment.
Interagency Cooperation and Coordination of Services
The ideal of a locally developed, consumer-centered service delivery system has
emerged in much of the Board's research and information-gathering. But, if such a
clearly logical ideal is to be realized, there must be greater efforts to resolve or reduce
the competing or conflicting policies and procedures of existing service agencies.
Specific issues to be addressed are transitioning for youth with disabilities; expansion
of job training possibilities (e.g., supported work, OJT, unpaid work experiences,
public/private partnerships, etc.); transportation; and the development of strategies
to heighten the awareness and availability of services (e.g., DRS, assistive technol-
ogy, independent living services, advocacy/support groups, etc.).
Provision of Services and Supports which Foster Independence
Services and supports which foster choice and control must be readily available
to persons with physical and sensory disabilities. Services such as independent living,
personal assistance, case management and advocacy must be provided if the ideal of
a locally developed consumer-centered service delivery system is to be realized.
Public/Private Partnerships
Public/private sector partnerships have enormous potential to significantly
increase training and employment opportunities for those with physical and sensory
disabilities. It is imperative that such partnerships be initiated and encouraged to
maximize limited resources and to build toward the kind of community inclusion that
is our goal.
Recreation
,,. Full inclusion in the social life of a community demands consistent, routine
provision of recreational opportunities. Whether the inclusion demands better
Page 23
accessibility, carefully structured recreational programs, or simply greater focus on
the needs of those with physical and sensory disabilities, it should become a goal for
both the county and for private or community recreational organizations.
Resource Directory
Throughout much of the research and citizen input reviewed by the Board has
been a sense of public frustration over the complexity of services available to those
with disabilities and the difficulty of obtaining clear, concise and understandable
information on those services. Clearly a need exists for a centralized, current,
accessible and understandable information service, a directory listing resources --
both material and human -- of importance to those with physical or sensory disabil-
ities.
The benefits provided by such a service or resource directory could be enormous.
The cost could be modest. It is imperative that such a system be made a high priority
for the county. It should utilize computer technology for efficiency and be capable of
routine updating and ready access. Such access could be offered simply with a
computer system (perhaps using older _computers unsuitable for other functions)
located in county libraries and schools. Computers or.terminals provided for such use
should be equipped with devices or software that make them easily used by those with
physical or sensory disabilities.
Transportation
A consistent, major barrier to employment and community life is the absence of
an accessible public transit system. There are multiple public agency uncoordinated
transportation networks which could have some potential to contribute to a more
organized, dependable county system. The American Red Cross, for example, has
expertise in transportation. It may well be that, with the leadership of the Red
Cross,the county government and/or other such organizations, an alternate system
could be designed and implemented pending the development of a fully accessible
public transportation system.
A Priority: Maximizing Existing Resources
The Chesterfield County Disability Services Board has found that there are
pressing needs for county action to foster inclusion of residents with physical and
sensory disabilities in community life. We have also found that the county is not
without resources, both in the public and private sectors. However, we have found
that, in many cases, these resources could be publicized, coordinated and applied
more effectively.
To better utilize these resources, to help ascertain where additional resources are
24
needed, to begin implementation of the recommendations of this board, we request
that funds for afull-time county position be allocated as soon as possible. The creation
of such a position would enhance significantly the potential for interagency coordina-
tion and cooperation. It would provide the focus about which functions such as a
resource directory and transportation network could be centered. It would provide an
ombudsman for those with disabilities. And it would clearly reflect commitment of the
county government to the inclusion of those with physical and sensory disabilities in
all phases of county life.
In subsequent biennial reports, the Disability Services Board will formulate
specific requests to the Rehabilitative Services Incentive Fund to implement plans
and strategies regarding our findings and recommendations.
1
Appendi~~ 1
~ ~ouNir,q,~
0
'4~~.~~' Y..`s''
~tsreucnow
scl Iaa DonTx~
ilnolhy C. Drown
Cf ~okmon -AAltllof l ~km
ptobefh 8. Davh
Vk~ ChoYman-odv
Jotr~ n. Cardoa. Mu.
cJova ~ ^
tMxry ~ ,ktwon rao.
Mottn7Co
Mor~liol W. TrunmW. k.
D•rmudo
SUPkfiNiF.NUENt
t~,arXn rr. ruwt,,.n
CH~Si'~RFI~~,Ia COUidT1~' PUBI.~C SCHOOLS
c;llr;;iiazr-iel~.vnrclrn~z~u:1~ • ra04) 56o-?J95
To: ~I ~~-~..~J~,
FROM: Lois G. Qraham
DATE: January 14,1993
~SUDJEC"T: Summary of oocembQt Chlid Count
Autism ~ 9
Deaf 13
beveloprnenially Dolayod 179
1•lard of Flearinp 45
Mild Mentally Disabled ~ 225
Mod¢rately Mentally Disablod 99
Mulls-handicapped 54
Orthopedically Impaired ~ 31
Other Health Impaired 83
Seriously Emotionally Disturbed 687
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 46
Severely Learning Disabled , ~~762
Speech/Language Impaired 1,849
Traumatic Brain Injured 3
Visually Impaired ____l~
5,961
Appendix 2
Agencies surveyedby the Chesterfield County Disability Services Board
for information on core service needs.
Richmond Aids Information Network
Fan Free Clinic
1721 Hanover Avenue
Richmond, VA23220
Alzheimer's Disease & RelatedDisorders
Association
6767 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 279
Richmond, VA 23235
The Arthritis Foundation
Virginia Chapter
565 Southlake Blvd.
Richmond, VA 23236
Autism Society of America
10600 Honey Tree Road
Richmond, VA 23225
March of Dimes, Virginia Capital Area
Chapter
1506 Staples Mill Road
Richmond. ~'A23230
Virginia Rehabilitation Center forthe Blind
401 AzaleaAvenue
Richmond, VA 23227
Retinitis PigmentosaFoundation
Post Office Box 240
Richmond, VA23202
National Societyto Prevent Blindness
VirginiaAffiliate
3820 AugustaAvenue
Richmond, VA 23230
Virginia Association of
Workers for the Blind
Recreational Opportunities
6400RigsbyRoad
Richmond, VA23226
American Cancer Society
Post Office Box 1547
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Cerebral Palsy Association of Richmond
1308 SherwoodAvenue
Richmond; VA 23220
Cleft Lip and Palate Association
13611 Hailsham Circle
Midlothian, VA 23113
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
2120 Staples Mill Road, Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23230
Richmond Chapter
Deaf & Hard of Hearing
Post Office Box 15043
Richmond, VA 23227
Epilepsy Association of Virginia
10114 ReabyRoad
Richmond, VA 23228
Virginia Head Injury Foundation
3212 Cutshaw Avenue, Suite 315
Richmond, VA 23230
Central Virginialndependent Living Center
2900 West Broad Street
Richmond, 23230 (Continued)
AoDendix 2
Lupus Foundation of America
Central Virginia Chapter
Post Office Box 25418
Richmond, VA 23260
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
Central Virginia Chapter
5001 West Broad Street, Suite 220
Richmond, VA 23230
Muscular Dystrophy Association
1904 Byrd Avenue, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23230
Chesterfield County Health Department
9501 LucyCorrDrive
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Spina Bifida Association
1506AvondaleAvenue
Richmond, VA 23227
Spinal CordAssociation
Old Dominion Satellite
7800 Wood Road
Richmond, VA 23229
Appendix 3
Appendix 3
Information about the Chesterfield County Disability Services Board and
its public hearings was distributed by means of public notice, media release
and handout. All materials were provided to county and county school
system personnel for distribution using normal broadcast and print media
channels and through internal means as appropriate. In addition, facsimile
notices utilizingthe news release were sent to all major Richmond area news
media twice in the week prior to the listed public hearings.
Copies of the notice, the news release and the brochure are enclosed as
Appendix 1.
Notice of Public. Hearin
9
The Chesterfield County Disability Services Board has scheduled four public hearin sat
locations around the county during the week of April 12, 1993. g
The Disability Services Board was created by the Chesterfield County Board of
Supervisors last year, in accordance with state legislation, to provide information to state
and local agencies on service needs and priorities for persons with physical and sensory
disabilities. The scheduled hearings are a part of the board's needs assessment process.
The board is particularly interested in needs and services in the following areas:
Assistive Technology C E ~agement
Education Counseling
Housin mPloyment Family Support
8 Independent Living Medical ~ 'T'herapeutic
Personal Assistance
T~nB ~ "Transportation
All those with
Physical and sensory disabilities, members of their families, interested
organizations and individuals are invited to partiapate in the hearings.
All hearings will be held 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in the cafeteria of
are fuuy accessible and proceedings will be interpreted for the hearing ~p~~acilrties
'`~P~ 1Z Robious Middle School
April 13 G E. Curti, Elementary School
`,per 14 O• B. Gates Elementary School
App 15 Swift Creek Elementary School
Anyone who wishes to offer input to the board may:
• SPA at any hearing; registration at the door.
• Record brief comments on a special phone line established by the
DSB - 751-5042 Phone line in operation ONLY April 12-16.
(TDD Phone number 367-1483 - In service ONLY April 12 from 1-5 p.m.)
• Submit written comments anytime before A ril 19
Disability Services Board P ~' ma~ng them to:
Human Services Office
POBox40
Chesterfield, VA 23832 i
If other accomodations are needed at any hearing, or for more information on the hearings
or concerning the Chesterfield Disability Services Board, please cal! Margaret Dexter at
367-0180 (TDD 367-0197).
J
2a-Oacoo`e ~, ~,~~~a.aoR.'oT `.mot-[,1 crs,d~~~ C'n,,,
~ ~ c ~ ~. ~..~ y' ~ y• fD ~ fp ? A fC O C .^-. y ~. .~.- .y.- y' '~ tA/7 ;T' V ~f
~ ~ L1 (D y y ~ ^ ^ A ° ~~+ ~ O ~ y ^~ 'y Q' ° ~ Ir 1
y • ~ ~ A 3 y ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~• y y ~ ?; cD C pt ~ l J
o a o o y o s O ~ o w• A~ g' ~ a s ~~ A~
••1 Vl `< (9 NJ
~ ". ' y ° c a ~ °•~ •`°• ~ °° °' ~• ~' ~ c. ~ ~ ~- ~ o m to ~ ~ ~
A •v ~ °~ ttai~ a ~ ~ ~ A ~ o, o A o a " `~
'~+ ~ vWi ~ y = W G A ~ ~. ~ 'fl d N ~ y ,..~ • 01 0 m d 0
~ ~ y• ~ ~ n c~ a o• y ~< ~ a y ~ o O. `< ~ ~
_ y y .A..
~ •• a •*, ~ w ^ 'v a s ^ m y y o n= n a ^ N y ~*, a• 'o n ~*,
co - ., O ~ a O a. co Q„ 0 3 ~ ~ ~ S a: c a.
VJ ~ y y ~ CD ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ "'~ .Q.~ t9 'b O M •~ • y • "A," ~' y 3 Q •Q ~ Q„ y y
C9 lD ~ ~ QQ d ~ `•C N ~ ~ H ~ ~• < 'd ~ p 'g Nl ~ ~
,qtr' ~ ~ A ~ ? c ° c ~. ~ c coo ~ ~ a ~• ~: -+~ ... `° a a g ~
~ ce o'
Vl «.. OD p
~y.. ~ y .. ~ O. ~ ~ C ~ ~ C < a O y ~ ~. O A • n y H ~ G.
d0 ~ `~ ~ to .y O ~ v1 co :n to 0. ti C. ~ to ~ O ~ :~ ~ VJ Q G. .7 CD d0
B w v O C H ~ ~ y ~ d w • ~. = O. d ~ ~. 'C ~G. c A ~ 'C 'C G.
H n. ~ c ~~~•v = ~v~'~ c o'er n ~ •~•°~ o.~ ~ a. o ~.c~~
~ ~ C ° ~ S •v ° ,.. co v, ao .,. ... o o. ,~ a • co
y A' y o• .,~ a' y• ~ a-~ ^ a- ~• o ~a• o °, " y ~. 3 ~ •'° ~. A ~ ~_ ~ D ~ _ vn
y • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ^ y • ~ a+ ^ y ^ 3 ~; ~ o y y ~: ~r,1' 3 ~ a. dq • ~ ~ co Oo
y z coo ~ .. co d o = ~ N3~~• ~. `~ ~ ~ ce~r ~ ~ c<o n • co ~ n • o0
~, n 3 s .,, ., c~ ~ o ~, a a~ L ~ n ~ co a ~ ~, c~ ~
(9 ..• i (9 ~ fP ~ y d d ~ y ~ ~ ... (9 ~ t9 V1 ~ ~ y i A~
i
'Q cn
C A ~ ~ O W j y H .~. -"~ ~ .~. ~ ~ ~ ~ cp r~,~~ .O- CC ~. pt f9 S ~=• ~
-~ y y .. ~ ~ P1 .. .+• n ~ ~ 3 A ~ O • V ~ d cD
iy ~ty~ ? ,~ ~, ~p O p, ,~ ? ~ A ~ 5 D. TJ y of
A7 d Q. A ~~ y A D OC A A O A~ D y y ~• ~• A C~ O. "'f iv O C R Q'
,. A ~ O
~. c~ 3
iv C ~ ~ ~ ~. 'O .y~. y ~ .+ 7 C3 .yy. ~ ~' "~ A O ~ 3 G O ~ y
~ ~ ~ s ~e • co ~ o o . ~. ~ <_ c~ ~ ~ 3 n .o a _ o
c O ~ ~ y co o A ? ~''i ~• y• ~ co aAi ~ ~' ~. ~ ~. d, r. ~• ~ o c y y
3 3 ~ ~
^- fp f9 V1 O ~ D0 A = H y A iT Z7 `~ O O S
a'v° ~-° 0.m ~~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ o•~ W~ ~ ~•°° y ~ ~~
. ~ ~ cn
ao ~. o c a ~ a. ~ ~ s c. ~ co ~. c c c ~. ~. c ~ • ~
H lP
~j ((p~p c~ c~ _~ ~ O o ~ '~ ~ d ~ ~n v O ~• cep
N f7 ~ W ~ ~ AI ~ A ~ b ~ Q' C/1 ~ A ~ ~ ~ y
~. -C ~ ~v s~ a y o
vl vl
m c ~
~: D i ~' w ,~ y T ,y O a ~~< '' p~ a
et ---L,, oo . c~~off c~ ~ ~. ~ ~ y ~ y ov a d ~,
0 0~ c O 5' ~ g a 'o `~ ~ . co
~e !±~ ~ A y
O ~~'~ ''1 r. p p~ d '.- ~ A C C
~~ H
n
'~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ar
~ ~ - •n~
~. < ~ ,.~
.- cD " ~~;
u
Chesterfield County
Disability Services Board
Human Services Office, Chesterfield County Administration, P. O. Box 40, Chesterfield, VA z38~
Contact: Doug Cochran - (804) 771-4549 (work)
(804) 323-1316 (home)
FOR IlVIlI~DIATE RELEASE APRIL 8, 1993
CHESTERFIELD DISABILITIES BOARD
SCHEDULES PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Cheste~eld County Disability Services Board has scheduled public hearings April 12
-15 to gather public input on service needs for county's residents with sensory or physical disabilities.
The board was created by-the Cheste~eld Board of Supervisors last year to collect
information on the needs of the disabled and then pass that information on to state and local agencies.
The board is scheduled to present its first complete assessment in June.
The hearings will be held Monday, April 12, at Robious Middle School; Tuesday, April 13,
at C. E. Curtis Elementary School; Wednesday, April 14, at O. B. Gates Elementary School; and
Thursday, Apri115, at Swift Creek Elementary School. All hearings will be held 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in
the school cafeteria. All facilities are fully accessible and proceedings will be interpreted for the
hearing impaired.
Any person may present information at the hearings. The board has particularly invited those
with physical and sensory disabilities, members of their families, and those representing organiza-
tions serving them to participate.
Those not able to attend a hearing may record brief comments by calling 751-5042, a special
phone line established by the board to be in service April 12 to 16 only. Comments may be offered
via TDD phone 367-1483 April 12 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. only. Comments and more extensive
information may be mailed any time before April 19 to the Disability Services Board, Human
Services Office, P. O. Box 40, Cheste~eld, VA 23832.
###
Meeting Date:
Su~e_
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Work Session on Solid Waste Management
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Hold a work session on Solid Waste Management
Summary of Information:
Page ,~ ofd
5.B.
This item requests the Board to hold a work session on Solid Waste
Management on May 26, 1993.
Prepa r _ 'tle:
lliam H. H e~Q Director of General Services
County Administrator: ~'`-"~
# ~ 01 ~.
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
/~ ;
2 /
t
W
Z
J
f'-'
Z
O
w
Y
O
t
Z
W
2
H
O
z
O
Z
O
F-
a
O
J
J
LL
D
Z
Q
J
a
w
w
w
a
O
0
w
z
F-
z
0
U
w
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
Z
W
N
F-
U
w
Q
w
O
J
w
Q
a
O
~-
w
~ ~
J
Z
~ IJ,J J
Q' ~ J
W lA LL
W ~ z
U I- ~
J
J
LL w
Z Z m
J O ~
Q N O
Zj
~a w
~ o
z
w
z ~
ow
J ~
~ a'
~ Q
W W
~ ~
o
W ~
Z w
Z (n
O ~
w
Q
a~
Q' J
~ J
~ LL
~D
I~ Q
O~
W J
UQ
Z z
W ~
W C7
~w
~~
v
W ~ rn
Z
~O m
m J O
~ O
a~~
W v
w
w
V J
~.~..~
LL
O=
~~
O
UV
~ ~ ~O
w~ u~ ~d
J Z O ~ Z
~ ~ W Q W
~ W ~
~ ~ w Z ~
~~ ~ QO
U Z
~U~Z~U
Z
O
E-
U
W
O
a
J
J
LL
LL
J
Q
Z
J
J
Q
W
Q
z
Y
O
z
w
U
^
ice,,
d'
c7
Z
d
}
m
L1J
J
J
L.L
w
m
z
w ~
~ ~
~ J
J a
Q ~
Z 0
W U
~ Z
0 Q
~ J
W J
~ W
Z V
Z W
O Z
V z o
OU Q
0
Z
O
Q
J
W
W
Z
~. J
W o
o~
~U
w
(n J
W J
~aJ ~LL~
c ~ ~ oa¢
D ~
p H ~~
aW Z w oQg
p Z J (~ wU~cn
H Z ~~v~i~
Z > ZOLL=
Q Q ~UUOU
U ^
,.
W
J
a
}
W ~
a J O
~ ~ J
c0~- ~
ol-~ wu~i
Z ~
O~J ~w
Z QQ
~ ~~
Z ~ U
U °~
.J
Y
J
~ Z
~ W ~
0 Z Z
J ~ ~
~" Cn Z
~ Q W
~ ~ D
W
w V Q
~ Q ~
Z V
~ Z
oa
H I- a
0= ~
W (~ z
HW
Q=~ ~
U
~ZZ '~
~ ~ w
w
~ ~ ~
~U a~
Z w
w
Q
~-
= o
~ w
~ z
~ O
~ ~
~ o
w Z
a J
W J
~ LL
H
~ ~ Z
~ D J
k
7
W W
a~
oLL
~- °
=z
~j J
~Mr~'
(~ ~ w
W J ~ }
UJ ~ w
H ~
Z~
aZ
Q J
QU
J J
Q m
U=
za
¢~
zW
~o
~ Z
~- O
~ ~
O w
~ ~
D ~
W
Q ~ d
z ~ O
~ w D
W
~ ~ ~ Z
»00
W~UZ
C~
~Z
~a
Oa
U~
~Z
U~
~O
OV
OU
wa
w
~ ~
W Q
Z ~
W
LL
W Z
J
W J
W z
~ O
c~
w
z
0
U }
} Z
F-
U
~ w O
~JJ CO a' J
~ Q 2 ~
~ U U Q
U ,
0
N
c
0
a
0
Z
W
N
H
U
w
w
a
O
W
H
Z
W
U
w
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
~yI
J
Z
O
~ ~
w ~
m ~
O ~
H ~
U
O w
Z ~
- ~
J Q
J =
LL J
oa
Q U
J ~
W W
~ ~
O ~
U U
~vr~
J
J
0
Z
Q
J
w
Q
a
w
N
C
O
a
0
N
Z
W
N
F-
U
W
W
0..
O
W
H
Z
W
U
W
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
~b~
J
Z
O
~ Z
~O
O~
UU
J ~
H H
d ~
Q Z
U~
W U
~ J
~ J
w ~U
Z p Z
Q O~
Q QO
w
U
Z
Cn
Q
J
Q
U
Z
Q
Z
L~.
0
z
N
c
0
a
0
Z
W
N
H
U
W
W
a
O
W
H
Z
W
U
w
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
~/
J
Z
O
w
c~
z
0
Q
0
J
J W
~, Z
0 W
(n W
m ~
=O
~~
~w
z~
~ ~
J ~ W
W ~
Z V Q
W 2
C~ z U
i
oa7
Z
O
Q
H~
Z~
a W
~ ~
~U
Z
O
U
O ow
QU
U ~~
W cn w
J w~
,J ~ w
O Z~
U z~
o;
U
~ ~ Z
Z U` ~
~ O v~
~ a~
J
H
0
U
W
H
O
H
z
w
U
w
Z
w ~
w
~ ~
a O
2 Z
H ~
W
~ ~
W ~
w ~ U
OO W
U c~ c~
Q~~
w
U
(' Z cn
Z O ~ O
~ ~ ~ V
= V F- W
V~ o0
ZJOw
LL O U =
W V
J Z
J
c~
z
J
2 U
~ }
~U
H~
w
0
r
~~
zc
o~
I- l
O
O~
c
~-
~-
i
Z ~ c~
~ w~ ~z
a way aZ
~>w ~~
~ Q ~ zw
Z U U~ U ~ Z
~ > x a~ ~zz
~ w ~ W ~--
w~cn>WO~
2 v~Q~WV~w'L
V w ~ ~~ oo=
Z Z ~ ~> wu,Z
w Q aw wok
~ p=?cn ic~~
~~~~~
Z
O
H
a
O
(~
Z
2
U
Z
w
Y
a
w
w
^
w
~~
ww
_~
Z (~j
Q ~
w ~
F- F-
W w
~ ~
O p
z ~
U z
~ W
W V
J V-
W
~ Z
2
U ~
~ J
W ~
(~ _
~ Q
~ W
Z V
~ ~
~ ~
~ Q
C~ W
~ J Z
J ~ ~-
J W
z
0
a
o~
~r''
J
W
~ w
W ai
J
W D o
V m ~
~ Y
U
W w
~ wz ~
w
~ ~o ~
~ Q c~ a
~ w~ w
Z z0 z
~ i U i
c~
z
J
}
U
W
w
D
~ W
~ Q
U =
~ U
J ~
Y ~
W ~
W _
Z
m ~
W Z
U ~
w
uJ ~ J
~ Z O
w O z
a w
Z ~ d
W ~
F- u.
X w
W ~
O
Z
O
~ w
U U
W -
U ~ ~
O ~
~ ~ ~
Q
Q ~ Q
Y Y ~
Q ~ W
m m J
Z
O~ ~
V~o
w ~
00 0
U ~ cn
,~ a
w 0°
J ~
H
Q
J
W
W
J
W
U
W
C~
Z
w
w
O
z
D
Z W
Q m
Z O
w
~ ~
o ~ °w
N ~ Z
D
Cn 2 W
~ ~ Q
~ O W
=w~~
~? O ~ w
= z cn cn
~ ~ ~
D
W
D
Z
X
W
0
Q Z o
W 0 `~
J ~
~ W '
~ J ~
J
O
O Q
z
z
~IIr/
z
w
w
w
w
O
H
O
U
0
0
N
K3
Z
Q
W
D
W
U
W
D
Z
a ° c~
X° o
w ~
~ N N
~ ~ Ef-T
~ i i
H
O w ~
QQ>
~U d
~ j H
Dw O
Q c~ U
Proposed No Burn Areas
30URCE: Chest®rfleid County
Planning Department
rya
Arses
~ial
~~~
~Z
w0
J ~
pU
WW
~ J
~ Q
aU
m
w
a
~ Z
~ O
O
Z m U
W
O p~ J
w >~ ~°v
~o OU Q~rS
O~ ~Z wN
U~ ap ~~
~w-
w va w~
c~~ >~ C~~
Q~ wQ QO
m > c~ cn m U
(~
Z
J
U
}
U
W
W
D
m
U
~ J ~
~ W
}
a
a
Q
z
w
w
L
WN
LLN
LL
U
f
Q
c~
O
O
z
0
0
M
N
c9
z
D
D
Q
O
H
D
W
H
W
C~
w
w
c~
0
cn ~ w ~~
~ a cn m~
J
Y
W
W
m
0
w
z
0
U
Q
^ ^ ^
O
O
O
w
O
U
i
w
O
2
0
0
~~
z-~
D~~t
~.
fn
Z Z
O ~ a
~ w ~
m w
IiQp ~cnz
aZ ~Zw
~ wU
W N
~~ LL~~
J U Z
w
O z ~z
w
W~wz
~ ~ a0
U OU
Y
Z
O
~U
~ Z J
J
0
0 ~U
H F= ~
O W ~
? Z (7
-z
~ w-
z ~~
Z Z U
Z ~
Z Z
m U~ lei
5.C.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
S ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
`f~'"'~ AGENDA
Meeting Date: r~av 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number:
Page 1 0~
5.C.
Su_b~L: WORK SESSION
Update and Review of Shrink/Swell Soil Activities
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
Information regarding the ~~ork session will be submitted
to the Board prior to the meeting.
~ 1~tle: Deputy County Administrator for
Preparers
PR. D. " e " S h, Jr. Community Deve opment
County Administrator: ~,2~ #
04~
Attachments: ~ Yes ^ N o
Eta i~:/~i ;',~.~.
'~` CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 0~
"~ AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number: ~ • D • 2
Sure=:
Amendment to the April 14, 1993 Board Minutes Relating to the
Restriction of Dogs in the County
County Administrator's Comments:
~Q2Gfl~»/I1~iGF ~~~"'1
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
On April 14, 1993 the Board adopted a "leash" law in the County.
The title to the ordinance mistakenly indicated that the ordinance
would apply only to certain portions of the County. The minutes
should be amended as attached.
.~ r
Preparers 'I~tle; County Attorney
Steven L. Micas
County Administrator: ,~~~~
Attachments: . Yes ~ N o
0805:3932.1
# 073
..
`,
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING SECTION 5-6 RELATING TO
THE RESTRICTION. OF DOGS IN r~nrr" r~r nnnrrrn~rc n~ THE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Section 5-6 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as
amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 5-6. Runnin age -Prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful to permit any dog to run at large within the county at any
time during the year. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed
to have violated the provisions of this section. The dog warden and deputy dog wardens
are authorized to cause all dogs found running at large in violation of this section to be
caught and penned up in the county dog pound.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a dog shall be deemed to be running
at large under subsection (a) if the dog is off the property of its owner or custodian and
is not directly connected to its owner or custodian by means of a physical restraint.
(c) A dog which is engaged, with its owner or custodian, in lawful hunting,
training for hunting, or field trials in conjunction with a hunting, training or field trial
season authorized by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and which
is wearing a collar with a tag showing the name, address and telephone number of the
owner of the dog, shall not be deemed to be running at large under subsection (a).
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
0405:3745.1
Adopted 4/28/93
~~~
1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
>~
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Meeting Date: Item Number:
Subject:
Congratulate Ellen Reinhardt, WRVA reporter.
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Page 1 ofd
Summary of Information:
Ellen was honored recently by the State Associated Press for
"Outstanding Effort by an Individual Reporter."
I'm told by people who know that this translates to "best
radio reporting in the state." Ellen also won a Meritorious
Award from the AP.
~u:ol~ 5e~u..:os ~i3d
Preparers ~~~tJ~~~~ZUC~.Lc.~Q~ .Title:
Pauline A. Mitchell
County Administrator:
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
0
Director, News & Public
Information
~/ ~,~.
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
_. ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1
r. AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 Item Number: 5 • A
Subiect•
Work Session on the Quarterly Performance Report
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
The Board of Supervisors has requested that staff present quarterly reports on the status
of the county regarding departments goals and objectives, and the local economy.
Throughout county departments, most workload indicators are continuing to increase;
however, through efficiency measures and increased productivity, critical goals and
objectives are being met. Attached is output data from a sample of county departments
which will be reviewed at the worksession. The complete Quarterly Performance Report
is included in the Agenda Package.
On Friday, May 21, 1993, staff will hold a forum with area economic experts and
business representatives. This meeting continues the award-winning program ofprivate-
sector involvement in revenue and economic projections. Information from the forum
will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at the worksession.
/~,
( , 'J~...~ _~_~_.._._
Preparers ~~ ~_ ~-t~ ~- Tltle: T~irnntnr R»r1rsP+ ~,,.1 TR.+,-, ~co.~.~.
James J. L. Ste ~'%/~~~/a`/~/tier
County Administrator:~
# ~ Q +~
Attachments: Yes ^ No ^ ,
B090.wp 1 /Bos#5
~"
C7
m
c~
a
~
-~
O
N W ,A
O O
~
O O O
O O O
m
m
ti
H ~
O
_
~
~
~ _
~
W
~ ~ ~ ^
~
C ~ ~ ~^
~ 00
~ ~~
N ~ ~
00 M
W
~
00 O ^
_a
~
~ ~ ^
j
(O
O
LO
W
t0
t~
N
'~wr+'
M
~ -a N W .p CJ1
~ O O O O O
°-
~
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
n
0
0
m ~
~ ...i
.rt
~T
T
N
N
,"I W
W
.~
O
O
~o
c
~~
~D
m~
~~
~m
~n
~~
wm
z
0 5
~/
v
o cn -.- -+ N
o cn o
0
c
~
"~
~ ~
a
N
~
j
~
~ r
-
C~
N
.................:........
.........:.....................
rn
~,
N
~~~~~~ ~
rn
W
w --~
07
' ~r `,~
-i N W .A
O O O O
O O O O O
1
"'~
N
N
W
W
D
v
~~
~~
~~
~D
~~
~~
~O
1 T
~ V
wr
O
z
0 9
..n V
r'1
W 0 ^~'
~F ' T
---I -~-~ -~ ~ Cn
~ -~ -~ ~
N ~ ~ ~. Z
D
z ii ii ~ ~
z ~, ~,
c ~ ~ ~ ,.,~,, o
~ ~ N vo rn
_ ~, ~„ ~ w
N N 00 '~ ~ ~
rn o o ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 ~
~~ o ~
~ - rn
0o u' Z'
~ ~
c~
0
0
010
`'~
~,~~.~
Economic Outlook and Trends
• Richmond area is experiencing growth after a
slow start of recovery
• .Area is adding jobs but employment is still
below pre-recession level
• Richmond area will perform better than State
as a whole
• Employment and payroll increases will help
local economy expand
• Increase in advertising and competition may
stimulate retail sales and release pent up
demand
• Consumer confidence regarding individual
situation is improving
• Consumer still wary regarding federal
government
• Affects of defense cuts uncertain at this time
• Revenues at the State level are strong and
may positively impact local area
• Chesterfield has reputation as a single family
real estate market with good housing values
• Commercial new construction will remain at
low levels
• Car sales are continuing to improve
~i
h
CHESTERFIELD CQUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Su~ect:
Work Session on Solid Waste Management
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Hold a work session on Solid Waste Management
Summary of Information:
~~~~
Page ,~ o~
5.B.
This item requests the Board to hold a work session on Solid Waste
Management on May 26, 1993.
i _
Prepa r 'tle:
lliam H. H e Director of
County Administrator:
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
eneral Services
# 011
:~~
W
Z
J
H
O
Z
O
w
Y
O
.~
Z w
~ U
W Z
= w
H J w
~ Q O
Z Z w U
O~ ~N
~Q o~-
(q W w w
Z~ Z~-
Oa ~~
~ z w
d ~ O
Q • •
J
Z
w
z
w
U
W
Q
0
W
F-
Q
W J
LL J
~ LL
Z p
I- J
J
J
LL ~
Z ~' m w Q
QZ ~, ~>
J~ ~~~a
~ I- o z ~ cn
LJ,JQ U~wj~
~Q »~~°z
Z ~ ~C~ Q O~
~ ~ ~ ~ } U Q
Va °w°wz
~ oz o cn°
_ ~ w w C~
~z cn ~w
cn0 ~ ~~
Y
~~ ~
W Z rn
~ ~ w
j J o
0
~~
W v
w
w
w
~~
O=
~~
w~
UU
~ ~ ~O
w
Z~cn~a
z
ww o ¢~
Hg ~ ~Q
~w ~ Qw
O~QU~
~ ~ ~ z (~
~~ QO
U Z
~U~?tiU
Z
O
H
U
W
O
a
J
J
LL
J
Q
Z
J
J
Q
w
c~
z
Y
O
z
w
U
^
r~
z
a
r
m
w
J
J
L.L
w
m
z
w ~
~ ~
~ J
Q a
z ~
0
W U
(n p
~ Z
0 Q
J
W J
~ U
Z
H ~
Z w
O Z
Uz o
OU Q
0
Z
O
Q
J
W
W
Z
~ o
Q ~ U
~ J
W W ~
~aJ ~~~
O J Uc~w
*k ~?~
C ~ LL ~aQ
O F' 0 ~a~
aw Z w oQo
~ = J C~ j~~cn
z H zw~-w
H Z ~~c~~
Q z~,~Q
~ > oo~=
Q UUOU
U ^
W
J
a
W o
a~
~O~ o
c0~ ~
o I- ~ ~ ~
Z ~o
o~J ~W
Z Q ~,
F- o w
Z Q~
p ~Z
U °~
Y
J
z
~ W ~
~ V Z
W Q ~
J
~ ~
~ (~ W
~ J ~
age
= z w
~ Z U
~ Z
Q U
0 = ~
W (' Z
~ W ~
J = J ~
U
~ZZ ~
(~ ~ w
W Q cn
~ W W
~ ~ ~
~U
Z W
W
Q
F-
2 0
~ W
O
~ N
~ ~
~ O
w Z
a J
W J
~ ~
H ~
~ ~ Z
~ D J
~ W
Q Q
~ _
a~
O =~
~~
~~
=Z
?j J
fn ~~ w
W J ~
C~ J ~ W
la- LL' "- O
w
aQ o 0
.J o ~
J J Q O a
m ~ O
Q Z U
U d ° w o
Z~~o~'~
ZW>>oo
~Ow~c~z
O
H
U
U
O
z
O
U
w
(~
Z
a
a
}
H
Z
O
U
H
U
a
(A
W
Z
W
W
w
w
}
W
w
Q
J
J
z
Q
.__I
J
a
z
0
w
-~
z
0
U }
~ ~
w ~ Z
=
~ U
~ ~ w O
H W J Q
W m ~ J
~ ~ Q w
U Q
Q ~
U ,
0
N
C
O
a
0
Z
W
N
H
U
W
W
O
W
F-
Z
W
U
W
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
J
Z
O
~ ~
w ~
m ~
O ~
H ~
U
O ~
w
Z J
- ~
~a
J =
~- J
D Q
Q U
J ~
W w
~ ~
O ~
U U
J
J
L.L
D
Z
Q
J
w
a
w
N
C
O
a
0
Z
W
N
H
U
W
W
a
0
W
H
Z
W
U
W
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
J
Z
O
w
c7
H
Z
D
Q
F-
C/)
U
J
Q
U
W
LL
0
0
Q
Z
O
F-
U
H
Z
O
U
J
J
W
U
W
Z
O
W
U
Z
Q
to
Q
J
Q
U
Z
Q
Z
O
z
N
c
0
a
0
Z
W
N
H
U
W
W
a
0
W
Z
W
U
w
U
Z
W
Z
W
Z
O
U
J
Z
O
w
c~
z
0
Q
0
J
J
J W
~ W
D~
(~ W
m ~
=O
~~
~w
z~
~°
Q~w
wwz
W V 2
C~ z U
i
oa7
~I/
fn
Z
O~
~, w
~ a O
Q Z O
~ ~ z
J
O z
U w
W ~
~ O
U
~ Z
J O
Q
Z F-
~ ~ U
Q ~ Z ~
~ W F- -~
Fw- ~ ~ ~
wUV c~0
N W O ~ ~
F- U ? Z C~
U Z - Z
w wZ wc~
Q W Z Z =
W Z Z Z z
aOW O~
O U m U ~
Z
O
a
z
a
H
Z
O
U
W
U
Z
O Q
H
U
W cn
J w
J ~
O Z
U z
J- o
J U
_ ~
Z C~
0
~ a
w
U
W
W
W
L~
F-
Z
W
D
W
J
H
U
W
H
F-
Z
W
U
W
Z
W I-
W
~ ~
d ~
2 Z
H ~
W
~ ~
W ~
W ~ U
O W W
U cn c~
w
U
(~ Z UJ
Z~ ~O
f~ ~ p
2U ~W
~ J
U J oo w~
Z J Z ~ c9 ~ z
~ O~ z Q O
J Z ~ V ~ ~
~ Q~ W Q O
~LL~~~~
(n
Z
O
H
a
O
C~
Z
2
U
Z
Q
w
w
U
W
D
W
Z
LL
W
D
n
W ~ z ~
~ z UZ
Q ~ ~ Z
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ Q~~
W
U ~ U~Z
X ~-.J ~ZZ
~ ~ ~ W D
I ~ -~ ~ ~ cn
~ ~v Op=
JJ>~jzZ
a Qw Wow
Z 2(n JUIL
Z
O
H
a
O
C~
Z
2
U
Z
w
Y
Q
w
w
w
~ ~
W W w
U
~ >
z U w
Q ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ W ~
~ Z
Q ~ ~
Z ~ W
U Z ~
~ W (~
W ~ ~
~ ~ J
W
= Z
C/)
J
W
W
J
W
J
Q
Z
Q
w
U
W
O
W
D
Z
W
X
W
z
O
a.
O
J
W
w
J Q
W D ~
U m °~
> ~
~ U W
~ W Z 2
~ w0
~~ w
~ Q c~ ~
w
w~ w
Z z0 z
U
z
J
}
U
W
W
O
W
~ Q
U U
J
Y ~
W ~
W _
Z
m ~
W z
U o
1 U
~ W
(~ jj Z O
U
W F- Z
a, w
D ~
Z ~ c~
w w
H ~
X w
W ~
O
Z
O
~ w
U U
W -
U -~ ~
O ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ U
U J ~
m m J
Z
O Q
U~ ~
W~ ~
J (' ~
O~ O
,~ n- ~
w m
J ~
H
Q
~r+`
J
W
W
J
W
U
w
C~
Z
H
W
W
O
z
D
Z
Q
H
Z
W
O a'
N C'1
o w
u~ z
m C~
~ O
J w
Z ~
~ O
z z
~ ~
L.L
W
0
W
W
Z
Q
W
Q
w
U
W
Cn
D
W
D
Z
X
w
O
Q Z O
W O ~
J ~
~ W '
~ J ~
V~ o
~U Q
z
z
a
z
w
w
w
w
O
H
H
O
U
0
0
N
E!3
0
Z
Q
W
D
W
U
w
D
Z
~o
X ~° o
w~ ~
~ M N
~ ~ ~
H i
~ , ~
i ~
U w cn
Q Q >
~U ~
~ j H
Dw O
Q cn U
R
Proposed No Burn Areas
Powhtts Pkwy.
Idlothlan
~~
~ ar ~~
M~ r
.' _ ~`~ ~
Rd. :: -
Flull Str°°t ~=f`;?e" _ 'ay _.,:nnrx~aiauri?.r~ T~,
_ Current Arsa
~~ Proposed Areas
Magisterial
District
r r ~a _
r B '
iOURCE: Chestertield County
Planning Department
038
~Z
u¢,~ O
J ~
DU
WW
~ J
QU
m
w
a
O
U
Z
O
H
U
w
J
J
U
D
W
C~
Q
m
^
00
0
i
z
O
~ ~
m U
W
~ ~ J
W
pw O
OU ~
aO w
J
UQ ~
> ~ C~
wQ a
cn cn m
0
0
d-
N
O
U
C~
Z
J
2
U ~
W a
~ a
Q
W =
D~
~ ~
m
~ ~
~ w
U ~
J
H
Z
W
U
C~
O
w
O
2
0
0
M
N
Z
W
0
Q ~ J
a ~ W
~ ~ W
~ ~
W Q m
U
w O
~~ H
w~ w W
~o z
~=o
W o U
D ~ ~
m ~ ~
`+~~
v
m
,n.
0
0
d
c4
-~
v
~e
0
6
z~
041
~:~o ~/
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~" AGENDA
~,
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Num
SU~b~e t:
Work Session
Update and Review of Shrink/Swell Soils Activities
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
See Attached.
Page l off?
REP
Preparers Title: Deputy County Administrator
1 D. "P Stith., Jr.
County Administrator:
# ~5
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
S~nificant Action
> Implemented
(Nov91)
Engineered
Footing Policy
> Board Established Commission on Soils and
Foundations
> Board Developed Legislative Agenda
> Board Made Improvements i n Department of
Building Inspection Budget (FY 92/93 and
93/94)
> Building Inspections Requires Additional
Inspections
> County Administrator and Soils Commission
Develops Proposal to Address Shrink/Swell Soil
Issues
> Board Establishes Citizen Assistance Program
for Sh ri nk/Swel I Damage
y5. I
••• .• . ~.
> Shrink/Swell Task Force -Implementation Plan
for the Coopers & Lybrand Audit
Recommendations
> Implementation of Recommendations by
County Administrator and Commission on Soils
and Foundations
> Implementation of Continuing Inspector
Training Program
. > Legislation Approved Regarding Shrink/Swell
Issues
> Implementation of Concreting Inspection
> Establishment of Citizen Assistance Program
> Establishment of County Ombudsman
95:'k
Status of Coopers & Ly~6rand
Audit Recommendations
May 21, 19 93
STATUS TOTALS
Completed/
Implemented 19 of 46
Initiated 1 1 of 46
Planned for Future
(Budget Projections 14 of 46
i n FY 9 3/94)
Referred to Other
Departments 2 of 46
y~. 3
> Establish Continuous
Building Inspections
Training Program Within
> Re-Evaluate Automation Improvement Requests
and Consolidate Small Related Projects into
System Development Project
> Estab) ish Complaint Tracking System/Realign
Department Function to Serve as a Steward for
the Citizen
> Establish Ombudsman to Assist Citizens with
Resolution of Problems
y5. y
~'1~1 / N I f~
Recommendations
> Request Amendments to Public Finance Act
- Authorize Foundation Repairs
- Establish Funding Mechanism
> Provide Engineering Evaluation for Home
Owners
> Request Legislation Preventing Exclusion of
Coverage for Shrink/Swell Damage By:
- Home Owners Insurance Companies
- Warranty Companies
> Estab I i sh Standardized Soi I Testing
> Establish Minimum Standard Footing Design
> Develop Short Form Soils Brochure
~5
Program Hi,~hlights
> Winter Trai n.i ng Program Provided
Detailed/Code Specific Training Department-
wide
> City of Richmond Inspection Staff Participated
> Continuing Programs Provided Monthly for
Inspectors
> Professional Trainer Position Authorized FY
9 3/94
- Recruitment Initiated
y5.~
l station ADZ roved
7 992 Session
> H. B. 926 5-Year Foundation Warranty
> H. B. 1 137 Building Code Violations
2 years
7993 Session
> H. B. 1930 Civi I Penalties/Contractor
Violations
> S. B. 927 Foundation Repairs/Public
Purpose
> H. J. R. 644 Corporation Commission to
Study Home Owners'
Insurance & Construction
Warranty Policies
X5.7
~Mrr~'
• . . • ~ ^.
> # Permits Applied for Since
January 15th 804
> # Contractors Uti I izi ng County
Contract Inspector 5
> # Contractors Uti I izi ng Independent
Concrete Inspector 799
Observations
> Independent Engineers Conducting Both:
- Footing Inspection
- Concreting Inspection
> Independent Engineering Inspection Reports
Being Received in Henrico County Although
Not Required There
> Majority of Metro Jurisdictions Now Perform
Footing Projection Inspection
~l 5. S
> Computerized Information System Mai ntai ns AI
Information Relative to Requests for Assistance
> Distributed over 1,100 Applications for
Engineering & Legal Assistance
> Liaison with Ombudsman & Home Owner
Association s
> Responsible For All Stages of Processing
Engineering & Legal Assistance Applications
~/5. g
• ~ .- • •
,> Building Inspectors Survey Foundations for
Cracks .
> Engineer Assesses Cracks for:
- Cause of Damage, and
- Extent of Damage
> Engineer:
- Conducts Soi I Tests
- Conducts Evaluation of Foundation
- Estimates the Cost of Repairs, and
- Estimates the Cost of Designing
Solution
> Engineering Report is Sent to the Home Owner
Which:
- Concludes that Damage is Not Due to
Shri nk/Swel I Soi I, or
- Damage is Due to Shrink/Swell Soil
> Homeowners are Referred to Attorney When
Damage is Due to Sh ri nk/Swel I Soi I, and
Receive Legal Counsel and Letter from the
Attorney Outlining Options
y5•~a
~--` N w ~ • c~
O O O O O O
~~
~~
~~
N
~~
~~
~~
~~
N
~~
~~
~_
N ~
~~
~~
v,
N
J
I
~N
~rn
~z.
r
~D
~~
~~
v~
n -~
~~
~~~
i ~
z
'~
° C7
~rn
~~
;~
`~ O
~~
~'~
D
y5•N
E~ineerin~ & Leal
Assistance Summary
as of Mav 21. 1993
> Totai Number of Applications Received 1,253
> Number of Inspections Conducted
By Building Inspectors 857
> Number of Applications Sent to
Engineers 611
> Number of Applications Received
From Engineers 153
> Number of Applications Referred
to the Attorneys 35
~5. ~ a
4
~~~
~i eplace~nen ~ Pgy~s
T~i~ S.C.
Financial Summary
Projected En~ineerin~ Costs
10% of Applications Do Not Have
therefore, 1,253 X 90% = 1,128
Level I 452 X $340 = $153,680
Level l l 452 X $.830 = $3 75,160
Levu) III 226 X $1,120 = 253 120
Projected Cost $781,960
Amount Budgeted 240,000
Additional Funding Required $541,960
Projected Leal Costs
Cracks;
Known 32% of Engineer Reports Referred for Legal
Assistance
Projected Cost: 32% X 1128 X $200 = $ 72,192
Amount Budgeted
Projected Surplus
80 000
$ 7, 808
~5. l3
~~
Fee lmaact
Additional Funding Needed for
Engineering Reports $541,960
Less Surplus from Attorney - 7, 808
Appropriation Needed 534,152
Additional Income -
Unanticipated $50 fees
1,253 - 400 applications =
853 applications at $50 each - 42,650
Additional Funds Required
$491,502
If a $125.00 fee is utilized per permit, it will have
to be extended an additional two (2) years (i.e,
3,932 permits).
~5, /~
Activities Re: The Office of the
Ombudsman
> Creation of Loan Program with First Virginia
Bank
> Met with the Home Warranty Companies
Operating i n Chesterfield
- Home Owners Warranty
- Residential Warranty Corp.
- Home Buyers Warranty
> Initiated Research into the Pieri ng Method of
Foundation Stabilization
- Met with Stable Foundation, Inc., A. B.
Chance, Helical Pile System
- Roger B u I l ivant of Texas, Inc., Use the
RB Pieri ng System
~5.1~
~'
v~
Activities Re: The Office of the
> Met with Staff:
- Home Builders Association of
Richmond
- State Department of Commerce
- State Board of Contractors
- Contractors Transaction Recovery Fund
- Real Estate Transaction Recovery Fund
- State Corporation Commission
- Virginia Division of Consumer Affairs
> Met with SenatorRussell and Delegate Watkins
> Observed Engineer's Review of Homes in the
Citizen Assistance Program
> Developing Home Buyers Training Seminar
wit h t he C hester fiel d County Extension Services
~5. I Co
"" 'y
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
P.O. BOX 40
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832
ARTHUR S. WARREN, CHAIRMAN (804) 748-1211
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
EDWARD B. BARBER, VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
J. L. McHALE, III
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL
DALE DISTRICT
WHALEY M. COLBERT MEMORANDUM
MATOACA DISTRICT
TO: Arthur S. W~~
FROM: Ha~~D ~
DATE: May 26,..1993
Chairman
Dale District Supervisor
SUBJECT: SHRINK-SWELL SOIL ISSUES
~~'iC i`~
I ,~.. . - ~,~1
RL t 4M M
y,.~.:' ...~~,
~~~
~~:!'rrc~~?1?'
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
LANE B. RAMSEY
While I recognize that Board Members cannot vote by proxy, I
did want to go on record on the shrink-swell soils issues in that
I have been called away for a last minute business commitment. I
feel strongly that any decision on shrink-swell soil matters should
be by consensus of the Board. I hope that this memorandum will
serve as a vehicle to guide consensus in this area and I submit it
for that purpose.
As of today, I have reviewed all of the work session
materials. After reviewing these materials and focusing on the
accomplishments that have been made in addressing this issue, one
cannot help but be impressed with the County's efforts in this
area. Recognizing this, I am submitting the following positions
for consideration:
o The Soils Commission did a good job of
completing the mission we charged to them. I
think it is appropriate that we publicly
recognize them for their efforts.
o A number of recommendations made by the Soils
Commission have already been set in motion,
particularly the hiring of the ombudsman and
the implementation of new construction
standards.
o As of May 1, the process for accepting
applications for participation in the County's
program was completed. This process should
not be reopened.
~~~
Printed on Racyclad Paper
'~-+`
Arthur S. Warren
May 26, 1993
Page -2-
o Finally, I remain totally opposed and would
vote against any measure before the Board for
the County to provide financial assistance to
homeowners with foundation problems. These
matters should be strictly between the
homeowners and their contractors.
I hope that we can build consensus on these points as we
continue to address this critical issue.
HGD/de
~.~.
~~
.1y
l ~
,.
~; ,
r ~'
Meeting Date:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
May 26, 1993
SU~L:
Consideration of Claim of Ronald Wooten
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Deny the claim of Ronald Wooten
Item Number:
Page 1 0~
7.A.
Summary of Information:
Ronald Wooten has made a claim against the County for $25,000
arising out of his drunk driving arrest on March 19, 1992. Staff has
investigated the claim and has determined that it is unwarranted.
On March 19, 1992, at approximately 3:45 p.m., County police
officer C. D. Clark (now a Virginia State trooper) was directing traffic
on Courthouse Road that had become congested as a result of an
automobile accident. While directing traffic, Officer Clark was
informed by two different citizen motorists that the driver of an
automobile behind them appeared by his actions to be intoxicated.
Officer Clark observed the vehicle that had been identified by the
two citizen motorists as it approached him. The driver, Ronald Wooten,
appeared nervous. Officer Clark directed Mr. Wooten to stop his
vehicle. However, Mr. Wooten did not stop his vehicle until Officer
Clark had asked him to do so several times. After Mr. Wooten finally
stopped his car, Officer Clark began questioning Mr. Wooten. Mr. Wooten
did not respond to Officer Clark's questions. Officer Clark then asked
Mr. Wooten to step out of his automobile. Mr. Wooten refused to do so.
By this time, Officer Gary Tolley had arrived at the scene to assist
(continued)
Preparers ~~~(~ ~ ~ V~~~ Title: County Attorney
Steven L . Micas 3910.1
County Administrator:
- #
~~6
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
~,, -
~ • CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page ? oi:•?
Officer Clark and they assisted Mr. Wooten out of his automobile.
Mr. Wooten was unsteady on his feet. Officer Clark asked Mr. Wooten if
he had been drinking and Mr. Wooten did not reply. Officer Clark then
conducted standard police field sobriety tests of Mr. Wooten, which Mr.
Wooten failed. Officer Clark asked Mr. Wooten if he had any medical
problems, and Mr. Wooten said no. Officer Clark then asked Mr. Wooten
to submit to a breath test and a blood alcohol test. When Mr. Wooten
refused to do so, Officer Clark arrested him at approximately 4:30 p.m.
for driving while intoxicated and for refusing to submit to a breath
test or a blood alcohol test.
Mr. Wooten was transported to the magistrate's office, where he was
booked and processed. At approximately 5:15 p.m., Mr. Wooten was
delivered into the custody of the Sheriff at the Jail. While Officer
Clark was searching Mr. Wooten at the Jail, he for the first time
discovered that Mr. Wooten was wearing a diabetic warning necklace.
Officer Clark promptly notified Jail personnel that Mr. Wooten was
diabetic. He also asked Mr. Wooten if he had taken any diabetes
medication that day and Mr. Wooten told him that he had not. Mr. Wooten
promptly received treatment from Jail medical personnel for his diabetic
condition.
Magistrate Kathryn Kelley then arranged for Mr. Wooten to be
released from the Jail to members of his family. Mr. Wooten's condition
made it unsafe for him to be released without assistance. Mr. Wooten
was released from the Jail at 6:57 p.m. on March 19, 1992. The charges
against Mr. Wooten were eventually dropped by the Commonwealth's
Attorney.
Mr. Wooten now claims that he was falsely arrested and that he
suffered diabetic shock while in the custody of the police and sheriff.
He is requesting that the County pay him $25,000 in damages.
Mr. Wooten was not falsely arrested because Officer Clark possessed
sufficient probable cause to believe that Mr. Wooten was guilty of drunk
driving. In fact, it is quite possible that Mr. Wooten was intoxicated
when Officer Clark arrested him. Officer Clark discovered Mr. Wooten's
diabetic condition promptly, and the Sheriff treated Mr. Wooten for his
diabetes promptly thereafter. There is no evidence that Mr. Wooten
suffered any injury, and it is likely that Mr. Wooten's diabetic
condition was treated more quickly and effectively as a result of his
arrest than it would have been if Officer Clark had not arrested him.
All procedures followed by Police and Sheriff's department personnel
were consistent with normal and reasonable practices and procedures.
For those reasons, Mr. Wooten's claim should be denied.
0500:3910.1 #
047
R EOINALD P. MORRI9~~
HARDY $. TRAYLOR
ELWOOD V. ELLIOTT
dRE00RY l9. HDOE
WILLIAM R. KEOWN~
DONALD E. HINEB
HAZEL E. DAVENPORT. J.D., R.N.
~A IIMITI'F.U IN VIRGINIA ANU FI.ORIUA
"12 MTIREU
LAW ~FFICE9
TRAYLOR & MORRIS
(A PRDFE68IONAL CORPORATION)
11923 CENTRE STREET
P06T ~FFI(`iE $OX 788
CHES9TER, VIRGINIA 23851
TELEPHONE (804) 748-3339
FAX (804) 788-0161
May 19, 1993
Stylian P. Parthemos
Senior Assistant County Attorney
P. O. Box 40
Chesterfield, VA 23832
Re: Ronald V. Wooten
Dear Mr. Parthemos:
(3RANVILLE R. PATRICK
CHARLES K. WATBDN
TAYNE $. RANDALL~
~AUMITTICU IN YIROINI A, TII('NIOAN
ANU NORTH C~AROI.INA
Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1993 concerning the
above-styled matter set for presentation to the Hoard of
Supervisors on May 26, 1993.
Please be advised that we do not intend to be present at the
Board's meeting.
Please be further advised that we do not intend our non-
appearance to constitute a waiver (or an acceptance of) to object
and or contradict the facts as stated on your summary information.
Our factual assertion is in direct conflict with your factual
summary.
WRK/dds
cc: Ronald Wooten
Very truly ours,
William Keown
y~
~,::
%~~,
~~ ,
~' Oti~~ ~~P c~~~' ~~ ~~
cn o~~ eStie a
r G Gr J / ~,
~~~~ r ^ ~
. I, ~.
048
1808 EAST IIROAD fJTRF.F.T
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23223 130 EAST WYTiiE STREET
TELEPHONE (804) 848-1192 • PETERBRURO, VIROTNIA 23803 201 lI1CKBRORD AYENIIF.
TF.I.EPHONE (804) 788.4300 TELEPHONE (804) 798•Ii400 F.MI'ORIA, VIRGINIA 23847
FAX (804) 849-8817 FAX (804) 733-8022 TELEPHONE (804) 834-3147
l CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 oi`.,1_
AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number: ~ . B .
Su_b~'=:
Nomination and Appointment of Five Members and One County
Representative to the Camp Baker Management Board
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors nominate and appoint
five members and one County representative to fill vacancies on the
Camp Baker Management Board. Staff recommends that Phil Innis, Chief
of Recreation, be appointed as the County representative to replace
Pete Stith, who had previously served in this position.
Summary of Information:
In April of 1993 terms for five members of the Camp Baker management
Board expired. According to the lease agrEement, terms are to be
staggered. To keep the terms on schedule, the following format should
be followed:
Clover Hill District -
Dale District -
Matoaca District -
Midlothian District -
Richmond Area Association -
for Retarded Citizens
2 year appointment
3 year appointment
3 year appointment
1 year appointment
3 year appointment
County Representative - 3 year appointment
Bermuda District - no action needed
Civitan Club - no action needed
Director of
Preparer• Title• Parks and Recreation
Michael S. Golden
County Administrator: #
Attachments: . Yes ~ N o 0 4 9
`r-'
f
CAMP BARER HOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
CL HILL DISTRICT
ince Burgess
6000 Watch Harbour Rd.
Midlothian, VA 23112
739-3354
Ray Olson
11600 Drysdale Dr.
Richmond, VA 23236
794-8701
DALE-DISTRICT
~ames G. Lumpkin
5208 Grassmere Rd.
Richmond, VA 23234
275-5872
MATOACA DISTRICT
Barbara Snider
13019 Deer Park Dr.
Midlothian, VA 23112
739-2372
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
Al Elko
9429 Beckham Dr.
Richmond, VA 23235
272-2568
Beverly Fisher
1006 Lady Jean Ct.
Midlothian, Va 23113
379-0609
C Appointment
Michael T. Foley
6061 Berkley Manor Dr.
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
649-6061
Bill Papendorp
8501 Shannon Rd.
Richmond, VA 23236
276-6627/230-5645
Carol Witt
9301 Owl Trace Ct.
Chesterfield, VA 23832
796-4943
Joe or Jean Raugh
2541 Colton Drive
Richmond, VA 23235
320-6439/560-0602
*Recommended by the Camp Baker Management Board
WP51/MGagenda.cbm/gl
050
~ r
`( ~. ~~~, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
~~ ~~'` BOARD OF SiJPERVISORS
AGENDA
:Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 Item
,i
Page ~. 0~3
dumber: ~,c,
Subject:
Streetlight Installation Cost Approvals
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested;
This item requests Board approval of various Streetlight Installation
Cost Approvals presented by Magisterial District.
Summary of Information:.
Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are re-
ceived in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests
cost quotations from Virginia Power for each request received. When the
quotation is received, staff re-examines each request and presents them
at the next available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for
consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each
request based on the. following criteria:
1. Streetlights should be located at intersections;
2. There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per
day (VPD) passing the requested location if it is an
intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is
not an intersect ion;
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
Preparers
cnara• M.
County Administrator•.~
.-~ttac?~ments: ~ Yes
s
Title:
~.E.
~I o
Director
0 5 ~. '~
..~:
C~IESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page .i o~ ~
3. Petitions are required and should include 75~ of resi-
dents within 200 feet of the requested location and
if at an intersection, a majority of those residents
immediately adjacent to the intersection.
Cost quotations from Virginia Power are valid for a
The Board, upon presentation of the cost period of 60 days.
or deny the expenditure of funds for the street 1 ight yin tal l t iodefeIf
the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Virginia Power to install
the streetlight. A denial will cancel the project and staff will so
notify the requestor. A deferral will be brought before the Board again
when specified.
BERMUDA DISTRICT:
* Intersection of Ransom Hills Court and Ransom Hills Road
Cost to install light: 5740.00
Meets minimum criteria.
* Intersection of Ransom Hills Road and Ransom Hills Terrace
Cost to install light: 5774.00
Meets minimum criteria.
* Intersection of Ransom Hills Place and Ransom Hills Road
Cost to install light: 51,178.00
Meets minimum criteria.
* Intersection of Ransom Hills Road and Ransom Hills Turn
Cost to install light: 5765.00
Meets minimum criteria.
..
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
# 052
' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
"~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page ~ o~
:.
Summary of Information: (Continued)
* Clear Springs Place, end of cul-de-sac
Cost to install light: 51,627.00
Does meet minimum criteria for intersection and vehicles per day.
* West Hundred Road, Entrance to Curtis Elementary School
Cost to install light: 50.00
Does not meet minimum criterion for intersection.
Bermuda Streetlight Funds Status (unaudited):
Requested Effective
Balance Forward Expenditure Balance Remaining
55,465.00 5740.00 54,725.00
774.00 3,951.00
1,178.00 2,773.00
765.00 2,008.00
1,627.00 381.00
0.00 381.00
# 053 II
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
REQUEST
RECEIVED:
ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE
March 24, 1993 REQUESTED: March 25, 1993
DAYS ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: May 3, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 39
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 5740.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Ann O'Connor-Sandal
ADDRESS: 12730 Ben Fry Drive, Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 748-3207 WORK -
a REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Ransom Hills Court and Ransom Hills Road
^ REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Qualified
VEHICLES PER DAY: Qualified, protected to carry 400+ VPD
PETITION: Not Required, no residents within 200 feet.
COMMENTS:
Staff notes that there was no required streetlighting installed in
the Proctors Point subdivision as its tentaive approval pre-dated
August, 1988. Mrs. O'Connor-Sandal's home will be the first built in
the subdivision and she is requesting lighting at this time.
This location is the number 1 priority.
Attachments? Map
054
~/
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
REQUEST ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: March 24, 1993 REQUESTED: March 25, 1993
ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: May 3, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 39
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 5774.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Ann O'Connor-Sandal
ADDRESS: 12730 Ben Fry Drive, Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 748-3207 WORK -
I I REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
' ' Ransom Hills Road and Ransom Hills Terrace
^ REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Qualified
VEHICLES PER DAY: Qualified, projected to carry 400+ VPD
PETITION: Not Required, no residents within 200 feet.
COMMENTS:
Staff notes that there was no required streetlighting installed in
the Proctors Point subdivision as its tentaive approval pre-dated
August, 1988. Mrs. O'Connor-Sandal's home will be the first built in
the subdivision and she is requesting lighting at this time.
This request is the number 3 priority.
Attachments? Map
~~~
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
REQUEST ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: March 24, 1993 REQUESTED: March 25, 1993
ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: May 3, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 39
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 51178.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Ann O'Connor-Sandal
ADDRESS: 12730 Ben Fry Drive, Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 748-3207 WORK -
REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Ransom Hills Place and Ransom Hills Road
^ REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
^ A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Qualified
VEHICLES PER DAY: Qualified, projected to carry 400+ VPD
PETITION: Not Required, no residents within 200 feet.
COMMENTS:
Staff notes that there was no required streetlighting installed in
the Proctors Point subdivision as its tentaive approval pre-dated
August, 1988. Mrs. O'Connor-Sandal's home will be the first built in
the subdivision and she is requesting lighting at this time.
This location is number 2 priority.
Attachments? Map
056
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
REQUEST ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: March 24, 1993 REQUESTED: March 25, 1993
ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: May 3, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 39
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 5765.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Ann O'Connor-Sandal
ADDRESS: 12730 Ben Fry Drive, Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 748-3207 WORK -
^X REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Ransom Hills Road and Ransom Hills Turn
^ REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
^ A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Qualified
VEHICLES PER DAY: Qualified, projected to carry 400+ VPD
PETITION: Not Required, no residents within 200 feet.
COMMENTS:
Staff notes that there was no required streetlighting installed in
the Proctors Point subdivision as its tentaive approval pre-dated
August, 1988. Mrs. O'Connor-Sandal's home will be the first built in
the subdivision and she is requesting lighting at this time.
This request is the number 4 priority.
Attachments? Map
0 5'~
STREET LIGHT REQUEST MAP ,,,
KINGSDALE RD
0
a
0
t
• • Z
R
m SuE~-~'
AS
o GR
,o
~
P
'~~ ,,
~
~
~
~
~~~ O
G~ ~ A
/ ~' 2 ~ Ro
/ N~+
~'F~
G
ROC lOR'S 'POiPtT SU'6DIVlStoAl
STREETUGfrTS "REQlAESrED AfoNC, ao
N
'Z,/~NSOM HILLS '1i;CAD SH`D
RV
~~~KENDv
Street light legend
existing light tla 26 1993
Y
requested light
This map is spatially accurate.
This map shows citizen requested The scale was computer generated ~ g O C Q
streetlight installations in relation and is not shown on this map. I cJ O
to existing streetlights. ''~M
Existing streetlight information was This map is a copyrighted product o f
obtained from the Chesterfield County the Chesterfield County GfS 0 f f lice.
Environmental Engineering Department.
REQUEST
RECEIVED:
ESTIMATE
RECEIVED:
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
ESTIMATE
January 5, 1993 REQUESTED: January 7, 1993
DAYS ESTIMATE
May 3, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 116
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 51627.00
NAME OF REQUESTER: Sidney Aron - Secretary
ADDRESS: Walthall Creek Homeowners Assoc., 1508 Clear Springs Lane
Colonial Heights, VA 23834
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - 530-5174 WORK - 524-7744
^ REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
Clear Springs Place, end of cul-de-sac
^ A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION.
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection
VEHICLES PER DAY: Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD
PETITION: Qualified
COMMENTS: Requestor states: There has been vandalism in Walthall Creek.
The cul-de-sacs are dark and the Association feels that lighting would
be a deterrent to such activities and provide a safe environment for
the homeowners."
Staff notes that this light, in order to
those already approved for or installed in this
a colonial style, 8000 lumen light on a fibergl~
been 5 lights approved for or installed in this
at a cost of 56225. There are 5 other requests
awaiting estimates or Board approval.
Attachments? Map
be consistant with
subdivision, should be
ass pole. There have
subdivision in FY 93
for this subdivision
059
k
• ~,,,, STREET LIGHT REQUEST MAP
KtNGSaALE R~
0
D
G
7
Z
Z
N
R
m S~~~L
o GRAS
A
Q
// '~~ ,~ ~
~
S
a
----~~ y~Q' O
~ ~
G~ A
• P~
PFFN~y
G
ON FD
SNt
. RU
OV
~_~KEN
Street light legend
0 existing light tla 26, 1993
Y
a requested light
This map is spatially accurate.
This map shows cititen requested The scale was computer generated ~G S
streetlight installations in relation and is not shown on this map. I Q 6
to existing streetlights. ~
Existing streetlight information was This map is a copyrighted product o f
obtained from the Chesterfield County the Chesterfield County CIS 0 f f ice.
Environmental Engineering Department.
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Bermuda District
REQUEST ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: March 24, 1993 REQUESTED: March 25, 1993
ESTIMATE DAYS ESTIMATE
RECEIVED: May 26, 1993 OUTSTANDING: 62
COST TO INSTALL STREETLIGHT: 50.00
NAME OF REQUESTOR: Glen J. Dewire
ADDRESS: Principal, Curtis Elem. School, 3600 West Hundred Road
Chester, VA 23831
PHONE NUMBER: HOME - WORK -
I I REQUEST IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS
West Hundred Road, Entrance to Curtis Elementary School
A POLE ALREADY EXISTS AT THIS LOCATION.
POLICY CRITERIA:
INTERSECTION: Not Qualified, location not an intersection
VEHICLES PER DAY: Qualified
PETITION: Qualified
COMMENTS: Staff notes:
Requested location is at the bus entrance to the school. There is
also a pedestrian crosswalk across Route 10 at this location.
Attachments? Map
X61
~` STREET LIGHT REQUEST MAP
~,~
•DYD sr +
,t0y'
S GPOa yO`
r
`
=
`
C
N ~
~ qQ
O ~
~= DEV0``
P
i ' Bpi
a4' O \
/
Po ,p0 3',
y
/
.
PO
~~
~
•• `~ ~p
% ~
r \
i DRDrF AY
o ~
1,4.~Ar ON ~
A~ o
N
0+ G M MuRDRED RD
A
4y I
S
CR
• y~ pF~
-D
X04. SOG %
r~ Rc i
O `rt y./
~\ p`
NA,
`~ ~
9~ /
~~ /
~ ~,
\~
l~
~O
~O
s~
F
t
'PS.
OG
qC
Street Light Legend
existing light t1a 26, 1993
Y
a requested light
This map is spatially accurate.
This map shows citizen requested The scale was computer generated bqG S
streetlight installations in relation and is not shown on this map. I ~ 6'
to existing streetlights. ~N
Existing streetlight information was Thtis map is a copyrighted product of
obtained from the Chesterfield County the Chesterfield County CIS 0 f f lice.
Environmental Engineering Department.
'~, /~. /,
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 0 1
AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number: ~ . ~ .1.
Su~ct:
Ratification of Amendments to the By-Laws of the Greater Richmond
Transit Company ("GRTC")
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Ratify the action of the GRTC Board to amend the GRTC by-laws
Summary of Information:
On March 23, 1993, the Board of Directors of the Greater Richmond
Transit Company ("GRTC") unanimously adopted a resolution to make two
amendments to its by-laws.
The first amendment changes the regular meeting date of the GRTC
Board from the third Wednesday to the third Tuesday of every month in
order to accommodate the schedules of GRTC Board members. The second
amendment corrects three grammatical errors in Section 2, Article IX of
the by-laws. The corrections have no effect on the substance of the
section. The amendments are shown on the attached pages.
In order for the amendments to be effective, both the County's
Board of Supervisors and the Richmond City Council must ratify the
amendments, pursuant to Article IX, Section 1, of the GRTC by-laws.
Richmond City council will consider ratification of the amendments at
its May 24, 1993 regular meeting.
Preparers '`-~' ' ~ Title: County Attorney
Steven L. Micas
County Administrator: ~~~~~
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
0400:3826.1
# tl6 3
' ~I '~
`~1!~1l){
~
G
City of Richmond
~_ ~e- IFor Intracity Correspondence) ':;;~ ~1 !~ 1993 1' ~~
;~° {1BCi'1VE~
~'
}
~ ~~~
Oftice (11 the ,
`
''~'~
~~:: Couniy A1lorneY
Chesterf+eld, ~ ~~~~
MEMORANDUM ~~ ,~,,~ Va. 4J., ~/
'Lt;i 1,14'`,x.
~;
TO: G. Timothy Oksman, City Attorney _
FROM: William Joe Hoppe, Senior Assistant City Attorney
~~~~ ~~-
t to GRTC s By-Laws
d
~,
`~~J11~
SUBJECT: men
Amen
DATE: April 22, 1993 --
As indicated on the minutes of its March 23, 1993 meeting
(copy attached), the Board of Directors of GRTC passed a motion to
amend GRTC's By-Laws. Attached are copies of the motion and
amended By-Laws as passed. As you can see, these amendments
change the monthly meeting date back to the third Tuesday of each
month and correct three (3) typographical errors in Article IX.
These amendments need to be ratified by the City Council and
the County Board. GRTC's Board accordingly has requested that
appropriate papers be introduced so that these bodies can ratify
the amendments to By-Laws. Attached is a copy of the Resolution
adopted by City Council regarding the last Amendment of GRTC's By-
Laws.
Please let me know if anything further is needed.
WJH/vjv
Enclosures
cc: Steven L. Micas, County Attorney/'
Jeffrey L. Mincks, Deputy County Attorney
Henry C. Church, Secretary and
General Manager, GRTC
~O~
OFFERED ti~'~:~ 2 ~~~ ?`~~u
A RESOLUTION ND~ 9 0!~ 3 ~~ -33
ADOPTED DEC 1 01990
Ratifying an action taken by the Hoard of Directors of the
Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) at its November 20, 1990
meeting, amending the GRTC by-laws with regard to the day of the
monthly Board of Directors meeting and the day of the annual
shareholders meeting.
Patron - City Manager
Approved as to form and legality
by the C,~,ty Attorney
WHEREAS, on November 20, 1990, the Board of Directors of the
Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) took formal action to
amend its by-laws in order to change the day of the regular
monthly Board of Directors meeting from the third Tuesday of each
month to the third Wednesday of each month, and furthermore to
change the day of the annual shareholders meeting from the second
Monday in October to the third Wednesday of October; and
WHEREAS, Article IX, Section 1 of~the GRTC by-laws requires
that any amendment to the by-laws be ratified by this Council and
the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED HY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND:
That the action taken on November 20, 1990 by the Board of
Directors of the Greater Richmond Transit Company, amending its
by-laws to change the day of the regular monthly Board of
Directors meeting and also to change the day of the a_ ~ual
shareholders meeting, is hereby ratified and confirmed'~~~~~;
~0~5<
ScNi. ~i ~Gi~iT'v ~ 4-15-93 ~ 22~UU ~ 8043^1933-+ 8U4 78U 6653~i~ 2
ItIYi0Tg6
80ARD 0? DIA~CTORB
aa~-TBR R=CRKO~ TB]1~16IT cOkpll~tY
Karoh Z9, il4,
x~mb~rs pr~sints D. Brickford Rider, Chairman
David W. Mathew. "
Otto N. Moore, Sr.
Frederick J. Robinron, sr.
Harry =. 5chutte, Jr.
Daniel K. Smith
othorr Pressonts William Joe Hopp•
Gena~ral Coungei
Henry C. Churah
Oenerai Manager
Rollo C. Axton
Arrirtant General Mana~g®r, GRTC
Jane e. Rsiily
Ex~aautivo Assistant, GRTC
Tracys G. Beard
Director of Marketing, GRTC
Yvonne I.+. Reid
Director o! Finance, GRTC
Veronica F. Parlor
Director of Planning, GRTC
Viktoria K. Fox
Community Dovelopment Transportation
Coordinator, city o! Richmond
Rick Saudar
Richmond Times-Dispatch
8111 Gordon
WRVA
The March meeting of th• t3reatsr Riahmond Transit Company
Hoard of Dirsatorr was oallod to order at 8:00 a.m. by the Chair-
man, Mr. Rider, in the Conterena~a Room of thse aporatinq affiaor of
the corporation, 101 South Davir Avenue, Riahmond, Virginia. A
quorum was present.
The minutes of the February 1993 moating of the Beard of
Directors were approved.
Mr. Church highlighted various items in the operating report.
Mr. Church outlined the proposed FY 1994 Operating Budget
totaling $22,142,880. The Board had ao»cerna nbout the pro~aoted
decline in passenger revenue and, after a lengthy discussion,
requested that management re~-examine this figure.
~~6
SENT.BY~GRTC ; 4-15-93 ; 22 01 ; 8043421933-- B04 760 6653;ii 3
. ~ `~
After discussion, Mr' mattiteandmr viseotheo~Y 1g94fBudgetnGom-
options presented by manes
parisona and sources of Funds to x®lleot those ohangwse
1) Change trolley fare from free to $.25 it trolley service
ie continued.
2) Change DOHS Hus fare from $1.00 to $1.50.
g) Initiate certain internal cost savings.
4) Discontinue >~tidefinderg~ contribution.
5) piscontinue Cultural Link.
Mr. smith seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
After dissuasion, Mr. Mathews mav.d to am4nd the bylaws of
Greater Richmond Transit Campnny,to change tho Board meetinng date
fonththeMrhigobinsonBSea ndedacnnd tkie motion aarrieduunanimouslych
m
Mr. Schutte moved to adopt the xesalutian on Jerone Haker,
GRTC Bus Operator, commending him for his actions which resulted in
saving the life of a passenSder (see attached resolution).
There being no fuxther business, the meeting adjourned at
10:20 a.m.
,APPROVLDi
D. Brickford Rider, Chairman
Date
~ 6'~
SENT BY~GnTG ~ 4-15-93 ~ 2201 ~ 8043421933 804 780 6653 # 4
RESOLUTIC-N
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GREATER RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANY
ryt~.tf1~~#.,~.5, 9Vfr. yunne ~'. BakFr, dus Qpcrator for Greater ~e~rmorui ?ransit
Company since 1985, was driving the 'iNestkampton 16 bus an ~'edruary 9, and
rW3~S, ~ttrs. ~tudny ~las~ns, an e~ila~ly fatly, boarded Operator Baler's bus at
tke BeGrrant and Grove Avenue bus stop between 3:30 p.m, anr13:45 p.tn., and
91Irs. ~fasl~ns suffered' a/cart attar, last corrsciousrcess, and could trot
do rcvive~ and
,Operator Baker recognised the emergency of tfie situation and drove tke
dus derectly to treat 9fospital z'vkere he summoned {mmed~ate medicat* assistance for 9hfrs.
3~fas~rrs, and
2)r. yohn ~l: ~iGraei~, t~ attending pky~sician, was atilt to resuscitate
leer after considemdle time aced effort, and
~tf.~:~,S, Dr. 1~iGrtuta stated later tfrat flee quid, tkfnk}ng and action of Operator
Bair, without loud t, saved Mfrs. ?~fas~ans' Csfe, and
E~~#,S, Operator .9erone .~. Baker u to 6e kigkly commended far leis alertness,
calmnass, and quick, action in his conurn for his passenger,
a(pryt; ~~~ B~ l7 ~S'01;'L~ tkat flee Board of Ihrectors for tke
Greater ~ckmond ?ransit Company, at its meeting on tkis 23rd day of 94farck, 1993, does
hercdy tress its grateful appreciation to tkis dedscated employee, aced
BCE FI'g'411~P1`'X(,~SOL'NED that tfre Beard of Dlnctors far Greater ~ckmond
?ransit Company does leered y direct tkat a copy of t.~iis resolution d e given to Operator ,~erane
~=: Bakyr as a torn of tke tsteem of flit ~temders of the Board.
D. 8ricl~bi'd Rider
Chairman of the Board
~6$
~/ ~'
OTION
I hereby move that the Bylaws of Greater Richmond Transit Co.
be amended as set forth on the document entitled Proposed Changes
in the Bylaws of Greater Richmond Transit Co., which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof. I further move that, upon enactment
of these amendments, the Chairman or his designee shall forward
them to the City of Richmond ("Richmond") and the County of
Chesterfield ("Chesterfield") with the request that the City
Council for Richmond and the Board of Supervisors for Chesterfield
ratify these amendments at their earliest convenience and advise
this Board upon such ratification.
~S"~
PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAE BYLAWS
OF
GREATER RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANY
0!~
'rri~
compensation of directors for their services as such and may
provide for the payment of all expenses incurred by directors in
attending regular and special meetings of the. board.
ARTICLE VI - DIRECTORS MEETING
Section 1. Meetings - Regular meetings of the Board of
Directors shall be held monthly on the third [iced-nest] Tuesday
of each month except that the October meeting shall immediately.
follow each annual shareholder's meeting to elect officers and to
conduct such other business as may properly come before such
meeting. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called
by any member of the Board. All meetings of the Board of Directors
are hereby deemed to be public meetings as defined in the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act, Title 2.1, Chapter 21, Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended ("VFOIA") and shall be conducted in
accordance with the VFOIA.
Section ~2. otice - Regular meetings of the Board of
Directors may be held without notice of the date, time, place, or
purpose of the meeting.
Special meetings of the Board of Directors shall
be held upon notice of the date, time, place and purpose or
purposes of the meeting, which shall be mailed or telegraphed to
each director at least two days prior to the date of the meeting.
Section 3. Waiver of Notice - A director may waive any
required notice before or after the date and time stated in the
notice, and such waiver shall be equivalent to the giving of such
notice. The waiver shall be in writing, signed by the director
~~l
1 ~ _
+ ,
ARTICLE ~X - AMENDMENTS
Section 1. Amendment of By-Laws by Board of Directors or
Shareholders - These by-laws may be amended by the shareholders or
by the affirmative vote of more than two-thirds of the Board of
Directors, except as otherwise provided by law. Any amendment of
these by-laws must be ratified by the City and Chesterfield.
Section 2. Legislative Amendment - In the event that any
portion of these by-laws [awe] is subsequently rendered invalid by
act of the General Assembly of Virginia, those portions hereof
which are not affected by such legislation shall remain in full
force and effect until and unless altered or repealed in accordance
with the terms hereof.
072
.,.
`^~~,~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
4 ~ ~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 oi' 1
"p"f AGENDA P.EPLACEiTEr1T
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number: ~ • n • 2
Su- b=:
Amendment to the April 28, 1993 Board Minutes Relating to the
Restriction of Dogs in the County
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
On April 28, 1993 the Board adopted a "leash" law in the County.
The title to the ordinance mistakenly indicated that the ordinance
would apply only to certain portions of the County. The minutes
should be amended as attached.
rrepnrer: I Title: County Attorney
Steven L. Micas 0805:3932.1
County Administrator: C~~~ #
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
~/
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY
OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING
AND REENACTING SECTION S-6 RELATING TO
THE RESTRICTION. OF DOGS IN ~CDTA TT~T DnDTTilt~ic~ ter- THE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That Section S-6 of the .Code of the Count~f Chesterfield 1978, as
amended, is amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 5-6. Running at large -Prohibited
(a) It shall be unlawful to permit any dog to run at large within the county at any
time during the year. Any person who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed
to have violated the provisions of this section. The dog warden and deputy dog wardens
are authorized to cause all dogs found running at large in violation of this section to be
caught and penned up in the county dog pound.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a dog shall be deemed to be running
at large under subsection (a) if the dog is off the property of its owner or custodian and
is not directly connected to its owner or custodian by means of a physical restraint.
(c) A dog which is engaged, with its owner or custodian, in lawful hunting,
training for hunting, or field trials in conjunction with a hunting, training or field trial
season authorized by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and which
is wearing a collar with a tag showing the name, address and telephone number of the
owner of the dog, shall not be deemed to be running at large under subsection (a).
(2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
04()5:3745.1
Adopted 4/28/93
'7. t~. 3.
Meeting llate:
Subject:
CtiCS't'Cltl?1t+;LU COUNTY
uUARU O[~ SUI' ~ KViSOltS
AG ~N llA
May 26, 1993
ltenl Number:
Payment of Rent for Coalfield Soccer Complex Property
Cvuut Adu~i~~islr~ttur's Cu~itnte~~ts:
~e~~~~ ,~~~h~~
uvurd Actiuii lteyueste~l:
7.D.3.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors appropriate $26,000
from interest on Bond proceeds to the Parks and Recreation Budget for
rent for the Coalfield Soccer Complex for FY-94.
Su~ r~ of li~Curiitutiui~:
The current agreement for use of the Coalfield Soccer Complex is with
the Commonwealth Two Corporation. The terms of the lease include
annual renewals for five years through December 31, 1996 with
quarterly rental payments of $6,500 ($26,000 annually). The Board of
Supervisors is requested to appropriate $26,000 from unappropriated
interest on Bond Proceeds for rental for FY-93/94. Each additional
year's lease will be dependent upon annual appropriations by the Board
of Supervisors.
The 30 acre Coalfield Soccer Complex site now includes 10 soccer
fields and related parking areas. The site was leased to the County
at no cost from 1983 to 1991. Each year the site accommodates over
150,000 visitors.
Due to market conditions prior to January 1992, the owner requested
a rental fee to offset interest and tax costs for the property which
is currently assessed at approximately $23,000/acre.
„_ Director of
,I,~I~e: Parks and Recreation
I'reparer: ----
Michael S. Golden n~~~~--
Cvu~ity Adminislrntur: #
075
Attacla~K~ents: ~ Yes ^ N u
Page --i ufr 2
e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Budget Comments:
Page ? o~
There is $26,000 available to pay rent for the Coalfield
Soccer Complex for FY94. Interest on bond proceeds will be '
appropriated within Fund 3A (County Capital Projects) and
transferred to the General Fund for debt service. This will
allow General Fund money that was budgeted for debt to be
transferred to the Parks and Recreation budget to pay rent on the
facility.
mes L. St gmaier
Director of Budget & Management
Title
# 076
'1 D. ~ .
" CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 0
N AGENDA
Meeting Date• May 2 6 , 19 9 3 Item Number 7 . D . 4 .
Sub ect•
Appropriation of anticipated state reimbursement for construction
of a jail annex.
Cnount Administrator's Comments:
KP~C.d~~~tt~t c~ /~ .,
Board Action Requested:
Appropriate $780,000 of anticipated state reimbursement and a
reduction of $388,400 in the transfer from the Reserve for Future
Capital Projects. The net increase in the budget, for the jail
annex project, is $391,600
Summary of Information:
In December 1992 the Board of Supervisors appropriated construction
funds for the jail annex project. At that time, total costs for
the project were estimated at $3.3 million. The current estimates
are $3.7 million. The increases are necessary to comply with the
Route 10 Overlay District standards and to make the project
eligible for state reimbursement. These changes include: adding
masonry to comply with county overlay district ordinance
($112,000); a security ceiling, metals and hollow metal for
Department of Corrections regulations; ($135,700) smoke removal
system, ($74,000); and various other requirements ($69,900),
including removal of an underground storage tank.
At the time the Board appropriated funding a moratorium existed on
state reimbursements for jail projects. During the 1993 General
Assembly the state approved legislation which changed the
reimbursement process and lifted the moratorium effective September
1, 1993. At this time the Board is requested to appropriate the
anticipated state revenue and reduce the transfer from the reserve
for future capital projects used to fund the project but reserve
the amount of the reduction until funds are appropriated by the
State.
1
Preparer Title•
ames .L. Ste aier
County Administrator: C7~~ #
~~~
Attachments: Yes ^ No.
CHESTERFIELD COUNT
' ~-'~' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page ?- off?
H
~'~ AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 Item Number: 7. D. 5.
Subject:
Chalkley Road/Route 10 Intersection
Traffic Signal
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution
requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) to install a traffic signal at the Chalkley
Road/Route 10 intersection..
Summary of Information:
Mr. McHale has received requests from citizens to have a
traffic signal installed at the Chalkley Road/Route 10
intersection.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board wishes to pursue the
request, the attached resolution requesting the Virginia
Department of Transportation to install a traffic signal
at the Chalkley Road/Route 10 intersection should be
adopted.
r Director of Transportation
Preparer•.~~~~ G~..!C~-~ Title:
R.J. McCracken
County Administrator: ~~~~
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
# 078
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY: At a regular
meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
held at the Courthouse on May 26,
1993, at 3:00 p.m.
WHEREAS, citizens have requested a traffic signal at
the Chalkley Road/Route 10 intersection; and
WHEREAS, traffic volumes and patterns have changed
significantly due to the recent commercial development at
the intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the
Chesterfield Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to install a signal at the
Chalkley Road/Route 10 intersection.
Vote:
Certified By:
Theresa M. Pitts, Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors
0'7 9
I \ `•~ .1y0 I.n ~~ N4rAi '. J"~ Get ~ ¢ o u, ~ i.~ , n• ~'' I
E ~ v n 642 ~ ~ ~`' \ u a J I ~ ~~ Z_
3 OY ~C 7 T \ Z S /- Ui ~ '-U I Y
~ V w~ ~~ ~ > ~ O 1 A Z v\ ~ ,~ " l a
~ ~ ~? ~~ ENS R \ Z °°i` r ~ 6 2- I
~ ! ~ ~ , rN ~~ C o- ~o[ ~ o opo
1 ~ PP o-~ ~ o R o , I
1- "wrr,w ~, \ ,P- i goo \ ----= I
.e ~ cta°%~ (\
woNS Sf /tSTERITECD ~ ~ ~°°Na ~ s~,,l 1,
• MEAOOhS _' p °
SNOPP/NG w `~6 ~~~ ~ \ a W E ~ O \ sir
CENTf R ~ ~ ~i~ E p Q. \ RO ~
6~ [4
N Rp ~RkE~ ~ ~ T ~\ o'.
a
FD
R9 t \ ~ .-w~ ~ Cc,~
~ \ ~ FGRES \\/? w[~ttNoro" b'Frb
- i ~ ~ W~Q \ ~ j ~t
~ ~,~ ~ 3h3
1 -INTOIL LANMNO ~- \\~•o '~ ~-i ~ ~\-\~\ ~•>^ /
E,2POr1[[N •AAOR t'l ~ J' ~ ~ \ \___. /
~'-_`--1 ~ 4H7v I~R OOR PL F` p Q -__
~ nSNi[r UNOrNO CT MIA II, ~ j 7. '
A~ ~ / z 4t,~A p ~o
r,,. ~ wi o v` LINO ar \ I $ q0 \
P `f t 1 `-~i
•~pNDFIIL DR. o [ ~ "~ ~~ ~' r' p \ GOYt1E~ ElE
\"~ -~n R 70 ~ PARK SL
~~~ ~ 'VIEW TER ~ ~ o f ~oFF \ ~ y ~
~ •OR OR Q
O IItONeq/OGE 1 ~ t,, OAK ~NRISFt[~ qr ° Rp Ryq RD. \ l 4VE
.i~ ~ k M4R ~4\ ~ ° \
`- ~ ~~ •rE •~ EA HIppOQ L \
~- `.~ `T i-` y ~ IL.~w fit.' ocr.Ki eUk TON ~ m \
?J ~ ~ ~. OqN t,4 pR \ ~ rn \
to ` '1 A
~ (7 ctW ~ 1 L J yN4 NBLRr 9~ 0 . O tZ \
~ ~ -K U Y \ J ~ F, ~
~ '~ ~ ~. 'RO-+BRIo°E I D m ~~ 1, ; f~-~l ~'9(.tic /}`\ / 1
t• ~ LOCATION ~ ~ o ~ }~ . -_~.
_ -/~~
~ --- --
~ ~ QW RtVINGFON ~ t~~ ! • I ~ `1~\ R ~)
• i / ? a DR S k eR/oG~
t,,~~ O/i. / \
'/ ~O ~ W U W O \ t
Old, O ~ O m cnr+~era
9ny m m Ins
3 ,,, 11 E I G H 1 S~ H~NDRE~
g,anc`_ c~RVER
- - DR ~IESS ..
~_ --,. i ~
LAKE ~-- ~ . ~.._~ D
PI lI eY- ~'~ ~ / rn
_ SOViNERN D I/
y _~ - AREA \ Z
O
/ I LAND FILI ~\ to
, ` 11
~t to ~ ,
~ ~° ~ i
r N ~~
o
a o-
r -
`~ J o F - I
_ i
1 ~n 631] ~ I
321 z ~
_ - - 1
gR10SE JI` /
I ~ /
i
~ I ~ ~
[ t q,
~ ~ Q° ~~ ~~ 080~~
~I ~ tb ~
J/ w0/ i i I f ~~
~r ~
~'e~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
~" ~ ' ,+ ' ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ter. AGENDA
Meeting Date: r:ay 2 ~ , 19 9 3 Item Number:
Su~e_:
Resolution to prohibit "through
adjacent to the County Airport.
Coun AdministraAtor's Com ents:
/~-
Board Action Requested:
the fence" operations
Page 1 0~?
7.D.6.
on property
Adopt the attached resolution prohibiting "through the fence" operations
at the Chesterfield County Airport.
Summary of Information:
The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") recommends that,
aeronautical service operations which support a public airport, such as
the fueling, repair and maintenance of aircraft, the operation of flight
schools and the sale and service of airplane communication equipment be
performed within the boundaries of the airport subject to airport
regulations. Such operations are commonly referred to as "on airport"
operations. After a public airport facility has become established, it
is not uncommon for businesses to locate adjacent to the airport and
attempt to compete with the "on airport" businesses by offering similar
services. Since these businesses are not subject to local regulation,
this competition can be unfair and can jeopardize the. established
airport businesses. Accordingly, these operations, known as "through
the fence operations", are discouraged by the FAA and the Virginia
Department of Aviation ("VDA") and are prohibited by most airports. A
brief summary of VDA's position on "through the fence" operations at
Chesterfield is attached.
Preparer• ~ tle, Director, General Services
1111 owell 0400:3967. i (3968.1)
County Administrator: ~ #
Attachments: . Yes ~ N o
UtSl
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page 2 0~
It has always been the position of Chesterfield County and Airport
Management not to permit "through the fence" operations at the County's
Airport and the County has entered into formal, contractual agreements
with on-airport businesses assuring that future businesses will not be
granted this unfair trade advantage by being allowed to compete "through
the fence" from adjacent property. This position has been reviewed with
members of the Airport Advisory Board and has their unanimous support.
The County has recently learned that at least two (2) property owners
are considering "through the fence" operations at this time. Once one
operation is in place, a precedent would be set and the County could not
prevent additional competing enterprises.
Although the prohibition of this activity will be detailed in the
Airport Regulations and Standards, no formal policy statement
prohibiting "through the fence" operations exists today. Since the
Regulations and Standards will not be brought to the Board for
consideration until later this year after public feedback has been
evaluated, and the document has been reviewed by FAA and the VDA, a
formal expression of Board policy regarding this issue is necessary to
prevent potential economic damage to the Airport. The attached
resolution prohibiting "through the fence" operations would accomplish
this purpose pending adoption of the Airport Regulations and Standards.
0400:3967.1
# 082
-. ~''
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia,
that through the fence operations, as referenced in FAA Order 5190.6A -Airport
Compliance Requirements, shall not be permitted to provide aeronautical services to the
public on Chesterfield County Airport property. Use of the airport corporate taxiway
adjacent to the Airport Industrial Park to gain access to the landing area shall be permitted
by written agreement only and restricted to aircraft use incidental to a residence or business
without offering any commercial aeronautical services to the public on Airport property.
0400:3968.1
-1-
083
-• ~'
~~~«~ ,
~~~~~~T~T`~VE'~~Z~'~~ 0~yI~3~~~T
KENNETH A. ROWE Department of Aviation
Dlrec`o~ 4508 South Laburnum Avenue
November 19, 1992
Mr. John R. Lillard
Director of Aviation Services
Chesterfield County Airport
7511 Airfield Drive
Richmond, Virginia 23237
Re: Chesterfield County Airport
Dear Mr. Lillard:
;a~~~1 <,
~v `' ,~~?
^ ~ ti`
4s ~,
~~ ,ran ' N
v` ~9.°~ N
~ ~RRst' ~o
~~! ti wow
ols '~ j
8L95~£Z~
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23231-2422
804l786t364 (V/TDD)
We are in receipt of your letter of November 13, 1992 in which you
request the Virginia Department of Aviation to state its position
concerning individuals or firms who propose to provide "commercial"
aeronautical services at the airport from privately owned property
adjacent to the airport which is typically referred to as a
"through the fence" operator.
The Department does not currently have any policies or regulations
which prohibit such an agreement between the Sponsor and an
operator; however, it is not a concept that we support nor have
ever promoted in the past. We have been keenly aware of a
particular situation that was allowed to develop at one of our
northern Virginia airports several years ago that proved to be a
disaster for both the sponsor and the fixed base operator.
Ultimately, everybody lost because the FBO could not remain in
business, the illegitimate operators could and would not provide
full services and users were moving their aircraft to other
airports where they could obtain services. They have since
corrected the situation by developing Minimum Standards and
establishing regulations that do not allow "through the fence "
operations and the airport has been doing well for some time now.
Over the years it has been the practice of most airports to provide
space for multiple operators on the airport. Because the airport
is the front door to the community, and each person visiting the
airport must walk through an operators facility; each operator has,
in most instances, been compelled by the sponsor to meet a minimum
standard of quality of both facilities and services. If another
operator is allowed to provide services and facilities which are
beyond the reach of the minimum standard, then it has, in effect,
created a "double standard" and the FBO on the field is penalized.
084
Mr.~ John R. Lillard
November 19, 1992
Page 2
This position should not be interpreted that the County should not
allow direct access from the Industrial Park to tenants who own an
aircraft that is engaged in providing transportation for employees
of that corporation or clients. As we understand, that is the
purpose of the taxiwa~•s serving the park and we not only concur,
but have promoted this concept to other communities.
In summary, neither the FAA nor the Department of Aviation will
require you to allow this arrangement or even recommend it.
Chesterfield County Airport has been master planned on the basis
that there will be ample space on the airport to provide full
services to the flying public. We believe that this is the proper
management strategy.
We hope that this has been responsive to your request, however if
there are issues that remain, you have only to call upon us
Sincerely,
ames L. Bland
Manager
Airport Services Division
JLB/map
cc: Carole A. DiLodovico, FAA
Anthony E. Dowd, VAB
085
Meeting Date:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Su~L:
Approval of Change Order to the Design Collaborative -
Midlothian Library
County Administrator's Comments:
~,~ G p-nVyh.w~~c~ ~ ~~
Board Action Requested:
Page 1 0~
7.D.7.
Approval of Change Order in the amount of $12,000 for design of
Coalfield Road Improvements.
Summary of Information:
Chesterfield Transportation Department has determined that the turn
lanes of Coalfield Road at the driveway to Midlothian Library must
be improved as part of the library expansion project. This change
order represents the engineering design costs associated with this
change.
Director
Prepare : 'tle: General
County Administrator: ~~
# X86
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
`'~
~~ ~~ CI-IESTERPIELD COUNTY
'' ~% BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PagQ -Z of Z'
AGENDA
Meeting Date: Mav 26 . 1993 Item Vumber: ~ . D. 8 .
Sub,jeet:
Street Name Change
County Administrator's Comments:
a~~ A
Board Action Requested:
The Board of Supervisors is being requested to change the name of Pretty
Lady Lane in the Exbury subdivision to Walden Springs Drive.
Summary of Information:
The property owners on Pretty Lady Lane in the Exbury subdivision have
requested that the name of this street be changed to Walden Springs
Drive. All property owners have agreed to the change.
Staff has determined that the proposed name does not duplicate any
street name currently in use in the Richmond Regional Planning District.
MATOACA DISTRICT:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approves
this street name change, effective June 1, 1993.
• Director
Preparer. .~ ~ 'Title: ~„~,; r „a
Richard McElfish, P.E.
County Administrator. __~
Attac3~ments: ~ Yes ~ V o
X88
-,
~v~~
s
~~y~.Y~s- LAn'E
~/,~y~'C/YE
~s~T~-
e7 . t -es~•ss_E 169 _e9.79•'1"~ e7.Or - - - _ e7• ,~~u
- :flS C )tar 'A-M• y1.lY 3Sr ice„ ~>
/~i rsZ-e7 eaa7T ao-arW sear r~ ~ ~ to ~ ~ a7,~
l /I• t7 Ea~a~y E°~"~a~ 66" e'
r
el ~ . 1$ ~~ = I I ~~ c9 ~' ~ u9 ~' _ ~~ ` a ~,
' 16 = u ~ ~ cs s9 sr 11.7r '~~^ ~
v I / CJ C9! " 1611'SS r " e!u'SS r 100.61' ~~ a69S!'SS`E
11 C63
~ '~ rr'~a } c' ct c9 s u :51~ RaD ~ 7o.ar $
cat cr,
v., ~ ~ _ _ - et.er mar ~ 6om ,~, es7 - ~ o
0 0l p. ~ veN~ edr a .~ o ~
s> o ~~ ; ~). C61 C60 ~ IW!.~ ' r J I'9 $ 7 ~ 9 5 ~ _~ ;;r~ ~ 7~` d S~iE ~o
Je~1 l~ , ~ IC~ ~ ~ ~
---- -?--~ ~ P II . T b N •^ 17 Earnua- _ ~.. b ' $~ ~6~5 % 961 'Y ~-
~rlEU a yorl• - 39 J _ mom n.or eoo7 Laaa7 ~ ss.oo _ _ ~ -
~ -
s 7gu'r~km ~ _ 4 ! s e9•u•sS E su 7tv
N
i ~u.,
r aaa ....a ..e ~:I
ao~ ie1an +a ~ ~ JPEN ~PM.E
+ / 6 'O:Q Pljpla IHaaMlpa
y+ ~ Eaurnna OB '2f! j
Jay/,~~-'---\ i
~~ ~7 ( IOp YFv flmd pb~, /"
~~ `~ y ;
f .~, ~~
`~ ;q-.,, `v.~r,l l X0.1. bar
o ~ 1) p~, ~.~~~ ; ~.
~ ~ i., ~
~ 'r~ '~` ~rVT^L"-= ~?fi~r9~L~i~1 F` § -- N7nti•SS~ Io.Sr (~I~ 377r
'~' I ?r ;~~\.\ 'll)fb'^r 97~ '6101'. ~>~ I= ai9r1 u7r Ilir- lolls--
-" /ah , , ,~ '; , W~P Eaf~.ya .~ b~ .,. ~ '3 = .117 Eera~a J ~ o
~ ~,~ ~ IP°~{a\ \a _8~ 76 ~~ 8 ~Jt ~ ~N~ +Z ~81~ aJ ~~ A a4 /~q~= a ?
P ~l~b,;r2•!,'`\,asa a ~~~f =
Js ~ "7°01'~r•.y nl no ~).lY s9.a6 cl- 1. w ss.57 ( ea 9r v ^+5 ~~ 4aa..
9/ ~ o rrlsl. s 6611'SS r Im.7u• ~ ~ s e67r5t f 17116 ~ 71 ' : r (o,...
o s 1 u? C69 R ~ St CIO -~ _~-~''•
d? /„ ~ ~ 1 cll a97r5s E a 7~tris E usl7 ~~_ DRI4E ~' .
b 1 D L'~. ~ •~~~ of n 6/.9S• clo tll )]6r eo.o7 ....s Cu CI ~~~~-_-- --
yM` • X CII ~ ~ ~ is C ~ ~~-
.Y;, ~ ~ ~ is CIS ~ ~ CIS V C i3 ~-- - ~
,a o ~ ` ~ ~- ~p ~ : ~ 1, a ~ $ 12 ~ IJ ~71 g 14 IS
Y~- l~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 8 ~ '^ a ~ S 7rsolrot E ~ r IQei.l~ t S ru r 8(. .
• 11776 f
1/icin~i rs~ SAO
.s'G'AL E ~ /': ZOgp
III \` .~.~,% IA>t WpVOS1-01-01-00'"""'
~ I `~ ~q1~1 ~.;0' ta.r^ra g el'W~ ~ 19U6 ~
.~
I /~1 75.56 { -
~ _~~ - - ~5b' I.
I i5.5o• .~1
r ~ ~ _ ~tl~
x
aq
~', 109 ~\ ; ~ ~~;~ J2.~~'8~ }~ ~~ = J4 ~~~_ JS I`al yJ6 :IA7
loe ~
\ ~ ~ ~~• ~ru~C1S ~ 1 U.1~ ;5.00• I ISar I~ ~~ 6
1\ -' -_\ ^v 1 saaa ;,:i +I ct5 Cn ~ s e61Y10' . ~eaOP -7e Ea..a.a
- - ~ ~ 1{APoI~ID COUNt '~
-~-~ r- i~ ~'ti~ ~ C77 N IPId r N e(119C fC79
_.-;,%_-' ~ ~/, 1 i ~S U1/6 art ~! uQdL' "'
iS.S!
~~ . ~~ iw r ~ I 5 ~~i! 1 C75^ C7I 19 b' ~ w+~ ~ ~ C]I ~
•\ i i, S I r .M •~ •~ 7 C17 g
i, dN yn ~_ ~• ' ~,,. 28 W ~ I ~ ~-try
O V ~./
'/, p, ~.
~_ ~ -~, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
•~
`''~"i BOARD OF SiJPERViSORS Page 1 of 3
'~'~ AGENDA
Vleezing Date: May 26, 1993 Item Number: ~ • D • 9
Subject:
Agreement for Maintenance of a Stormwater Drainage System and Best
Management Practice Facility.
County Administrator's Comments:
~ec.o~ca.K.d- ~~h~a-P
Board Action Requested:
This item requests the Board of Supervisors'. authorization for the
County Administrator to execute a maintenance agreement.
Summary of Information:
Stormwater runoff from developing areas poses two concerns: a)
development tends to change the hydrologic characteristics of a given
watershed, affecting the volume and runoff rate which, if not managed,
can cause considerable downstream damage, b) evidence indicates that
this runoff may be harmful, from a pollution standpoint, to state
waters. Stormwater management facilities combined with Best Management
Practices (BMP's) are utilized to lessen the water quality and quantity
impact caused by stormwater runoff. Best Management Practices refer to
those controls that have been proven in the past to be effective and
may include structural (ponds and lakes) and non-structural facilities
such as maintenance operations and procedures, management techniques
and reduction of paved surfaces.
Stormwater management facilities (structural BMPs) are commonly used to
attenuate the peak runoff rate of stormwater and provide for precipi-
(Continued)
Director
,~~%~ ~ ~~,~ ` ~f;~~~~~~'~ 'Title: Environmental Engineerincr
Preparers
~1~ic ar f~"~c~I~is~-
County Administrator. ~~~ #
090
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
..~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page ? o~
tation of suspended particles or sediment. This is accomplished
through the use of three general types of facilities: detention,
retention, or infiltration.
1. A detention facility detains stormwater for a given period of
time in order to release it at a rate that will not exceed. any
downstream capacities or otherwise cause erosion. These
facilities are normally dry except during rain events and
shortly thereafter.
2. A retention facility serves the same purpose as a detention
facility except that there is a permanent pooling of water
(lake or pond).
3. An infiltration facility allows stormwater to soak into the
ground and, thus, requires specific sandy soil types that are
normally found only in the eastern portions of the County.
The County's involvement in stormwater management is driven by a
variety of forces, among which are: state erosion, sediment control
requirements and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA), the EPA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mandates,
Flood Plain Management Ordinance and Upper Swift Creek Ordinance.
Ultimately, the purpose of this involvement is to prevent loss of
life or property and deterioration of water quality within, around,
and downstream of development.
A large majority of all ponds and lakes constructed in both
commercial and residential settings over the last fifteen (15+)
years are designed for either water quantity and/or quality control.
We currently have ninety-nine (99) approved and constructed
structural Best Management Facilities.
BACKGROUND:
The maintenance agreement consists primarily of a final inspection
report, preventive maintenance inspections every three (3) years and
an indemnification agreement for the County. The responsibility for
the integrity of the facility falls with the owner. The County's
only involvement is the assurance that the maintenance agreement is
to be followed by the owner.
Once the agreement has been fully executed, it will be recorded in
the Clerk of the Courts Office.
# 091
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Page 3 0~
Summary of Information: (Continued)
MATOACA DISTRICT-
Residental Owner/Developer Purpose Type
Timbermill North Timbermill North Quality & Detention
Homeowners Assoc., Quantiy
Tnc.
# osz
0
3
r
0
m
0
m
r
r
n
d
I
.D
G
OJ
T7
n
d
C
~I `rll~
TIMBER TRAIL DRIVE ~ ~ #
(STATE ROUTE N0. 4360) ~ ~
~G
---r--~- ------~~ i.-- ----- ------
r- ---
r--
~ 8 ~ ~
B 1 I i , GLEN TARA SECTION 5 A
-
dip
L I
I ~
_
I ~
I
I
$ n N 2'45'45'W I m w ~-`
~ ~
,. n --124.21- ~ m ~ ~
~ I ~` U I ( )I= DENOTES DIST. TO BURLEY TIE-LWE
c~ I
~ ~, ~
` I
I NB2'45'45'W ~335.66~
~ _ _
~1 I g
y 30.00 T
t _111Q.011 _ ~ _ _ ~8~6~ _ g ~~~
p W
I
l ~ - ~ - ~ >~
s~o o.in m.~~
~~~a~~~4
i~z~4+4~4
~5~~es~e
~~~~~~~~~~~@I
_ y~ I1wl
~m~~~$~5~~l0
w y
bd
trJ
~ ~
~~
r
(~
= z
~ ~
~ ~~ 0°'' ~
~
fl)
te= ~
a i 0
C~7
o " ~ ~°
v x ;,
'~
"7~
b ~
~;
' w
t~7
~
£
A
d °~
o
~
0
~
~ Cd
z
~ n
Z
~
~~ ~ ~~ ~
n w I..-I
' o
N
~~"
z ~
N ° r
~~ r o
~~
~
2z
~~~ ~
w ~ ~ z
~o o
N°~
w~~ ~~ ~
y ~
w. ~r ~
m
n m
- ~: ' /r n
/4 ~~oo ~/ /~~~ ;~p
y ~ a~ ~~
J r ° ~~
,_
'~`~ ~
N ~ ~\
~~ ~
~~ ~ ro ~~ \ \
~ w
ti~ ~C
_ f
~h~
~~ ~
~ W
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
\ rn
~~
m \
(11
I \\
y ~.
S \
1
1
O
5
i ~
w~-A~0
~~~~~~
z~`I I
__~~f
~~GI'~
I I
-C
~ r
m
I
C
m
1093
\ ~X
\ r r-+
\ N;
\ ~~
Meeting Date•
~ CHESTERFIELD COUN
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 ofd, 1.
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number: 7. D. l o. a.
Submit- Request for Permission to Construct an all weather driveway
within two Existing 50' Rights of Way Known as Riverview
Drive and Riverview Court and to Encroach within Existing
Easements
Coun Administrator's Comments:
~e~~~ /~
Staff recommends that the Board of
Board Action Requested: Supervisors grant Gary H. Loving and Noriko
Loving permission to construct an all weather
driveway within two existing 50' rights of way for access to lot 6,
River's Crest, and to encroach on existing easements on lot 6, with
said driveway, as shown on the attached sketch; subject to the
execution of a license agreement.
Summary of Information:
Mr. Loving has requested permission to construct an all weather
driveway within Riverview Drive and Riverview Court for access to lot
6, River's Crest, section 1, and to encroach on existing easements
located on lot 6 with said driveway for access to a proposed house.
This request has been reviewed by staff and staff has found no impact
on the County.
ssistant Director of Utilities
Preparers ~~ Title:
w r ec r.
County Ad#rrfiistrator:
094
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
.. - ~ ~, VICINITY SKETCH
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AN ALL WEATHER DRIVEWAY WITHIN
TWO EXISTING 5D' RIGHTS OF WAY KNOWN AS RIVERVrEaT"DRZVE-AND RIVERVIEW
COURT .~~1Q~t0A~CH WITHIN EXISTING EASEMENTS
i % VI G Iff ~ i i
,s!I I ^ o a
'' I ' q- ti o
~ o'I ~ ohm Allan Ur, Uapl O Jv~% I ~Qi, ~~Q::I
,~;,, Oihlc Coll 2 ~~. o,~
ail 9 J 2~ I ~ 51
o ~ O ~ 1
I
_ 1 SCREAMERSVILL;:
s.
Op~rt ~y N~/NSUg10 ~ ~* •
•.~ as +,.' H ~4
^ ~}~~ 9 ~ .MAAIIN/eel ~`ra ~~~ 9'~ ~•
A '.~ ,
:~I \\
, `) \
f ` ~~
~'
1PrVIfY/ `\
:A
WALTIIALL
PARK 1~ `~
. ~ .\
-FOX HILL--'~ \~
CCTA TCC ''~;
' Cllannei
tiV alb}tilll- ' . .__. v
yep
`~ ,513na ~~t
~r~` Oda
~yt
5\~~d `c
i~ 1 ~ ~
~~`~ z ~
~ `~ ~~~ a~1S ~`
-I-- ----G~•--- o{--- a
5r ~~ ) ~
~~~ ~ '•
~ ~~ ~
•.1
IFi, ~:'
.. ~~~:
//C
~a
,~
~a
t\~;
~. yq '
T'• AUS11 i'
` !2.''
a o~ ~.
i~ ms
~'
''0
\~t
~:i
II
~?
i_ _ . _.
I
-- \:
G~ '
'py 1 I
09~
-;----
i
y
:• r ~ o n ~
It
cA 'p'r:v 8 Ga ~ ~ ;,, ~ g
~' c (//NJ 91Y1S ~ ~..1 ~ t U F<L7
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°j~ ti
d •>h ~J
~ 000 ti ~ ~ ~ `° v `Y ~ ~ ~i y
Jr 2Wh ~ ~E' S. N~ ~ ~14'~ N
~: rv ~ `~------------- _ C~ o e N `~ yQ~
a • O ^{
~~ o ~ I ~~ ~, ~ ~x ~ c ~ o
hh ~~ ~ .~ Q
M OS 9L0 5- ~1ij' a
b I ~t
~. b ~. ~ZO< ~I __ ~ 11
~ ,, ,
J 6P oPr M / / h ~
~~ ,
1~ o ~, ~\
hi~ ~ b 'k'' ° ~ M.or, l-=s_ o ~~ j~,r nr'~ ` ~ ~~ b ~i~~ 8 c`~~-.~' _ ~.° *..~
O b' Q-.~ ~u 1`
y~ ~ S b b 6 1 ~ ~ 1 I tf \ ~r .i ~ bah ` $ Rl ~ ~O~ _~_ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~~.
4i R: ~ n~j I .I Z4 "-~h/ ~.rr~~,y~m `,.""" ^1-7~.~~_11 ~~7-O'Sef<---~'
t~~o tiTl, ~ I W r ~ ^ai n ~I n`,~ x4 `~ ` ~1 n _ a rN II~j7 1 ~ \\ 1
N~~ h 77 ^ r h <t<C M•Of,/ ~ ~~ ~°~.~' ~ ]W ~ ~ ~h _ 1~ 1 \ 1
~s3~ Ea V -+'~ $ n N 11~s- I i_1 I 'n W1~y~u1 bq ',~ ~ 1 1 I~~~ ~~~
~~ffi0 ~ ~ ~ ~_ w i m~ pt '' ~`_q ~ 1 ~i~
1, ~. h V ^ r ~ rr - 3.of, oC.7 N
:: ~ zH• I o~^ r.~'M•oC,It.ll s_~ w- ~~. I 41 N ~$~oH +~• a, _~ ~ - Q /' _.-
~.;: V -..f9yRt_ v __ ~~-~ ~_~_ ~`~~ ir~~N_Il•~ ~ {~ ~ W mw +~
,~i~,,~.~ N' ~ ~..fl'P9~ I lG'GY'l. - ~ i75.19~ ~ I g~heJY. 1i m V ~Uy
o^ ~.~.bti 1 a ~ 012 ~R`
w M J~,r ~ ~I/1 f° ++ W
' y rc .. ~ ~n ~! /o o I_._ o I W 551.7] P~ a, ~ , ~ ~ ~7
.~ W .tr Y'~r «C6C °a Y4+ o off, > '--fl ITy1r . / 12 1 "' b ~ ss~7T
n h '-3.nr,r:..ll tih y~ N 'I ~;';'% -.... ~ per/ ~~ a, b ~ t~
h ,o r p I'Y rt P/o !~, , 3
,ewb "` 3Np2 I W ~/ W SPS.r7' a Nw 'a, - I .,
8 ~ ~ .- iTI°'H' °~ 1~ b
~d
. o ----r1 ~, ~ 1 ~
------ ~
-~ Q ~- o ' ' < W 619.70' 1 1 _ _1n `
~ ^ T Q „ L n - _ N 17'19 I4 '1 ~ ~~ ~
~,~ o ~ I ,.
ry I W -
b h _ N j7~o II . ~\
m 4l ^ 1 e1e
Y ;7 J F
i j 667. 1` W 175 fie ~°~°: a°
N .N I7t4 ~i~wN ~w. ~ Ay
W
3 ~~~~ ~;~ ~ ~; ~
_-~_ 1 0 ,r~ ~ go hm ~ b
2 w~ dd
I !I ..~ ~I y. g ~~CQ
al^NbI~
~~OF
.- f•1~i~p V2p 1~1.. >GiiLZ 21S'~Y<4h9h Ny~j M V
~~.~~W~RSU~U C~?~ o~l.'u a~L"u .• d
~' ~~oo~lH~o}wm~ow8<.~L^FL N4 _ ~ H y~ p
~C~'~aJ~^~ww}~~'~~~~~Z~YIwfZ.l v ~ i
096
'), /~. ~~
.~.~.~
~ w
Meeting Date:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Page 1 0~
7.D.10.b.
Sub•eCt• Request for Permission to Install a Water Service within two
=~= Unimproved Dedicated Rights of Way known as Riverview Court
and Riverview Drive
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Staff recommends approval subject to the
applicant adhering to the terms and conditions outlined in this
agenda.
Summary of Information:
John C. Petree, Jr. has requested to extend a private water service
within dedicated rights of way to serve a proposed house on Lot 59 in
Cameron Farms.
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1. Acquisition of easements, licenses, permits, etc. by and at
the expense of the property owner.
2. Execution and recordation of an agreement acceptable to the
County Attorney between the property owner and the County.
3. Private water service lines will not be permitted parallel
to and along roadways maintained by VDOT.
~ Director of Utilities
Preparer• Titfe•
David H. Welchons
County Administrator: #
097
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
~' VICINITY SKETCH
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL WATER SERVICE - RIVERVIEW~ CDUfRT,,
AND RIVERVI;EW DRIVE ~~ •,
.,~~... _.. ~~__, of .._;__,--- 0~ i Q ...
~t ei "•~-~ Atlantir. Oapt a JU i F
- Qrhls Coll ~ ~Q• I 7r~' ~v`"' ~
' ! ~l s ~ 2y I .I
~ \~ ~• ~ ~ ~
• +•~"r°S"'"f` n U SCREAMERSVt~L1;:
,ynrF'^~ w -- .._ _ . .. _... _ - 1 "Armes. nA F--- a ~ ..
~ ° C:7,fA0
ti I _~'a'•-if
'.., ' I ~~ ~.° ,~aLG+
\ ~
tArvrNf ~~..• \ i ~:
PARX ~ti~~, i ~ '~~ ~ ° ~ '
:~~
. mar/ 1 i "~ .
a
...... .. _ . -FOX H I L1-•?,.~-.,w~ :naca .. ... - - - - -i ^ •1
- ESTATES ~-r 1..L;:,;_i~ as rfrap ~ ''~~ , ~i
•~ •~..• ! ~ ' ~ i JAR;.
=i6 I„ .. Paint-j ~af.~ ./;s, '\ `~ ^ ~'~ `'s
w0. ~ ~ .: . ~ . \.
~° ~.~ ,
- '"L...
_,'~. , . • ~ _ . ~ ~ island ~ '• '. ~
- _ ~• - __ ~^~ • Poini of Rd
s lay - - '~ I
.,
~°~~ •$unkEn Is d ' ; i
' . -- Ch~el
tiYalihall-~- ,.
zt
~~~ . t ~Sl°pd ~it~
~~ ovd
~t
~a
o` . 15~a
y~,p ~~~~ ~~S
`~~ ~
•~
~•-• -
~~
~-_ -\f
\G~ I •
~,Oy I
r
Fr
X98
N/,~'
1 ~"/Ek ~ y V-tia 13~''~
r ~ I
,S
' ' N
i I~
E'n . A` ; ~ '
1 \ 1
~
~ w /
~ \ I
rl '/(EX 8Aj ~ 1
~ ~ 1i
I ~
!
1 r I \
/
/
1
I r
1 I I
r
i ~y/F Jf,/ 1
1 1
I
r / ~_
~
J" 14~~) ~ 1 , I
~ ~
--
- 1 , /
- - y /EX. 7/ r
~I ~
~ /EX. P)
TAX yAP ;
35-13_~~ ~ r /
I
, ___.
TAX N,AF r 1
1
%
EigS 1
r
; I
I
(EX. 8) 11
1
r
I ,
I
r
I I
i
11
a'S8'02' E L I
;
, 1
lo> +oo.sn• I
I
11.0 AG. I
(0.1.3 C. DISTU BE~
Ca0.40 ,I
TE\
APPRO MAOF \
LpCA N GRAS
~~ISn gE ~
RQA~.c TED Ji
~ k ,~_
\~ m
5) ~'l (EX. 47) 00• (EX. 48)
\ 1z 11
\\
. \
~U~ .STAT~
,
r100
1 r
n 1
~ ~ /
rv 1
1 ,
1 r
~ r I
~ r r
1 ,
W ~ r
I
~ r
r r
rv , r
. r 1
Z ~i ; (fxi 51
~ , 1
' ~1 ~
r ,
r r
1 i
r , f
r ,
I I l
(~a ~/~E'
~9nr._ 17A/L
r ,
1 ,
1 ~
1 ~
1
~ 1 / I
2
~ ~ 107' ~
r
+ ~'1
+ ~ ~;
~~
.,
+,
~ ,
~ ,
+ +
~ ,
. ,
+ ,
+ ,
~ ,
+ +
~ , r
,. ~
+
\+~ +
N + r
-IO.I~_ IJC) W1Ul: x Jl,' ~ LUI'V4 yp T STOP S/CN TO 1
~J_ iEX/ BY~DEbfLOPERNSTAII
4s - _ -- L STj/yC JO, R~`
' °~<61' l
1 ' I / 0
, I
1 ~ \ I
, /
/ , ~ `
r
/ I
1 1 i \
I 1 1 \
I 1 /
I r
1 I
' ' I
r / 1
4) I r
1 !
(EX J) rl ,
rp 1 (EX ~) ~
~' 3 ti~ 4 ~ (Ex. 1)
' ' ~
1 ~ 1 r J`
i , / / ,
I r \ 1
2.8 •AC. 1 '
(q.14 Dl~7UR ED- ~I~EA)
~ Carp ~ II
1 ~ L1
1 i ~ r PROPOSED 20'P MANENT
/• r ORAINA~E ESMT.
.+, / o• /
_ _~_~ 1 _ ~_ l o.
r \ ; ~X15ANC O/RT ROA /
~ , TO Bf ERADICA IED, /
'+ \ X1.8 ACti` A~0 SEEDED. /
(0. d$ AGt D/S~TJ BED AREA) /l / o
+ C~0.4.'~ r i.
+ \ ~ ~
' 7
~ ~ ', /
~ \ ~ / ,
+ ~ Zo•GccM. /
+ ' FJ4SE. t n
X. 51) + (£X. 57.)\ ~ ,' (EX. 5J) ~~ _Ib fE . 64)
i o.s5 Ac. 1 ~ l'
10 +~, '+9
+
+ ~,\
` ~
+ ,
. ,
+. +
3 0 A~
0 07 A DISTUR ED AREA)
X0.40
~ \ gE G0~INAGE
gERMRE NT D^D _~
F AC.I DlS~'~i/F
45 '
~ ~;
,~ ,
+, ,
+ +
~ ~~ ~~o~PSED
~~
+
/ ;,
' ~ ~
+ ,/
/ I
I '
70~ / 6
~ '1
1 // ;;
/
/ / I`
/
~r
1 r
1 ~
1 ~
I 1
I ~
1 ,
1 ~
I ,
1 ,
I r
~ I
i~
r
r
r
1
r,
1,
1,
I ,
I
I ,
1 1
INS
1
~ '
1 ,
1 ,
1,
I ,
1
r
rr
rl
~ r
I r
1,
r,
1,
~IZc
1 ,
''I
1 ,
r I
1 ,
'~ /
I ,
~ I
1,
~l \ '
~~
r
1 0
1
+ ~ j.~/ -
Y ,
% y _ -
/
% , ~
" ~' ~
~
1- ~ ~
a 1
/ %
i '
1
k--
'
PROPO D ,
~ ~ .~
PRpP05 D RO . 94. 0 gT ?~~ ~~ ~. 50' MP. i
g4' +I~ 5 C ' _ '~'~ V ~ ~J I TUR AROUND / +~ ~ ~
=61.07• g.41 ~f R ,1 ~l~^,,.. ^' ~~- 1 fAGEMENT ~/
4• 1 ~
1 ~ ~ ~ '' R _ r~ B: Bb~AC:''+ , vARlASCrr ~ / /;i /4c
_ s ' _ ~~ ~ ^ ~~ A~` ,DlS7Uf~BED AR , WIDTH/ ~~/ ,7
- '
~ t0 / q~ERATA flyy~~ /1.
_ s - 1 ^ ~ Ap0 nNG pRi ; ~~ ~~ 45 =,r ~ ~ ~ "j 1p/~pp f~/ % /
~ ~g +~~ ~ E~SNEOES ~, + /lam - ~ /~--'~- - ~ '4BE~ EN~~A/ /
+ ~ + '2 + : + + / +
~ i ~ / T ~ / I
~ i
~ //~~ ~
,y A,+ ;~_ 1 _ 99
ti
Meeting Date:
~ CHESTERFIELD COUNT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Page 1 0~. ~
7.D.11.
Sub~ect• Conveyance of an easement to Virginia Electric and Power
~_ Company
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the Board of
Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator to execute an easement with Virginia Electric and Power
Company for underground service in conjunction with the widening of
Robious Road.
Summarv~of Information:
The Vepco easement shown on the attached plat is required for the
relocation of service in conjunction with the widening of Robious
Road. This request has been reviewed by staff and staff has found no
impact on the County.
i,/~~ ~`~ ~ tle: Assistant Director of Utilities
Preparers
iJ. Edward Beck, J .
Coun administrator: #
~/ 10 0
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
VICINITY SKETCH
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
WIDENING OF ROBIOUS ROAD
.. _. -~
I ~
.~ Creek ~ ~ i J MES CI;
`..
~'
~ .
_ (i _ 711 I _' - -- ---- -- ...---- - --- ----
o \~ ; / ~ -- --- -----
o °m
~ ,Q
Gs
o .~yi i ~
~ `~ a~~
~. -- _ - _ .
O - ___- -
~ C
l~ ~~
aoaEa~s
I- Miiic~ I~ESWI~ I \\
~s LRmcE_RO N .pc I
~I - ~, j
- ,.,.
N _ _ ._ ___- ___._____ . .
Leo ~4~t ~y°s 9 ~ Uny°N ~~a
f Q ~
9
~`oss~xcs I ~ .SAr ,vo i
gWAY Ci I. --~- / ~ ~ 4j~
~ CROSS ~ ~, ~~ ~ - ~ ,> o ~RlvER
~~4 CREEK , S~~?° Wit °A ~ ~ ~~lus
,r L. AKEW00 _ RQ CiR
~ c. Nib c--- ---„ ~, qQ
/~ ~ ~ 50~ - ~ ~ r
P ~~~" ~`~ QfIC W
,. $~~~G SOUTHWELL m r,-'-~._~BRICSiOC /~ _cJ'p/ _ ~-~ENOOWE ~ .aA~~\eO~p
io t I o SiI
' ~ '. ,
G
NETRFRFlELO \b ~ '
g 1\~y£ I -
101
~ n/f Ashinoff
~~
+352'
..Y
~ '
N
EDGE OF EXISTING RIQ3T OF f
~0'
EDGE OF PROPOSID RIt~1T OF
ti~
ti
~M1iX
^~
~r~~ l
,~ ~' /
1
30~
n/f Richardson
13630 Robious Read
COUN'T'Y OF CHESTERFIELD
150+ acres
refer to plat dated 7/6/90
by Balzer & Assoc., Inc.
for full description of
property.
-.~~: _:s
_ ~.
~`
• ~~
~ ~ ~~~~ ~.
i ti7
r~..r..rw.r+wr. ~v~r~ ..
~~~ Plat to Accompany
Right of Wa y Agreement
vmc~u powEx COR 16
Virginia Electric and Power Company
District MIDI~7I~-)ZAN
Legend District
Midlothian
-- Location of Boundary Lines of Right of Way Oftice
Central Division
Estimate Number
05- 205-197
Farm No 7zWe9tJan a9t Page 5 of 5 Date, _(~ By
(FarmxM975560~01 ~'~Q 7~ CL~1
County State
sterf field VA
Plat Number
0093-0039
Grid Number
`~c;~nn2 1 fl
~ na.~~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 0~
AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 26, 1993 Ttem Number: 7.D.12.
Subject:
Approval of Utilities Contract for Timbermill North - Contract
Number 92-0077
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this
contract and authorize the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents.
Summary of Information:
This project includes the extension of 780 L.F.± of 6" and 8" water
lines and 540 L.F.± of 8" wastewater lines. 170 L.F.± of 8"
wastewater lines is additional work requested by the Utilities
Department to provide. service to the adjoining property.
Developer: Eagle Construction of Virginia, Inc.
Contractor: Ward and Stancil, Inc.
Contract Amount: Estimated Total - $ 51,542.00
Total Estimated County Cost:
Sewer (Additional) - $ 3,376.47
Cash Refund
Estimated Developer Cost: - $ 48,165.53
Code:
(Offsite)
- 5N-572W0-E4C
District:
Dale
Preparer• Title• Assistant Director of Utilities
J. E. Beck, Jr.
County Administrator: c~~~'\
# 1Q~
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
~~ i 4
. ~~ ~;
~~:
Meeting Date:
rl t~. i
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
May 26, 1993
Item Number:
Page 1 0~
7.D.13.
Sum Wit= Acceptance of a Parcel of Land containing 0.74 Acres, more or
less, from Tarmac Mid-Atlantic, Inc. for the Dutch Gap Boat
Ramp
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors
accept the conveyance of this parcel and authorize the County
Administrator to execute the necessary deed.
Summary of Information:
Tarmac Mid-Atlantic, Inc. has executed a Deed of Dedication conveying a
parcel of land containing 0.74 acres, more or less, for the Dutch Gap
Boat Ramp.
Preparers
Title• Assistant Director of Utilities
County Administrator: ~'.~1~
# 105
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
j"^
~~: -
~
F'_'_.;
~i7F
'
~
.y-
.
t .~ `
~^~'' o
o ~°
o a
_° $ ~,
~o
y:. o v
`: o ~"~
~, ~9
~,..
3- a pro
~~ ~~N
~aW ~~tW
~~~ Wti~
a~ ~Q Q~Q
'i. ~'
'°...;
j?~- - ~
~ <~~ ~Q
~ .n ~1 '41
~ C
O
~,-~
- ~
.
ego ~P
~Qh ~Qh
y
_ . W
. ~ ore ohe
w~'i
~Y • - e m ~~
:.
!~:_; W. W
~
~;. ;
~~ a
:-
~;"
n; -
~'-;.:
~
`
1a;'
{'.-
y
e ~
_~_, t=~--- -- - -
r~
~y
1p
"J
~~~~~~
~.
-4.
v
J
a
~~:
0p
~~
oe
~ ~
W /
/ ,~~ !
i
Q
~ T ~
U ~
~\
~ m
"~ ~ ~
~ a
IL
~~~~ pux>
cx _W
_ 6
o o _
~
~ 9
J~~ jzU i
~W
t`R~~
~ w~
v0`
~
~, m
~ ~
Q
,
d
\
Q ~
Q
~~ ~7
~ 0
~ s 0
t
v~
~ ~ p
_
~ d
oo~ a
h~aQ~
~~V~V Z"s
~~~=
m
~
a
's
Q J (/~ v ~ s
`C sh (~ f
V
Q
~
-'
v o 4
n
L~~~ ~
~ ., ~ j
~ ~
N F
~W ~V a
d
--- --=_y~_ ~~d ---
.- QN~XO.~
/p0-g7p_p0-/0-90-660 /P'/Y1 -~.
'OJ y~ikOd
s', 7/d1.~d7d d/N/9d
D
~0 t
R°o
?$
I
~ ~ '
~p
b~ ._
~~
~~
1 Q: ~;:
T,.
• Y>..
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 0~?
May 26, 1993 AGENDA ADDITIOPJ
Meeting Date: Item Number: ~ • n • 14
Subject:
Award of Construction Contract to Woolfolk Construction Company for
the Renovation of the Meadowdale Library
Conunty Administrantor's C-o_mDments:
Board Action Requested:
Approval of contract award to Woolfolk Construction Company in the
amount of $598,400 for the Renovation of Meadowdale Library
Summary of Information:
Woolfolk Construction Company was low
contractors for the total renovation of tY
Building into the Meadowdale Library. Thy
and construction of the library including
in the amount of $598,400. In addition,
the bid for replacement of the shingle
$21,750. The roof replacement will not be
will be evaluated later if sufficient
contingency.
bidder out of eleven
e old Meadowdale Medical
s includes total gutting
~ fire suppression system
provisions were made in
roof in the amount of
awarded at this time but
funds are available in
Preparers obert R. Rivers Title:Construction N
for William H. Howell
County Administrator:___
Attachments: ~ Yes ^ N o
0
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
8nmmary of Information :tContinnedl
Budget and Ma.na.~ement Comments:
2 ref 2
Sufficient funds are available in the Meadowdale Library project budget to award the
construction contract to Woolfolk.
.V..., ,
Director
D
~~ ` ,, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 oi' 4
~~"`"" AGENDA ADDITION
Meeting Date: ~~~, ~,~ , ~Q a z Item Number: ~ • D • 15
Sine t:
Set Public Hearing for Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan and Related
Ordinance Amendments
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Planning Staff recommends that the Board set a public hearing for June
23, 1993, to consider the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan and related
ordinance amendments.
Summary of Information:
The Jefferson Davis Corridor planning effort began in the spring of
1992. An extensive citizen participation effort has resulted in the
following:
Broad base residential and business support for the Plan and
its related Ordinance Amendments;
The formation of a business persons group: the Jefferson Davis
Association;
A positive, proactive, optimistic citizenry committed to
achieving the vision they have crafted of their community's
future .
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan addresses the following critical
concerns:
The preservation of existing, sound neighborhoods;
Pre arer: ~ Title: nin
P
Thomas E. obson B:1MAY2693/AGENDA3/gok
County Administrator: #
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
'- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page ? o~
The need to rehabilitate targeted deteriorating neighborhoods;
The revitalization of the existing business corridor;
The redevelopment of unused and underused land;
The beginning of a new era of public/private partnership
designed to begin the area's new "vision."
Important recommendations of this plan include:
An increased commitment to public/private initiatives;
The hiring of a revitalization coordinator;
State Enterprise Zone designation;
Target housing rehabilitation in certain residential areas
with long term viability;
The coordinated enforcement of County and State codes;
The protection of commercial and industrial land from
residential encroachment;
A land use approach that further encourages economic
development;
The preservation and promotion of the area's historic
resources;
The three main goals that the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan sets .out to
accomplish are as follows:
Make the Jefferson Davis Corridor a better place to live and
work by balancing economic demands of development with the
needs of people for a sense of place, attractiveness, and
comfort;
Revitalize the Jefferson Davis corridor by strengthening
residential neighborhoods;
Promote the economic development of
promoting the availability of work
opportunities.
"~ 3
the corridor, thus
places offering job
t
. ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
`~~ ~' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
,.. f Page 3 of 4 .
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
The Land Use Plan illustrates the recommended future development pattern
for the Jefferson Davis Corridor area. The Land Use Plan for the
Jefferson Corridor:
Proposes a mixed land use pattern including residential,
commercial and industrial uses;
Provides flexibility for a variety of uses;
Designates flexible redevelopment areas, the plan identifies
redevelopment opportunities.
Encourages the value of industrial land use to the County's
economic health.
Designates significant amounts of land for future industrial
use.
Housing improvement is key to the revitalization of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor. Some of the factors that were considered in evaluating
residential areas in the Corridor include: the amount and spatial
pattern of substandard housing, vacant structures and land, the presence
of residential zoning, and the impact of surrounding uses.
Highlights of the Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
follow:
Direct public investment to designate Neighborhood Target
Areas to provide coordinated housing rehabilitation and other
revitalization efforts and leverage additional private sector
investment;
Control deterioration in or adjacent to residential
neighborhoods through spot demolition, code enforcement and/or
purchase. An action recommended is to continue an active code
enforcement program;
Develop and implement a strategy to address the special needs
and problems associated with the corridor's mobile home
housing. An action recommended is to include all mobile home
parks in the active code enforcement program.
Economic growth is the cornerstone of every community's livelihood. A
major component of this plan is to improve the overall economic
environment of the Jefferson Davis Corridor area. The Business
Development Strategy recommends the following:
. '~
~~~ ~,
,~u..
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
Summary of Information: (Continued)
Page 4 0~
S~-aff the Revitalization Coordinator Position to implement the
business strategy and in doing so to coordinate and assist the
business community;
The pursuit of Enterprise Zone designation for a portion of
the corridor;
The establishment of a Community Development Corporation.
Among recommendations regarding Historic Resources, the plan supports
the nomination of the Falling Creek Ironworks to the National Register
of Historic Places, as a National Historic Landmark.
In conclusion, the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan seeks to make better
use of the economic resources of the area and to encourage a pleasant,
highly livable and workable environment for its residents. It proposes
flexibility in future land use decisions in support of economic
development related activities, while also addressing incompatible land
use issues. The Jefferson Davis Corridor area is a special place with
a unique character and history that distinguishes it within Chesterfield
County. This plan addresses the preservation and enhancement of these
special qualities. The sense of uniqueness and pride of place resulted
in the "vision" that is the. plan's guiding force.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 18, 1993, and after
community input voted unamiously to recommend approval of the Jefferson
Davis Corridor Plan and related ordinance amendment.
JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SUMMARY
GENERAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS
USE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
Retail 4.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.'
Restaurant 4.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.'
Fast Food Restaurant 4.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.'
Shopping Center 4.4 per 1,000 sq. ft.'
Industrial 1 per employee
Commercial Paving Asphalt' • °• e
Industrial Paving AsphaltZ• °• 6, Tar and Gravel z. `. e
and 6 inches stone
Curb and Gutter Yes -may be waived by Environmental
Engineering'
Interior Landscaping No
Perimeter Landscaping Yes -front only. Landscape with trees.
Parking Space Size 162 sq. ft.
1Can be reduced by 10$ if sidewalk system is provided.
ZStaff is preparing a separate Countywide ordinance amendment to provide for
a waiver of these requirements by the Planning Commission if the property is
designated as a County historical site.
'Delineation if needed for traffic control.
°Staff is preparing a separate Countywide ordinance amendment to provide for
a waiver of these requirements by the Planning Commission under certain
circumstances.
SGravel would be acceptable in track mounted equipment areas.
5/19/93 1 WP/MAY93/MAY47/dm
JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SUMMARY
SETBACKS FOR OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
(I-1) DISTRICTS
USE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
BUILDINGS
Front -Major Arterial 25'
Front -Other 25'
Side 0 - 20'
Rear 0 - 30'
PARKING
Front -Major Arterial 0 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
50' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Front -Other 0 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
50' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Side 0 - 10 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
30' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Rear 0 - 25 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
40' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
5/19/93 2 WP/MAY93/MAY47/dm
JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SUMMARY
SETBACKS FOR INDUSTRIAL (I-2 and I-3) DISTRICTS
USE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
BUILDINGS
Front -Major Arterial 60'
Front -Other 60'
Side 30'
Rear 30'
PARKING
Front -Major Arterial 0 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
50' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Front -Other 0 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
50' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Side 0 - 10 Automobiles, Vans
Pick-Up Trucks
30' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
Rear 0 - 25 Automobiles, Vans,
Pick-Up Trucks
40' Large Trucks,
Construction Equipment
5/19/93 3 WP/MAY93/MAY47/dm
JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SUMMARY
BUFFERS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL'
DISTRICTS
DISTRICT PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION
O-1 252.3. ~
O, O-2 252.3• a
C-1 252.3.;
B-1, C-2 252.3• a
6-2, C-3 252.3• ,
C-4 252, 3, a
6-3, B-T, C-5 252, 3, 4
M-1, I-1 252.3• ~
M-2, I-2 752.3. ~
M-3, I-3 1002.3 ;
1Buffers adjacent to agricultural zoning shall be determined based upon the
designation of the property on the General Plan.
ZI.andscaping required.
3Solid masonry wall to screen outside storage, loading docks, overhead
doors, service areas, trash collection, storage areas, vehicle storage areas, and
areas with other similar uses.
4Reduction could be permitted where adjacent to agricultural and residential
property that is determined to be undevelopable.
5/19193 4 WP/MAY93/MAY47/dm
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
CHESTERFIELD 1978 AS AMENDED BY AMENDING AND
REENACTING SECTIONS 21-67.41, 21-67.42, _
21.1-219, 21.1-224, 21.1-227, 21.1-245 AND 21.1-253
AND BY ADDING SECTIONS 21.1-255.11, 21.1-255.12, 21.1-255.13
21.1-255.14, 21.1-255.15 AND 21.1-255.16
RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, PRIMARILY
WITHIN THE AREA OF THE JEFFERSON DAVIS CORRIDOR PLAN
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County:
(1) That SECTIONS 21-b7.41 and 21-67.42 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield as
amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS GENERALLY
0 0 0
DIVISION 11.4. HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT
Sec. 21-67.41 Areas of Ap licability
The Hi~hway Corridor District shall include all lands as specified in Section 21 1
255.12 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield
Sec. 21-b 7.42 Development Standards
Refer to the applicable sections of Chapter 21 1 for all special development standards
for Hi~hwav Corridor Districts All portions of Chapter 21 including uses that are not
s ecificaily modified within Highway Corridor Districts shall remain in full force and
effect.
0 0 0
(2) That SECTIONS 21.1-219, 21.1-224, 21.1-227, 21.1-245 AND 21.1-253 of the Code
of the County of Chesterfield as amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follows:
ARTICLE 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
0 0 0
DIVISION 2. PARKING
0 0 0
Sec. 21.1-219. Design Standards for Off-Street Parkin
0 0 0
Surface Treatment.
(1) Except for single family residential and farm uses, ae~ areas where track
mounted eauioment is stored or displayed or in I-2 and I-3 Districts, driveways and
parking areas shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete, or other similar
material. Except in I-2 and I-3 Districts, surface treated parking areas and drives shall
be prohibited. Except as detailed in the Environmental Engineering Department's
Reference Manual C-concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the perimeter
of all paved driveways and parking areas. Other curbing material of similar quality,
such as brick or cobblestone, shall be permitted at the discretion of the Director of
Planning or Planning Commission through site or schematic plan review. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian traffic.
0 0 0
(4) Except as detailed in the Environmental En ineering Department's
Reference Manual.
,the perimeter of driveways and parking
areas not utilizing concrete curb and gutter shall be delineated by a permanent
means such as bumper blocks, railroad ties, or timbers (having a minimum end
dimension of six (6) inches by eight (8) inches) or similar such treatment.
Delineation materials shall be secured with a minimum of two (2) re-bars to the
ground, pavement, or other feature which is permanently attached to the ground.
0 0 0
2 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING
0 0 0
Sec. 21.1-224. Plant Material Specifications
0 0 0
~g~, Perimeter Landscaping
0 0 0
10 Perimeter Landscaping H
a. At least one (1) large deciduous tree for each fifty (50) lineal
feet.
0 0 0
3 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
DIVISION 4. BUFFERS AND SCREENING
0 0 0
Sec. 21.1-227. General Provisions for Buffers and Screenin
0 0 0
(i) Except for buffers required by the Board of Supervisors as a condition of zoning
or by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the requirements for buffers and screening may be
waived and/or modified by the Planning Commission during schematic or site plan review
and approval under any of the following conditions:
(1) If the strict application of the provisions of this Division reduces the
usable area of a lot, due to lot configuration or size to a point which would preclude
a reasonable use of the lot, buffer and/or screening requirements may be waived or
modified provided the side or rear of a building, a barrier, and/or the land.between
that building and the property line, has been specifically designed to~ minimize
adverse impact through a combination of architectural and landscaping techniques.
(2) Where the building, a barrier and/or the land between that building and
the property line has been specifically designed to minimize adverse impact through
a combination of architectural and landscaping techniques.
(3) Where the adjoining land is designated in the County's adopted
comprehensive plan for a use which would not require the provision of buffers or
screens.
(4) Where the adjoining property is used for any public purpose other than a
school, day care center or hospital.
(5) Where adjacent residential or agricultural property is used for a
compatible use which has been permitted by the Board of Zoning Appeals as a
special exception or the Board of Supervisors as a conditional use.
(6) Where the topography is such that the requirements of this Division
would not be effective.
(7) Between uses that are to be developed under a common development
plan.
(8) Where adiacent residential or agricultural property is undevelopable for
residential uses because it is a resource protection area
0 0 0
4 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
ARTICLE 6. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
OFFICE. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
DIVISION 2. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS -EMERGING GROWTH AREAS
0 0 0
Sec. 21.1-245. Areas of Applicability and Exemptions
~ The standards in this Division shall apply to all development in office,
commercial and industrial districts with the exception of those areas outlined in Divisions
3L a~ 4 and 5 of this Article.
0 0 0
5 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
DIVISION 3. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS POST DEVELOPMENT
0 0 0
Sec. 21.1-253. Yard Re uirements for Office Commercial and Industrial
Districts.
Except where lesser setbacks are permitted by Sections 21 1 255 15 or 21 1 255 16
the following yard requirements shall apply to any zoning lot or parcel:
(a) Setbacks along major arterials All buildings, drives and parking areas shall
have a minimum fifty (50) foot setback from the proposed rights of way of major arterials
as indicated on the General Plan. as .amended, except that the building setback in an I-2
District shall be increased to sixty (60) feet and in an I-3 District, to ninety (90) feet.
Within these setbacks, landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Perimeter
Landscaping B.
(b) Front and corner side yards The front and corner side yard setback for
buildings shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet from public rights of way other than major
arterials except that in an I-2 District, building setbacks shall be increased to sixty (60) feet
and in an I-3 District to ninety (90) feet. The setback for drives and parking areas shall be
a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from existing or proposed rights of way. Within these
setbacks, landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Perimeter Landscaping A.
(c) Side yards. The side yard setbacks for buildings shall be a minimum of twenty
(20) feet, except in the I-2 and I-3 Districts side yards shall be increased to thirty (30) feet.
One (1) foot shall be added to each side yard for each one (1) foot that the building height
adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five (45) feet.
(d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard setback for buildings shall be thirty (30)
feet. One (1) foot shal I be added to each rear yard for each one (1) foot that the building
height adjacent thereto exceeds forty-five (45) feet.
(e) Yards for gasoline pumas. The setbacks for gasoline pumps shall be the same
as those for buildings and the setback for drives serving gasoline pumps shall be the same
as those for drives and parking areas, as required in this Section.
6 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
..
(3) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, as amended, is amended by adding the
following new sections:
ARTICLE 6. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS OFFICE
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
0 0 0
DIVISION 5. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICT
Sec. _21.1-255 11 Purpose and Intent of District
The purpose and intent of this Division are to recognize unique hi hway corridors
within the County, to maintain and reinforce the character identity and vitality of such
corridors by contmuine and enhancing existing patterns of development through the
implementation of adopted plans and guidelines and the establishment of a special district
mandating particular land use regulations and development standards and requirements
within such corridors
Sec. 21.1-255 12 Areas of ApplicabiiitLr
The Hiehwav Corridor District shall include all lands as specified herein
(a) The lefferson Davis Hi~hwav Corridor comprised of all that area contained within
the adopted lefferson Davis Corridor Plan
Sec. 21.1-255.13. General Development Standards
Lal Except as specifically noted in the following sections containing unique
development standards within Highway Corridor Districts all applicable County-wide
Emerging Growth or Post Development Standards shall be met
Sec. 21.1-255.14. Exceptional Development Standards
~ Parking Parking requirements in the Highway Corridor District shall be
calculated based on Section 21.1-217 or based on 4 4 spaces per 1 000 square feet of gross
floor area. whichever shall yield the fewer parking spaces Improved desi Hated parkin
spaces in a public right of way may be counted toward the number of parking spaces
reauired herein and by Section 21 1-217 when more than one-half (1/2) of each such
space adjoins the site• such off-site parking spaces shall not be subject to Section 21 1 220
of this chapter. Further the required number of parking spaces
W P/APR93/APRSS/dm
may be reduced by 10% if the development contains a sidewalk or other pedestrian
walkway system that connects to existing walkway or that may be connected to future
walkways. All other reouirements of Section Article 4 Division 2 shall apply as described
,~ Landscaping. Within the Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor no interior parking
lot or perimeter landscaping shall be required Perimeter Landscaping H shall be installed
in all front and corner side setbacks except where parkin or driveways are located at the
ultimate right of way line Tree preservation in accordance with Sections 21 1 224 (d) and
21.1-227 (b) shall be required
~ Buffer width matrix. The required width of buffers shall be determined from
the following matrix. The left column of the matrix represents the zoning of the lot on
which the buffer must be provided the top column of the matrix represents the zoning of
property contieuous to the zoning lot The numbers in the matrix represent the width in
feet of the required buffer:
A' R-7/88
R-TH/R-MF
A' ± +
R-7/88 ± +
R-TH/R-M F + 2 5 z.3
O-1 ± 253
O-2 ± 2 53
C-1 ± 253
C-2 ± 253
C-3 ± 253
C=4 ± 253
C-5 ± 253
I_1 ± 253
I_2 ± 753
I_3 ± 100'
8 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
~,~,-
' Buffer widths adiacent to vacant orooerty with agricultural zoning shall be determined
based~u on the land use designation shown on the General Plan for the a ricultural
ro er
z Where R-7 through R-88 orooerty is adiacent to R-TH or R-MF property a buffer shall be
required on the R-TH or R-MF property There shall be no buffer requirements between
any single family residential districts unless required by the Board of Supervisors or Board
of Zoning Appeals.
' Buffers shall not be required if this Chapter permits buildin s or parking areas to be
constructed without being set back from the property line
Sec. 21.1-255.15. Setback Requirements for O C and I-1 Districts
~ lefferson Davis Hi~hwav Corridor The minimum setback for all buildings
drives, and parking, areas shall be as follows•
.~ Setbacks along public roads
a. Buildings. The minimum setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet
b. Drives and Parkin. There shall be no minimum setback for parking areas
for automobiles, light trucks vans pick-up trucks and motorcycles and for boats
trailers. and RV's less than twenty-five (25) feet in length The minimum setback for
aarkin~ and storage of other vehicles shall be fifty (50) feet
Side setbacks.
a. When abutting an O. C. or I District there shall be no minimum setback
-for buildings drives and parking areas
b. Buildings. Adjacent to all other districts designated by the lefferson Davis
Corridor Plan for non-residential uses the minimum setback shall be twenty (20) feet This
setback shall be eliminated by the Director of Planning provided there are no openings in
the wall of_the office. commercial or industrial building facingthe property line except
those required by the Fire Marshall
c. Drives and Parkin. Adjacent to all other districts designated by the
lefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses there shall be no minimum setback
for drives and parking areas for automobiles light trucks vans pick-up trucks and
motorcycles and for boats. trailers and RV's less than twenty-five (25) feet in length unless
the adiacent orooerty is occupied by a dwelling If the adjacent property is occupied by a
dwelline, the minimum setback shall be increased to ten (10) feet unless a solid screen or
W P/APR93/APR55/dm
fen__ce_at least four (4) feet high is installed The minimum setback for parking and storage
of other vehicles shall be thirty (30) feet
d. Adiacent to all other districts designated by the Jefferson Davis Corridor
Plan for residential uses the minimum setback for buildin s shall be twen 20 feet the
minimum setback for drives and oarking areas for automobiles lig ht trucks vans pick up
trucks. and motorcvcles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty five (25 ) feet in
length shall be ten (10) feet and the minimum setback for parking and storage of other
vehicles shall be thirty ( 0) feet -
Rear setbacks.
a. When abutting an O. C. or I District there shall be no minimum setback
for buildings. drives and parking areas
b. Buildings. Adiacent to all other districts designated by the Jefferson Davis
Corridor Plan for non-residential uses the minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet This
setback shall be eliminated by the Director of Planning provided there are no openings in
the wall of the off_i_ce, commercial or industrial building facing the property line except
those required by the Fire Marshall
c. Drives and Parking Adiacent to all other districts designated by the
Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses there shall be no minimum setback
for drives and narking areas for automobiles light trucks vans, pick up trucks and
motorcvcles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty-five (25) feet in length unless
the adjacent orooerty is occupied by a dwelling If the adjacent property is occupied by a
dwelling, the minimum setback shall be increased to twenty-five (25) feet unless a solid
screen or fence at least four (4) feet high is installed The minimum setback for parking
and storage of other vehicles shall be forty (40) feet
d. Adiacent to all other districts designated by the J efferson Davis Corridor
Plan__for residential uses the minimum setback for buildings shall be thirty (30) feet the
minimum setback for drives and parking areas for automobiles lig ht trucks vans pick up
trucks, and motorcvcles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty-five (25 ) feet in
length shall be twenty-five (25) feet and the minimum setback for parking and storage of
other vehicles shall be forty (40) feet
.~. Setbacks for gasoline Dumps ATM's and other fully automatic self- operated
eouioment. The setbacks for such uses and drives serving such uses shall be the same as
those for drives and parking areas for automobiles light trucks vans pick up trucks and
motorcvcles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty-five (25) feet in length
10 W P/APR93/APR55/dm
~' ~'
,,
Sec. 21.1-255.16. Setback Re uirements for I-2 and I-3 Districts.
~ lefferson Davis Highway Corrid~
drives. and parkins areas shall be as follows
L1.~ Setbacks alone public roads
a. Buildings The minimum setback shall be sixty 60) fPPt
b. Drives and Parkin There shall be no minimum setback for arkin
~biles, light trucks. vanc nirL_~~.~ *.....~... __~
parking and storage of other vehicles shall be fifty~(50) feet L~
L2~ Side setbacks.
a. Buildings. The minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
b. Drives and Parkin. When abutting an O C or I District there
shall be no minimum setback.
e. Drives and Parkin. Adiacent to all other districts designated by the
efferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses there shall be no minimum setback
for drives and oarkin~ areas for automobiles light trucks vans pick up trucks and
motorcycles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty five (25) feet in length unless
the adjacent property ~s occupied by a dwelling If the adjacent ro er
p p ty is occu iPd by a
dwelling. the minimum setback shall be increased to ten (10) feet unless a solid screen or
fence at least four (4) feet h~~h ~s installed The minimum setback for parking and storage
of other vehicles shall be thirty (30) feet
d. Drives and Parkins Adiacent to all other districts designated by the
lefferson Davis Corridor Plan for residential uses the minimum setback for drives and
arkin~ areas for automobiles light trucks vans pick up trucks and motorcycles and for
boats, trailers. and RV's less than twenty-five (25) feet in length shall be ten (10) feet and
the minimum setback for parkins and storage of other vehicles shall be thirty (30) feet
Rear setbacks.
a. Buildings. The minimum setback shall be thirty (30) feet
b. Drives and. Parking When abutting an O C or I District there
shall be no minimum setback
e. Drives and Parkins Adiacent to all other districts designated by the
lefferson Davis Corridor Plan for non-residential uses there shall be no minimum setback
11 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
~~ ~• ~~.~~ jai ~~ uicK-u trucKS and
thetadiacent oronerty oatnf~ra~le~ sand RV's~~l.ess than twen -five 25 feet in len h unless
and storage of other vehicles shall be forty (40) feet
d. Drives and Parkin Adjacent to all other districts desi Hated by the
Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan for residential uses the minimum setback for drives 'and
nark~n~ areas for automobiles I~~ht trucks vans pick up trucks and motorcycles and for
boats trailers and RV's less than twen -five 25 feet in len th shall be twen -five 25
feet and the minimum setback for arkin and stora e of other vehicles shall b for 40
feet.
~4.Z Setbacks for gasoline oumos ATM's and other fully automatic self-
operated eauioment. The setbacks for such uses and drives serving such uses shall be the
same as those for drives and arkin areas for automobiles li ht trucks vans ick-u
trucks. and motorcycles and for boats trailers and RV's less than twenty five (25) feet in
length.
(4) This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
~ 2 WP/APR93/APR55/dm
k .~i~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
' ° BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 o~,i
,. -'
z AGENDA
Meeting Date: May 2 6 , 1993 Item Number: ADDITIOr1
7.D.16.
Su~ect:
Reschedule date for public hearing on the Southern and Western Area
Plan and related ordinance amendments
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Set June 23, 1993 for a public hearing on the Southern and Western
Area Plan and related ordinance amendments
Summary of Information:
At the May 12, 1993 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board voted to
defer this matter for ninety days and to delay consideration of zoning
cases within the Southern and Western Area during the deferral period.
The ninety-day deferral would place the matter on the August 25, 1993,
Board agenda.
Mr. Colbert requests that the Board rescind its prior decision to
defer consideration of the Southern and Western Area Plan for ninety
days and vote to reschedule the matter for June 23, 1993.
Zoning cases would continue to be deferred until consideration of the
Plan in June.
Preparers
Director of Planning
0800:4034.1
County Administrator:
Attachments:
Yes ^ N o
0
y ,,-~ .
~~, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
REPORTS
Meeting Date: May 26, la Ztem Number:
Report On:
Developer Water and Sewer Contracts
BACKGROUND•
Page } o~
9.A.
The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Admin-
istrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between the
County and the Developer in which no County funds are
involved.
The report is submitted to the Board members as information.
SU1~Il~IARY OF INFORMATION
The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the
County Administrator:
1. Contract Number:
Project Name:
Developer:
Contractor:
Contract Amount:
District:
89-0822
Grove Court Office/Warehouse
Stonemill Associates
J. Steven Chaffin, Inc.
Water - $ 8,000.00
Midlothian
PREPARED BY:
E. Be Jr.
istant Director
of Utilities
County Administrator: ~, ~
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
~ 108
~/ "",~
Board Agenda
May 26, 1993
Page 2
2. Contract Number: 91-0198
Project Name: Whitten Lincoln/Mercury -
Route 60 & Koger Boulevard
Developer: James W. Whitten, Sr.
Contractor: Browning Construction Company
Contract Amount: Water - $ 9,190.00
District: Midlothian
3. Contract Number: 93-0014
Project Name: Deer Ru
Developer: William
Contractor: Coastal
Contract Amount: Water -
Sewer -
District: Matoaca
n, Section 9
B. and Gene H. Duval
Utilities, Inc.
$20,144.70
$31,526.68
109
'fir
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
May 18, 1993
Board
Meeting
Date Description Amount Balance
07/01/92 FY93 Beginning
Fund Balance $19,047,250
07/30/92 Budget Change Request to
fund fall baseball ( 8,000) 19,039,250
07/29/92 Budget Change Request to
fund black history
month celebration ( 15,000) 19,024,250
11/24/92 Transfer to Reserve for
Future Capital
Projects ( 661,550). 18,362,700
01/13/93 Shrink Swell Soil ( 92,000) 18,270,700
Program
01/13/93 Temporary Supplement to ( 125,000) 18,145,700
the Shrink Swell Soil
Program which will be
restored to fund balance
after July 1, 1993
gfbal
lii
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS
TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT
May 18, 1993
Board
Meeting
Date Description
FY89 Excess revenue
FY90 Budgeted addition
Designation from June 30, 1989
Fund Balance
11/22/89 Purchase of land-Cogbill Road
12/13/89 Purchase building at 6701 West
Krause Road
06/30/90 Budgeted addition of excess
revenue
06/13/90 Purchase medical building for
future library site
06/27/90 Funds to purchase land for park
on Lake Chesdin
06/27/90 Budgeted but not appropriated funds
to purchase land for school
and park sites
FOR FISCAL YEAR '91 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1990
12/12/90 Fill dirt for cover repair at Fort
Darling Landfill
06/30/91 Budgeted addition from FY91
revenues
03/13/91 Designated but not appropriated
funds to cover construction
contract for MH/MR/SA building
if bonds are not sold in
fall, 1991
FOR FISCAL YEAR '92 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1991
07/01/91 Regional Jail Authority as
approved in the FY92 Adopted
Budget (which will be reim-
bursed)
rfcip
Amount Balance
$2,119,900 $2,119,900
1,881,500 4,001,400
1,500,000 5,501,400
( 630,000) 4,871,400
( 400,000) 4,471,400
2,100,000 6,571,400
( 735,000) 5,836,400
( 600,000) 5,236,400
(2,000,000) 3,236,400
( 180,000) 3,056,400
4,000,000 7,056,400
(1,806,800) 5,249,600
(1,000,000) 4,249,600
lie
08/28/91 Provide funding for improve-
ments at Northern Area Landfill
to allow reallocation of
General Fund dollars to
recycling programs
08/28/91 Additional funding for Bon Air
Library expansion
08/28/91 Add back MH/MR building funds
which were previously deducted
for construction
11/27/91 Appropriated funds for T.V.
arraignment equipment but holding
in reserve account until prices
and all costs are confirmed
03/27/92 Add back funds previously deducted
to purchase land for school
and park sites
03/27/92 Funds designated for interest
costs in FY94 due to acceler-
ated 1988 School bond issue
04/08/92 Designated but not appropriated
funds for Centre Pointe Fire
Station construction in FY95
FOR FISCAL YEAR '93 BEGINNING JULY 1 1992
04/08/92 FY93 budgeted addition
04/08/92 FY93 Capital Projects (revenue
sharing roads $500,000; indus-
trial access $300,000; drainage
$200,000)
04/08/92 Funds to convert Meadowdale
Boulevard building into Hopkins
Road Library
04/08/92 Funds to construct lights along
portions of Jefferson Davis Hwy
05/13/92 Funding for emergency access for
Millside subdivision contingent
upon necessary right-of-way
acquisition
07/22/92 Funding for design phase of Jail
Annex
07/22/92 Funds to purchase Castlewood
( 315,000) 3,934,600
( 275,500) 3,659,100
1,806,800 5,465,900
( 115,000) 5,350,900
2,000,000 7,350,900
(1,400,000) 5,950,900
(2,314,800) 3,636,100
2,600,000 6,236,100
(1,000,000) 5,236,100
(1,386,500) 3,849,600
( 500,000) 3,349,600
( 80,000) 3,269,600
( 500,000) 2,769,600
( 315,000) 2,454,600
rfcip ],1
08/31/9?. Budget Change Request to fund
wetland study of property on
Coghill Road ( 14,000) 2,440,600
09/09/92 Supplement to finish improvements
to intersection of River and
Walkes Quarter roads ( 13,400) 2,427,200
09/09/92 Funds for Charter Colony Parkway ( 140,000) 2,287,200
09/09/92 Sidewalk at Enon Library ( 20,000) 2,267,200
11/12/92 Designated and appropriated, if
needed, funds to cover shortfall
in construction of Public Safety
Academic/Training Building ( 326,000) 1,941,200
11/24/92 Increase from FY92 Results of
Operations 661,550 2,602,750
12/09/92 Unappropriated funding for TV
arraignment 115,000 2,717,750
12/09/92 Appropriated $1,941,200 balance plus
$661,550 addition from FY92 ending
fund balance and use of funds pre-
viously appropriated for TV arraign-
ment $115,000 (2, 717,750) 0
12/09/92 Unappropriated funds from 11/12/92
appropriation for construction
of Public Safety Academic/Training
Building 139,980 139,980
12/09/92 Appropriated to cover shortfall
in construction Jail Annex ( 139,980) 0
rfcip j- ~'4
J
W p~
Q r
Z~
a~
°a
V
~_
V/
H
2
J
W
VI
Z
LL
0
a
O
Z
W
V
W
f.l.
~ ~ ~ O N M
V
d
.~
~ h ~ ~ N h
00 O~ of 00 O~ N
00 [~ ~ N O
rr .--i
°q b
'O
a ~
w ~
S ~ °o °o °o ~
v~ ~n v~ ~n vs v~
O
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
,>, a
w
a
a
~
M 00 ~O M ~
00 00 M .-~ O
'-i ~
~
~
~
,
"
y ~
c O
. U
~
P,
r^ 00 N ` C
s S
pp
_
~p r ~O v
~
V ~ R ~
M ~
~
O
i~
~
z
o O O O o
s s o
~q
'D
w' ~
~
° 00 N
~-• l~
z
~ N V1 V7 h V'1
~
Q1 y
w a
~
a
Q z
H M M ~ ~
~"' p ~
~ ~ ~"' ~ N
V 7
.°~° z z
a
m
a~
~ c
~ cc
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ --°o ~
U ~ ~ ~ U
.y
+~? (~
O
U '~
.~
C
.~
O
C
~_
L
N
V ~
o
~ .~
a
Q
Q Q
~ ~
~ ~
3 3
A
Q
~ N
~~
N
p :~ O
0 '~ ~
~o ~~
~Q
~~
m
o ~ ro
m ~ ~ Q
~~ ~~
3
a~
a~
11.5
.~ Prepared by
Accounting Department
April 30, 1993
SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES
Outstanding
Date Original Date Balance
Began Description Amount Ends 4130/93
APPROVED AND EXECUTED
10/87 Jail Addition 245,385 12/01 178,080
Data Processing 1,839,219 1,334,752
Human Services 4,489,377 3,258,016
Courts Building 16.796.019 12.189.152
Total 23,370,000 16,960,000
6/88 800 MHz Equip. -
Rescue Squads 85,000 6/93 9,785
800 MHz Equip.-Sheriff 140,000 16,042
Fire Pumpers 264,000 30,317
Fire Station Apparatus
and Furnishings 1,428,000 85,646
A T & T Phone Equip. 946,400 105,227
Filing System-Treasurer 40,000 3,105
Unallocated 83.600 0
Total 2,987,000 250,122
12/88 Airport State Police
Hangar Additions 128,800 97,771
County Warehouse 331.200 12/00 251.410
Total 460,000 349,181
3/89 Geographic Information
System ("GIS") -
Automated Mapping
System 3,095,000 1/98 2,205,000
12/89 Data Processing Equipment 2,015,570 1/95 529,409
10/90 Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and
Substance Abuse
Computer Equipment 96,500 7/93 17,441
10/92 School Copier 22.797 9/97 20.927
TOTAL APPROVED
AND EXECUTED 532__.046.867 $20.332.080
PENDING APPROVAL AND/OR EXECUTION
None
c:caplease.doc
1
its
. X11/`
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA
May 25, 1993
9900 Krause Road
The Public Meeting Room
9901 Lori Road
Chesterfield, Virginia 23832
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS
Timothy C. Brown-Chairman, Midlothian
Elizabeth B. Davis-Vice-Chairman, Dale
John A. Cardea, M.D., Clover Hill
Harry A. Johnson, Ed.D., Matoaca
Marshall W. Trammell, Jr., Bermuda
Thomas R. Fulghum, Superintendent
AGENDA
5:00 P.M.
RETIREMENT RECEPTION FOR
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
7:30 P.M.
REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
THE PUBLIC MEETING ROOM
A. Call to Order, Roll Call, Flag Salute - Mr. Brown, presiding
B. Acceptance of Minutes
May 11, 1993 (Regular Meeting)
May 12, 1993 (Special Executive Session)
C. Agenda Approval
D. Awards and Recognitions
E. Superintendent's Report
#118 Capital Projects Status Report
5:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
#120 Consolidation of School and County Postal and Warehouse Operations
F. Action Items
1. Consent Agenda
Instruction
#121 Family Life Education Recommendations
il~
,. ~ ~
Operations and Finance
#117 Approval of the Vocational Education Management System
Plan for 1993-94
#119 Approval of Vocational Education Advisory Committee Members
for 1993-94
G. Non-Agenda Items
H. Discussion Agenda. (No public testimony will be accepted on discussion
agenda items.)
I. Announcements, Communications, School Board Comments
J. Executive Session (personnel, legal, land/property acquisition,
discipline)
K. Adjournment
General Information
The Chesterfield County School Board will meet as follows for the 1992-
1993 school year: July 1 and 28, 1992; August 25, 1992; September 8 and 22,
1992; October 13 and 21, 1992; November 10 and 24, 1992; December 8, 1992;
January 12 and 26, 1993; February 9 and 23, 1993; March 9 and 23, 1993; April
13 and 27, 1993; May 11 and 25, 1993; and June 8 and 22, 1993. The executive
sessions/work sessions will begin at 5:00 p.m. and will be held at the School
Administration Building, 9900 Krause Road, Chesterfield, Virginia. The
regular meetings will begin at 7:30 p.m. and will be held at the Public
Meeting Room, 9901, Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia. If the place or time
is changed, the public will be notified.
Following is the procedure by which the public may speak before the
school Board at any of the above meetings:
1. Persons wishing to be heard on action items must notify the
Superintendent's office by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
2. Persons who have requested to offer public testimony will be heard
when each item is considered.
3. Persons to be heard on non-agenda items will be heard during the
specified section of the meeting.
4. It is requested that an individual conduct his/her presentation in
three minutes; representatives of a group may speak for five
minutes.
5. Public delegations. Public delegations or their representatives
are required to submit in writing their request for hearing and
their proposals to the Superintendent at least five days prior to
the meeting at which they wish to be heard.
2 ii8
' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
• '` ~ ~ ~ ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
"~`~ AGENDA
Meeting Date: day ? ~ - 19 ~ J Item Number:
Su~b'e_ct:
REQUEST FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
Page 1 0~
10.
Executive Session, pursuant to § 2.1-344(a)(7), Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding County
v. Woodlake, et. al.
( ,,..,i
~~` ~,-_.,.~~ ~~'~/~ < ~:.f> Title: County Attorney
Preparers .
Steven L. Micas
County Administrator: ~~~^°`
Attachments:
^ Yes ~ N o
0800:3900.2
# 119
r ~'
MOTION: DATE:
SECOND:
RE: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
HELD IN CONFORMANCE HITH LAW
WIIEREAS, t}te Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned
into Executive Session i.n accordance with a formal vote of the
Board, and in adcordance with the provisions of tl~e Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
IJIiERFAS,~ t}ie Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective
.7tt].y 1, 1989, provides for certification that such Executive
Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of eac}i
member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to
which this certificationapplies, and ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the
Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or
considered by the Board.. No member dissents from this certifi-
cation.
Vote: (by roll call)
`1'lie Board being polled, the vote was as follows:
AYES:
1`IAYS
ABSENT DURING VOTE:
ABSENT llURING 1vIEETING :
**CERTIFTED**
CLERK TO THE BOARD
120
Meeting Date:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Page i . o~
14.
Su= t: Introduction of the Winners of the Department of Utilities
Annual Poster Contest
County Administrator's Comments:
Board Action Requested:
Summary of Information:
The poster contest is a major educational and public relations event
sponsored by the Department of Utilities each year. Not only does it
bring recognition to the department, it helps students and their parents
realize what is involved in producing clean water.
The contest was open to all sixth, seventh and eighth grade students in
the Chesterfield County school system. Each of the nine county middle
schools was allowed to submit ten posters to the utilities department
for final judging. All middle schools participated submitting a total
of 822 posters for preliminary judging.
The names of the winning students, their school, their teacher's name
and the magisterial district are shown on the attached. Each will be
asked to come up with their winning posters for recognition by the Board
of Supervisors.
Preparer• u ~ ~ Title:
Director of Utilities
David H. Welchone-'~~~
County Administrator:
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
121
V ..
1st Place: Erin Mitchell, 7th grade; Midlothian Middle
($150 Savings School.
Bond Teacher: Henrietta Eicher
Supervisor: Ed Barber
2nd Place: Grace Ferguson, 7th grade; Robious Middle
($100 Savings School
Bond) Teacher: Dottie Moore
Supervisor: Ed Barber
3rd Place: Sara Elizabeth Crosby, 8th grade; Chester
($75 Savings Middle School
Bond) Teacher: Al Stafford
Supervisor: J. L. McHale, III
Honorable Mention:
($50 Savings Bond)
Cynthia Pettitt, 8th grade; Midlothian Middle
School
Teacher: Joan Groves
Supervisor: Ed Barber
Bryan Goodman, 8th grade; Midlothian Middle School
Teacher: Katherine Robertson
Supervisor: Ed Barber
Justin Gerard, 7th grade; Chester Middle
School
Teacher: Peggy Conway
Supervisor: J. L. McHale, III
Jennifer Reynolds, 7th grade, Chester Middle
School
Teacher: Linda Miller
Supervisor: J. L. McHale, III
Golnar Vaziri, 8th grade, Providence Middle
School
Teacher: Susan Dameron
Supervisor: Harry Daniel
Best in school:
Jenny Jacobs, 7th grade, Carver Middle School
Teacher: Deanna Ergenbright
Supervisor: J. L. McHale, III
122
Nick Berger, 7th grade, Matoaca Middle School
Teacher: Sandra Neace
Supervisor: J. L. McHale, III
Sarah Barden, 7th grade,
Teacher: Joyce Moldovan
Supervisor: Art Warren
Manchester Middle School
Lauren Nussman, 6th grade, Swift Creek Middle
School
Teacher: Bruce Morrison
Supervisor: Art Warren
Kyle Maclauchlan, 6th grade, Bailey Bridge Middle
School
Teacher: Margaret Johnson
Supervisor: Art Warren
Cheryl Nelson, 7th grade, Salem Church Middle
School
Teacher: Mike Schwab
Supervisor: Whaley Colbert
A special teacher recognition award will be~presented to Bruce
Morrison of Swift Creek Middle School, whose students submitted the
most posters for preliminary judging. Morrison's 7th grade students
submitted 106 entries. Swift Creek Middle School will also be
presented with a recognition award for the school submitting the most
posters for preliminary judging. Students there entered 437 posters
in the contest.
123
" ~-~.~i l5, a ,
'~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
..
.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 oi' 1
Meeting Date: _ May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number: 15 . A .
Subject:
---_____
Public Hearing to Consider the Appropriation of General Obligation Public Improvement
Refunding Bond Proceeds totaling $52,399,544.
County Administrator's Comments:
~G ~ " ~
Board Action Requested:
Recommend the appropriation of refunding bond proceeds, series 1993, totaling $52,399,544.
Summary of Information:
The Board of Supervisors authorized the County Administrator to make application to the State
Council on Debt (the "Council") to refund series 1980, 1989A, 1986, 1990A and 1990B general
obligation bonds. The Council approved the refunding on April 21, 1993. The bonds were sold
on May 12 at a true interest rate of 5.086282 to First Boston Corporation. Net present value of
savings over the remaining life of the bonds will be $2,021,433.
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing regarding the appropriation
of the refunding bond proceeds and appropriate $52,399,544 in bond proceeds and accrued interest
for refunding ($52,249,544) and related issuance costs ($150,000) and direct staff to allocate the
appropriation to the proper accounts.
Deputy County Administrator
Preparers e; for Management Services
ra or ammer
County Administrator:
# 124
Attachments: ~ Yes ~ N o
T _
.. .~ .. L ' n• Y.. ~ ~....
AFF I LIAV I T. +~IF _ .. _ _ _ _ _
F'L~E{L I ~HEL- FUV~.f~T.I a i1Vlp,h . ,•=
:~tatc ,_~f Vir4inia ~'~ ~~~ ~rtp _ ~~~ 4: ~~
I~ l t'r r , f F' cy t ~ r• g tr ,J r• g .. ..
I , EMILY WEL L'~ ~ t~ ~ i n a d ~J 1 ••r s w a r• n ~ -.] rN, : ,..t~P F, rr:. rn••,^ . r~ 3 t r~ ; d c: P r~ s c
and sa•,r tt',at I am -=lassifi~d AdvErtisin4 Manaq~r• ~f TI-,c
f'r•~~Qr•~ss-Ind~:~;, a n~wsPaPCr• Prir,t~d in said Cit••,~ and ~,tat~~
ar•,d that the adv~r•tis~rr,ent cif; TAh~:ENCITI
was Put~l ist~cd t~`r: I~F,~st~r•fic 1 d #I:~L}1
P . O . Ec ~ ,;.? 4i.1
was PUt~I isi-,e~i in said P3P~r• r_,n: Ma•,• 1':! /'=~:ry
C:lassified Ad ~r•tisinq Man g~r•
_,. r„
.....r ~
~~,
_~.~
s]..
l ~ ~
ry
ii1 ~
ts.s ~
t~ y..
2
C~
iJ
:.)
,
O
CLASSIFIED MAKE CHECKS
' Q OR
' (' ADVERTISING PAYABLE TO ---
ASS CODE INS. AMOUNT
~ C - --
If NOT AMOUNT DUE
PAID BY WILL BE
t a" r .i.
AGATES LINES WORDS INCHES ZONE
EDITIONS OPER S/V
~ `
SKIP SCHEDULE
;~~MTWTF
AD GIVEN BY PHONE
''~- •~i !7
INDEXING TERMS
I
START DATE STOP DATE
~
~
"
~
~ 254558
THE PROGRESS INDEX
P.O. BOX 71
15 FRANKLIN STREET
PETERSBURG, VA 2 3804-00 7 1
804-732-3456
TO:
254568
C:t~,~st~r•fiel dy#2G1
F . O. t~~:~:~; 4ia
;.,a
r r::.
''_. ....
~.:.,
n I
r
„~ O G:
~. ~ r
;~J = .,
3
C:h~st~r•field~ Va. ~':~IL+v;
RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT
~:~
~..~ ~ -:
c_._
c-~
r~ ~~
t =- _._ _
~.~
~~
= r`~
r-, -
---, ;-r, ~::;
., -
\-
..
. • ...
• • ~1, ,{,, R ~
• j~` •~ps • •~•
• • • • •
•• • •• •
• • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
7`AKE NOTICE
Take notice that the
Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Vir-
ginia, at a regular meet-
ing on May 26, 1993 at
7:00 p.m. to the County
Public Meeting Room at
Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfield, Virginia,
will hold public hearings
to consider:
1. An amendment to the
FY92-93 budget to a~-
propriate $52,575,000 m
bonds for the refunding
of debt and related is-
suance expenses for the
County and Schools.
2. An amendment to the
FY9'L-93 budget to ap-
propriate $1,270,000 in -~
anticipated revenue to be :'..~J ;_ ;
received in relation to G_.. r._.
the design of Genito r;-
Road and Courthouse ~,,,...
~
Road widening. r,) •
:~ -~
~-,
~.
"
If furlhcr informaiton is C
"~
~
desired, contact Mr. ^,~ r
~:„.
Bradford S. Hammer, _. ,_.-
Dcputy County Admini- ^`~,
strator for Management ..
Services, 748-1191, be- .,~
tween the hours of 8:30 c'~'a
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mon-
day through Friday.
May 19/93
Richmond
Newspapers, Inc.
An Affiliate of Media General
P.O. BOX 85333
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23293-0001
1804) 649-6000
COUNT°Y OF CHES'TER1= I ELD
BOARD OF SUF='EKV I SORS
Al"TN: JOAN llOLEZAL_
F'. 0. BOX 4~f
CHES"fERFIELD UA ~'~,B.:,E
DATE ~ CODE ~ DESCRIPTION ~ RATE
1511 ~f ~~ 1 ~ 1 LEGAL NOT` I CE
AMENDMENT TCl FY9:~-~u
BUDGET
LINES
c E3
RUNS
CREDITS INCH
AMOUNT
1
1ti4, 1B
-f---_ .
n~ d flu•
M 993 at~:GO pt e
County Pubilc Meeting Room at
' Chsaterfleld Courthouse, Chester-
field, Virginia, will hold public hear-
ings to consider.
1. An amendment to the FY92.93
budhet to appropriate
$52,575,000 in bonds for the
refunding of debt and related
issuance expenses for the County
re-
of
contact Mr. Bradford 5. Hemmer,
Deputy County Administrator for
Management Services, at 748-
1191, between the hours of 6:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Fridav
Richm~~~rtd Ne~lepaper~s, Irlc.
F'I_tbl isher~ cif
THE (~ I CHh1UPdD "f I MES-D I SF'ATGH
This is t•.. certify that the .attached LEGAL NOTICE
was pitbl fished b_y Richn~~ end Newspapers, Irtc. , in the City
~~f F2iehmc~rld, State cif Vir~tdirlia, ~~~ri the fc~ll~~wir~g dates:.
Cf5/19/93
The first irlsertic~rl being given.... c.z~/1/93
c~r~rf tc~ artd s'-MAY 2 7'~(9~efc~re
Il this ~
~-----
Nc~tary F'~_Ibl is S~.fperv' _~r~
State of Virginia
City cif Richm~~m'd My Commission Expires June 30, 1996
My Cc~mrnissi~~~rl expires
WHEN REh1I`TTING tw'LEASE REFER TD YOUf; CUSTOMER- # ~ C>6Cit;i
1 ~:f4. 1 E~
F ..~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ARTHUR S. WARREN, CHAIRMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
EDWARD B. BARBER, VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
J. L. McHALE, III
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL
DALE DISTRICT
WHALEY M. COLBERT
MATOACA DISTRICT
~""' CHESTERFIELD CO UNT I~
P.O. Box 40
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040
MffiI[ORANDUIYI
TO: Richmond Times Dispatch
FROl~i: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
DATE: May 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events
One (1) time, Wednesday, May 19, 1993
LANE B. RAMSEY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors Office at 748-1200. Also, please fax me a
computer printout of the ad--fax number 748-3032.
PLEASE SEND TEAR SHEET WITH BILL.
Theresa M. Pitts
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Attachment
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. g°~~
PriMap On
Rxycle0 Paper
--~,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ARTHUR S. WARREN, CHAIRMAN
CLOVER HILL DISTRICT
EDWARD B. BARBER, VICE CHAIRMAN
MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT
J. L. McHALE, III
BERMUDA DISTRICT
HARRY G. DANIEL
DALE DISTRICT
WHALEY M. COLBERT
MATOACA DISTRICT
~""'` CHESTERFIELD COUNT Y-
P.O. Box 40
CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040
KF.L~IORANDDIK
~= Progress Index
WOK: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors
DATE: May 14, 1993
SDBJECT: Meetings and Coming Events
One (i) time, Wednesday, May 19, 1993
LANE B. RAMSEY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Please confirm by calling the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors Office at 748-1200. Also, please fax me a
computer printout of the ad--fax number 748-3032.
PLEASE SEND TEAR SHEET WITH BILL.
Theresa M. Pitts
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Attachment
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. g~
PrMbE On
A Y~Ntl PeV~r
.- .. .,
~,,
TAKE NOTICE
Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting on May 26, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in
the County Public Meeting Room at Chesterfield Courthouse,
Chesterfield, Virginia, will hold public hearings to consider:
1. An amendment to the FY92-93 budget to appropriate
$52,575,000 in bonds for the refunding of debt and related
issuance expenses for the County and Schools.
2. An amendment to the FY92-93 budget to appropriate $1,270,000
in anticipated revenue to be received in relation to the
design of Genito Road and Courthouse Road widening.
If further information is desired, contact Mr. Bradford S.
Hammer, Deputy County Administrator for Management Services, at
748-1191, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
JS.,~;
t
A ~ V
4
Meeting Date:
~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
May 26, 1993 AGENDA
Item Number:
Page 1 0~
15.B
S u_,Lt:
Public Hearing for the Appropriation of $1,270,000 in
Funds from the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) for the Design of Genito Road and Courthouse Road
Widening
County Administrator's Comments:
~e~.~~~ ~~~~'~v ~l
Board Action Requested:
The Board is requested to appropriate $1,270,000 in
anticipated funds from VDOT and authorize staff to enter
into an agreement with VDOT for the design of the
widening of Genito Road and Courthouse Road.
Summary of Information:
BACKGROUND: In 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved the
County's Secondary Road Six Year Improvement Plan. The Plan
includes projects to widen Genito Road to four lanes from Old
Hundred Road to Route 360 and from Route 360 to Courthouse Road.
The Plan also includes a project to widen Courthouse Road to four
lanes from Genito Road to Route 288. After discussions with VDOT,
it has been determined that the projects can be implemented quicker
if the County prepares the design. Under the terms of the proposed
VDOT/County agreement, the County will retain consultants to
prepare the design and then be reimbursed by VDOT for our expenses.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that 1) the County Administrator
be authorized to execute a VDOT/County design agreement subject to
County Attorney approval as to form and 2) $1,270,000 be
appropriated from anticipated VDOT reimbursements.
Preparers ~ C~~~~--~ Title:
R.J. McCracken
Director of Transportation
County Administrator: c~~~K
Attachments: ^ Yes ~ N o
# 125
~Ir- `"~
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
2 of 2
Summary of Information :(Continued)
BIIDGET AND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS:
Reimbursement from the State will. be 100$ of expenditures and
will be invoiced to the State on a quarterly basis. Funds in the
amount of $1,270,000 need to be appropriated to expedite the
design phase of the widening of Genito and Courthouse roads.
a.. ._
mes L. Ste ier
irector
Budget and Management
* 126
S
1
1
~~1 " 1
AblElln
COUNTY
PownninN,'
COIIN T Y ;
i ~
i R1.d0
i
i
~~
/ / `~
IIEIlIIICO COUIITY
Y~
:+ .
Powl~~be
Slate Pmt
DIN1M'IDDIE
COUNTY
PETERSBURG
(IOPEWELL
1
. i
`~ ~ I1
f
onld~
Ile Ids
1
PROJECT DESIGN FOR
GENITD ROAD-COUiTHOUSE RQ4D
NItO ROAD -OLD HUNDRED ROAD TO ROUTE 360
.GENITD ROAD - ROUtE 360 TD COURTHOUSE ROAD
CAi COURrtI lOUSE ROAD -GENITD R0~10 TO ROUTE 299
RICHMOND
IIEllnlco
COUNTY
~~[ CITY COUIII
1 `~
i~ ;t~-
i2~
3
GENITO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate as of this
day of , 1993, between the COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the
"Department" and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY,
hereinafter called the "County."
WHEREAS, the Department and the County are desirous of
improving Genito Road (Route 604), between Route 652 (Old Hundred
Road) and Route 288, project numbers 0604-020-158, C-501,
0604-020-255, C-501 and 0604-020-255, C-502, hereinafter called
the "projects"; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to administer the design for
these projects through its capabilities and/or those of its agents
pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1-75.3(D), Code of
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the benefits of the projects will inure to the
Department, the County and owners of all property lying in the
vicinity of the projects and will secure and promote the health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Chesterfield County
and the traveling public; and
WHEREAS, the Department is agreeable to providing the
eligible costs incurred in the design of these projects; and
WHEREAS, these projects are on the Department's Secondary
Six-Year Improvement Program; and
i28
1 '
~ 1
WHEREAS, the Department and County desire to expedite the
construction of these projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
covenants and agreements made herein the parties agree that:
A. The County shall:
1. Design, or cause to be designed, right of way
acquisition and construction plans for t}le projects.
Such plans s}~all be prepared in accordance with the
Department's 1993 Road and Bridge Standards and
Specifications. In the event such design
necessitates the services of personnel other than
employees of the County, the advertisement,
selection, award and administration of the contract
for such services shall be pursuant to the applicable
provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
2. Secure whatever permits are necessary for the
construction of these projects.
3. Notify the Department if, at any time, the costs of
preparing t}ie projects' plans is anticipated to
exceed t}ie preliminary engineering cost estimates of
$1,270,000.
4. Submit two (2) sets of prints of the projects' plans
to the Department at the 60~ completion stage for
review and comments.
12~
r
5. Complete the plans for right of way acquisition and
construction and submit one (1) set of mylars and
two (2) sets of complete plans to the Department for
additional comments and/or approval. Any contract
item ineligible for financing from funds administered
by the Department shall be so identified on these
plans.
6. Prepare and present the engineering report at a
public hearing if such a hearing is required.
7. Maintain accurate records of all costs incurred in
the project's design and make such records available
for review and audit by the Department upon request.
8. Provide the Department with appropriate billing and
certification of any eligible costs incurred and paid
for which it intends to obtain reimbursement under
the provisions of this agreement.
9. Furnish the Department a preliminary engineering
estimate with contingencies.
B. The Department shall:
1. Reimburse the County for the actual preliminary
engineering costs incurred by the County for the
design of eligible items. Such reimbursement in
accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed
in paragraph C, will be made within 30 Days of the
130
receipt of a certified bill. This billing may be
made quarterly by the County.
2. Provide the County with survey data, preliminary plan
rolls, correspondence, geotechnical investigations,
analysis and design recommendations, traffic signal
design and schedule and advertise the public
hearing.
C. Both parties acknowledge that the County wishes to retain
a consultant, ire accordance with paragraph A.1. of this
agreement, to design these projects and has agreed to
negotiate a contract for not more than $1,270,000 for
the design cost. Tt~e'Department will reimburse the
County for the actual costs incurred in the projects'
design from funds designated for the projects. The
County shall be responsible for making the payments to
the consultants for the consulting services. Cysts for.
the design shall not exceed the Department's approved
preliminary engineering cost estimates unless both
parties mutually agree in writing.
D. In the event of an unreasonable request by the County to
cancel the projects initiated under this agreement prior
to its completion, the Department may at its sole option,
require reimbursement by the County for all State funds
expended on the projects between its initiation and the
date of cancellation. The provision of this paragraph,
131
however, shall not apply in the event the County and
Department mutually consent to the cancellation of the
projects.
E. Any work necessary in connection with these projects,
which is not specifically provided for elsewhere in this
agreement, shall be performed at project expense as
mutually agreed by both parties in writing.
F. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any
personal liability on the part of any officers,
officials, employees, agents, or representatives of the
parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights
or benefits to anyone other than the parties to this
agreement.
G. Nothing in this Agreement shall obligate the County to
expend any funds in excess of funds already appropriated
for this Agreement. In addition, the Board of
Supervisors shall not be obligated to appropriate any
additional funds for the purpose of this Agreement.
132
r
.,
Approved as to form
ATTEST:
ATTEST:
Fiscal Division (VDOT)
By
Date
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD
by
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
by
APPROVED
Office of Attorney General
By
Date
133
MOBILE HOME REPORT
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield, on Wednesday May 26. 1993,
beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at Chesterfield County Administration
Building, Chesterfield, Virginia, will take under consideration the granting of Mobile Home
Permits on the parcels of land described herein.
It shall be the policy of the Board of Supervisors that approval of a mobile home permit to
park a mobile home on a parcel of land shall be subject to compliance with the following
Standard Conditions:
CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall be the owner and occupant of the mobile home
2. 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.
3. The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard, and other zoning
requirements of the applicable zoning district shall be complied with, except
that no mobile home shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
4. No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto a mobile
home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall not be placed on a
permanent foundation.
5. Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they shall be used.
6. 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.
7. Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the
Mobile dome Permit.
93SR0209: In Dale Magisterial District, DONNA W. LEWIS requests renewal of Mobile
Home Permit 88SR049 to park a mobile home in a Residential (R-7) District. The density
of the proposal is approximately 0.13 units/acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.00 units/acre. This property is located approximately
130 feet off the north line of Cogbill Road from a point, approximately 900 feet west of Old
Zion Hill Road, and is better known as 6120 Cogbill Road. Tax Map 65-4 (1) Parcel 2
(Sheet 22).
The first permit was issued on April 14, 1976. However, others have parked a mobile home
on this property since 1968.
The mobile home is located on property belonging to Thomas Wilmoth, father of the
applicant.
The property is served by well and private septic system.
The Health Department reports no environmental health hazard in existence.
Staff finds there are four (4) mobile homes located within one-quarter (1/4) mile of this
property.
This request, which is for seven (7) years, appears to be in character with the neighborhood
at the present time. The mobile home is located in an area designated by the Central Area
Land Use and Transportation Plan for medium density residential use. Adjacent property
is zoned Residential (R-7). Development in this area has started and gives the neighborhood
a stable residential character.
If this request was for a new mobile home in this developing area, staff would recommend
denial. However, since a mobile home has been located on this property for more than
twenty-five (25) years, staff supports this request.
Because of the present development in this area, staff believes that the Board should advise
the applicant to look upon this request as a temporary dwelling and, if approved, it may or
may not necessarily be renewed.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR SEVEN (7) YEARS, subject to
Conditions 1 through 7, as noted herein.
*************************************************************************
2
i
W P/MAY26Z
.. J
-;
A copy of this application is on file at the Planning Department, Development Review
Division, Chesterfield County Administration Building, Room 203, Chesterfield, Virginia, for
public examination between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. of each regular business
day.
~,~
). Michael )anosik
Zoning Administrator
3
W P/MAY26Z
_~
~,
~,
,,
.,
_,
A''~~°o,~T .
i
x
' N
R-9
'~v ~
~,~
~9
/7 J"
.~
4
z1=1 =~
~~:~
_-
~~~ R-/2
_~.~
_:
°~=~
~-
~-
1r,
•
r
1+`
•
`~`
r
oesT \~1
• \!
•
~ro~ ~.~
.~
~~
r~
`~
•
1.~ ~/,~
~.~
~.~
~=~
\''
:~:::::
:. a-
5:. ~ ~ ..
:_:
,~
.: ~...;~~.: ::8
.,... ..
........
............:
.. ..... .• ..
~. .
~~
~. ~~ .. ..
~ ..Z~. .
.`
a • .::.
......
R-9
~...~..~+ 7n i nn~ rnr-
,
~~QeTT7'~'J7T-rGTC
bd.,., ~ n ~ nn~ r-or-
.. ,
SJ e~ef~lycr-~, ~~i rctn--~C
~sprF~-i ~; -~-9~~ ~r-r°c
May 26, 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91 SN0230
(Amended)
James F. Hubbard
Midlothian Magisterial District
Southwest line of Midlothian Turnpike
RE UEST: (Amended) Rezoning from Agricultural (A), Residential (R-7) and Convenience
Business (B-1) to Neighborhood Business (C-2) of 14.96 and to Community
Business (C-3) of 7.21 acres.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Neighborhood and Community Business uses, except as restricted by the
proffered conditions, are planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 THROUGH 5.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning and land uses conform to the
Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which designates that
portion of the property for general commercial use.
B. The Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan designates the remaining
portion of the property for light industrial use. The intent of this designation
was to provide land use transitions between the Midlothian Turnpike
commercial corridor and area residential development. Given the proffered
conditions which address intensity, buffers, screening and a limitation on the
uses permitted, staff is of the opinion that the Neighborhood Business (C-2)
zoning coupled with the proffered conditions complies with the spirit and
intent of the adopted Plan.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS
NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY
STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1. Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following shall be
accomplished for fire protection:
A. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the County
$150 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area adjusted upward
or downward by the same percentage that the Marshall Swift
Building Cost Index increased or decreased between dune 30,
1991, and the date of payment. With the approval of the
County's Fire Chief, the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall
receive a credit toward the required payment for the cost of any
fire suppression system not otherwise required by law which is
included as a part of the development.
OR
B. The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire
suppression system not otherwise required by law which the
County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need
for County facilities otherwise necessary for fire protection.
(STAFF/CPC) 2. The developer shall perform an overall drainage study for. the subject
property plus all off-site drainage traversing the site. Development shall
be designed to release no more than the two (2) year pre-development
rate for the subject property and a two (2) year existing rate for the off-
site drainage area and store the post 100 year rate for all drainage from
the subject site, as well as all off-site drainage traversing the site.
However, the release rate may be modified by Environmental
2 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
~' ~, ,
Engineering if downstream conditions are adequate to handle a higher
frequency storm. Adequate shall be defined as:
A. The existing pipes under Tuxford Road, which would carry the
runoff, meets VDOT criteria;
B. The watercourse upstream ofTuxford Road through Shenandoah
Subdivision and located in any existing easement, shall be made
capable of containing a 10-year storm; and
C. The 100-year floodplain shall be no closer than twenty (20) feet
to the nearest house.
(STAFF/CPC) 3. All runoff from impervious areas shall be directed to a single
retention/detention basin which shall discharge into adequate natural
watercourses with recorded drainage easements. This basin shall be
located as generally depicted on the plan. The entire basin shall be
designed in conjunction with the design of the first site and such
design shall be submitted for approval by Environmental Engineering.
Environmental Engineering may approve phasing of the installation of
the basin upon submission of an overall phasing plan.
(STAFF/CPC) 4. All silt basins and pits shall be sized a minimum of twenty-five (25)
percent larger than the minimum storage volume required by the State
Erosion and Sediment Control Manual.
(STAFF/CPC) 5. The maximum density of this development shal I be 200,000 square feet
of shopping center or equivalent densities as approved by the
Transportation Department.
(STAFF/CPC) 6. Access to Route 60 shall be limited to one entrance/exit located
approximately in the center of the property frontage. The entrance/exit
shall be limited to right turns in and out. The exact location of this
access shall be approved by the Transportation Department.
(STAFF/CPC) 7. To provide for an adequate roadway system, the developer shall be
responsible for the following:
A. Construction of additional pavement and curb and gutter along
the eastbound lanes of Route 60 to provide a right turn lane at
the approved access.
B. Closing the existing crossover on Route 60 west of Tuxford
Road intersection, if approved by VDOT.
3 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
C. Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted,
any additional right of way (or easement) required for the
improvement identified above. This dedication shat l occur prior
to site plan approval.
(STAFF/CPC) 8. There shall be no pedestrian or vehicular access to Knightsbridge Road.
Within thirty (30) days of the approval of this request, the
owners/developers shall petition the County to vacate that portion of
Knightsbridge Road northwest of Tuxford Road.
(STAFF/CPC) 9. No structure shall exceed a height of three (3) stories or forty-five (45)
feet, whichever is less.
(STAFF/CPC) 10. There shall be no outdoor retail activities (excluding accessory parking)
loading or unloading activities between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(STAFF/CPC) 11. With the exception ofintercom-type systems commonlyassociated with
banks, savings and loans and fast food restaurants with drive-through
windows, there shall be no outside speaker systems.
(STAFF/CPC) 12. The last known president of Shenandoah Community Association and
all property owners adjacent to the entire property which is subject to
these proffers shall be notified in writing by the owner/developer prior
to site plan, architectural plan and landscape plan submission to the
Chesterfield County Planning department.
(STAFF/CPC) 13. Users shall be limited to the following square footage options at the
developer's discretion:
A. A single tenant not to exceed 60,000 gross square feet with all
other tenants not to exceed 12,000 square feet; or
B. Two tenants not to exceed 30,000 gross square feet with all
other tenants not to exceed 12,000 gross square feet.
(STAFF/CPC) 14. Buffers shall be provided as shown on the plan prepared by J. K.
Timmons and Associates dated January 19, 1993, titled Conceptual
Zoning Layout. Except as stated herein, buffers shall comply with
Section 21.1-226, 21.1-227 (a) (b) (fl (p~, (h) and Section 21.1-228.
Clearing and grading shall be permitted within the western twenty-five
(25) feet of the eastern seventy-five (75) foot buffer. A retention pond
may be located within the 150 foot buffer provided such pond is
located a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the southern property
boundary and further except for clearing and grading for those uses as
4
91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
~ ~.
( ~
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, Section 21.1-227 (h) there shall be
no clearing or grading within the southern seventy-five (75) feet of the
150 foot buffer.
(STAFF/CPC) 15. Except as stated herein, in the Community Business (C-3) tract, uses
shall be limited to those uses permitted by right or with restrictions in
the C-2 District plus fast food restaurants, cocktail lounges as accessory
to restaurant use and motor vehicle sales and service. Any motor
vehicle sales and service facility shall be limited to the area shown on
the plan prepared by ). K. Timmons and Associates. The following
uses shall not be permitted in either the Community Business (C-3) or
Neighborhood Business (C-2) tract:
A. Coin-operated dry cleaning; pressing; laundry and Laundromats;
B. Occult sciences such as palm readers, astrologers, fortune
tellers, tea leaf readers, prophets, etc.
C. group care facilities.
(STAFF/CPC) 16. Any building, to include gasoline pumps, associated with an
automobile self-service station or any business which sells gasoline
shall be set back a minimum of 150 feet from the eastern and southern
property lines. Any automobile self-service station or business which
sells gasoline shall be screened in such a manner that headlights of
vehicles utilizing the business does not project into the adjacent
residential properties to the south and east.
(STAFF/CPC) 17. All perimeter erosion control devices for each site shall be in place
prior to commencing any silvaculture or timbering operation.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Southwest line of Midlothian Turnpike, northwest of Tuxford Road. Tax Map 17-16
(1) Parcels 1, 2, 4, 5 and 24, and Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcels 3, 14, 15, 16, 42 and
43 (Sheet 8).
Existin Zoning:
A, R-7, B-1, and B-1 with Conditional Use Planned Development
5 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
IZ
22.17 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family residential, public/semi-public (church), commercial or vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - B-2 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Commercial or vacant
South - R-7; Single family residential
East - R-7; Single family residential
West - B-3 and M-1 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Commercial,
industrial or vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
tili i
Public Water System:
Public water is available and its use is required by Ordinance. Use of public water
system is intended.
Public Wastewater System:
The public wastewater system is available and its use may be required by Ordinance
for any structure which will generate wastewater if one of the following applies: 1)
The structure is within 200 feet of the existing wastewater line (Chapter 20, Article
III, Section 20-63); or 2) The structure will use more than 3,000 gallons of water per
day (Chapter 20, Article XI, Section 20-195). Use of the public wastewater system
intended.
Drainagg and Erosion:
The property drains south through Shenandoah Subdivision via three (3) known
drainageways. Specifically, the first drainageway lies between two (2) lots in
Shenandoah Subdivision and commences under Tuxford Road, to the rear of
approximately forty-two (42) residential lots, before proceeding under Redbridge Road
and entering Pocoshock Creek. The area between the property line and Tuxford
Road has been rip-rapped with a very small channel to retard erosion. Between
Tuxford Road and Redbridge Road, the channel has eroded over the years and
County forces have installed many linear feet of grouted rip-rap. The current
6 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
receiving channel in Shenandoah Subdivision is inadequate to receive drainage from
this development. In addition, it appears that the culvert under Tuxford Road is
inadequate to accommodate additional runoff. The second drainageway lies between
two (2) other lots in Shenandoah Subdivision and runoff comes extremely close and
sometimes up against one of the dwellings. There are no easements in the area.
Development of the request property, if allowed to drain in this direction, will cause
serious problems for the dwellings located on these two (2) lots.
The third drainageway lies along the eastern side of the property and enters
Shenandoah Subdivision to the right rear corner of a lot approximately 500 feet south
of Route 60. This drainageway is also extremely close to an existing residence.
When drainage improvements for Shenandoah Subdivision were originally designed,
the assumptions made relative to the request site drainage was for less runoff than the
proposed zoning classifications will generate. It is anticipated that development of
the request site may cause severe erosion and/or drainage problems downstream of
the development if runoff is not properly retained on-site.
Proffered Conditions have been submitted to address these concerns (Proffered
Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 17). These proffers require an overall drainage study and
construction of retention/detention facilities to address water quantity and quality.
These proffers not only require retention/detention of the runoff from the proposed
development but also runoff from existing upstream development which traverses this
property.
Fire Service:
Buford Fire Station, Company #9. County water flows and fire hydrants must be
provided for fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally recognized
standards (i.e., National Fire Protection Association and Insurance Services Office).
The proposed zoning and land uses will generate additional need for fire protection
services. The applicant has proffered a condition to address this need. (Proffered
Condition 1)
Transportation:
The applicant has proffered a maximum density of 200,000 square feet of shopping
center or equivalent densities (Proffered Condition 5). Based on the proffered density,
development could generate approximately 10,900 average daily trips. These
vehicles will be distributed along Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) which had a 1990
traffic count of 43,025 vehicles per day.
7 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
Development must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance relative to access and internal
circulation (Article 7). Access to Route 60 should be limited to one (1) entrance/exit
limited to right-turns in and out, located approximately in the center of the property
(Proffered Condition 6). Access should not be provided through the adjacent
subdivision to the east or south, Shenandoah (Proffered Condition 8).
Mitigating road improvements must be provided for the requested densities to achieve
an acceptable level of service. There is an existing crossover on Route 60 adjacent
to the subject property. The crossover is located approximately 440 feet west of the
signalized crossover that serves Tuxford Road. The desirable spacing between
signalized crossovers is 1,200 to 1,500 feet. Due to the location of other Route 60
crossovers to the west on Route 60, relocation of the crossover adjacent to the subject
property is not recommended. Therefore, the crossover should be closed. (Proffered
Condition 7. B.)
A right turn lane should be constructed along the eastbound lanes of Route 60 to
accommodate vehicles decelerating as they enter the property (Proffered Condition
7. A.). At the time of site plan review, specific recommendations will be made
regarding access and internal circulation.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Northern Area Land Use and Transoortation Plan.
which designates the northwestern portion of the property for general commercial use
and the remainder of the property for light industrial use.
Area Development Trends:
Area development is characterized by a mix of residential, office, light industrial, and
commercial zoning and land uses or vacant land. Property to the south and east is
currently zoned Residential (R-7) and is occupied by residences in Shenandoah
Subdivision.
Site Desi n:
The proposed C-3 tract is located in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to
existing zoned 6-3 property. The C-3 property is surrounded by the proposed C-2
tract which lies adjacent to Shenandoah Subdivision.
The request property lies within the Midlothian Turnpike Post Development Area.
At a minimum, development must conform to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance
which address access, parking, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, signs,
8 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
t .(
(, ~
yy~ ~~
~I
buffers, utilities, and screening of dumpsters and loading areas. Further, the proffered
conditions address height limits; buffers; and setbacks for any use selling gasoline.
(Proffered Conditions 9,14 and 16)
Outdoor retail activities, to including loading and unloading, has been precluded
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (Proffered Condition 10). Also,
outside speaker systems have been limited to only those normally associated with
banks, savings and loans and fast food restaurants. (Proffered Condition 11)
To address concerns relative to the intensity of uses and to limit the uses to those
which support the immediate neighborhood, the applicant has proffered conditions
to limit the size of individual users, as well as the types of uses permitted. (Proffered
Conditions 13 and 15) ,
The applicant has agreed to notify the Shenandoah Community Association and all
adjacent property owners prior to site plan submission to the Planning Department.
(Proffered Condition 12)
Architectural Treatment:
Within Post Development Areas, no building exterior which would be visible to
public rights of way can be constructed of unadorned concrete, block or corrugated
and/or sheet metal. 1vlechanical equipment, whether ground-level or rooftop, must
be shielded and screened from public rights of way. Construction must adhere to
Post Development requirements.
Buffers & Screening:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste storage areas (i.e., dumpsters,
garbage cans, trash compactors, etc.) be screened from view of adjacent property and
public rights of way by a solid fence, wall, dense evergreen plantings or architectural
feature; be separated from lots in Shenandoah Subdivision by the principal building;
and that such area within 1,000 feet of any residentially zoned property or property
used for residential purposes not be serviced between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and
6:00 a.m. It should be noted that all portions of the request property lies within
1,000 feet of lots in Shenandoah Subdivision. In addition, sites must be designed
and buildings oriented so that loading areas are screened from lots in Shenandoah
Subdivision and from public rights of way.
In the proposed Community Business (C-3) tract, outside storage, including storage
yards for retail merchandise, would be permitted. Any outside storage areas must be
screened from view of Shenandoah Subdivision and public rights of way.
9 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
As noted herein, adjacent property to the south and east is zoned Residential (R-7)
and occupied by residences in Shenandoah Subdivision. While the Zoning
Ordinance requires a minimum fifty (50) foot buffer along the south and west
property boundaries of the request site adjacent to these residences, the applicant has
proffered to provide aseventy-five (75) foot buffer along the eastern boundary and
a 150 foot buffer along the southern boundary. Clearing and grading would be
permitted within the western twenty-five (25) feet of the seventy-five (75) foot buffer;
however, the area would have to be re-landscaped (Proffered Condition 14). Also,
retention facilities would be permitted within the 150 foot buffer provided the pond
is located at least seventy-five (75) feet from the property line and no clearing, other
than permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, occurs closer than seventy-five (75) feet to
the property line to accommodate the basin. (Proffered Condition 14)
Proffered Condition 16 requires that any automobile self-service station or business
selling gasoline be screened to preclude vehicle headlights from projecting into the
neighborhood.
Conclusions:
The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning and land uses conform to the
Northern Area Land and Transportation Plan which designates that portion of
the property for general commercial use. Further, the applicant has proffered to
restrict the uses permitted in the C-3 tract. (Proffered Condition 15)
As indicated, the adopted Plan designates the remaining portion of the request
property for light industrial uses. The intent of this designation is to provide land use
transition between the Midlothian Turnpike commercial corridor and the surrounding
residential neighborhood. As staff has indicated in the past, uses, other than light
industrial, may be appropriate of an intensity and design which would provide a
similar transition to, and impact on, the neighborhood. Given the proffered
conditions, staff is of the opinion that the Neighborhood Business (C-2) zoning
achieves these goals.
Specifically, the proffered conditions not only restrict the uses permitted, but also
preclude outdoor retail activities and loading/unloadingdnring night hours (Proffered
Conditions 10 and 15). In addition to the buffering and screening requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance outlined herein, the proffered conditions require increased
buffer widths and additional screening measures to minimize the impact on the
adjacent neighborhoods (Proffered Conditions 14 and 16). Further, the limitation on
the size of individual users somewhat insures that the businesses at this location will
be of a scale which will provide services primarily for the immediate neighborhood,
as opposed to the broader community. (Proffered Condition 13)
10 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
Given the limitations and restrictions outlined by the proffered conditions, staff is of
the opinion that the transitional and compatibility intent of the adopted Plan has been
achieved. Therefore, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (8/20/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days.
The purpose of the deferral was to allow time for the applicant to negotiate with
adjacent owners to include their property in the rezoning request.
Staff (8/21 /91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial changes should be
submitted no later than September 3, 1991, for consideration at the Commission's
October public hearing.
Staff and Applicant (8/29/91):
A meeting was held to discuss inclusion of additional property and possible uses on
the additional property.
Applicant (9/23/91):
The applicant requested a sixty (60) day deferral to allow time to attempt to include
additional property.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/15/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days.
Staff (10/16/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information should be
submitted no later than November 4, 1991, to be considered at the Commission's
December public hearing.
11 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
Applicant (11/21/91):
The applicant requested a sixty (60) day deferral to the Commission's February public
hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (12/17/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days.
Staff (12/19/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial changes should be
submitted no later than January 6, 1992, for consideration at the Commission's
February public hearing.
Applicant (1/7/92):
The request was amended as reflected herein.
Planning Commission Meeting (2/18/92):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for ninety (90)
days.
Staff (2/19/92):
The applicant was advised in writing that any substantial changes should be
submitted no later than March 16, 1992, for consideration at the Commission's May
public hearing.
Staff (5!1 /92):
To date, no new information has been received.
12 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
~ ~
` ~
,,
Applicant (5/7/92):
Proffered Conditions 2 through 7 were submitted to address drainage and
transportation concerns.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/19/92):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for 120 days.
Staff 5/20/92):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant changes should be submitted
no later than July 20, 1992, for consideration at the Commission's September public
hearing. In addition, the applicant was advised that a $50 deferral fee must be paid
prior to the September public hearing.
Applicant, Staff, Midlothian District Commissioner and Area Property Owners (6/3/92):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposed zoning and to discuss alternative land
uses and zonings.
Applicant, Staff, Midlothian District Commissioner and Area Property Owners (6/25/92):
A meeting was held to discuss a possible alternative zoning proposal which included
a mix of C-1, C-2, C-3 and Residential Townhouse (R-TH) uses.
Applicant, Staff, Midlothian District Commissioner and Area Property Owners (7/27/92):
A meeting was held to discuss the alternative zoning proposal.
Applicant, Staff, Midlothian District Commissioner and Area Property Owners (8/12/92):
A meeting was held to discuss the alternative zoning proposal as well as C-3 zoning
of the entire property.
13 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
Staff (8/31/92):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (9/15/92):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for 120 days to
allow the property owners to develop an alternative zoning proposal and to meet and
resolve issues with area residents. Mr. Easter indicated his intent to act on the
application at the January public hearing.
Staff (9/16/92):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant changes should be submitted
no later than November 16, 1992, for consideration at the Commission's January 19,
1993, public hearing. In addition, the applicant was advised that a $50 deferral fee
must be paid prior to the January public hearing.
Staff, Applicant, Property Owners and Midlothian District Commissioner (12/7/92):
A meeting was held to discuss alternative zoning proposals. The applicant and
property owners indicated that they would discuss those alternatives in more detail
and possibly amend the request at a later date.
Staff (1 /14/93):
The $50 deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (1/19/93):
The request was amended to seek Neighborhood Business (C-2) and Community
Business (C-3) zoning.
Planning Commission Meeting (1/19/93):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for ninety (90) days
to allow the amended application to be advertised and time to meet with area
residents to resolve concerns.
14 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
Staff (1/21/93):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new information should be submitted
no later than February 15, 1993, for consideration at the Commission's April 20,
1993, public hearing. The applicant was also advised that a $50 deferral fee must
be paid prior to the January public hearing.
Staff and Applicant (3/10/93):
A meeting was held to discuss the amended application and possible proffered
conditions.
Applicant, Staff, Area Residents and Midlothian District Commissioner (3/11/93):
A meeting was held to review the amended application and to discuss possible
proffered conditions to address staff and neighborhood concerns.
Applicant (4/1/93 and 4/4/93):
The proffered conditions as reflected herein, were submitted.
Applicant (4/7/93):
The $50 deferral fee was paid and the plan depicting the location of any automobile
dealership was submitted.
Applicant (4/20/93):
Proffered Condition 17 was submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
15 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
On motion of Mr. Easter, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Commission recommended
approval of this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2
through 5.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Easter, Cunningham and Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
16 91 SN0230/WP/MAY26G
~wwrrr/// \ \ \
\\\
~ ice';`. `~\`\• .~~ `\~~\`~ ~`\\\~\~ ~`:; ..\\:~`\\ \`~~. `~~\ ~ 'u O~
}11'1'7 :~ • `~..\ " .'~:~;.'~" ~°o `.\\.:`.~\.,~~ ~ ~r
111 \ \._ \~ ~\~...- ~. •.\ 4
\\ O 1
• ~ l' a
\\. ~ \
\ \\\\•.~.~. \\ ~~~ `\\\\\ .~\~~~~ ~\~~~ \ \~~~~ •\ \ .\ \\\\. ` ~ Batt
` \\~ tee: `;` .\.-.\. ~ ~\\\\ \\\\\\ \ \\\~ ~ ~~.\ ~ ~\` ~\\~ \,
\\\ \\\\\\\\
.: ;;N100~2 F1EL „I S~ fAL PAF~~Z;;~: ~. `~ \~~ \\:.:~ .\..,.: \\\\\ ` ~'v•. \.
\\\ .~\~ ..~ .~\..\ ~ \\\~\\\\\\ ~A-
\ :~~~ \\\\ \\ \\\\~\. t ~
ti \\\\\ .~ •~\\\.\\\ \ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\~. ~~ do\\ \
\ ~ ` ~' \ \
~ \\. ': .} -•a•Y:.-ice:;::;::. •• ~ ~~ I~ -
~ti ~:~ ~ ~ ~;: 2
HE ANDO ~ S ~\~.,..\.~G" - ,
. , .HOC, \:'., `_\`\ ,,};,
.\ ~ \\.
rU t~ ~ ~~ \
~~• c v c ~~ C`- i ~~ 4 ~~
' _ ~ r ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~
L ~ ~. 91 SN0230 (AMENDED
\, ~ ; ~ a
`' ~ REZ~A, R-7 & B-i TO C-2~
;~~
P _ ~ ~ ~
W a'
. 1 ....\ \. ..
~ ~ ~ \\\\\' \\\~\,'• \\\\\• ~ \ ~ O \\\\\ \\\\\\
a \\\\ ~\\ ~\\\ \\\\`. \\\ \\~`•\ I~ \ \\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\
.: ~~\~MOOR• F1~EL J ~ rAL PA~3~~~"~ ., ~', ; ~:~~~ :::: :;
c
\ ~~\ ~~\
.. ,
. ~.
\..
\~\ ~\\
.\\... ~.
\,..\.
\.., 's
'q '.~~~• \ :: e
L
~ ~
~:
`,
N
Z~
v
1. V\~~~
o ~ -_
•~RIDGE ~
1
g .er"f
c~
H A R M A O '
x.
e~
m
A
~ a - W'
~W 1
r ~
~ m ` o
T ~
a
I
~ ~.
~ ~ v
7 7
~ O ~
~~
~~;~' • -
.. ~~n..•.•..
~• aar-
.;.\
' ~~~ 7H
Z.au av' ,I,K`
~ •
..\ .. ..
~~
~. ~..-
C~\ \..~
~~~\~ - ~~
\ •~~., /1
•1 \`Q~~ ~~~ ` tom: Q
~.,
~ ~:~
.
~~ ~s~;..
a yp,~
~;' ` `.
s~=, `~
.'~~
j
.t F: ~l ~ ..1 .1. ~ \, i.
/~ ~ rat / d S 1 i . ~ ~ V .~~',
~= ~
i : , \~% , v\ 1. ,~ ~~~.
' ~\'. ~
~ ~ ~•,"~,
~,;,
~ ~ ~, _
~ s ~ ~ it 11 ,•`;R , ~ ~ `.` ~~-.`;, S {
,'.•
4 / ~ ~ ; t..l ~ ^v i
~. i ~-`,```~ ~ O I.
~ _ ... r-t• it ~ ;9Cy ~\.. .. ~ !,
~~ '.
~,
G lSN02 3o-Z
rcpri~-s
May 26, 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
93SN0172
The Chesterfield County Planning Commission
Bermuda Magisterial District
11109 Kentsh i re Lane
RE UE T: Amendment to a previously granted rezoning (Case 86S119) relative to the
architectural treatment of exposed chimneys. Specifically, deletion of a
proffered conditions requiring exposed chimneys to be brick is requested.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The request site lies within and is a part of the Ascot Pointe Subdivision. A
single family residence with alapped-sided chimney has been constructed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the amendment may be appropriate if it is the consensus of the Commission and
Board that such amendment will not detrimentally impact area residents or future area
development. This recommendation is made for the following reason:
The requirement that exposed chimneys be brick was proffered through the original
rezoning in response to area property owners' concerns. If area property owners, the
Commission and Board are satisfied that deleting this requirement will not affect the
quality of construction or area properties, then approval of this request would be
appropriate.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
L i n:
Located at the southeast terminus of Kentshire Lane and better known as 11109
Kentshire Lane. Tax Map 97-15 (13) Ascot Pointe, Lot 31 (Sheet 32).
Existing Zoning:
R-9 with proffered conditions
Size
0.34 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family residential
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - R-9; Single family residential
South - R-7; Single family residential or vacant
East - R-9; Single family residential
West - R-9; Single family residential or vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
utilities: Environmental Engineering• Fire Service• Schools; and Transportation:
Proposed amendment will have no impact on these facilities.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Chester Villaee Plan, which designates the property
for single family residential use of 1.01 to 2.50 units per acre.
Area Development Trends:
The area surrounding the request property is characterized by residential zoning and
is either occupied by .single-family residences or is vacant.
2 93SN0172/WP/MAY26J
..(
`' 1
v
Zoning and Development History:
On September 16, 1986, the Planning Commission considered R-9 zoning to
accommodate the development of Ascot Pointe Subdivision (Case 86S119). It was
the general consensus of the Planning Commission that R-9 zoning was too dense for
the area and, therefore, they recommended denial. At that time, proffered conditions
were offered to include a requirement that all exposed chimneys be of brick
construction. Staff has recommended that the requirement, as well as other
conditions, be incorporated into the Restrictive Covenants rather than the proffered
conditions since they did not relate to the appropriateness of the land use. These
proffered conditions were in response to concerns by area residents relative to the
quality of construction.
On October 22, 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved Residential (R-9) zoning for
Ascot Pointe Subdivision and accepted the following proffered conditions:
1. County sewer and water will be used for all development.
2. Minimum square footage for homes as follows:
a. Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished
b. Cape Cods and Tri-levels - 1,600 square feet finished
c. Two stories - 1,800 square feet finished
3. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of Restrictions
and recorded with the subdivision plat:
A. No lot shall be used other than for residential purposes. Only
one residence may be constructed on each platted lot, as
recorded, nor shall said platted -lots be subdivided or
resubdivided.
6. Exclusive of the main dwelling, no building, structure,
outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be erected, placed
or altered on any lot until the construction plans and
specifications and a plan showing the location of the same have
been filed with and approved by the Architectural Control
Committee as the square footage, quality of workmanship and
materials, harmony of exterior design and/or color with existing
structures, and as to location with respect to topography and
finished grade elevation.
C. The Committee's approval or disapproval, as required in these
proposed restrictions, shall be in writing. In the event the
3 93 S N0172/W P/MAY2 6)
Committee or its designated representative fails to approve or
disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have
been submitted to it or, in any event, if no suit to enjoin the
construction or alteration, after notice in writing of said
construction has been received by said Committee, approval
will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed
to have been fully complied with.
D. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on
any lot, except that one sign of not more than seven square feet
advertising the property for sale or rent may be displayed; two
signs used by a builder to advertise the property during
construction and sales period may also be displayed; also, one
sign may be displayed at the entrance of subdivision of not
more than twenty-four square feet.
E. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding erected
on any lot shall, at any time, be used as a residence,
temporarily or permanently, no shall any structure of a
temporary character be used as a residence; provided, however,
this clause shall not be construed to prevent domestic held
quarters being installed over a detached garage or other
outbuilding.
F. No homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours in any
one week on any lot or driveway so as to be visible from the
street.
G. No live stock, cattle, hogs, or goats, any dog kennel as defined
by the Chesterfield County Code in existence as of the date of
the recordation of these restrictions shall be allowed on any lot,
nor shat l any noxious or offensive trade or activity be carried on
thereon, nor shall anything be done thereon which shall be or
become an annoyance or nuisance to a good residential
neighborhood.
H. No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for
rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall be kept in sanitary
containers. All incinerators or other equipment for the storage
or disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and
sanitary condition in rear yards only. Trash to be picked up by
public or private service shall be kept outside the bounds of any
road in the subdivision and kept wholly on the individual lots.
4 93 SN0172/W P/MAY26J
< <`
i
I. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured on any lot or
parcel of land.
). No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lot herein
for more than sixty (60) days unless it is parked in an enclosed
garage.
K. No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at a point
two feet above ground level may be removed without the
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Approval for the removal of trees located within fifteen feet of
the main dwelling or accessory buildings will be granted unless
such removal will substantially increase the beauty of the
property. This shall not apply to clearing of right of ways,
and/or easements, for construction of roadways, drainage and
utilities, or for garden or trailer space.
L. The following are prohibited until it has been approved by the
Architectural Control Committee:
1. No fence shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot.
2. No antenna other than a television antenna shall be
installed.
3. No swimming pool shall be constructed above ground.
4. No single-story main structure shall be of slab
construction.
5. No masonry other than brick or stone shall be left
exposed on any structure.
M. Restrictive Covenants requiring exterior finish materials to be
one of the following:
1. Beaded hardboard siding
2. Woodsman siding
3. Wood siding
4. Brick veneer
N. All utilities are to be underground.
5 93 S N 0172/W P/MAY2 6)
O. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding
on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period
of twenty (20) years for the date these covenants are recorded,
after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended
for an additional period of ten (10) years unless an instrument
signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been
recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
4. ,Curb and gutter shall be used.
5. Double-wide boulevard entrance with subdivision identification sign
and landscaping.
6. Maximum number of lots not to exceed 60.
7. All exposed chimneys will be brick.
8. All utilities shall be underground.
9. No satellite dishes allowed.
Subsequently, the subdivision plat and restrictive covenants were recorded. On
December 28, 1989, a building permit was issued on the subject property. Staff
failed to detect that the building plans did not reflect a brick chimney. A certificate
of occupancy was issued on April 13, 1990. At that time, the Planning Department
was not inspecting for single family residential certificates of occupancy. The
violation on this site came to light when Planning staff inspected for a certificate of
occupancy at 11104 Churchill Court, at which there is a similar situation that is the
subject of Zoning Case 93SN0173.
It should be noted that the Commission's and Board's action on this request does not
affect the restrictive covenants which also require that any exposed chimney be brick.
If this request is approved by the County, the property owner will also need to seek
relief of the covenants from the appropriate private parties.
Conclusions:
The proffered condition regarding the architectural treatment of exposed chimneys for
Case 86S119 was imposed as a result of negotiations with area residents. If it is the
consensus of the Commission and Board that deleting this condition will not affect
the quality of construction or area development, approval of this request would be
appropriate.
6 93 S N0172/W P/MAY26J
~. ~
• Y
As indicated herein, staff had originally recommended that Proffered Condition 7, 8
and 9 (see page 6) not be accepted as proffered conditions, but rather, placed in the
restrictive covenants, since the treatment of the chimney, as well as the other design
issues are not an issue for determining the appropriateness of a particular land use.
To avoid oversights in releasing building permits in the future, the Administration has
identified changes needed in the data information system which would route zoning
conditions to the appropriate County Department for review and approval at the
appropriate time in the review process. In the interim, the standard operation
procedure is that the Planning Department reviews the building plans to insure
compliance with zoning conditions prior to release of a building permit. Planning
staff also inspects the affected property for compliance with the zoning condition
prior to release of an occupancy permit.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
There was no opposition present. The President of Ascot Pointe Homeowners
Association was present in support of this request.
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Miller, the Commission
recommended approval of this request.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Easter, Cunningham and Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request. '
7 93SN0172/WP/MAY26J
. zc ) : i ~-
~~z/~ ` %
-~
•+ 4 ~
/
i,
•
1 •
~ ~
j ~ 1
•
r
~t r
``
2
Q!. ~~.sM v avE
~
•
•
m
~
V
-9
zc R--9
R- 9~
9~
~y A
0
M
Z~ ~
O` C
R~
~ ~
• CT
r
~ '
•
w
~~
~~ EAST
A 411 ~~15 CHAGF
_V] I i
' ~ ,t,.E 8 IRY
JRY' ,..v~ p ~--T-
~~~~~;
+ ~ ~1
* + + ~~ ~~+
+ _ ~
++++++ • A '•. S
+ + + + + + GAP • ~
+ + ~
+ + + + + + + + ct'• Pew ~* ~j
+ + +
+ + ++ + .` +++ sµ ,~ AMEND ZONING
+ + ++ + +
+++ + + + +
+ + + + + + + + - + ~a yr
+ + + + + + ~+ + i + +
r + + + + + + r ~+ + + + y . ~ + ii +} + + +
+ a .w
-,
~~in i nn~ r,or
May 26,E 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AN D
RECOMMENDATION
93SN0173
Chesterfield County Planning Commission
Bermuda Magisterial District
11104 Churchill Court
RE UEST: Amendment to a previously granted rezoning (Case 86S119) relative to the
architectural treatment of exposed chimneys. Specifically, deletion of a
proffered condition requiring exposed chimneys to be brick is requested.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The request site lies within and is a part of the Ascot Pointe Subdivision. A
single family residence with alapped-sided chimney has been constructed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the amendment may be appropriate if it is the consensus of the Commission and
Board that such amendment will not detrimentally impact area residents or future area
development. This recommendation is made for the following reason:
The requirement that exposed chimneys be brick was proffered through the original
rezoning in response to area property owners' concerns. If area property owners, the
Commission and Board are satisfied that deleting this requirement will not affect the
quality of construction or area properties, then approval of this request would be
appropriate.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS.)
~-'
Zoning and Development History:
On September 16, 1986, the Planning Commission considered R-9 zoning to
accommodate the development of Ascot Pointe Subdivision (Case 86S119). It was
the general consensus of the Planning Commission that R-9 zoning was too dense for
the area and, therefore, they recommended denial. At that time, proffered conditions
were offered to include a requirement that all exposed chimneys be of brick
construction. Staff had recommended that the requirement, as well as other
conditions, be incorporated into the Restrictive Covenants rather than the proffered
conditions since they did not relate to the appropriateness of the land use. These
proffered conditions were in response to concerns by area residents relative to the
quality of construction.
On October 22, 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved Residential (R-9) zoning for
Ascot Pointe Subdivision and accepted the following proffered conditions:
County sewer and water will be used for all development.
2. Minimum square footage for homes as follows:
a. Ranchers - 1,400 square feet finished
b. Cape Cods and Tri-levels - 1,600 square feet finished
c. Two stories - 1,800 square feet finished
3. The following shall be incorporated into the Declaration of Restrictions
and recorded with the subdivision plat:
A. No lot shall be used other than for residential purposes. Only
one residence may be constructed on each platted lot, as
recorded, nor shall said platted lots be subdivided or
resubdivided.
6. Exclusive of the main dwelling, no building, structure,
outbuilding, playhouse, fence or wall shall be erected, placed
or altered on any lot until the construction plans and
specifications and a plan showing the location of the same have
been filed with and approved by the Architectural Control
Committee as the square footage, quality of workmanship and
materials, harmony of exterior design and/or color with existing
structures, and as to location with respect to topography and
finished grade elevation.
C. The Committee's approval or disapproval, as required in these
proposed restrictions, shall be in writing. In the event the
3 WP/93SN0173/MAY26K
Committee or its designated representative fails to approve or
disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have
been submitted to it or, in any event, if no suit to enjoin the
construction or alteration, after notice in writing of said
construction has been received by said Committee, approval
will not be required and the related covenants shall be deemed
to have been fully complied with.
D. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on
any lot, except that one sign of not more than seven square feet
advertising the property for sale or rent may be displayed; two
signs used by a builder to advertise the property during
construction and sales period may also be displayed; also, one
sign may be displayed at the entrance of subdivision of not
more than twenty-four square feet.
E. No trailer, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding erected
on any lot shall, at any time, be used as a residence,
temporarily or permanently, no shall any structure of a
temporary character be used as a residence; provided, however,
this clause shall not be construed to prevent domestic held
quarters being installed over a detached garage or other
outbuilding.
F. No homeowner's trailer shall be parked over 12 hours in any
one week on any lot or driveway so as to be visible from the
street.
G. No live stock, cattle, hogs, or goats, any dog kennel as defined
by the Chesterfield County Code in existence as of the date of
the recordation of these restrictions shal I be allowed on any lot,
nor shall any noxious or offensive trade or activity be carried on
thereon, nor shall anything be done thereon which shall be or
become an annoyance or nuisance to ~a good residential
neighborhood.
H. No lots shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for
rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste shall be kept in sanitary
containers. All incinerators or other equipment for the storage
or disposal of such materials shall be kept in a clean and
sanitary condition in rear yards only. Trash to be picked up by
public or private service shall be kept outside the bounds of any
road in the subdivision and kept wholly on the individual lots.
4 WP/93SN0173/MAY26K
j
I. No horse or pony shall be stabled or pastured on any lot or
parcel of land.
). No unlicensed motor vehicle shall be parked on any lot herein
for more than sixty (60) days unless it is parked in an enclosed
garage.
K. No trees measuring six inches or more in diameter at a point
two feet above ground level may be removed without the
written approval of the Architectural Control Committee.
Approval for the removal of trees located within fifteen feet of
the main dwelling or accessory buildings will be granted unless
such removal will substantially increase the beauty of the
property. This shall not apply to clearing of right of ways,
and/or easements, for construction of roadways, drainage and
utilities, or for garden or trailer space.
L. The following are prohibited until it has been approved by the
Architectural Control Committee:
1. No fence shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot.
2. No antenna other than a television antenna shall be
installed.
3. No swimming pool shall be constructed above ground.
4. No single-story main structure shall be of slab
construction.
5. No masonry other than brick or stone shall be left
exposed on any structure.
M. Restrictive Covenants requiring exterior finish materials to be
one of the following:
1. Beaded hardboard siding
2. Woodsman siding
3. Wood siding
4. Brick veneer
N. All utilities are to be underground.
5 WP/93SN0173/MAY26K
O• These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding
on all parties and alt persons claiming under them for a period
of twenty (20) years for the date these covenants are recorded,
after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended
for an additional period of ten (10) years unless an instrument
.signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been
recorded, agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part.
4• Curb and gutter shall be used.
5• Double-wide boulevard entrance with subdivision identification sign
and landscaping.
6• Maximum number of lots not to exceed 60.
7. All exposed chimneys will be brick.
8. All utilities shall be underground.
9. No satellite dishes allowed.
Subsequently, the subdivision plat and restrictive covenants were recorded. On
October 5, 1992, a building permit was issued on the subject property. Staff failed
to detect that the building plans did not reflect a brick chimney. Upon inspection for
a certificate of occupancy in January 1993, the Planning Department found the
violation and notified the builder. Subsequently, the Planning Commission initiated
this application as well as a similar application at 11109 Kentshire Lane (Case
93SN0172).
It should be noted that the Commission's and Board's action on this request does not
affect the restrictive covenants which also require that any exposed chimney be brick.
If this request is approved by the County, the property owner will also need to seek
relief of the covenants from the appropriate private parties.
Conclusions:
The proffered condition regarding the architectural treatment of exposed chimneys for
Case 86S119 was imposed as a result of negotiations with area residents. If it is the
consensus of the Commission and Board that deleting this condition will not affect
the quality of construction or area development, approval of this request would be
appropriate.
As indicated herein, staff had originally recommended that Proffered Condition 7, 8
and 9 (see page 6) not be accepted as proffered conditions, but rather, placed in the
6 WP/93SN0173/MAY26K
~Mr-°
restrictive covenants, since the treatment of the chimney, as well as the other design
issues are not an issue for determining the appropriateness of a particular land use.
To avoid oversights in releasing building permits in the future, the Administration has
identified changes needed in the data information system which would route zoning
conditions to the appropriate County Department for review and approval at the
appropriate time in the review process. In the interim, the standard operation
procedure is that the Planning Department reviews the building plans to insure
compliance with zoning conditions prior to release of a building permit. Planning
staff also inspects the affected property for compliance with the zoning condition
prior to release of an occupancy permit.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
There was no opposition present. The President of the Ascot Pointe Homeowners
Association was present in support of this request.
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Easter, the Commission
recommended approval of this request.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Easter, Cunningham and Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
7 WP/93SN0173/MAY26K
' !
.~ ~
f it 3 \~
• •
/~/ : ~ /
/-
~ _ r
~l
1 r
1 ~
! ~
z.
Q`; r
~`, ~
m~ ~
~' I J=1 ~ ~7 ~ ,
Z~
V
-9
R- g~
wz =
2~_..~'
~'"`--~ z~ R-9
M ~
-~
~~
,AGE ,
R-
M
} ~ + ~-
+ + ~, ,,~I
r
+ + '+ CAP A •~~ S
a t + + ~
+ + + + + + + + fS~ 1 ~I~
++ + ' ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ~ * + °93SN0173 /~
+ ++ + ++ + ++ + v ~., +
+ ~+ + }++ ~++ dR ,~ * ~ AMEND Z4NING~
'-i + + + + + + + +
.., ++.++. ++ ++ +++++SN. 32 + +.
+ + .. +
r + + + +
a _
+ + +
May 26, 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AN D
RECOMMENDATION
93SN0178
Carolyn R. Bryant
Matoaca Magisterial District
East line of Bridgewood Road
RE UE T: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) and Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-9).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision, with a minimum lot size of 9,000
square feet, is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITION ON
PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposed zoning and land use conform to the Powhite/Route 288
Develooment Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which designates the
request property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. Specifically,
rezoning to Residential (R-9) would allow a maximum theoretical density of
4.0 lots per acre once land area for public roads, built in conjunction with the
subdivision, are taken into account.
B. The proposed zoning and land use conform to existing and anticipated area
residential development patterns.
C. The proffered condition addresses impacts on capital facilities and
transportation, as outlined herein.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS
NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY
STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED NDITION
(STAFF/CPC) For each residential lot developed in excess of the four (4) currently permitted
under the existing R-15 zoning, the applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall
pay the following to the County of Chesterfield prior to the time of building
permit application for infrastructure improvements within the service district
for the property:
a. $4,000 per lot, if paid or prior to )une 30, 1993; or
b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to
exceed $4,000 per lot adjusted upward by any increase in the
Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between )uly 1, 1992,
and )uly 1 of the fiscal year in which the payment is made if
paid after )une 30, 1993.
GENERAL INFORMATION
L i n:
East line of Bridgewood Road, south of Brookview Drive. Tax Map 62-4 (1) Part of
Parcel 5 (Sheet 20).
Existin g Zonis:
A and R-15
iz
3.5 acres
Existin g Land Use:
_ Agricultural
Adjace nt Zoning & Lan I Use:
North - R-15; Single family residential or vacant
South - A and R-9; Single family residential
2 93SN0178M/P/MAY26L
w
~-
East - R-15; Single family residential
West - A; Single family residential and agricultural
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Public Water System:
Size/Location of Lines
There is an existing 12" water line along the west side of Bridgewood Road.
In addition, there is an existing 6" water line along the south side of
Brookview Drive.
Ordinance Requirements
Connection to the County water supply system shall be required if an existing
water line is less than two hundred (200) feet from any property line for which
a building permit is sought; or in a proposed subdivision, when any lot in the
subdivision has an area less than one acre (Chapter 20, Article II, 20-42).
Flow and Pressure Availability
Results of a computer simulated flow test indicate that sufficient flow and
pressure should be available to meet domestic and fire protection demands of
the proposed use. Fire flow requirements are established and coordinated
through Fire Administration.
Wastewater System:
Size/Location of Lines
There is an existing 8" wastewater line approximately seventy (70) feet from
the southwest corner of the request site along Bridgewood Road.
Ordinance Requirements
Connection to the County wastewater system shall be required for any
structure for which a building permit has been obtained after the effective date
of this Article and which is within two hundred (200) feet of a gravity
wastewater service (Chapter 20, Article III, 20-63); utilizes more than three
thousand (3000) gallons of water per day; or lot shall be no smaller than forty
93 S N 0178/W P/MAY2 6L
thousand (40,000) square feet in size and have a minimum lot width of one
hundred twenty (120) feet at the building line (Chapter 20, Article XI, 20-195).
Cagaci Availability
The results of a computer simulated hydraulic analysis indicate that sufficient
capacity should be available to accommodate the domestic waste flows
generated by the proposed use.
Environmental:
Drainage and Erosion
The request property drains south through Glen Tara Subdivision and ultimately to
Swift Creek. No existing or anticipated on- or, off-site drainage or erosion problems.
Off-site easements and drainage improvements may be needed in order to take
advantage of easements in Glen Tara Subdivision. On-site retention will be required
to satisfy Chesapeake Bay requirements. It may be necessary to also retain on-site to
control the amount of runoff. It should be noted that there exists a significant
probability that rock may be encountered very close to the surface. At the time of
tentative subdivision review, environmental engineering will require retention
facilities to be located on one (1) lot and such facilities to conform to appropriate
clearing and building setbacks.
Fire Service:
Clover Hill Fire Station, Company #7. County water flows and fire hydrants must be
provided for fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally recognized
standards (i.e., National Fire Protection Association and Insurance Services Office).
The proposed development will generate additional need for fire protection services.
A proffered condition has been received to address this need. (Proffered Condition)
Schools:
This request will not generate a significant increase in the number of students
attending area public schools. The applicant has agreed to participate in the cost of
providing for area school needs. (Proffered Condition)
4 93SN0178/Vt/P/MAY26L
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER UNIT
Potential # of New Dwelling Units
Population Increase 10.00*
28 30
1.00
2 83
Number New Students
Elementary 2.90 0.29
Middle 1.30 0.13
High 1:50 0.15
Total # of Students 5.70 0.57
Net Cost for Schools 22,020 2,202
Net Cost for Parks 4,020 402
Net Cost for Libraries 1,430 143
Net Cost for Fire Stations 1,950 195
Total Net Cost
(excluding roads) 29,420 2 942
*Based on theoretical density of 4.0 units per acre and 4.0 lots currently permitted
under existing R-15 zoning.
The proposed zoning and land use will have a fiscal impact on capital facilities.
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the applicant has offered cash
proffers to address the impact of this proposed zoning on such capital facilities.
(Proffered Condition)
Transportation:
This proposed development could generate approximately 90 average daily trips.
These vehicles will be distributed along Bridgewood Road and Hull Street Road
(Route 360) which had 1990 traffic counts of 1,388 and 24,987 vehicles per day,
respectively.
Area roads need to be improved to accommodate an increase in traffic generated by
this development. The applicant has proffered to contribute cash for off-site road
improvements in accordance with Board policy. (Proffered Condition)
5 93SN0178/W P/MAY26L
LAND USE
general Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land UcP
and Transportation Plan, which designates the property for residential use (1.5 to 4.0
units per acre).
Area Development Trends:
Area development is characterized by agricultural and residential zonings and land
uses. Residential land uses to the north and east, in Kellersley Subdivision, have
developed with a density of approximately 1.23 units per acre. Lot sizes range
between approximately 32,500 to 42,125 square feet. This subdivision was
developed utilizing septic tank and drainfield systems. The request property is
planned for development utilizing public water and wastewater and, therefore, can
accommodate greater densities.
Glen Tara Subdivision is located to the south. The northernmost section, closest to
the subject property, has developed with a density of approximately 2.82 units per
acre using public water and sewer. Lot sizes range between approximately 9,200 to
20,000 square feet.
In accordance with the adopted Plan, residential uses similar to the densities
proposed by this application are anticipated on adjacent undeveloped agriculturally
zoned properties. Given the availability of public water and wastewater, the higher
densities can be accommodated.
Site Design:
A tentative subdivision plan has not yet been submitted. However, a preliminary
sketch has been submitted showing nine (9) lots on the proposed R-9 tract served by
a cul-de-sac from Bridgewood Road.
It should be noted that the final subdivision design could change. This layout depicts
lots ranging in size to between approximately 14,000 to 20,800 square feet, with an
average lot size of 15,000 square feet and a density, excluding the area for roads, of
approximately 2.89 units per acre. It should be noted that because of Chesapeake
Bay requirements, at least one of the lots will be utilized for a BMP, thereby
potentially reducing the size of other lots or the total number of developable lots.
The proposed R-9 zoning will allow flexibility in designing the subdivision. The
applicant's request excludes that portion of Parcel 5 on Tax Map 62-4 located in the
southeast quadrant of Bridgewood Road and Brookview Drive. This portion of the
6 93 S N 0178/W P/MAY2 6L
5
~. ..J'
parcel will remain zoned Residential (R-15) and can be developed for subdivision lots
that conform to Residential (R-15) requirements. It should be noted that at the time
of tentative subdivision approval for any subdivision on the request property, the
portion of Parcel 5 not included in this rezoning request must be included on the
tentative subdivision plat.
Conclusions:
The proposed zoning and land use conform to the Powhite/Route 288 Development
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which designates the request property for
residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre. In addition, the proposed zoning and
land use conform to existing and anticipated area residential development patterns
and the proffered condition addresses impacts on capital facilities and transportation.
Therefore, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Easter, the Commission recommended
approval of this request and acceptance of the proffered condition on page 2.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Easter, Cunningham and Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
7 93SN0178M/P/MAY26L
'~ R ~ .V
~ 9O t
~ .. .... w .. .. .....
i " ::: ::" ..:
9 1 .... ~~::~~ .... .......
~ .JT~gyfORP - ..... .........
. ..
j ..... >j~. = .........
,'
~ .~i :::: ' .... ...... ........:.~ .... H ....... :~.'•' • .
.. ~1~ . ..............~..... .. .. ..... .. .. ~..... .V.. lJ
• .................. :~•G :~ . ........... • ~
~ ~ :.....:::::::::...: ii '::::::::::'
~~Q: ::: .::::::::::'i~:~ .~O • ..: ~:: ~~:.. ..::... :~.
:~:
• •.. zc•.• .• ~ .
.;~. ~, A
-' ..
_. Q ~~~
- r ~.. .. _ W y~
. ` 5.... .•.t• ~
i.
. i '~ ~ g\
~ , -a, • ~t
~•R
c
~: :'' ,
-~ -
'.~.' •, y~,•.
•: a
::~. ,...:.::~~ R-~TH
:~ .
~.~: ..
-
. _ ~.~_
~ ~ ~~~-
0
,~~
~ ; ~.
~~
~~ `~
~ ~~
,,'',~.
.`
~`
.•
"~ R-9
.~
A~
~, -
..:•.'t ~
v
v
v ~~
r.~
93SN0178
I)
• /"~
•
r
A
REZ~ A 8~ R-15 TO R-9~
SH. 20
~z,,
A ~.
~'•
~~
/ ~~,
a •
~ ~
•
•
G
i y
~,
1
:~A~~:~::~:
'
. '
.~
' .
. y'.
#.. e S sr ::.. y~ .. :::~~:. .? .~,.
•~ ... ...w .. ~~~ .4 ..... ...
C ``W
. T '~ ;
... .JR~yFQRO .... ..........
ZC / ..... .. .. ~. .. ~ ~ ...~... ~ .......... •' ~ '.~. •'
~ :t
................ ........ .. ..:.r.....:~~ ~ .........
_ ~ . y ..
~. ~t~1.. ; ~yL ..... ~ ........... ....... •. ........ ...
~' •
~~:.. +1~:::::::::::::..~:::: ::: ::::::::. :. ::: ~:::::
• .~ ~'.~
O ~ ..
~:..~....... -~ yr. ...:.. ~ g ~ ..::~. .
~~~ '.
;~ ::::..::::::::::~~ ,,,~ ..::.:::::::: ~::~:: ::::o:
~:
._ /... .w
.~ o .~
~Q ' J -
~ ` _ _
. r ~ ~'~•'.•.,.'.'• •'~,~.'~.• Q
c ::: r'`i~'~~ 4
~ . , *~~
~. ~
`:~: :.. .
~,~~a,•
y
: a
::;.~,...:.::~~~ RMTf~
~'
~, ~
-' t
~ I
• V
~~ ~ I
r '
• c
•
I
~ ' I ~
'••.
• •.
~ ~ •~~f 4
•y ~I I ~ ~~B
._ ~ ; ~~~~
~~
•
1~~,'`
~,
~,
~~
.•
R-9
q,
ti
.'
~, .
L
~ ~~,~ ..
_ ~
fflfffff
v /_!
r /j
v • ~
i ~~ \
~E_____-
-~- WATER LINES
~---• SEINER LINES
Q
.-'''
Q 935N0/7~, I
.~
,~'l !~:
4i
1v
~~~. '-Trrs-`t.j C
e.,.:i ~n ~ nn, r-„r.
May 26,E 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
93SN0161
Caddy Shack, Inc.
Midlothian Magisterial District
North line of Midlothian Turnpike
RE UEST: Rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to Community Business (C-3).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A nightclub is planned; however, other C-3 uses, except as restricted by
Proffered Condition 2, would be permitted.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposed zoning and land uses conform with the Midlothian Area
Community Plan, which designates the property for historic districtand Village
Shopping District.
B. The proposed Community Business (C-3) zoning is compatible with, and
representative of, area development trends.
C. The development standards of the Zoning Ordinance insure quality
development and land use compatibility.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS
NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY
STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1. Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet of right of way on the
north side of Route 60, measured from the centerline of that part of
Route 60 immediately adjacent to the property shall be dedicated, free
and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of Chesterfield County.
(STAFF/CPC) 2. The following Community Business (C-3) uses shall not be permitted:
a. Automobile service station;
b. Liquor stores;
c. Motor vehicle washes;
d. Pawn shops and second-hand stores;
e. Repair services excluding body, major engine and transmission
repair of motor vehicles;
f. Taxidermies;
g. Veterinary hospitals and/or commercial kennels.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Fronts the north line of Midlothian Turnpike, west of Mt. Pisgah Drive. Tax Map 16-
9 (1) Parcels 25, 47 and 60 (Sheet 7)..
Existin Zoning:
B-2
iz
1.0 acres
Existine Land Use:
Commercial and public/semi-public (church)
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - R-7; Public/semi-public (church)
South - 8-2 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Commercial
2 93 S N 0161 /W P/MAY26H
~. ~
~, ~
East - B-2; Commercial and public/semi-public (church)
West - B-2; Commercial
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Public Water System
Size/Location of Lines
An existing sixteen (16) inch water main fronts the property along Midlothian
Turnpike.
Ordinance Requirements
The existing structures are currently connected to the public water system.
Should these structures be expanded and/or additional structures be built the
following will apply: If an existing water line is less than 200 feet from any
property line of the lot for which a building permit is sought connection to the
County water system shall be required (Chapter 20, Article II, 20-42).
Flow and Pressure Availability
Results of acomputer-simulated flow test indicate that sufficient flow and
pressure should be available to meet the domestic and fire protection demands
of the proposed use. Fire flow requirements are established and coordinated
through Fire Administration.
Public Wastewater System
Size/Location of Lines
An existing eight (8) inch wastewater line is located approximately 400 linear
feet northeast of the existing structure.
Ordinance Requirements
The existing structures are currently connected to the public wastewater
system. Should these structures be expanded and/or additional structures be
built the following will apply: Any individual structure for which a building
permit has been obtained and which is within 200 feet of a gravity wastewater
service shall connect to the County wastewater system (Chapter 20, Article III,
20-b3).
93SN0161/WP/MAY26H
Capacity Availability
The results of acomputer-simulated hydraulic analysis indicate that sufficient
capacity should be available to accommodate the domestic waste flows
generated by the proposed uses.
Environmental:
Drainage and Erosion:
The proposed zoning will have no impact on these facilities.
Fire Service:
Midlothian Fire Station, Company #5. Dependent on present location, fire hydrants
may be required. Fire lanes must be provided as per the Chesterfield Fire Prevention
Code, Section 313.
The proposed zoning and land uses will not generate additional need for fire
protection services.
Transportation:
Development must adhere to the Zoning Ordinance relative to access and internal
circulation (Article 7). The intended use (a night club within the existing structure)
will have a minimal impact on the existing transportation network.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) as a major arterial
with the recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has
proffered to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way measured from the centerline
of Route 60 in accordance with that Plan. (Proffered Condition 1)
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Midlothian Area Community Plan, which designates
the property for proposed historic and village shopping district uses. Appropriate
land uses include neighborhood shopping centers, office/service establishments and
public facilities.
4 93SN0161/V1/P/MAY26H
~ ~
~ ~
~.
Area Development Trends:
This portion of the Midlothian Turnpike Corridor is characterized by a mixture of
commercial and public/semi-public uses. Based upon the adopted Plan, these
patterns are anticipated to continue.
Site Design:
A portion of the .request property is occupied by a restaurant and night club facility
(Parcel 47) and is owned by the applicant. The remaining portion of the property is
occupied by a parking area which is shared by the restaurant/night club use and Mt.
Pisgah Church. The parking lot is owned by the church and the applicant has a long-
term lease agreement with the church for shared parking use.
It should be noted that the restaurant/night club.or any other use in the existing
structure necessitates shared parking because there is no parking located on the
restaurant property.
Architectural Treatment:
Within the Midlothian Village Core Area, buildings must be designed to impart
harmonious proportions and to avoid monotonous facades or large bulky masses.
Buildings must possess architectural variety, but must also enhance an overall
cohesive village character as reflected in existing structures. This character must be
achieved through the use of design elements including, but not limited to, balconies
and/or terraces, articulation of doors and windows, sculptural or textural relief of
facades, architectural ornamentation, varied roof lines, or other appurtenances such
as lighting fixtures and/or planting as described in the applicable adopted plans and
guidelines. Any new structures must conform to these standards.
Buffers and Screenine:
The Zoning Ordinance requires that solid waste storage areas (i.e., dumpsters,
garbage cans, trash compactors, etc.) be screened from view of adjacent property and
public rights of way by a solid fence, wall, dense evergreen plantings or architectural
features, be separated from any residentially zoned property or any property being
used for residential purposes by the principal building, and that such area within
1,000 feet of any residentially zoned property or property used for residential
purposes not be serviced between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. In addition,
sites must be designed and buildings oriented so that loading areas are screened from
any property where loading areas are prohibited and from public rights of way. Any
new development must conform to these standards.
5 93SN0161/WP/MAY26H
Conclusions:
As indicated, the applicant desires to operate a night club within an existing
restaurant. In addition, rezoning of the parking lot is necessary. A night club is
defined as a place which serves alcoholic beverages and has live entertainment and
dancing. To be classified as a night club, all three (3) components must exist.
The proposed zoning and land uses conform with the Midlothian Area Community
Plan, which designates the property as a Village Shopping District. Further, the
development standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the proffered conditions ensure
quality development and land use compatibility. Therefore, approval of this request
is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Applicant (3/11/93):
The applicant requested a thirty (30) day deferral to allow time to submit revised
proffered conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/16/93):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for thirty (30) days.
Staff (3/18/93):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new information should be submitted
no later than March 23, 1993, for consideration at the Commission's April 20, 1993,
public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $50 deferral fee was due.
Applicant (3/22/93):
The applicant submitted the $50 deferral fee and the revised proffered conditions
outlined herein.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
6 93SN0161/WP/MAY26H
Mr. Eastern noted that the Commission had considered a similar request in the recent
past for the shopping center to the southwest and had recommended approval. He
noted that the issue before the Commission was a business having dancing and live
entertainment, not the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in proximity to
schools.
Mr. Miller stated that he did not feel that this type of use was appropriate in
proximity to a school. He indicated that he was prepared to vote against the
rezoning; however, he believed that if Mr. Marsh were present he would support this
request due to his actions on a similar proposal. He indicated that he, therefore,
would abstain from the vote.
Mr. Gulley noted that following the Commission's resolution requesting that the
Board of Supervisors ask the School Board to develop a policy relative to the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages in proximity to schools, the Board of Supervisors
had referred the matter to the Planning Commission for public hearing. He stated
that he felt strongly there should be a policy on the matter. He stated that he did not
believe that a nightclub was compatible with a school.
On motion of Mr. Easter, seconded by Mr. Cunningham, the Commission
recommended approval of this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions on
page 2.
AYES: Messrs. Easter and Cunningham.
NAY: Mr. Gulley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
7 93SN0161/WP/MAY26H
A`~ ~~
+.
- * + s~
~/ + 9
+ + + A G~
+ ~ * + .~ + Ql. • qj.
+ + + S'
y' 4
+ ~'
m . + + + +
+* * + + + + + + + + +
+ +
+ * '
+ + + +
Ap + + + + + + + -/ ;
f•#f + + + + + + + +f ~~/ + +
+ ~If~f + + + + +• ~ +
~+ +• * ~ + +~ff~ + + + V ~ -,rte
+ vr-
+ +
+
+ +
+.
C
c ~
fIf
+ + ~/ 9 + + + + + :
+ '
+ + + + + + y~ + + + + + + ............ .................... ~•
~• ' ~
y .. + + ~ 1
+ ~ + + . + + cn + ~:: _ ..... . .
+
f"''` + + + + ` + ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ * ` + + + ~ : ~ MARKET PLACE. :.::::: •!.~' ..::
+ +
+ ~I ~ YY /~r ; + + + ~ .+
~ t + * + + + Z~ + + + + + + `y, V + + + + + +
~= .*+ `+ ++++ +++~MIDLOTH IAN + .; ++++ ~; +*+ ~ +• + ++ * + + ++ + ++ * + + + + + + '~
+ + lytl# t1 ~f~ ~ + + + + + ~ + * + + ~.
~. + + + MIDDLE
' + + w ~ + r'+ + + y. +
::: i:.:::: ~ ........ SCHOOL;' -~ +. + + + .
•+ +
..... .. ... + + f• + ~ S ~ + + • + + + ........
• ~ +c + + +
+ + + }
. .. + + + + ~+ ~ + + + + + + + + N +........
~ + + O + ..........
+ ++~++ + :. +~-g+ + +~+
+++ .
+ + +
~ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + y + + + `
+ + } + } ~
~ + + + + + + + + ~ + i' + + + * + + + + ~ ~ •
~ } + + + 4 +
Tf + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + * t
+ ++ + ++ + *+ + '+ + ~"+ + ++ + * + + + + a I
+ + + + *~ + + + 93SN016i
+ + + * + '' + + + * + + * + + + ATE
+* + ++ + ++ + ++ + +• ~ ++ ++++ ++++ + *+ RE Z ~ B-2 TO C-3
+ +
* + . + ~ * + - * * + V i~ ~ E EDGE+.~EE
. ~-
,
,.
':~
Da'`
r
~^~ ~~
~ - i
. 1
3.8 =
,~,
I
a~
;~
•^ ~_
~~ V,
~~
M t~ ~i5ga Ch urc r~ ...~
_ ~ ~
i 1 ~
("
~'~8• ~~ -- ' I l
3'7.'1 , ~ , ,~.._. ~ I --~
~~
Aa
i.~ ~ ((~~~J ?-11 5~ ors
• 1 ~ I ~~V
or7c' `~~ ~ QD ~~
5ror ~ p ~ ! ~`~
m~ ~~
~, ~ 1. ~ 1
-~ _,~. I
:~~~ ~
I ~ ~
~~' ~`~7,
/~f 8.358 • ~ ~-4 ~''~'~
~~a r~r 4~, -~
`1 TU~~'~° j~
'~ _ U..~~ ,~~ G O
935N0/61-1
,3
'a~i"'C
~e.,.;i ~n inn-, r-n.-
~~
May 26, 1993 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
93SN0171
Branch Estates, Inc.
Clover Hill Magisterial District
Northeast line of Genito Road
RE UE T: Rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-9).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A single family residential subdivision, with a minimum lot size of 9,000
square feet and a maximum density of 2.75 lots per acre, is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 AND 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposed zoning and land use conform to the Powhite/Route 288
Development Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which designates the
request property for residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre.
B. The proposed zoning and land use conform to existing and anticipated area
residential development patterns.
C. The proffered conditions address impacts on capital facilities and
transportation, as outlined herein.
(NOTE: THE ONLY CONDITION THAT MAY BE IMPOSED IS A BUFFER CONDITION.
THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER OTHER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS
NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE
COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY
STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
(STAFF/CPC) 1. The applicant, subdivider, or assignee(s) shall pay the following to the
County of Chesterfield prior to the time of building permit application
for infrastructure improvements within the service district for the
property:
a. $4,000 per lot, if paid or prior to )une 30, 1993; or
b. The amount approved by the Board of Supervisors not to
exceed $4,000 per lot adjusted upward by any increase
in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index between
duly 1, 1992, and duly 1 of the fiscal year in which the
payment is made if paid after June 30, 1993.
(STAFF/CPC) 2. At time of recordation of a subdivision plat, forty-five (45) feet of right
of way on the north side of Genito Road measured from the centerline
of that part of Genito Road immediately adjacent to the property shall
be dedicated, free and unrestricted, to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County.
(STAFF/CPC) 3. Access to Genito Road shall be limited to one (1) public road. The
exact location of this access shall be approved by the Transportation
Department.
(STAFF/CPC) 4. To provide for an adequate roadway system at the time of complete
development, the developer shall be responsible for the following:
A. Construction of additional pavement along Genito Road at the
approved access to provide left and right turn lanes.
B. Relocation of the ditch to provide an adequate shoulder along
the north side of Genito Road for the entire property frontage.
C. Dedication to the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted,
any additional right of way (or easement) required for the
improvements described above.
(STAFF/CPC) 5. Houses shall have a minimum dimension of 1700 sq. ft. of finish
heated floor area.
2 93SN0171 /W P/MAY261
~` ;'
(STAFF/CPC) 6. Lot density shall not exceed 2.75 per acre.
(STAFF/CPC) 7. All adjacent property owners shall be notified by the developer prior
to submission of the tentative subdivision plan to the Chesterfield
County Planning Department.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location•
Northeast line of Genito Road, southeast of Markey Road. Tax Map 49-5 (1) Parcels
3 and 6 (Sheets 13 and 14).
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
3 7.0 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single family residential or vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - A; Vacant
South - A; Single family residential
East - A and R-7; Single family residential, public/semi-public (church under
construction) or vacant
West - A; Single family residential or vacant
3 93SN0171/WP/MAY261
PUBLIC FACILITIES
tili i
Public Water System:
Location of lines:
An existing 12" water line fronts the property along Genito Road. At the
intersection of Dumaine Road and Clintwood there is an existing 12" water
line.
Ordinance Requirements
Connection to the County water supply system shall be required if an existing
water line is less than two hundred (200) feet from any property line for which
a building permit is sought; or in a proposed subdivision, when any lot in the
subdivision has an area less than one acre (Chapter 20, Article II, 20-42).
Flow and Pressure Availability
Results of a computer simulated flow test indicate that sufficient flow and
pressure should be available to meet domestic and fire demands for the
proposed use at the 12" water line in Dumaine Road, and may not be
available along Genito Road. Fire flow requirements are established and
coordinated through Fire Administration.
Wastewater System:
Size/Location of Lines
An existing 8" wastewater line is located 150'± east of the subject parcel in
Dumaine Drive. Another 8" wastewater line is located 250'+ north in
CI i ntwood Road.
Ordinance Requirements
Connection to the County wastewater system shall be required for any
structure for which a building permit has been obtained after the effective date
of this Article and which is within two hundred (200) feet of a gravity
wastewater service (Chapter 20, Article III, 20-63); utilizes more than three
thousand (3000) gallons of water per day; or lot shall be no smaller than forty
thousand (40,000) square feet in size and have a minimum lot width of one
hundred twenty (120) feet atthe building line (Chapter 20, Article XI, 20-195).
4 93SN0171/WP/MAY261
v
Capacity Availability
The results of a computer simulated hydraulic analysis indicate that sufficient
capacity should be avai)able to accommodate the domestic waste flows
generated by the proposed use.
Environmental:
Drainage and Erosion
The request property drains through Lake Genito Subdivision. The existing natural
watercourse through Lake Genito is experiencing some minor natural erosion. Off-
site easements and drainage improvements may be required. within Lake Genito
Subdivision to protect existing residences from increased runoff generated by the
proposed development. On-site retention should be utilized. Such retention should
be designed to satisfy Chesapeake Bay requirements and ensure that the volume of
water released downstream is controlled. At the time of tentative subdivision review,
specific recommendations to address these concerns will be made.
Fire Service:
Clover Hill Fire Station, Company #7. County water flows and fire hydrants must be
provided for fire protection purposes in compliance with nationally recognized
standards (i.e., National Fire Protection Association and Insurance Services Office).
The proposed development will generate additional need for fire protection services.
A proffered condition has been received to address this need. (Proffered Condition
1)
Schools:
Approximately fifty-eight (58) school age children will be generated by this request.
The site lies in the Evergreen Elementary School attendance zone: capacity - 917,
enrollment - 993; Bailey Bridge Middle School zone: capacity - 1,200, enrollment -
979; and Manchester High School zone: capacity - 2,000, enrollment - 1,758.
This development would have an impact on area schools. However, school zone
configurations would be affected by new building plans due to the rapid area growth.
The need for a new elementary school has been identified in the Evergreen/Crenshaw
area. This development would have particular impact on the elementary school. The
applicant has agreed to participate in the cost of providing for area school needs.
(Proffered Condition 1)
5 93SN0171/WP/MAY26)
Financial Impact on Capital Facilities:
PER NIT
Potential # of New Dwelling Units 101.00* 1.00
Population Increase 285 83 2 83
Number New Students
Elementary 29 29 0 29
Middle 13.13 0.13
High 15.15 0.15
Total 57.57 0.57
Net Cost for Schools 222,402 2,202
Net Cost for Parks 40,602 402
Net Cost for Libraries 14,443 143
Net Cost for Fire Stations 19,695 195
Total Net Cost
(excluding roads) 297,142 2,942
*Based on proffered density of 2.75 units per acre.
The proposed zoning and land use will have a fiscal impact on capital facilities.
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors' policy, the applicant has offered cash
proffers to address the impact of this proposed zoning on such capital facilities.
(Proffered Condition 1)
Transportation:
Development is anticipated to generate approximately 1,010 average daily trips.
These vehicles will be distributed along Genito Road, which had a 1992 traffic count
of 9,945 vehicles per day.
The Thoroughfare Plan identifies Genito Road as a major arterial with a
recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has proffered to
dedicate forty five (45) feet of right of way measured from the centerline of Genito
Road, in accordance with that Plan. (Proffered Condition 2)
6 93 SN0171 /W P/MAY261
~ ~
~ ~
Access to major arterials such as Genito Road should be controlled. The applicant
has proffered that access to Genito Road will be limited to one (1) public road
(Proffered Condition 3). Mitigating road improvements must be provided for the
requested density. The applicant has proffered to: 1) construct left and right turn
lanes along Genito Road at the approved access and; 2) relocate the ditch along
Genito Road for the entire property frontage. (Proffered Condition 4)
Area roads need to be improved to accommodate an increase in traffic generated by
this development. The applicant has proffered to contribute cash for "off-site" road
improvements. (Proffered Condition 1)
There are several parcels of land, totaling ninety one (91) acres, located just north and
west of the subject property. These parcels are currently zoned Agricultural (A). The
Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land Use and Transportation Plan
recommends medium density residential use (1.51 to 4.0 units per acre) for those 91
acres. In developing the subject property, stub roads should be provided to serve
those adjacent parcels. The Planning Commission stub road policy requires that
subdivision streets projected to carry 1,500 vehicles per day or more should be
designed and constructed as "no lot frontage" roads. In accordance with that policy,
it may be necessary to construct a collector (i.e., "no lot frontage" road) from Genito
Road through a part of the subject property. At time of tentative subdivision review,
specific recommendations will be provided regarding access and internal road
network, to include providing stub road(s) to adjacent properties.
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Land Use
and Transportation Plan, which designates the property for residential use (1.5 to 4.0
units per acre).
Area Development Trends:
Development along this portion of Genito Road is characterized by agricultural and
residential zoning and land uses.. Churches exist or are under construction on
properties to the east and southwest. Residential land uses to the east and west, in
those sections of Lake Genito and Clarendon Subdivision closest to the request
property, have developed with densities of approximately 1.6 and 2.4 units per acre
respectively. However, these sections were developed utilizing septic tank and
drainfield systems. The request property is planned for development utilizing public
water and sewer and, therefore, can accommodate greater densities. As noted herein,
7 93SN0171/WP/MAY261
the applicant has proffered a maximum density of 2.75 lots per acre (Proffered
Condition 6). Residential uses similar to the densities proposed by this application
and the adopted Plan are anticipated on adjacent agricultural properties.
Conclusions:
The proposed zoning and land use conform to the Powhite/Route 288 Develo ment
Area Land Use and Transportation Plan, which designates the request property for
residential use of 1.5 to 4.0 units per acre. In addition, the proposed zoning and
land use conform to existing and anticipated area residential development patterns.
The proffered conditions address impacts on capital facilities and transportation.
Therefore, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (3/17/93):
The Planning Commission on their own motion deferred this case for thirty (30) days
to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with area residents.
Staff (3/18/93):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant or new information should
be submitted no later. than March 23, 1993, for consideration at the Commission's
April 20, 1993, public hearing.
Applicant, District Commissioner, Area Residents and Staff (3/31/93):
A meeting was held to discuss the proposed rezoning. The applicant agreed to
proffer conditions relative to density of development and house sizes in an attempt
to address the concerns of area residents.
Applicant (4/2/93):
The applicant submitted additional proffered conditions relative to density and house
sizes, as reflected herein. (Proffered Conditions 5 and 6)
8 93SN0171/WP/MAY261
't ~
< <
Applicant (4/20/93):
The applicant submitted Proffered Condition 7 relative to notification of adjacent
property owners prior to the submission of a tentative subdivision plan for review and
approval.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/93):
The applicant accepted the recommendation. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Cunningham, the Commission
recommended approval of this request and acceptance of the proffered conditions on
pages 2 and 3.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Easter, Cunningham and Miller.
ABSENT: Mr. Marsh.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
9 93SN0171/WP/MAY261
-'
_. ~~ V
Z~
Z~
1i
I
D14
1
~' ~! ~
1
/\ rte.
A
A -,
.~
`c
:,
:~
_~
J~
i
~,
- i -+ef --
7
~~
AKE GENITO+
r ~
iii
-~,
,~.
7
~~
AKE GENlTO!
-- _ .~ ~
ss :~}:~ ~ fir,.
+~ ~<<aw
za ~ ~ 0
. 0
Q• ze ZL~
O`C + !~ OF
P
c~
~ ~
^'
~; . •~
P
'~ ~ ~
., p r .. .... +, ~ .,,.
~ . ~ ' '. • '.'~ . . c.'.
e• •
~~ ::.:•:.::~ LEGEND ~~:~:~.•:.
,, J ~~ - • ~ .:: .~. -~4- WATER LINES
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ -~--+-SEWER LINES '' ~-~
,,
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
Introduction
most of this important data is compiled into
the "Jefferson Davis Corridor Community Pro-
file," a companion document to the plan.
In many ways the Jefferson Davis Corridor
exemplifies the differences between the old
and new Chesterfield County. As the Coun-
ty continues to grow and mature, many older
neighborhoods, commercial locations and
manufacturing areas like the Jefferson Davis
Corridor face the challenge of maintaining
their physical, social and economic vitality.
Though most of the County's development is
taking place at its urban fringe, the older
parts of Chesterfield possess important re-
sources, such as stable neighborhoods, near-
by employment centers, usable land and es-
tablished infrastructure. It is areas like the
Jefferson Davis Corridor that form the back
bone of Chesterfield County. Without a clear
idea of where the Jefferson Davis Corridor
should be heading in the future, the economic
well being of all of Chesterfield County is at
risk.
As the Jefferson Davis Corridor area changes
over the next twenty years, this plan will
serve as a guide to the public officials and
citizens who will shape the area's future.
The plan is a culmination of a cooperative
effort, pulling together the knowledge and
skills of diverse citizens and staff. Clearly the
Jefferson Davis Corridor area is a special
place with a unique character and history that
distinguish it in Chesterfield County. This
plan addresses the preservation and enhance-
ment of these special qualities.
Planning is a continuing process. It is impor-
tant to remember that a well considered plan-
ning approach is not aone-time effort but
requires continuing reassessment and adjust-
ment in a constantly changing environment.
How This Plan Works
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an comes in
two parts. Understanding that the users of
this plan may not need access to all the minu-
tiae that planners are notorious for collecting,
The plan itself should be used as a general
guide for decisions, both public and private,
affecting the future of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor. In Chesterfield County, plans for
physical growth are adopted by the Board of
Supervisors and become part of the "Plan For
Chesterfield," the County's comprehensive
plan. Once recommended by the Planning
Commission and adopted by the Board of
Supervisors, the Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
will replace corresponding parts of the "Cen-
tral Area Plan" and "Eastern Area Plan,"
originally approved in 1986 and 1984.
The following major components are found in
the Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an:
• Existing Conditions and Important
Findings: This information forms the
factual basis for the goals, recom-
mendations and implementation strategies
found in the plan.
• Goals: These goals are general statements
about what is desirable for the future -
what the plan attempts to accomplish.
• Recommendations: These are clear state-
ments on ways to reach goals, and what
general actions should be taken to
achieve them.
• The Land Use Plan and Community
Facilities and Services Plan: These maps
graphically represent additional recom-
mendations to accomplish the goals of
the plan.
• Strategies: More detailed than recommen-
dations, the Housing and Neighborhood
Strategy, Business Development Strategy
and Commercial/Industrial Revitalization
Strategy contain specific steps to carry
out the plan.
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
What Cannot Be Put Down on
Paper
Perhaps the most important accomplishment
of the Jefferson Davis Corridor planning pro-
cess is not the plan itself but the mutual
understanding and enthusiasm that forms the
foundation for the ideas behind the plan.
White hundreds of hours of work have gone
into the preparation of this plan, only a frac-
tion of that effort ends up being turned into
written words. Before any plan can be truly
successful it has to understand the needs of
the community, and the only way that can be
accomplished is through working directly with
those whom the plan will most affect. Every
hour spent working with area residents and
businesses has been an hour spent imple-
menting the plan, and it is the public's ideas
and interests that will make the Jefferson
Davis Corridor P/an work. Thus, the plan
starts with a description of the importance of
citizen participation, and staff again thanks all
of those who helped in the process.
J
1
2
(Map A)
JEFFERSON DAVIS
HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
Vininity Map
area
~FERSON
JIS HIGHWAY
RRIDOR
~~~
N
9
t
~:
4/93
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
Citizen
Participation
The Importance of Citizen
Participation
citizen participation effort held five informa-
tion meetings covering topics such'as code
enforcement, the County organization, the
Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan,
development standards, and crime watch for
neighborhoods and businesses. Tha informa-
tion meetings were followed by the presenta-
tion and discussion of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor Community Profile, the Plan's techni-
cal report.
Any effective plan must reflect the shared
values and vision of the community. The
challenge facing residents, business people,
property owners and government officials
involved in the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan-
ning effort is to create a vision of the area's
future and produce a plan that most effec-
tively addresses not only the needs of today,
but the hope for tomorrow. This vision is
critical to comprehend significant relation-
ships and have a sense of priorities.. A com-
munity working together to achieve that
vision and common goals is a powerful force
for success.
Public Involvement in The
Preparation of The Ptan
Prior to this planning effort, the involvement
of Jefferson Davis Corridor residents and
businesses in Chesterfield County's planning
process related mostly to zoning changes.
This participation often was in reaction to
proposed immediate change rather than an
ongoing involvement in longer term planning
for the area's future. The citizen participation
effort undertaken in the preparation of the
Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan stresses con-
structive activism.
Citizen participation efforts began with a
series of meetings aimed at identifying prob-
lems and opportunities facing the community
today. Although problems often are readily
identifiable, it may take some reflection to
recognize the positive forces at work in the
community.
The second series of meetings offered infor-
mation relating to issues identified in those
first meetings. The Jefferson Davis Corridor
At this juncture of the citizen participation
process, an important meeting, the "Turn
Around Meeting," was held. At this gather-
ing, citizens were urged to emphasize the
positive aspects of the community and begin
thinking of the community's future. Instead of
identifying problems, citizens began to think
more in terms of solutions. The meeting
fulfilled its purpose with citizens channeling
negative response to creative problem soly-
ing. Citizens were ready to discuss a vision
for the community's future. Vision meetings
were held. by-both residential and business
people. The assignment was to put into a
statement a description of the ideal Jefferson
Davis Corridor Community. The following
statement reflects today's citizen desire for
tomorrow's community.
°TF
is oroeriy anon commerce is prcasperous.
Where people live: in safe., peaceful neighbor.-
hood§. Where children have o~partunities to
live and grave.with equality, Where people
stand proud~af their corrtmunity'~s historic
past'-:and want>~ao preserve it. Where. our focal
government and elected officials understand'
and support: our vision>for the future of our
children."
With the vision in hand, Planning staff set out
to prepare a plan to achieve this vision. Citi-
zens will have further opportunity for input
into the draft plan through the remainder of
the planning process.
The plan's successful implementation will be
a joint effort by the community and the Coun-
ty. Residentially oriented groups have been
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan
active and involved in the community for
several years. The Jefferson Davis Corridor
citizen participation process advanced the
idea of the formation of a business group. In
the fall of 1992, a group of business people
organized the Jefferson Davis Association for
the purpose of promoting and improving the
quality of life and the vitality of the business
environment for the area. These groups along
with other dedicated area citizens have made
and will continue to make the difference in
the upcoming redevelopment effort in the
Jefferson Davis Corridor.
`>~~~ Citizens express themselves about their community; problems, and
:<~<:;..::.;~.:s::~:~
opportunities are identified.
A series of information meetings open the lines of communication
between the County and the community.
;y Everyone turns around and moves forward in a positive direction.
v< Individual ideas, thoughts, and dreams become one shared vision.
>y>:v:: .
E±.'.,.:,~~,~.,~~, A plan to achieve the vision is prepared.
r
'>,,:
fe~~ After adoption, the partnership for implementation of the plan
continues.
:~oi0.+CvnC~ ". .• '• Wi LGN' ~ .vi:YWNYY' .• "'YIA~:iw6:iY "tY.i ~ "'Y:' Y4:FRFn'4ii1:. ...Cv+SCni.h 'i Ah3)>iY." nii.3:v:: ri:~i.:ww.w:
J
J
1
4
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
Existing Conditions
and Important
-I Findings
` ~ Throughout 1992 Chesterfield County Plan-
ning Department staff worked extensively to
gather and analyze important information
about the Jefferson Davis Corridor. The
detailed results of this effort are compiled in
the "Jefferson Davis Corridor Community
Profile," a companion report to this plan.
This background data, along with the valuable
information generated through the citizen
participation process, forms the foundation
for the following analysis of existing condi-
tions important findings.
Demographic and Economic
Change
A detailed look at demographic and economic
trends in the Jefferson Davis Corridor exem-
plifies the changing characteristics of the
area. With a slower rate of population
growth than the rest of Chesterfield County,
and a greater percentage of people under age
five and over age 64, the Jefferson Davis
Corridor faces many challenges from a chang-
ing population.
/mportant Findings
• Population Growth: The Jefferson Davis
Corridor area's population increased eight
percent from 1980 to 1990, a much
slower growth rate compared to the Cou-
nty's 48 percent rate.
the area's families with children were
headed by females, as compared to the
County's nine percent.
• Income: In 1990, the median household
income for the area was $30,430, com-
pared to the County's median household
income of$43,604.
• Employment: Five of Chesterfield
County's top ten employers are located in
the study area. These include the De-
fence General Supply Center (DGSC1, the
County's largest employer (3,550 jobs)
and DuPont, Chesterfield's largest civilian
employer (3,300 jobs).
Land Use
In many ways the strategic location of the
Jefferson Davis corridor within Chesterfield
County is both its greatest strength and most
significant weakness. Historically the princi-
pal north/south route along the eastern sea-
board, Route 1 /301's importance as a com-
mercial corridor was eclipsed by the construc-
tion of Interstate 95. The result has been the
ongoing challenge to cope with the economic
evolution of the corridor and the resulting mix
of land uses.
/mportant Findings
• Variety: The development of the Jeffer-
son Davis Corridor over many years has
created a broad mix of commercial, indus-
trial and residential land uses. It is one of
the few places in Chesterfield County
where concentrations of employment and
housing are relatively close to one anoth-
er.
• Incompatibility: This mix has also created
problems associated with adjacent incom-
patible land uses.
• Age Groups: The Jefferson Davis Corridor
Area has a larger percentage of popula-
„~ tion under five years of age and over 64
years of age than Chesterfield County as
a whole.
• Families: In 1990, seventeen percent of
• Major Uses: Major business operations
such as the Defense General Supply Cen-
ter and the DuPont plant occupy large
tracts of land.
• Land Availability: A significant amount of
undeveloped and underused land exists
(Map C~
JEFFERSON
DAVIS HIGHWAY
CORRIDOR
General Location of
Existing Land Use*
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Mixed Use
* Land uses are conceptually
illustrated.
N
A 1 " = 4000' 4/93
i
j
J
J
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan
within the corridor, creating great poten-
tial for new development and revitaliza-
tion.
• Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian travel along
the corridor presents safety problems.
• Residential Development: Neighborhoods
are an important part of the Jefferson
Davis Corridor area, making up nearly
forty percent of all land uses.
• Route 288: The opening of Route 288 in
1990 has created potential for commer-
cial development of the area adjacent to
its interchange with the Jefferson Davis
Highway. Adjacent areas to the north-
east of this interchange may be better
suited for industrial or commercial devel-
opment than the small number of single
family homes currently found there.
• Regulation: There is general concern by
local residents and businesses about how
land use and development regulations
affect them.
Transportation
A good transportation network is crucial to an
` 7 area's economic well-being; it enables people
!i to get from home to work and is an important
factor in attracting industry and business.
The Jefferson Davis Corridor area's transpor-
i tation network offers excellent access in
E~,t support of residential as well as business and
industry interests.
/mportant Findings
• Regional Access: Because of its close
proximity to Interstate 95, the Jefferson
Davis Corridor presents great economic
development opportunity as one of the
principal regional access points into Ches-
terfield County.
i ~ • Rail and Highway Access: Rail and high-
way access make the Jefferson Davis
Corridor area an ideal location for industri-
al and commercial activity.
`Yj • Public Trans ortation: T
p here is a lack of
public transportation servicing the corri-
dor.
• Road Access: Older commercial develop-
ment along the Jefferson Davis Highway
has resulted in uncontrolled road access,
creating safety problems.
Environment
Although the Jefferson Davis Corridor is
substantially an urban area with significant
industry, the features and benefits of the
natural environment are very important con-
siderations. Impacts on these resources
affect the health, safety and quality of life of
area residents. While residential, commercial
and industrial growth has benefited the Corri-
dor, it has also had some environmental con-
sequences. At the current time several ma-
jor clean-up efforts involving both the public
and private sector are underway.
/mportant Findings
• Resources: Although the Jefferson Davis
Corridor is urbanized and the area con-
tains significant industrialization, there are
many sensitive and valuable natural re-
sources that need to be protected.
• Clean-Up: Major clean-up efforts are being
designed and/or are underway at EPA Na-
tional Priority List (Superfund) and other
hazardous waste sites.
• Impact: Soils, groundwater and other
natural resources in some areas have
been impacted by unsound practices.
• Water Quality: Its close proximity to the
James River further emphasizes the im-
portance of water quality issues in the
Jefferson Davis Corridor.
• Trash and Recycling: Residents and busi-
ness owners are concerned about the
improper disposal of garbage, tires and
other material. There is currently one
public recycling location at Bensley Ele-
mentary School.
6
4.
^
EFFERSON
AVIS HIGHWAY
ORRIDOR
vironmen~al Features
Major Creeks
Critical Environmental Features
Lakes, Impoundments,
Open water, Major wetlands
- National Priority List
Superfund Site
Note: This map is generalized.
Specific site information is available at the
County's Environmental Engineering
Department.
N
A 1 " .4000' 4/93
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
The /eNeison Davis Corridor P/an
Community Facilities and
Services
Chesterfield County services available to
citizens within the Jefferson Davis Corridor
area include public schools, roads, fire protec-
tion, emergency medical services, police pro-
tection, parks and recreation, housing and
public utilities including water supply and
sewerage systems. The county's Health
Department offers an array of medical servic-
es to county residents. According to county
Health Department data, approximately 20
percent of the services offered at the Health
Clinic benefit citizens of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor.
/mportant Findings
• Social Services: A high percentage of
households receiving assistance from
social service programs from the county
reside in the Jefferson Davis Corridor
area.
• Health Department: A high percentage of
households in the study area receive
medical services from the Chesterfield
County Health Department.
• Demographic Change: The need for vari-
ous types of public facilities in the Jeffer-
son Davis Corridor may change as the
population in the area changes. For ex-
ample, an increasing elderly population
may demand more specialized services.
• Utilities: Scattered areas along the Jef-
ferson Davis Corridor lack water or sewer
service, but the cost to the County of
extending services into these areas may
be greater than any benefit.
• Public Safety: There was a greater per-
centage increase in police calls in the
Jefferson Davis Corridor Area (19 per-
cent) between 1990 and 1991 than the
County as a whole (3 percent). There is
also a higher ratio of persons calling for
fire and emergency medical services in
the study are than anywhere else in
Chesterfield County.
Housing and Neighborhoods
The neighborhoods of the Jefferson Davis
corridor represent the heart and history of the
community. These residentia! areas play a
special role within Chesterfield County, pro-
viding both moderately-priced housing and
the suburban quality of life that so many
desire. Many neighborhoods in the Jefferson
Davis Corridor area are now threatened as the
housing stock ages and as other factors im-
pact residential areas. Significant deterioration
does exist in a number of single family neigh-
borhoods, apartment complexes, and mobile
home parks. These pockets of deterioration
are exerting a blighting influence on stable
neighborhoods and also on commercial areas.
While the age of the area's housing stock and
comparatively moderate income levels are im-
portant variables, many factors, some of
which are discussed below, have also contrib-
uted to deterioration.
/mportant Findings
• Neighborhood Stability: The Jefferson
Davis corridor area is characterized by
many stable residential areas. Some
neighborhoods, however, are beginning to
deteriorate.
• Affordable Housing: The corridor area
contains some of the most affordable
housing in Chesterfield County.
Adequate Shelter: The corridor is unique
within the County because it provides a
critical supply of alternative housing for
lower income persons. Often substan-
dard, this housing includes motel rooms
and cabins, multiple-unit mobile homes,
travel trailers and other vehicles.
• Deterioration: Nineteen percent of the
housing in the corridor has been identified
as deteriorating. For a number of rea-
sons, past efforts to improve housing
conditions in the Jefferson Davis Corridor
have been limited to spot rehabilitation
projects.
• Mobile Homes: Although the majority of
the corridor's mobile homes are in good
condition, negative perceptions about the
i
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
corridor and about mobile homes in gener-
al are created and/or reinforced by nine
parks in poor condition that front directly
on the highway. Fourteen mobile homes
have been partitioned into multiple rental
units. These small units do not offer safe
and decent housing.
ment activity in the corridor continues at
a slow pace, the threat of destruction to
specific sites and/or structures may be
great, especially since the corridor con-
tains large amounts of vacant or
underused land that is zoned for commer-
cial or industrial use.
• Antiquated Subdivisions: These subdivi-
sions were platted before planning con-
trols and development standards were in
place. Problems related to housing deteri-
oration include a scattered development
pattern, incomplete public facilities
(streets, drainage, water and/or sewer),
and fragmented ownership of small lots
which are not practical to redevelop.
• Housing In Areas Zoned For Industrial
Use: A small number of single family
homes and mobile homes lapproximately
35 units) are located on land zoned for
industrial use. These homes and the
vacant lots that are interspersed within
these areas do not have long-term viabili-
ty for residential use.
Historic Resources
The Jefferson Davis Corridor contains a rich
fabric of historic resources of local, state and
national significance. These resources relate
to several major periods including those of
early English settlement, the plantation sys-
tem, the Civil War, the Victorian era, and the
age of the automobile. Although not
thought of as an historic site, Jefferson Davis
Highway reflects the evolution of the area as
it has evolved from stage coach road to turn-
pike to commuter railway line to coastal high-
way to commercial business corridor. This
historic fabric, if properly preserved, could
serve as an important part of the corridor's
future.
/mportant Findings
• Number of Historic Resources: The Jeffer-
son Davis Corridor contains the greatest
concentration of historic resources in
Chesterfield County.
• Preservation Efforts: In the past, little
effort has been made to preserve and
promote the rich history of the area.
(Just outside of the study area, the
Henricus Park site is developing as a
major historic attraction with a recon-
struction of the 161 1 settlement.)
Nationally Historic Sites: A key cluster of
nationally significant historic sites exists
near the last set of falls on Falling Creek.
This water-power activity center was the
scene of numerous manufacturing and
milling operations dating back to the early
English settlements in Virginia. Included
in this vicinity are (see Map E):
The Falling Creek Ironworks: The site
consists of subsurface remains of an
extensive iron manufacturing facility
which dates to 1619. The facility
constitutes the first ironworks in
English North America and is clearly
documented in the records of the
Virginia Company of London. Radio-
carbon dating of samples from the
site confirm the time period.
The Cary Forge: Subsurface remains
of a circa 1750 forge operated by
Archibald Cary, who was known as
"The Wheelhorse of the Revolution."
The facility supplied Revolutionary
war forces and was destroyed by the
British under Benedict Arnold in 1781
The Ampthill Mill: (Watkins Mill) Ex-
tant ruins of a circa 1850 merchant
grist mill located on the foundations
of earlier mills. Subsurface remains of
associated residential structures.
J
• Effect of Development: Although develop-
J
L
c
l
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan
Business Development
The Jefferson Davis Corridor study area is
home to approximately 200 businesses, and
several of the County's top industrial em-
ployers. These businesses provide local,
community and regional services to the area
as well as jobs and tax revenue to the Coun-
ty. Commercial activity in the area includes a
wide spectrum of land uses from light com-
mercial to heavy industrial.
/mportant Findings
• Organization: Extensive community partic-
ipation efforts undertaken by County staff
have helped to organize a viable business
organization for the Jefferson Davis Corri-
dor. The owners and operators of
these businesses have a wealth of experi-
ence that can be used as a resource to
promote the objectives of this plan.
• Stability: Most businesses have been in
existence for at least twenty years and
have been located along the Jefferson
Davis Corridor for at least ten years.
• Local Ownership: Seventy-five percent of
the businesses in the corridor are locally
owned, a tremendous implication regard-
ing reinvestment capacity in the commu-
nity and keeping dollars circulating within
the local economy. Most businesses
along the corridor own their property.
This stabilizing factor creates strong ties
to the community and a significant poten-
tial for local reinvestment.
• Small Business Retention: Small business-
es form the economic foundation of the
Jefferson Davis Corridor, but many of
these businesses are at risk because they
have trouble remaining competitive.
• Image and Aesthetic Quality: Many busi-
nesses in the area believe the Jefferson
Davis Corridor has an "image problem"
that, for numerous reasons, discourages
business activity and investment. This
general perception is compounded by area
concerns about the types of businesses
found along the corridor, their general
condition, appearance and lack of effec-
five design.
• Public Safety: The perception that crime
along the Jefferson Davis Corridor has a
negative impact on business.
• Regulation: There is general concern
among area businesses that local regula-
tions are discouraging business develop-
ment.
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
services to serve the diverse needs of
area residents.
A PLAN FOR
ACTION
As the Jefferson Davis Corridor area moves
toward the 21st century, a clear vision is
needed of the kind of future the area wants.
^ -~ This vision embodies stable residential neigh-
borhoods and prosperous businesses in an
environment that emphasizes commitment to
its future as an economically healthy, livable
urban community. Contained here are the
i.v goals, recommendations and strategies that
will help guide the future of the Jefferson
n Davis Corridor.
If. RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations contained here call for
specific actions to carry out the Jefferson
Davis Corridor Plan. It is these recommenda-
tions, combined with the guidance provided
by the land use plan and public facilities plan
maps, that can be used by local officials,
citizens and business to chart the course of
the corridor's future. Where needed, more
specific target strategies have been devel-
oped.
What Can and Cannot Be Done
I. GOALS
Goals form the overall ideals behind this
plan. They are broad based statements about
what the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan sets
out to accomplish.
• Make the Jefferson Davis Corridor a bet-
ter place to live and work by balancing
economic demands of development with
the needs of people for a sense of place,
attractiveness, and comfort.
• Revitalize the Jefferson Davis Corridor by
strengthening residential neighborhoods.
• Promote the economic development of
the corridor, thus promoting the availabili-
ty of work places offering job opportuni-
ties.
• Assure the environmental quality of wa-
ter, air and land to protect public health,
conserve resources and enhance natural
beauty.
• Stabilize and preserve identified historic
sites and structures; promote historic
resources as community assets that can
have positive recreational and commercial
value.
• Provide necessary public and commercial
Recommendations are a necessary and essen-
tial part of any plan. However, due to the
cost and encompassing nature of many of
these ideas, it is not possible to implement
them all immediately. In addition, these rec-
ommendations should not be seen as the sole
responsibility of government. The objectives
described here relate to public, private, semi-
public and volunteer segments of the commu-
nity, and will require the cooperation of all
groups involved.
To effectively carry out the recommendations
and strategies contained in the Jefferson
Davis Corridor P/an, open communication is
needed. The County must continue to work
on suitable regulations and policies in con-
junction with the Plan's goals and recommen-
dations. As an outgrowth of the Plan, public
and private inducements will also be needed.
To add to the diversity of solutions, Chester-
field County should encourage groups and
individuals to develop programs that address
problems and identified needs. While pro-
ceeding with carrying out these recommenda-
tions, the following factors must be consid-
ered: administration and management, ongo-
ing community participation, changing needs,
resources, priorities and an ongoing planning
process.
To help in better understanding the relation-
ship between identified concerns and the
solutions proposed to address them, the
t0
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
following recommendations are grouped in
the same categories as found in the Existing
Conditions and Important Findings Chapter.
Recommendations For Land Use
A. Land Use Plan: Follow the recommenda-
tions of the land use plan in all future
decisions concerning the development
and revitalization of neighborhoods and
businesses along the Jefferson Davis
Corridor.
B. Route 288: Undertake an ongoing effort to
make the interchange of the Jefferson
Davis Highway and Route 288 a future
location for new commercial and industrial
activity.
C. Regulations: Adopt zoning ordinance
amendments to implement specialized
development standards for the corridor.
Recommendations For Transportation
A. Public Transit: The provision of public
transportation to service the corridor
should be explored by the County.
B. Road Access: Work with existing County
regulations and the Virginia Department of
Transportation to control the number of
curb cuts along the Jefferson Davis High-
way.
C. Chippenham and Route 288 Extensions:
Continue to monitor future state plans for
the possible extension of one or both of
these roads across the James River.
Undertake additional analysis of the po-
tential impacts of these extensions on the
Jefferson Davis Highway Corridor.
Recommendations For The
Environment
A. Trash and Recycling: Such problems as lit-
tering and improper disposal of garbage,
tires and other items should be addressed
through neighborhood action. Programs
like the Virginia Department of
Transportation's Adopt-a-Highway pro-
gram or a neighborhood clean-up day can
mobilize local money and labor to improve
the environment and the community's
image. The County's Department of
General Services should consider the
potential of locating additional recycling
locations in the Jefferson Davis Corridor
area.
B. Water ~.uality Protection: Follow the over-
all goals, policies and implementation
strategies of the County's Water Quality
Protection Plan to protect water resources
in the Jefferson Davis corridor. Continue
to work with the State to ensure that
County regulations are in full compliance
with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act.
Recommendations For Community
Faci/ities and Services
A. Capital Improvement Program: Ensure that
the Community Facilities Plan for the Jef-
ferson Davis Corridor (Map E) is used as
the primary guide for prioritizing future
public facilities projects in the County's
Capital Improvement Program.
B. Future Capacity: The County should fur-
ther study the implications of changing
demographics in the Jefferson Davis
Corridor on existing and future public
facility and service needs.
C. Street Lighting: The street lighting project
currently underway should be continued
south along the corridor from Kingsdale
Road to Route 10.
D. Greenways: The Falling Creek Greenway
Project and its components should be
made a priority for implementation.
E. Community Development Block Grants:
These funds should be expended on a
project specific basis in support of the
stabilization of residential neighborhoods
and economic development related ef-
forts.
F. Social Services: The County should under-
take astrategic planning effort to identify
J
J
11
Proposed
~.~~~.
Health
Facility
Benslsy
Elementary
School
(Mao E)
JEFFERSON
DAVIS HIGHWAY
CORRIDOR
Community Facilities Plan
~'~`b
Proposed Falling Creek Greenway
x Proposed Satellite Health Facility
• Proposed Ironworks Historic Park
Existing Facilities
N
A 1 " = 4000' 4/93
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
the most effective approach for social
service delivery to the Corridor.
G. Satellite Health Facility: Support County
Health Department efforts to locate a
satellite clinic to provide primary medical
care to children at Bensley Elementary
School in need of health care.
Recommendation For Housing and
Neighborhoods
A. Housing Strategy: Implement the Housing
'Strategy contained in this plan.
B. Neighborhood Organizations: Continue to
rely upon existing neighborhood organiza-
tions in the Jefferson Davis Corridor as a
primary resource to help carry out the
recommendations of this plan. Work with
residents to establish new neighborhood
associations.
Recommendations For Historic
Resources
A. Preservation Plan: Develop a Countywide
Preservation Plan to address issues rele-
vant to historic resources. (Such a plan
would have application to many sites in
the Jefferson Davis Corridor.)
B. Falling Creek Ironworks: Support the nomi-
nation of the Falling Creek Ironworks to
the National Register of Historic Places,
as a National Historic Landmark. Fund
additional archaeological testing needed in
connection with the nomination through
Community Development Block Grant or
other monies. (Estimated cost 510,000-
20,0001
C. Rezoning: Undertake a rezoning initiated
by the Planning Commission which will
allow the owner of the Ironworks site to
donate the property to the County. (The
property cannot be donated under exist-
ing zoning.)
D. Other Sites: Support survey and nomina-
tion of other nationally significant sites in
this vicinity. Consider the eventual cre-
12
ation of an archaeological historic district.
E. Historical Park: Create a County Historical
Park to preserve and interpret the Falling
Creek Ironworks site, and potentially the
Cary Forge and Ampthill Mill sites. This
park will be part of the Falling Creek
Greenway (linear park with pedestri-
an/bicycle trails) being developed by the
Parks and Recreation Department.
F. Archaeology: Provide support for communi-
ty efforts to plan and gain sponsorship for
extensive archaeological investigations, a
reconstruction of the iron works complex,
the development of a museum, and other
activities.
Recommendations For Business
Deve/opment
A. Business and Community Revitalization
Strategies: Implement the Business and
Community revitalization Strategies con-
tained in this plan.
B. Jefferson Davis Association: Continue to
rely on the Jefferson Davis Business
Association as a primary resource to help
carry out the recommendations of this
plan.
Recommendations For P/an
/mp/ementation
A. Coordination: Improve existing County
procedures to further insure that all Coun-
ty departments, boards and agencies
work together to carry out the recommen-
dations of the Jefferson Davis Corridor
P/an.
B. Annual Review: Each December, require
the staff of the Planning Department to
prepare an annual report to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors on
the status of implementing the recom-
mendations of the Jefferson Davis Corri-
dor P/an.
J
J
r
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan
III. THE LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Plan illustrates the recommend-
ed future development pattern for the Jeffer-
son Davis Corridor area. Map F shows gen-
eralized land uses as opposed to the land use
of individual parcels, and should be used as a
guide for all future decisions concerning re-
zoning, conditional use permits, special ex-
ception determinations and other land use
regulatory decisions. Key features of the
plan are highlighted below. In addition, more
details of recommended uses are described in
the category descriptions below.
The Land Use Plan for the Jefferson Davis
Corridor:
service uses that are accessory to industrial
uses are also permitted when part of an inte-
grated industrial development. If light indus-
trial land uses are located near residential dis-
tricts, they should be developed under design
controls to provide transition between the
neighborhood and the industrial use.
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL: Heavy manufactur-
ing uses which process raw materials. Where
General Industrial uses are located near resi-
dential areas, manufacturing of less intensity
would be appropriate. Careful consideration
should be given to placement of less intense
industrial uses with respect to nearby neigh-
borhoods to provide appropriate transition be-
tween the neighborhood and general industrial
uses. Industrial uses should have direct ac-
cess to major arterial roads.
• Proposes a mixed land use pattern includ-
ing residential, commercial and industrial
uses.
• Provides flexibility for a variety of uses.
• Designates flexible redevelopment areas,
the plan identifies redevelopment opportu-
nities.
• Identifies the opportunity for redevelop-
ment of underused tracts.
• Encourages the value of industrial land
use to the County's economic health.
• Designates significant amounts of land for
future industrial use.
Jefferson Davis Corridor
Land Use Plan Categories
These are more detailed explanations of the
land use plan categories shown on Map F.
RESIDENTIAL: 2.51 to 4.0 units/acre
7.01 to 10.0 units/acre
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL: Community
scale commercial development including
shopping centers, retail shops, offices, and
high density residential uses.
GENERAL COMMERCIAL: Community scale
commercial, motor vehicle-oriented commer-
cial and light industrial uses.
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL: Light manufacturing
uses that are dependent upon raw materials
first processed elsewhere. Limited retail and
REGIONAL MIXED USE NODE: Commercial,
office and light industrial development which
serves a regional market, including large scale
developments, corporate offices and support-
ing retail uses. As a secondary supportive
use, high density residential may be appropri-
ate. Parcels should be aggregated to provide
sufficient size, design, and location to protect
the character of nearby residential uses.
FLEXIBLE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS: Recom-
mended future land uses are shown by the
underlying color code. However, other more
intense uses, such as high density residential
and various types of commercial and industri-
al uses, may be appropriate. Specific criteria
to be considered through the rezoning pro-
cess for any proposed more intense uses shall
include:
• Parcels supporting more intense uses shall
be of sufficient size to establish substan-
tial, viable areas of more intense use.
• No commercial, office, or industrial use
should be interspersed with single family
residential uses.
• Adequate setbacks and buffers should be
required.
• No intense commercial/industrial uses
should be located adjacent to single fami-
ly residential uses.
• Traffic should not be routed through
residential areas to access nonresidential
uses.
• Adequate access to major arterial or col-
lector roads.
J
J
J
13
Man Fl
se Plan
PERSON
CIS HIGHWAY
iRIDOR
nded By The Chesterfield County
:ommission, May 18,1993
RESIDENTIAL
2.51 to 4 units,/acre
7.01 to 10 units,/acre
COMMERCIAL
Community
~ General
Regional Mixed Use
INDUSTRIAL
:.;>::<::::::::::: Light
~ General
OTHER FEATURES
Major Creeks
:~'~s<~.,;~r:;;e;,~x> Flexible Redevelopment Areas
NOt9S (See Numbers on Map):
1. Higher intensity uses such as high density
residential, community-scale commercial,
or professional/corporate offices are
appropriate if adequate land is assembled
to provide aaess to Route 1 without
utilizing internal residential streets.
2. Single family residential uses compatible
with those existing in adjacent areas are
also appropriate.
3. Other uses compatible in scale and
intensity with high density residential uses
are appropriate. (For instance,
neighborhood-scale office, retail, or
Personal service uses.)
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Phan
IV. HOUSING AND
NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION STRATEGY
A. Background
Housing improvement is key to the revitaliza-
tion of the Jefferson Davis Corridor. A neigh-
borhood-based strategy for housing rehab
looks beyond individual dwelling units and is
geared toward arresting the process whereby
neighborhoods decline. Uncoordinated or
scattered improvements help individuals, but
may not interrupt the deterioration of neigh-
borhoods. Targeting improvements in areas
with long-term viability has the benefit of
encouraging housing maintenance before
costs become excessive through blighting.
Thus a much greater number of housing units
are directly (through rehab) or indirectly
(through spin-off neighborhood improvement)
affected. A greater benefit is acfiieved if
limited resources are not targeted to units
that are located in areas where intervention is
deemed unlikely to succeed.
Some of the factors that were considered in
evaluating residential areas in the Corridor
include: the amount and spatial pattern of
substandard housing, vacant structures and
land, the presence of nonresidential zoning,
the impact of surrounding uses, and the avail-
ability of public utilities.
B. Resources and Possible New
Approaches
• Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG-. Chesterfield County has recently
been designated an Entitlement Communi-
ty by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD). As a result,
the County will be entitled to a yearly
allocation known as a Community Devel-
opment Block Grant. The grant allocation
for fiscal year 1993 was 51,060,000.
The County has discretion to use these
funds as it sees fit, subject to HUD regu-
lations which are based on meeting the
following national objectives:
-Benefit low and moderate income
persons
-Eliminate slums and blight
-Meet emergency needs of recent
origin for which there are no other
funds.
• Other Approaches. Communities across
Virginia and the nation have used a vari-
ety of innovative approaches to housing
rehabilitation. These range from low-
interest loan programs, to tax incentives,
to self-help, to adaptive reuse of formerly
nonresidential structures for housing.
Many funding sources operate on the
principle of leveraging, whereby private
investment can be facilitated through
matching grants. Many projects use
several public and private funding sourc-
es.
Local not-for-profit housing developers
have successfully developed new and
rehabilitated housing for low and moder-
ate income persons through community
involvement and great reduction in typical
overhead and profit costs. Richmond-
based not-for-profit developers, including
the Interfaith Housing Corporation, have
expressed interest in working with Ches-
terfield County community groups and
government staff to help solve some of
the housing needs that exist.
C. Recommendations and Actions
The following recommendations are supple-
mented by more specific implementation
actions (See Map G).
1. Target Areas: Direct public investment to
designated Neighborhood Target Areas, to
provide coordinated housing rehabilitation
and other revitalization efforts and lever-
age additional private sector investment.
ACTION: Concentrate single family hous-
ing rehabilitation programs and public
facility improvements in defined Neighbor-
hood Target Areas (see Map H1. Excep-
14
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
tions should be limited to cases of dire
need, where the structure is not located
in an area planned for non-residential use
(see Land Use Plan)
ACTION: Require that housing rehabil-
itation programs place a high priority on
remedies to deterioration visible from the
public right of way.
2. Cooperation: Seek local and regional coop-
eration from the public, non-profit, and
private sectors in addressing adequate
shelter needs.
ACTION: Provide matching funds to non-
profit, private sector initiatives that ad-
dress the need for adequate shelter in the
region.
3. Control of Deterioration: Control deteriora-
tion in or adjacent to residential neigh-
borhoods through spot demolition, code
enforcement, and/or purchase. These
include abandoned or badly deteriorated
structures, vacant properties and junk
yards.
ACTION: Continue an active code en-
forcement program including periodic
inspection of all structures in Neighbor-
hood Target Areas. Spot demolition and
existing structures code enforcement
throughout the corridor with funding
through the County's Community devel-
opment Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
should be undertaken.
ACTION: The expansion of mobile homes
into multiple units should not be permit-
ted. Provide relocation assistance to
occupants of multi-unit mobile homes as
needed. Assistance should also include
money for security deposits and first
month's rent for very low income resi-
dents.
5. Public Facilities: Develop logical long-term
plans for providing adequate public facili-
ties to older residential areas developed
prior to the enactment of subdivision
legislation.
ACTION: Undertake as part of a
Countywide public facilities plan being
undertaken in FY 1993-94 by the Plan-
ning Department. Recommend general
revenue bond financing, supplemented by
Federal funds applicable to low and mod-
erate income areas that may become
available.
6. Home Ownership: Provide affordable home
ownership opportunities by providing
funding for local non-profit housing devel-
opment.
J
ACTION: Provide funding for new con-
struction and rehabilitations undertaken
by local non-profit housing groups.
F
ACTION: Create a Central Coordinator
position for code-related complaints,
providing customer service to the public
and tracking of responses and violations
pertinent to multiple departments.
4. Mobile Homes: Develop and implement a
strategy to address the special needs and
problems associated with the corridor's
mobile home housing.
ACTION: Include all mobile home parks in
the active code enforcement program.
An annual comprehensive park inspection
15
J
o~,
EFFERSON
AVIS HIGHWAY
ORRIDOR
Single Family Housing
and
ighborhood Target Areas
k.'~«.'_~' Single Family Housing
:: ~«
Neighborhood Target Areas
~:`n'<'
(N.T.A.)
NOTE: Target area designation based
on an analysis of housing tenure and
field survey data, combined with other
major planning factors. This map is
generalized.
N
A 1 " = 4000' 5/93
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
nesses and general assistance to small
V. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT business owners. Some of the duties
include handling matters between the
STRATEGY small businesses and the County, assist-
ing with all regulatory matters, working
with other government agencies as neces-
A. Background sary to garner business assistance and
maintaining a small business resource
network. Other services include:
Economic growth is the cornerstone of every
community's livelihood. It affects whether A. Assist new and existing businesses
people will live and work in an area and what with site and building searches. The
businesses will locate there. A major compo- department has a database containing
Went of this plan is to improve the overall nearly 300 specific industrial and
economic environment of the Jefferson Davis commercial locations available for sale
Corridor area. or lease.
While historically the area has served as the B• Serve as the business liaison when
county's premiere business corridor, deterio- interacting with local, State and Fed-
ration has occurred because investment has eral agencies.
stagnated. The corridor began a process of
change when I-95 was opened as the primary C. Host business seminars and other
thruway. Economic problems caused by this functions to facilitate expanded busi-
functional change were compounded by the ness opportunities and rowth.
g
fact that urban development in the area pre- +ii
dated most county land use regulation. The D. Assist in the coordination of the busi-
negative impacts of antiquated development Hess site plan and building permitting
standards have contributed to this decline. process. This includes pre-site plan
submittal meetings and monitoring
A major catalyst of this plan is the provision while plans are in progress.
of a strategy that will stimulate new invest-
ment and encourage the retention of existing E. Work with the development community
businesses. The need to delineate areas for to assist in assessing needs for avail-
new industrial and commercial development is able site and building product.
equally important.
F. Provide current material on Chesterfield
The following information describes the pro- County to effectively promote and
grams recommended to assist in the area's attract business activity.
economic reinvestment strategy. No single
program exists that will solve the area's prob- G. Maintain contacts with traditional
lems, but a cumulative effort of many pro- financing organizations that are avail-
grams working together will positively impact able for new, expanding and start-up
the area's economic vitality. businesses. Promote non-traditional
financing methods for appropriate
companies.
B. Existing Resources H. Work with existing industry to monitor
the business climate, seek input and
make recommendations for improve-
~ Chesterfield County Department of Eco- ment. Provide information and pro-
nomic Development: The Department of mote the importance of business and
Economic Development has a staff person industry to the County.
responsible for promoting small business
development. Responsibilities include
promotion and retention of small busi-
~s
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
• Crater Planning District Commission Pro-
curement Assistance Center: This center
is organized through the Crater Planning
District Commission (CPCD) to assist
business owners to compete for Federal
Government contracts by accessing a
computerized bid-matching data bank.
This data bank links businesses to bid
competitively on Department of Defense
and Federal Government contracts. It
provides information about who buys
what and when from the government.
Services offered by the Procurement
Assistance Center include: 1) a workshop
to teach business persons how to bid and
administer any Federal Government con-
tract and assist with pursuing contracts
on an individual basis, 2) the use of a
technical library, 3) the use of a comput-
erized bid-matching service that enables
persons to get on the bidder's mailing list
of any Federal Government agency cho-
sen, 4) the opportunity to attend a "how
to" course on starting a business, via
Longwood College Small Business Devel-
opment Center and 5) assistance with
specific information and technical infor-
mation.
being financed. The rate of interest is
driven by the rate charged on five and ten
U.S. Treasury bonds. Any businesses
that are for-profit corporations, partner-
ships or proprietorships are eligible,
though their net worth may not exceed
$6 Million and its net profit after taxes
must have averaged less than $2 million
during the previous two years.
• Defense General Supply Center: DGSC
has opened a new Business Opportunity
Center that is open to all business per-
sons to ascertain what products the cen-
ter purchases, what products are needed,
products that are difficult to obtain. The
center enables business owners to be-
come involved with the procurement pro-
cess and to possibly increase their busi-
ness opportunities.
DGSC has also initiated a new program,
Quality Vendor Program (t1VP), that em-
phasizes specific quality related issues,
such as the timely delivery of product.
Quality controls are emphasized over
bottom line cost factors.
• The Crater Development Corporation
(CDC): This private non-profit corpora-
tion, also operated through the CPDC,
provides eligible businesses with benefits
of the Small Business Administration's
504 Loan Program. The purpose of the
loan program is to stimulate the growth of
small businesses. The CDC provides
second mortgage fixed-asset financing to
eligible businesses for the acquisition of
land and buildings, new construction,
expansion, renovation or modernization
and the acquisition and installation of
machinery and equipment. Financing can
also be acquired for the repayment of
interim financing and to cover expenses
such as appraisals, surveying, architectur-
al and legal fees and various accounting
expenses.
• Business, Industry and Government Ser-
vice Center (RIGS): The RIGS center
facilities include classrooms for seminars
and workshops, a computer training cen-
ter, a 200 plus seat auditorium, an execu-
tive conference room and small meeting
rooms to use for breakaway sessions
from larger group meetings. The RIGS is
a self sustained center because it derives
all its funds from the businesses it serves-
making it a business itself ,apart from
government funding unlike most centers.
Overall, the center offers a limited amount
of services to small businesses, yet they
are looking to provide more in the future.
C. Possible New Approaches
• Revitalization Coordinator: The position of
The CDC provides subordinate, fixed-rate, Revitalization Coordinator should be fund-
long term loans for up to 40 percent of a ed for a period of three years using the
project's costs. Loans may be obtained County's Community Development Block
for terms of 10 or 20 years, depending Grant (CDBG) program funds. The Coor-
upon the economic life of the assets dinator will function as a liaison between
~~
The Jtiffnicnn /~n~ii~ ~`~.~i.~I ~ ~/....
County government and business persons
and neighborhoods. The Coordinator
must be committed to the revitalization of
the Corridor and the strategies and objec-
tives of the Plan. He or she will work
with other governmental agencies as
necessary to support the philosophies of
the Plan. The Coordinator will manage
the designated Enterprise Zone as well as
monitor CDBG funded projects undertaken
in the Corridor. The Revitalization Coordi-
nator should be based in the County's
Community Development Block Grant
Department.
• Enterprise Zones: Virginia state law au-
thorizes the establishment of enterprise
zones in economically depressed areas to
stimulate new business and industrial
growth by means of regulatory flexibility
and tax incentives. An enterprise zone
could be an effective revitalization tool if
coordinated with other business develop-
ment strategies. The zone can act as an
umbrella for a variety of strategies aimed
at addressing the investment deficiency in
the area.
An enterprise zone offers many economic
revitalization tools. It is a marketing tool
to promote the area as a business loca-
tion with special advantages and incen-
tives. By simply designating it as such, a
message is sent that the area is worth
looking at, rather than a place to be
avoided. Enterprise zones provide state
tax incentives to retain and attract quali-
fied businesses. They can be used to
effectively package local incentives to
attract and retain investment. Possible
local incentives that could be tailored
specifically for the corridor could include
personal property tax abatements, exemp-
tion from building permit fees, rezoning
fees and site plan review fees. By fore-
going aportion of certain fees or tax reve-
nues, new revenues are created that
would not have existed.
The Governor has recently approved legis-
lation from the 1993 session of the Vir-
ginia General Assembly increasing the
number of state enterprise zones from
nineteen to twenty-five. This legislation
enables Chesterfield County to apply, on
a competitive basis, for a zone designa-
tion. The logical choice is to seek desig-
nation for a portion of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor. Zone size limitations do not
permit inclusion of the entire study area.
Information from the State enterprise
zone coordinator has indicated that a
strong application for zone designation
would receive a favorable response. the
application deadline for submittal to the
state is August 1,1993.
• Community Development Corporations:
Another tool to develop economic invest-
ment is the Community Development
Corporation (CDC). Since 1971 the Fed-
eral Reserve Board has authorized various
types of community development equity
investments that banks can participate in,
in support of community welfare. Com-
munity development is defined as "mak-
ing equity and debt investments in corpo-
rations or projects designed primarily to
promote community welfare, such as the
economic rehabilitation and development
of low-income areas by providing housing,
services or jobs for residents." A CDC is
a bank or bank holding company subsid-
iary that addresses the needs of the low
and moderate income citizens as well as
small businesses.
A bank holding company can establish a
CDC subsidiary in much the same way
that it establishes a mortgage company or
it can establish an independent CDC. The
bank can be a holding company or it can
be an independent entity. All projects
that the CDC are involved in must directly
benefit low and moderate income families,
neighborhoods or small businesses. A
CDC can provide loans, grants and seed
money to community organizations. It
can make significant equity investments
in real estate ownership. The sole pur-
pose of a CDC is to assist low and moder-
ate income families in terms of housing
and economic development related activi-
ties. ~
The option exists to create a new CDC or "'~
explore the possibility of utilizing existing
J
~s
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
CDCs located in the City of Richmond.
One real advantage for the corridor is that
approximately five banks are physically
located on the corridor, thus increasing
the probability that these institutions may
be interested in such an endeavor.
ACTION: Establish a Community Develop-
ment Corporation.
3. Business Support: Encourage area business
organizations to become actively involved
in the implementation of this plan.
C. Recommendations and Actions
1. Staff Revitalization Coordinator: The Coun-
ty should fund a staff position to coordi-
nate and assist small businesses. This
person would coordinate the following
actions:
ACTION: Promote existing programs
available to business persons and assist
them in securing help.
~"~ ACTION: Undertake a cohesive approach
to marketing the Jefferson Davis Corridor,
as well as other small business locations
in Chesterfield County.
ACTION: Assist business persons in
resolving code violations and general
aesthetic issues.
ACTION: Coordinate the expertise of local
j colleges, universities and state agencies
to offer workshops and training sessions
on topics of interest to small business.
ACTION: Assist in organizing a Commu-
nity Development Corporation (See be-
low~, monitor CDBG funded projects.
ACTION: Lobby State government to
designate part of the Jefferson Davis
Corridor area as an Enterprise Zone
ISee below). Once established, coordi-
nate activities.
2. Business Development Tools: Create or
work to designate the following initiatives
to promote business development in the
Jefferson Davis Corridor and throughout
Chesterfield County:
ACTION: Work to obtain enterprise zone
designation for part of the Jefferson
Davis Corridor.
ACTION: Have the revitalization coordi-
nator act as a liaison between the County
and local business organizations.
4. Govemment Support: Increase support to
small business undertaking expansion or
rehabilitation projects.
ACTION: Have the revitalization coordi-
nator serve as a clearinghouse for infor-
mation about how to most effectively
complete review procedures.
ACTION: Adopt development standards
that will positively impact business expan-
sion and attract new development, in-
cluding zoning standards specifically
designed for the Jefferson Davis Corridor
area..
ACTION: Address regulatory and adminis-
trative issues (e.g. code enforcement)
relating to how these services could be
improved in the Jefferson Davis Corridor
area.
5. Industrial Development: Support industrial
development in appropriate locations.
ACTION: Set aside areas for future long-
term industrial development and growth.
ACTION: Do not allow residential devel-
opment in areas this plan designates for
industry.
ACTION: Identify redevelopment costs
and possible phasing alternatives in loca-
tions that are designated for industrial
development.
6. Image: Improve the image of the Jefferson
Davis Corridor
~s
The Jefferson Davis Corridor P/an
ACTION: Work on code enforcement and
appearance issues that contribute to a
negative perception.
ACTION: Work to create a shared vision
for the area that will promote the com-
munity in a positive light and will heighten
community support.
7. Physical Appearance: Improve the
corridor's physical appearance. Encourage
public and private investment to improve
the quality of new business and the aes-
thetic refurbishing of existing business.
ACTION: Actively promote neighborhood
clean-up campaigns.
ACTION: Promote ongoing public/private
cooperation to improve the visual quality
of businesses along the corridor.
ACTION: Develop a streetscape landscap-
ing plan at key corridor gateways.
J
J
J
J
J
1
J
zo
The Jefferson Bevis ~-'nriirlni A/nn
corridor for relocation potential because
of the area's "negative" image.
VI. COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL
REVITALIZATION
STRATEGY
A. Background
Revitalization is defined as the action "to give
new life or vigor to." The focus of this com-
mercial and industrial revitalization strategy is
to build on area assets and to improve less
desirable areas. This process involves com-
mitment from both the public and private sec-
tors. Strategies for reinvestment are aimed at
creating a stable environment attractive to
new business and the retention of existing
business.
A community concern has been the area's
lack of identity and unity, two crucial
elements of a revitalization plan. The
Jefferson Davis Highway is a primary
transportation route that runs north/south
through Chesterfield County from the
City of Richmond to the City of Colonial
Heights. Jefferson Davis Highway also
plays an important role in conveying first
impressions to visitors from Chippenham
Parkway and Interstate 95 as well as
shaping community identity for local
residents. These critical entrances can be
characterized as "gateways." Six area's
have been designated as having gateway
potential (see Map H1.
• Target Areas For Business
Revitalization
A means of accomplishing this is to work
towards enhancing the appearance of key
locations along the Jefferson Davis Corridor
f and identify specific geographical areas for
new development and redevelopment. The
advantage of targeting specific areas for
future development is the protection of exist-
ing quality developments and the encourage-
ment of the improvement of others.
The business coordinator position is critical to
the plan's implementation and ultimate suc-
cess. The following recommendations and
ideas are dependent on this position.
B. Possible New Approaches
• Physical Appearance at Critical
"Gateway" Locations
An area's image is strongly correlated to
it's economic strength. The physical ap-
pearance of a community will significantly
influence business location decisions.
One of the concerns voiced at the public
area meetings has been the Jefferson
Davis Corridor's deteriorating appear-
ance. Vacant structures and buildings
have a blighting influence on the corridor.
New businesses may not look to the
Several geographic areas within the corri-
dor display potential for revitalization. Site
analysis identified possible future develop-
ment and redevelopment scenarios for
each area. These target areas, A-F, are
depicted on Map I.
~ Area A is bounded by Chippenham
Parkway to the north and Falling
Creek to the east, south and west.
This area has several distinct historic
and recreational opportunities that can
be developed to enhance the area's
attraction to residents living outside
the area. The County is in the process
of obtaining land along Falling Creek
for use as a linear park. County staff
and concerned citizens are also pursu-
ing the donation of land in the vicinity
of the Historic Falling Creek Ironworks
site, in an effort to create an historic
park and facilitate archaeological
research.
Located at a crucial gateway, an
unused truck terminal on the Jeffer-
son Davis Highway south of the
Chippenham Parkway has been for
sale for at least five years. Efforts
should be made to redevelop the site.
21
(Map H)
JEFFERSON
DAVIS HIGHWAY
CORRIDOR
Potential Gateways
Corridor Gateways
N
A 1 " = 4000' 4/93
J
The Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan
:i
• Area B is bounded by Alcott Road to
the north, Congress Road to the south
and includes frontage parcels along
the corridor. Business uses in this
area consist of stores offering com-
mercial/retail services to the local
community, especially pedestrians.
Furniture stores that serve the greater
regional community are also located
here.
Existing and future businesses could
be developed to serve local needs, as
well as community level services.
• Area C is important to the area due
to it's visibility from Interstate 95.
The northern boundary is Bellwood
Road; the southern boundary is Willis
Road and includes frontage parcels
along Jefferson Davis Highway.
Piecemeal development, occurring
over a number of years, has resulted
in a myriad of deteriorating uses front-
ing the highway.
• Area D includes the portion of the
Plan area east of I-95, extending to
the James River. This area, in terms
of existing zoning and land use, is
industrial in nature. The Chesterfield
County Department of Economic
Development has cited this area as
having significant industrial potential;
however, the existence of some resi-
dential neighborhoods may limit the
area's industrial marketability.
• Area E includes the area adjacent to
and surrounding the Route 288 inter-
change and Jefferson Davis Highway.
The area is lacking a consistent devel-
opment pattern. The area offers
redevelopment and development
potential. The development and rede-
velopment pattern should include
parcel assemblage to avoid the piece-
meal development characteristic of
the corridor.
22
The long term viability of the single
family residential area to the east of
Jefferson Davis Highway and north of
Route 288 needs to be explored. It
could be redeveloped into commercial
and/or industrial uses through public
redevelopment, private investment, or
a public/private cooperative effort. If
a long term strategy is developed for
this area that would involve the accu-
mulation of parcels, then the long _
term probability of this neighborhood
is not great.
• Area F from an image standpoint, has
the greatest potential for a positive
turn around. The geographical bound-
aries of the area extend south from
Osborne Road to approximately
Moore's Cottages and include front-
age parcels to the east and west of
Jefferson Davis Highway. This area is
a blighting influence on the entire
corridor. Small flea markets and other
makeshift businesses that are located
directly on the road have a significant
blighting influence, deterring new
development.
This area has excellent redevelopment
potential. The long term viability of
the area will be dependent on a strat-
egy that will retain quality businesses,
encourage new compatible develop-
ment and promote the aesthetic revi-
talization of the area.
C. Recommendations and Actions
1. Target Activities: Concentrate specific eco-
nomic development and other efforts in
identified gateway and commercial revital-
ization areas.
:i
PERSON
'IS HIGHWAY
iRIDOR
s Revitalization Target Nrees
'get Areas
^~
N
A 1 " = 4000' 4/93
Appendix A
Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan Implementation Schedule
c
L
Action Implementing
Responsibility Time Frame
Recommendations For Land Use
A. Adopt the Jefferson Davis Corridor Plan Planning Dept. Summer 1993
B. Adopt related Zoning Ordinance amendments Planning Dept. Summer 1993
C. Follow Land Use Plan recommendations Planning/other depts. upon adoption
D. Identify an approach to a comprehensive rezoning Planning Dept. Fali 1993
Recommendations for Transportation
A. Explore the provision of public transit Transportation Dept. on-going
B. Control curb cuts/reduce uncontrolled access Transportation Dept. on-going
Recommendationsfnr Community Facilities and Services
A. Use Public Facilities Plan as guide for C.I.P. Budget/multiple depts. upon adoption
B. Extend the current street lighting project Transportation Dept. on-going
C. Implement the Falling Creek Greenway Project Parks and Rec. Dept. FY-93/94...
D. CDBG projects to stabilize residential + economic development CDBG/other depts. Summer 1993
E. Locate Health Clinic at Bensfey Elementary Health Dept. Fall 1993
F. Fund Satellite Health Facility for the Corridor Health Dept. To be determined
Recommendations for Housing
A. Follow the Housing Strategy Recommendations Planning, CDBG, other upon adoption
B. Direct rehab to Neighborhood Target Areas (Map H) CDBG/other depts. On-going
C. Fund shelters and homelessness prevention CDBG FY-93/94...
D. Fund new constructioNgut rehabs by non-profds CDBG FY-93/94...
E. Fund position to organize Target Area residents Planning/CDBG depts. FY-93/94
F. Explore amortization ofmulti-unit mobile homes Co. Attorney upon adoption
Recommendations for Historic Resources
A. Develop a Preservation Plan (Countywide) Planning Dept. To be determined
B. Survey/nomination of Ironworks + other sites Planning/CDBG Depts. On-going
C. Develop historic park to interpret Falling Creek sites Parks and Rec. Dept. FY-93/94...
D. Support Ironworks land donation through a rezoning Planning Dept. Upon adoption
Recommendations for Business Development
A. Fund Revitalization Coordinator position CDBG FY-93/94...
B. Pursue Va. Enterprise Zone designation Planninglother depts. Summer 1993
C. Assist in developing a CDC Planning/CDBG FY-94/95
D. Undertake market analysis and market strategy CDBG FY-93194
E. Explore developmenUredevelopment potential of the Land Use Plan Econ. Dev./other depts. on-going
F. Explore public/private dev. of business incubator Econ. Dev./CDBG on-going
Recommendations for Community Revitalization
A. Develop public/private urban design proposal Planning Dept./other FY-94/95
B. Establish revolving loan fund for site improvements CDBG FY-94/95
C. Design/construct Gateways Improvement Project CDBG Upon adoption
Recommendations for Code Enforcement
A. Active code enforcement in the Corridor Building Insp./CDBG On-going
B. Corridor-wide spot demolition Building Insp./CDBG On-going
C. Fund Central Coordinator position TBD To be determined
Recommendations for Plan Implementation
A. Work together to implement the plan County Departments On-going
B. Annual status report on implementation of plan Planning Dept. Dec. 1993...
23