Loading...
2012-02-08 Packeta~ 3 c 0 U m as N t U c ca a m .N c a~ t a~ L Q E 0 v O ^~ L 0 N O N 00 L d c~ E E a~ U O /~L I..L ~_ Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ . > ~ ~ U . O ~ - (~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ + + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ , ~ V ~ >' ~ ~ L ~ ~ Ca ~ Q • ~ ~ ~ . ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Qi ~ N ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -, ~ V~ 0- ~ U ~ ~ O ~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ U ' .L L , ~ ~ ~ ~ _+ Y ~ ~ N 0 . Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ c~ a ~ i~ c cn ~ .~ ~ ' ~ ~ • ~ v t/~ O _ _ ~ O Ca V) N M ~--~ 0 L a~ 3 ~--r ^~ W . \ 0 L ^ ^ •~^ U ~ .- v ~ ~ -~--+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O L~ ~ r' .}, ~ o ~ ~ r ~ C6 O O ~~ ^~ W U O .~ N _~ U .~ .~ c~ C6 CCS O z 0 _~ V .- ~ ~ O ~ ~ O C~ }' _' to ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ c~ a? _ ~ ~ U ~ o U ~ ~ ~ O ~ O CCU ~- J O C~ .N C6 .- ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ •~ V to ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .- o o ~ ~ o ~.- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= O ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ o O ~ ~ L O o ~ ~ • • • • • • • ~t ~~ L L O L W Q a~ ~ ~~ a~ 3 ~--+ _~ Q ~--+ L 0 ~--+ L _~ O ._ Q N L _~ L -~--+ _~ Q .~ ~_ ~U O U C~ _~ U • -f-+ ^L W ^~ W N O O U • .~ O N C6 U .~ .~ O N 4~ L L 0 L a~ c~ a~ 3 ~--~ ~--+ U C6 Q a--r Q ~--+ U ~_ U a~ ,N U N N U O Ca ~-~+ N L ~_ .~ a~ ~_ X .~ -~--+ ~_ J ~--+ Q _0 0 U .~ O O U w O O ,N ~--+ . j a~ Q • L U U .~ .~ ~--+ .~ O U O I..L .~_ L ~~ .~ O U 4~ L L 0 L a~ c~ a~ 3 ~--r C6 a-,+ 0 U Q a--r ..~~.+ L N U ~_ L ~~ .~ ~ U _~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ }' I ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ W N ~ ~ ~ ~ - }' ~ U N_ Q ~~ ~ U ~ ~ C6 U ~^--,+ W ~_ L O U ~--+ 0 0 N .~ N N O L ^, W (~ C6 L ~ ~ W Q ~--+ ~~-+ ~--+ .U U Q (~ N U L ~--+ ~_ _~ U .~ O .~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U O ~ O (~ ~ .N ~ O }, O •- ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O ti ~~ L L O L a~ c~ a~ 3 a--~ -~-+ (~ L ~.+ (~ W ~ . ~~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ _ O U ~ ~ ~ a~ x ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ j ~ .- . O ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _ U ~ ~ ~ >, ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ U }' U ~ ~ ~ U > , U .~ U ~ ~ ~ U cn cn O ~ v~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ O ._ L ~ U O v I..L ~ O ~ 00 -~ N ~ ~ (~ O ' ~ N 0~0 ~ N ~ O N U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ C6 O ~ m ~ O U ~ ~ ~ ''~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ • - O ~ O O >O ~ ~ ~ N - >, .. ~ ~ ~ O_ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ U ~ o N ~ ~ a ~ ~~ o .~ .O ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ N O to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N .. ~ }' O~ ~:~ ~ N V N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ • • ~ .~.-+ ~ N - O O O .c~ ~ ti ~ m ~ m ~ iii c E E 0 U ~--+ vJ O U '~ ~ ~ c~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--+ ~ .~ O O }' U ~ ~ ~ o U ~ ~ -- ~ •~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ U ~ ~ Q c~ ~ ~ ~ ~--+ ~~ (~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ - O ~ m N c~ a~ .~ L ~~ O •~ •~ U ~ ~ ~ O 0 ~--+ (~ N 0 0 a~ a~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ O Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ca a ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ E 0 a~ ~ ~ ~ O •- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ U •~ - ~ a~ ~ '- O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (~ O O •.., - - ~ .~ U ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .L ~ ~ _~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ L '~' ~ ~-' ~ ~ ~ O .O ~ ~ ~ .. ~ O .~ ~ o -~-~ , ~ ~ > ~ o ~ O O - ~ ~U°~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~ ~ °Qo ~ N ~ ~ ~ (~ O ~ O •- ~ V •- ~ .~ O O O - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ O N .1~1 cn ~ U '~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ N N O ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ O ~ N O ~ ~ ~ to ~ O O ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O to ~ N X ~ ~ N ~ .~ o~~~~~ °~~c~~.~ ~'~~-_~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~~~ O~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~~~_~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ Q ~ J ~X 4- O to c~ a~ o ~ ~ r -~ c 0 U a~ ca O a~ '~"~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ O ~ L ~ • ~ ~ ~_+ O ~ ~ O O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ U O 'L O ~ o c,~o~:~oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O N ~ ~, ~ c~ +r N U ~ ^ , p w ~ ~ ca .. ~ ~ ~ O ... ~ ~ ~ ,U '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O O a~ }, },~~o~_ ~ p >O N L - ~ c~ ~ ~ }, ~ ~ ~ ~ N tL cl~ ~ > - O L Q ~= ~ O O ~ O O - ~ ~ ~ +~ U ~ ~ X ~ O ~ ~ ~ 0 Q.U O to O ~ U~ U~~~ ~ O O p U Q can ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ F- ~ Q -~ c 0 U a~ L O a~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~~c~ ~ L ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O •~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ O O ~_~~~ ~ ~ `~ O O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ > N ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `F- .}~ L ~ O L ~ ~ L-- O - ~ O Q ~ O ~ ~ •~ L ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N _ ~ V) ~ •~-+ O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O -_ ~}, (~ ._ ._ ~ ~ V ~ .~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~~~~ > ~ =~o~.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ U~ ~ OU p ~+- O ~ O ~ t!~ O O U~ O O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ o Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O- i V N ~ O 4- _ •..+ ^, L W •~ V 0 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA „.. Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 2.A. Subject: County Administrator's Report County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: The County Administrator will update the Board on the progress of various projects as requested by the Board of Supervisors. Preparers Louis G. Lassiter Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Assistant County Administrator ^ No #000001 County Administrator's Top 40's List I. Critical Proiects/Activities 1. Airport Entrance Improvements 2. ARWA Reservoir Project 3. Community Risk Analysis/Emergency Service Coverage 4. Countywide Comprehensive Plan/Public Facilities Plan 5. Eastern Midlothian Re-development - Chippenham Square - Spring Rock - Stonebridge (future phases) - Streetscaping (future phases) 6. GRTC Service 7. Irrigation Policies/Demand Management for Water Use 8. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - (next phase) 9. Recycling Committee Recommendations 10. Private Sewer Treatment Facility 11. Sports Quest 12. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Presentation to Board 13. Ukrops Kicker Complex/GRAP Swimming Pool -Stratton Property -Construction began May, 2011 14. Utilities Policies and Managed Growth II. Ongoing Proiects/Activities 1. 2011 Legislative Program -adopted 11/30/2011 2. Airport Master Plan 3. Animal Welfare Issues 4. Capital Improvement Program 5. Capital Regional Collaborative Focus Group 6. Cash Proffers 7. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Future Phases 8. Citizen Budget Advisory Committee 9. Efficiency Studies -Countywide 10. Federal Stimulus Package - Energy Block Grant - Economic Development - Police Department 11. FinanciaUBudget Issues 12. Five Story/Three Story Building Renovations 13. Fort Lee Expansion 14. Joint Meetings of Board of Supervisors/School Board 15. Magnolia Green CDA 16. RMA Work Group 17. RRPDC -Large Jurisdiction Committee 18. RRPDC -Transportation Strategies Work Group (work on hold) 1 oooooz Updated 1/31/2012 County Administrator's Top 40's List 19. Sports Tourism Plan Implementation 20. UASI (Regional) III. Completed Proiects/Activities 1. Board's Appointments Process - 8/2008 2. Bow Hunting Restrictions - 2/24/2010 3. Business Climate Survey - 7/2008 4. Business Climate Survey - 4/2010 5. Business Fee Holiday (Extension) - 9/2010 6. CBLAB Discussions -12/2009 7. Census 2010/Redistricting - 6/2011 8. Chesterfield Avenue Enhancements Phase 1 - 5/2011 9. Citizen GIS - S/2010 10. Citizen Satisfaction Survey -12/2008 11. Citizen Satisfaction Survey - 12/2010 12. COPS Grants 13. DCR Erosion & Sediment Control Program - 3/11/11 14. Eastern Midlothian Re-development - Stonebridge (Phase 1) -Groundbreaking 10/25/11 - Streetscaping (Phase 1) - 12/2011 15. Efficiency Studies -Fire Department and Fleet Management - 6/2008 16. Efficiency Study -Quality/Chesterfield University Consolidation - 7/2009 17. Electronic Message Centers - 9/2011 18. Electronic Signs -1/2010 19. Board's Emergency Notification Process 20. Employee Health Benefits -Contract Rebid - 8/2011 21. FinanciaUBudget Issues - Adoption of 2011 Budget - 4/2011 - Adoption of County CIP - 4/2011 - Adoption of School CIP - 4/2011 - Bond Issue/Refinancing - AAA Ratings Retained 22. 457 Deferred Comp Plan (Approved) 23. Hydrilla Issue 24. Hosting of Hopewell Website 25. Impact Fees for Roads - 9/2008 26. In Focus Implementation - Phase I - 8/2008 27. In-Focus Implementation -Phase II (Payroll/HR) -12/2009 28. Insurance Service Upgrade (ISO) for Fire Department - 9/2009 29. Jefferson Davis Streetscape Project - 5/2010 30. Leadership Exchange Visits with City of Richmond 31. 2011 Legislative Program - 3/2011 32. Low Impact Development Standards 33. Mass Grading Ordinance (canceled) 34. Meadowdale Library -11/2008 35. Meadowville Interchange -Ribbon Cutting 12/15/2011 2 Updated 1/31/2012 000003 County Administrator's Top 40's List 36. Midlothian Turnpike/Courthouse Road Streetscape Improvements (Towne Center) 37. Minor League Baseball (new team) - 2/2010 38. Multi-Cultural Commission (Quarterly Reports due to Board) -11/2008 39. Planning Fee Structure (General Increases) - 6/2009 40. Planning Fee Structure (Reductions for In-Home Businesses) -1/2009 41. Planning Fees (Holiday for Commercial Projects) - 8/2009 42. Police Chase Policy (Regional) - 5/2010 43. Postal Zip Codes -Changes approved 4/2011, LISPS date of implementation 6/2011 44. Potential Legislation -Impact Fees/Cash Proffers -1/2009 45. Property Maintenance -Proactive Zoning Code Enforcement (countywide) - 2/2009 46. Property Maintenance -Rental Inspection Program 47. Public Safety Pay Plans Implemented (Phase I) - 9/2008 48. Redistricting 2011 Calendar/Process Report 49. Regional Workforce Investment Initiative 50. Results of Operations -11/19/2010 and 11/2011 51. Sign Ordinance 52. Southwest Corridor Water Line - Phase I - 7/2008 53. Sports Tourism Plan -1/2010 54. Sports Tourism Program with Metropolitan Richmond Sports Backers - 8/2009 55. Streetlight Policy -12/1/1 D 56. Ukrops Kicker Complex -soccer fields -Opened 8/2009 57. Upper Swift Creek Plan (Adopted) - 6/2008 58. Upper Swift Creek Water Quality Ordinances 59. VDOT Subdivision Street Acceptance Requirements - 7/2009 60. VRS Benefits for New Employees - 7/2010 61. Walk Through Building Permit Process -10/2009 62. Water Issues/Restrictions 63. Website Redesign - 6/2009 64. Wind Energy Systems - 3/10/2010 65. Wireless Internet Access in County Facilities - 9/2008 66. Watkins Centre 67. Woolridge Road Reservoir Crossing Project - 5/2010 0~~~~4 Updated 1/31/2012 -..., ~' ~''} ~A - t ~` CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: S.A. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. F. Wayne Bass for Eight Years of Service on the Chesterfield County Planning Commission County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Mr. Elswick has requested that the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing the service of Mr. Bass to the citizens of the Matoaca District and the county. Summary of Information: Mr. Bass served on the Chesterfield County Planning Commission from January 2004 through December 2011. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # OOOOOS RECOGNIZING MR F. WAYNE BASS FOR HIS SERVICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, Mr. F. Wayne Bass diligently and effectively served Chesterfield County as the Planning Commissioner from Matoaca District from January 2004 to December 2011; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass served the current and future planning interests of a vast and diverse district encompassing 214 square miles and 26,000 properties, consisting of rural areas, farms, villages, waterfront properties, subdivisions, and commercial development; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass provided leadership of the Planning Commission by serving as Chairman during the Planning Commission review of the draft Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass provided leadership in efforts to shape the growth, development, and improvement of the Matoaca District and the entire county during these eight years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass guided Planning Commission review of the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment, addressing concerns about the environment and quality of life in the Matoaca District; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass participated in a public projects that will significantly affect and improve the quality of life for Matoaca District residents and the citizens of Chesterfield County, including the new Cosby High School, Horner Park, and the expansion of Virginia State University; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass actively negotiated hundreds of zoning cases, site plans, and subdivision appeals, which set a quality standard for the entire Matoaca District; and WHEREAS, Mr. Bass helped develop numerous planning projects promoting quality of life for all county citizens; among these were ordinances for Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act implementation; communications towers; electronic message center signs; home occupations; planning fee reductions; sign ordinance standards; Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning; Upper Swift Creek water quality standards; and wind energy systems; and 0~0~~6 WHEREAS, Mr. Bass excelled at working with citizens, developers, and county staff towards the development of high quality projects for the benefit of present and future residents. NOW, THEREFORE BE, IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 8th day of February 2012, publicly recognizes Mr. F. Wayne Bass and expresses appreciation for his outstanding contributions to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Bass and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. ~~~~~~ 1749 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 7.A. Subject: Consideration of Draft Countywide Comprehensive Plan County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board of Supervisors held public hearing on January 25, 2012, and deferred action until their February 8, 2012 meeting. Summary of Information: The Board is requested to consider a new countywide comprehensive plan. A Comprehensive Plan is the general plan for the county and its supporting components. State Code requires every county in Virginia to have a comprehensive plan, which spells out policies for future development in order to ensure orderly growth and the protection of the public health and welfare. The comprehensive plan may consist of a number of components, such as local area plans, service plans and specific land-use related policies of the Board of Supervisors. As directed by the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, in January 2011, began an exhaustive review of a proposed Countywide Comprehensive Plan prepared by a team of consultants and a thirty-four (34) member citizen steering committee. The Planning Commission during this period met twenty- four (24) times and held six (6) citizen district meetings. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 4, 2011. On November 15, 2011, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the Board adopt the Plan with modifications as depicted within the draft dated November 15, 2011. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 000008 Title: Director of Planning 178 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Attached is a summary memo; a report that compares the differences between the original January 6, 2011 draft and the revised November 15, 2011 draft; and a memo outlining Planning Department staff's concerns with the revised November 15, 2011 draft. The Board received a marked up version and a clean version of the draft plan as recommended by the Planning Commission in the packet of information at the December 14, 2011 meeting. 000009 y~ ».o Memorandum Chesterfield County, Virginia DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2011 TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: KIRKLAND A. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ~'~ SUBJECT: REVISED DRAFT OF PROPOSED CHESTERFIELD COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN On November 15, 2011, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission completed its review of the proposed draft Chesterfield Countywide Comprehensive Plan, and recommended a revised draft to the Board of Supervisors. This review culminated the Commission's ten month study of the draft plan, as originally presented by the comprehensive plan consulting team and staff to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and School Board at a joint meeting on January 12, 2011. Please find enclosed for your review the following: • A revised draft of the proposed Chesterfield Countywide Comprehensive Plan as recommended to the Board of Supervisors by the Chesterfield County Planning Commission. This revised draft is presented in both "markup" and "clean" versions. o The mazkup version is the January 6, 2011 draft as it was presented to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and School Board at the January 12, 2011 joint meeting. All changes recommended by the Planning Commission aze shown as underlines or strikeouts. o The clean version enclosed is the same as the markup version without the underlines and strikeouts. • A report that compares the differences between the original January 6, 2011 draft and the revised November 15, 2011 draft. • A memo outlining Planning Department staff's concerns with the revised November 15, 2011 recommended draft. All Virginia jurisdictions aze required by state law to have a comprehensive plan. The Chesterfield Countywide Comprehensive Plan is proposed to replace the Plan For Chesterfield, the county's current comprehensive plan, parts of which date back to 1984. State law requires that the Board's review of this proposed plan be completed by February 8, 2012, ninety days from the date of Commission's recommendation. Apublic hearing is also required before the Boazd can take action on the proposed plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Glenn Lazson should you have any questions. Cc: Chesterfield County Planning Commission Chesterfield County School Board Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service QQ0010 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan Introduction This is a comparison between the first publically released draft and the latest draft of Chesterfield County's proposed countywide comprehensive plan. The two drafts compared here are: • The January 6, 2011 draft (January Plan), as it was presented by the comprehensive plan consulting team and staff to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and School Board at a joint meeting on January 12, 2011. This is the draft reviewed by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and distributed during a series of citizen information meetings in January, 2011. • The November 15, 2011 revised draft (November Plan) incorporates changes recommended by the Chesterfield County Planning Commission. This revised draft was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration by February 8, 2012. Most Significant Differences Between the Two Drafts The November, 2011 revised draft plan recommends the following significant changes to the January, 2011 draft: • Themed Goals Restructured: The five "themed" goals within the eight principal topic chapters addressing the plan's Vision Cornerstones are removed and replaced with one overall goal in each chapter. • Restructured Objectives/Policies/Recommendations: Objectives are removed from the eight principal topic chapters and replaced with summaries at the beginning of each chapter. Remaining policies are renamed as recommendations. • General Goals Removed: General overall goals concerning plan organization and implementation are removed from the "Achieving the Vision Chapter." • Land Use Densities in Centers and Corridors Reduced: Recommended land use plan densities for residential and commercial uses in centers and corridors are generally reduced, including recommended dwellings per acre and commercial floor area ratios (FAR). Recommended mix of residential and commercial uses in centers removed. • Countryside Densities Increased: Recommended residential development densities for designated countryside areas are increased. • Land Use Plan Categories and Map Designations Changed: Manufacturing Center and General Business categories are created, and new designations identified on the Land Use Plan map. Residential designations for selected areas changed on the Land Use Plan map. • East/West Freeway Added: An east/west freeway in southern Chesterfield County recommended in previous comprehensive plans but not in the January 2011 draft is recommended in the November 2011 revised draft. • Revitalization Element Combined Into Economic Development Element: These two chapters are combined, with most of the recommendations retained. • Environmental Quality Element Added: This new chapter makes new environmental recommendations and consolidates environmental recommendations from other plan elements. • Special Area Plan Chapter Added: This new chapter incorporates relevant recommendations from previously adopted area plans. • Implementation Actions Restructured and Reduced: The matrix of recommended implementation actions is restructured. The number of actions is reduced from 142 to 87. As of December 4, 2011 00001~L A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan Listing of All Major Differences Between the Two Drafts The following is a listing of all major differences between the January 6, 2011 draft (January Plan) and the November 15, 2011 revised draft (November Plan). Page numbers refer to the November 15, 2011 Markup Version of the revised draft plan. I. Plan Structure/Themes a. Chapter Structure -The draft plan is divided into a series of chapters (or Elements) addressing specific topics. January Plan: Contains individual Elements addressing land use, transportation, economic development, revitalization, housing, natural and cultural resources, public facilities, and water/wastewater. ii. November Plan: • Merges the "Revitalization Policy Element" into the "Economic Development Element." (pg. 61) • Renames "Natural and Cultural Resources Policy Element" to "Natural, Historical and Cultural Resources Element." (pg. 92) • Adds an "Environmental Quality Element." (pg. 108) • Adds a "Special Area Plans" chapter. (pg. 122) • Removes reference to "policy" from Element titles. b. Chapter Goal Linkage -Vision Cornerstone Themes i. January Plan: Each Element (chapter) contains chapter goals addressing five Vision Cornerstone themes: 1) Quality of Life, 2) Economic Growth, 3) Building Community, 4) Fiscal Responsibility and 5) Environmental Quality. ii. November Plan: These common goals are removed and consolidated into one summary goal for each Element. c. Objectives and Policies/Recommendations i. January Plan: Goals in each Element are supplemented by objectives and policies. Includes broad references to "policy" approaches. ii. November Plan: Multiple goals replaced by a single goal for each Element. All objectives moved and summarized, along with original goals, in the beginning of each Element. Policies are re-named as recommendations. Broad references to "policy" approaches removed. d. Introduction Narrative Descriptions i. January Plan: Contains descriptions of modeling, and research analysis processes. Also contains information on the role of the consulting team, county staff, Steering Committee, Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission and School Board. Provides description of public input process and history of comprehensive planning in Chesterfield County. (pages 16-19) ii. November Plan: These descriptions are removed. Reference Coding How-To Guide i. January Plan: Contains ahow-to guide on the plan's cross referencing. ii. November Plan: This guide is removed. (pg. 20) 2 As of December 4, 2011 000012 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan II. Achieving The Vision Chapter a. Relationship Between Goals, Objectives, Polices and Actions i. January Plan: Contains a section (B.3.) explaining how the plan's goals, objectives 22) policies are structured with Elements, and how they are translated into actions. (pg. ii. November Plan: This section is removed. b. Our Countywide Vision i. January Plan: Contains an introduction statement describing the development of Chesterfield County comprehensive plan vision. (pg. 23) ii. November Plan: This statement is removed. c. General Goals i. January Plan: Contains a series of general plan goals that apply to carrying out the plan's vision. These goals address: 1) how to support the vision, 2) plan uniformity and consistency, 3) fiscally responsible growth and development, 4) implementation and 5) managing growth and development. (pages 29 - 35) ii. November Plan: These general goals are removed. d. Element Goals i. January Plan: Repeats and groups all Element goals by the five Cornerstone Themes. (pages 35 - 38) ii. November Plan: These section is removed. III. Land Use and Densities (Element and Land Use Plan Map) a. Land Use Element Policies/Recommendations November Plan: • Recommendation on Connectivity (L 1.4.3) revised to state "Consider connecting COMMUNITIES to adjacent development and public facilities through streets, sidewalks, and/or trails when appropriate." (pg. 43) • Rural Centers (L 1.2.5) recommendation revised to include "where practical from a transportation point of view." (pg. 42) • Multifamily Residential Uses (L 1.5.5) revised to "Higher Density Residential Uses" in mixed use areas. (pg. 43) • Wastewater Treatment (L 1.6.5) revised to include only residential onsite wastewater treatment option in the COUNTRYSIDE. (pg. 44) • Land Use Review Consistency (L 4.3.2) policy removed. (pg. 46) • Adds Residential Compatibility (L 50) recommendation stating "Ensure that new residential subdivisions with sole access through an existing or planned subdivision meet or exceed the average lot size of, and have a density equal to or less than, the existing subdivision." (pg. 48) b. Land Use Plan Categories (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. November Plan: New Manufacturing Center and General Business categories added to land use categories. Urban Development Area designation moved to overlay. (pages 238 - 243) As of December 4, 2011 000013 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan c. Residential Densities (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. January Plan: Regional Center recommended at 8 dwellings per acre or more; Regional Corridor at 6 dwellings per acre or more; Community Corridor at 4 to 6 dwellings per acre; Neighborhood Corridor at 4 to 6 dwellings per acre; Medium Density Residential at 1 to 3 dwellings per acre. (pages 238 - 239) ii. November Plan: Residential densities in these categories reduced: Regional Center recommended at 8 to 12 dwellings per acre; Regional Corridor at 6 to 8 dwellings per acre; Community Corridor at 2 to 6 dwellings per acre; Neighborhood Corridor at 2 to 4 dwellings per acre; Medium Density Residential at 2 dwellings per acre. d. Commercial Densities (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. January Plan: Some Land Use Categories contain Floor Area Ratios (FAR), which recommend the amount of commercial building "footprint" on a site. (pages 238 - 243) ii. November Plan: All Floor Area Ratio recommendations removed. e. Residential, Commercial and Office Mix (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. January Plan: The Regional Center, Community Center and Neighborhood Center land use categories contain recommended percentages for residential and commercial uses. (pages 238 - 239) ii. November Plan: All use mix recommendations removed. f. Urban Development Area (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. January Plan: Designated as a land use category. (pages 238 - 243) ii. November Plan: Designated as a land use overlay that would be an additional recommended land use "on top" of the designated land use category. g. Countryside (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. January Plan: Recommends a density of 0.2 dwellings per acre or less in Countryside Residential category. For the Countryside category, recommends 0.2 dwellings per acre or less if road frontage obtained, or 0.04 units per acre or less without public road frontage. (pages 241 - 242) ii. November Plan: Recommends a density of 0.5 to 0.2 dwellings per acre or less in Countryside Residential category. For the Countryside category, recommends 0.2 dwellings per acre or less, regardless of public road frontage. h. Overlays (Land Use Plan Map) -See Table A i. November Plan: Creates new Overlay category for 1) Urban Development Area Overlay, 2) Upper Swift Creek Watershed Overlay, and 3) Village Overlay. (pg. 242) Land Use Plan Map i. November Plan: Midlothian Turnpike and Hull Street Road corridors changed from Regional Corridors to Community Con idors (certain sections). (pg. 244) Inner residential areas (inside Route 288) changed from Suburban Residential Community to Medium Residential Community (except in Dale and Bermuda). (pg. 244) 4 As of December 4, 2011 000014 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan • Many former Mixed Employment Center areas changed to Manufacturing Centers. (pg. 244) • Manufacturing Center category extended to south side of Route 360 at Powhite Extension interchange (formerly Countryside). (pg. 244) • Increased Countryside Residential Area in western part of county south (toward Rt. 360) to include headwaters of Swift Creek Reservoir creek (formerly Medium Residential Community). (pg. 244) • General and Geography-Specific notes added. (pg. 242) IV. Transportation (Element and Transportation Plan) a. Transportation Element Policies/Recommendations i. January Plan: Contains policies on Curb Ramps (T 1.3.4) and Long Range Planning (T 1.3.5) ii. November Plan: These policies are removed. Two recommendations added: • Reestablishes the Board Policy regarding no road improvements within the Jefferson Davis Highway Enterprise Zone. (pg. 59) • Provides a list of "No Improvement Roads." (pg. 59) b. Thoroughfare Plan (Transportation Plan) (pages 249 - 277) i. November Plan: • Adds the East/West Freeway in southern Chesterfield County. (pg. 250) • Recommends fewer lanes of pavement. (pg. 250) • Reduces the recommended right-of--way widths for some functional classifications. (pg. 250) • Identifies on the Thoroughfare Plan only the proposed roads that will be recommended, and removes the general recommendation for unspecified parallel roads along congested corridors. (pg. 250) • Identifies three specific development areas, and four potential grade-separated intersections, for further traffic study. (pg. 274) Transit Recommendations (Transportation Plan) (pages 278 - 284) November Plan: • Extends the recommendation for commuter rail service westward from the Old Hundred Road area to Amelia County. • Increases the number of recommended Park & Ride locations. d. Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations (Transportation Plan) (pages 285 - 290) November Plan: • Clearly states that bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be considered, but not required. V. Economic Development and Revitalization a. Economic Development Policies/Recommendations i. January Plan: Contains policies on Neighborhood Based Businesses (E 2.2.6), Zoning and Related Regulations (E 4.3.6) to implement the comprehensive plan, and As of December 4, 2011 000015 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan Wastewater Usage (E 5.1.4) to encourage the use of grey water for commercial uses. (pages 68 - 72) ii. November Plan: The above policies are removed. Technology infrastructure recommendation added. (pg. 73) Home Based Business (E 2.2.5) policy revised to include "do not generate clientele traffic..." (pg. 68) b. Revitalization Policies i. January Plan: Contains a policy on Incentives (R 2.1.6) dealing with encouraging private investment and a policy supporting Infill Development (3.2.2) on vacant and underutilized properties. ii. November Plan: The above policies are removed. VI. Housing, Environment and Water/Wastewater a. Housing Element Policies/Recommendations i. January Plan: Contains policies on Manufactured Housing (H 1.1.5), Housing Affordability Definition (H1.2.1), Workforce Housing Definition (H 1.2.2), Ancillary Dwellings (H 1.3.6) Financial Institutions (H 2.2.3) and Public Outreach (H 4.2.3) policies. (pages 85 - 89) ii. November Plan: The above policies are removed. Major wording changes for: • Multifamily Housing (H 1.1.3) - "and meets existing design standards" added. (pg. 85) • Working From Home (H 2.1.3) - "that do not generate clientele traffic or other negative impacts on nearby residents" added. (pg. 87) • Small Site Development (H 3.1.2) - "that do not negatively impact existing neighborhoods" added. (pg. 87) b. Natural, Cultural and Historical Resources Element Policies/Recommendations i. November Plan: Prime Agricultural and Forest Land (N 1.3.1) revised to state: "Encourage the preservation of prime agriculture and forest lands..." (pg. 94) Environmental Quality Element Policies/Recommendations i. November Plan: Populated with recommendations pulled from other Elements. New recommendations include: • Upper Swift Creek Watershed (Q 24) (pg. 105) • Watershed planning (Q 25) (pg. 105) • Soil Conditions (Q30) (pg. 105) • Soil Suitability for Septic (Q 32) (pg. 106) • Shrink Swell Soils (Q 33) (pg. 106) • Flood Plain (Q 35) (pg. 106) d. Water/Wastewater Element Policies/Recommendations November Plan: Adds wording to Wastewater Reuse (W 3.1.2) stating "under no circumstances would treated wastewater plant affluent be used in potable water supplies." (pg. 118) 6 As of December 4, 2011 000016 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan VII. Public Facilities Element and Plan a. Public Facilities Plan Introduction i. November Plan: Adds the following: • Facilities should only be located where the road network is safe and adequate, or the roads are improved in conjunction with development or renovation of the facility. Other transportation improvements, such as traffic signals and turn lanes, may also be needed. (pg. 196) • For the purpose of this document, major arterial road recommendations for site criteria include minor arterial roadways. (pg. 196) • The County may consider recommended levels of service for public facilities during consideration of zoning applications, but the fact that public facilities in the area of the zoning application do not meet the recommendations of this Plan cannot, standing alone, justify denial of the rezoning application. (pg. 196) b. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (Plan) i. November Plan: Adds the following: • Consider co-locating FireBMS facilities with other public facilities for maximum efficiency. If a Fire/EMS facility is co-located with another public facility, the site must be designed with separate ingress/egress and parking to prevent interruption to Fire/EMS station operations. (pg. 198) c. Sherriff s Office Services (Plan) i. January Plan: Additional recommendation states: • Continue to provide alternatives to incarceration (such as work release, work weekender, and home incarceration programs) for inmates meeting certain criteria as identified by the Sheriff's Office, in order to help reduce demand for detention facilities. (pg. 206) ii. November Plan: Revised to read: • Continue to work with judicial system on providing alternatives to incarceration. d. Libraries (Plan) i. January Plan: Recommends that new facilities should be built on 2.5 to 3.5 acres (pg. 207). ii. November Plan: Recommends that new facilities should be built on 6 to 10 acres (pg. 207). Removes site criteria recommendations that libraries should be located in CENTERS. (pg 207). Removes building design criteria that consideration should be given to multi-story library configurations. (p 208) e. Schools (Plan) -Acreage Criteria i. January Plan: Recommended facility acreage criteria for high schools (32 buildable acres, middle schools (27 buildable acres) and elementary schools (15 buildable acres). (pages 212 to 214) ii. November Plan: Increased recommended facility acreage criteria for high schools (80 buildable acres), middle schools (42 buildable acres) and elementary schools (22 buildable acres). ~ As of December 4, 2011 00001' A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan f. Schools (Plan) -General Recommendations i. November Plan: Removed recommendations to use park lands to make up for shortfalls in field space (pg. 210), co-location ofelementary-middle and middle-high schools (pg. 210), to consider rezoning denial based on school capacity (pg 211) and site and enrollment flexibility for schools in higher density redevelopment. (pg. 212) g. Schools (Plan) -Recommended Expansions and New Schools i. January Plan: Recommended expansion of Meadowbrook High School by 250 students. (pg. 213) ii. November Plan: Removed recommendation on expansion expansion of Meadowbrook High School. Added recommendation for new middle school in vicinity of Chester Road and West Hundred Road.(pg. 213) h. Parks (Plan) -General November Plan: Added language excluding Special Purpose Parks from co-location and proximity to residential areas. (pg. 221) Changed system wide Level of Service Standard (LOS) from 8 acres/1,000 persons to 9 acres/1,000 persons. (pg. 221) Added language excluding Pocahontas State Park from parks system LOS calculations. i. Parks (Plan) -Regional Parks November Plan: • Changed facility acreage recommendation for Winterpock Park from 150 to 175 acres. (pg. 222) • Changed facility acreage recommendation for Branders Bridge Park from 100 to 115 acres (pg. 222) j. Parks (Plan) -Community Parks i. November Plan: Added additional park in Midlothian Area (from 5 to 6), and changed acreage need from 480 acres to 540 acres. (pg. 223) Changed facility acreage recommendation for Dale area parks from 160 to 180 acres. (pg. 223) Changed facility acreage recommendation for Enon area park from 30 to 35 acres. (pg. 223) k. Parks (Plan) -Neighborhood Parks i. November Plan: Removed Reymet area park recommendation. (pg. 223) Added language relative to neighborhood parks making up for shortfalls in specific geographies. (pg. 223) 8 As of December 4, 2011 000018 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan VIII. Implementation a. Action Matrix Categories i. January Plan: Divided the Action Matrix into five categories: 1) Ordinances and Regulations, 2) Strategies and Studies, 3) Providing Guidance, 4) Using the Plan, and 5) Organizing and Collaborating. ii. November Plan: These categories are removed. Added estimates of staff time needed to implement actions. (pg. 157) b. Action Matrix -See Table B i. January Plan: Contains 142 recommended actions. (pages 158 - 193) ii. November Plan: 87 actions removed and an additiona141 revised. Table A Land Use Plan Map Category Changes Cate o Janua 2011 Plan Draft November 2011 Plan Draft Other Notes Urban • Removed as acategory - Development made an overlay Area Regional Center • 8 dwellings/acre or more • 8 to 12 dwellings/acre • minimum 10%/maximum • Removed min/max 60% of residential, • Removed FAR office/industrial, commercial • 0.5 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or reater Mixed • Included light, general and • Removed heavy industrial Employment heavy industrial, general and general business uses Center business uses • Added community center • 0.1 FAR or greater uses along riverfront • Removed FAR Manufacturing • Not in Plan • Added in Plan Formerly in Mixed Employment Center Center Community • 0.35 FAR or greater • Removed FAR Center • Min 10%/max 60% of • Removed min/max residential, office, commercial Neighborhood • 0.25 FAR or greater • Removed FAR Center • Min 10%/max 60% of • Removed min/max residential, office, commercial Regional • 6 dwellings/acre or more • 6 to 8 dwellings/acre Corridor • 0.4 FAR or reater • Removed FAR General • Not in Plan • Added in Plan Formerly in Mixed Employment Business Center, not shown on ma Community • 4 to 6 dwellings/acre • 2 to 6 dwellings/acre Corridor • 0.25 FAR or less • Removed FAR 9 As of December 4, 2011 000019 A Comparison of the January, 2011 and November, 2011 Drafts of Chesterfield County's Proposed New Comprehensive Plan Cate o Janua 2011 Plan Draft November 2011 Plan Draft Other Notes • 0.2 FAR or less • Removed FAR Suburban • 0.25 FAR or less • Removed FAR Residential Communi Medium • 1 to 3 dwellings/acre • 2 dwellings/acre or less Residential • 0.2 FAR or less • Removed FAR Communi Low Residential . 0.15 FAR or less • Removed FAR Communi Very Low No changes Residential Communi Rural Center • 0.1 FAR or less • Removed FAR Not shown on ma p Countryside • 0.2 dwellings/ acre or less • 0.5 to 0.2 dwellings/ acre or • Added language limiting Residential less agricultural uses. Area Countryside • 0.2 dwellings/acre or less if • Removed ifroad frontage road frontage obtained obtained • 0.04 dwellings/acre or less • Removed 0.04 (without public road dwellings/acre or less fronta a com onent Conservation & No significant changes Recreation Urban • Not in Plan • Added in Plan Formerly a separate land use Development category Area Overla Upper Swift • Not in Plan • Added in Plan References existing ordinance Creek standards Watershed Overla Village Overlay • Not in Plan • Added in Plan Identifies village areas from current Tans Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department Chesterfield County, Virginia For more information on Chesterfield County's draft comprehensive plan, go to www.chesterfield. ov/co. 10 As of December 4, 2011 000020 Table B January 2011 and November 2011 Imalemation Action Matrix (:mm~aricnn Action Code Action In January, 2011 Draft Plan Status in November, 2011 Plan A-R 1 Zoning Ordinance -Bridge the Gap Ordinances/New Zoning Ordinance Yes Revised A-R 2 Home Occupation Ordinance Review Yes Revised A-R 3 Comprehensive Ordinance Review Yes Revised A-R 4 Mandatory Utilities Ordinance Yes Unchanged A-R 5 Tree Preservation Yes Revised A-R 6 Zoning Application Review Procedures Yes Removed A-R 7 Natural Resources Inventory Yes Revised A-R 8 Open Space/Recreation Requirements for Residential and Commercial Development Yes Revised A-R 9 Water Quality Management Regulations Yes Removed Water Quality Performance Standards No New A-R 10 Landscape Regulations Yes Unchanged A-R 11 Abandoned Mines Yes Unchanged A-R 12 Mass Grading and Clearcutting Performance Standards Yes Unchanged A-R 13 Drinking Water Overlay District Yes Unchanged A-R 14 Traffic Calming Yes Removed A-R 15 Access Management Yes Removed A-R 16 Alternative Modes For Non-Drivers Yes Removed A-R 17 Travel Demand Management (TDM) Requirements Yes Revised A-S 1 Economic Development Strategy Yes Revised A-S 2 Strategic Marketing Plan Yes Removed A-S 3 Business Inventory and Analysis Yes Removed A-S 4 Tourism Strategy Yes Removed A-S 5 Revitalization Strategy Yes Removed A-S 6 Community Building Strategy Yes Removed A-S 7 Infill Strategy Yes Removed A-S 8 Focused Strategies for Revitalization Yes Revised A-S 9 Consolidated Plan - CDBG Program Yes Unchanged A-S 10 Focused StrategySpecial Area Plan Yes Revised A-S 11 Organizational Capacity Assessment Yes Removed A-S 12 Code Enforcement and Revitalization Coordination Strategy Yes Removed A-S 13 Housing StrategyStudy Yes Revised A-S 14 Agricultural Strategy Yes Revised A-S 15 Land Conservation Tools Yes Revised A-S 16 Riverfront Access Study Yes Revised A-S 17 Green Infrastructure Strategy Yes Revised A-S 18 Watershed Master Strategies Yes Revised A-S 19 Pollutant Control Strategies Yes Removed A-S 20 Environmental Mitigation Strategy Yes Removed A-S 21 Historic Preservation Strategy Yes Revised A-S 22 Develop Review (DR) Efficiency Study Yes Removed A-S 23 Public Facilities Assessment Yes Removed A-S 24 The Environment and Economic Development Yes Removed As of Dec. 4,-20011" 02'` Table B January 2011 and November 2011 Imalemation Action Matrix Cmm~aricnn Action Code Action In January, 2011 Draft Plan Status in November, 2011 Plan A-S 25 Stormwater Utility Yes Unchanged A-S 26 Resource Protection Areas and Private Lots Yes Revised A-S 27 Utility Improvements and Revitalization Yes Revised A-S 28 Water and Wastewater Strategies Yes Revised A-S 29 Grant Funds for Water Line Extension Yes Removed A-S 30 Stale Zoning With Long Utility Extension Yes Revised A-S 31 Water Reuse and Reclamation Strategies Yes Revised A-S 32 Point Pollution Sources Yes Removed A-S 33 Water Demand Strategy Yes Revised A-S 34 Transportation Funding Strategy Yes Removed A-S 35 Transportation Performance Standards Yes Removed A-S 36 Public Transit Expansion Yes Removed A-S 37 Transportation Studies Yes Removed A-S 38 Transportation Best Management Practices Yes Unchanged A-S 39 Fleet Management Energy Efficiency Yes Removed A-S 40 Community Land trust Yes Removed A-S 41 Propserty Tax Exception Yes Removed A-S 42 Inclusionary Zoning Regulations Yes Removed A-S 43 Affordable Housing Impediment Analysis Yes Removed A-S 44 Small Lot Development Yes Removed A-S 45 Flexible Lot Size Yes Removed A-S 46 Mid-Range Thoroughfare Strategy Yes Removed A-S 47 Parallel Road Networks Yes Removed A-S 48 New Collector Roads Yes Revised A-S 49 Bicycle and Pedestrian Strategy Yes Revised A-G 1 Community Character Manual Yes Revised A-G2 Pattern Advice Book Yes Removed A-G 3 Chesterfield County Public Facility Design Manual Yes Revised A-G 4 Chesterfield County Public Maintenance Standards Manual Yes Removed A-G 5 Comprehensive Plan Reference HandbookOnline Technical and Supporting Documents Yes Revised A-G 6 Low impact Development (LID) Manual Yes Revised A-G 7 Green Building Standards Manual Yes Revised A-G 8 Adaptive Reuse Manaul _ Yes Revised A-U 1 Monitor Comprehensive Plan Implementation Yes Unchanged A-U 2 Comprehensive Plan Coordination Yes Removed A-U 3 Implement the Land Use Policy Element and Map Yes Removed A-U 4 Implement Urban Development Area (UDA) Yes -- Removed A-U 5 Implement Public Facilities Plan Yes - Removed A-U 6 Implement Transportation Plan Yes Removed A-U 7 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Yes Revised A-O 1 Chesterfield County Fiscal Assessment Model Yes Removed A-O 2 Chesterfield County public Facilities Model Yes Removed A-O 3 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Yes Removed 12 As of Dec. 4, ~0~ ~ 02~ Table B January 2011 and November 2011 ImDlemation Action Matrix [~n~„na.-~~~., Action Code Action In January, 2011 Draft Plan Status in November, 2011 Plan A-O 4 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Yes Unchanged A-O 5 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Yes Removed A-O 6 Fire Safety Master Plan Yes Revised A-O 7 Update Master Plans Yes Removed A-O 8 Align Committees Yes Removed A-O 9 Chesapeake Bay Ordinance Yes Revised A-O 10 Chesterfield County Capital Improvement Program Yes Removed A-O 11 Chesterfield County Public Facilities Site Selection Yes Removed A-O 12 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Yes Revised A-O 13 Greenways and Trails Strategic Plan Yes Revised A-O 14 Geographic Information Systems Yes Removed A-O 15 Community Education and Outreach Yes Removed A-O 16 Public-Private Partnerships Yes Revised A-O 17 Mixed Use Housing and Live/Work Incentives Yes Removed A-O 18 Density incentives Yes Removed A-O 19 Proffer System and Other Financial Tools in Relation to Plan Yes Revised A-O 20 Utility Public Sector Funding Yes Removed A-O 21 Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Cost Monitoring Yes Removed A-O 22 Treated Water Leakage Monitoring Yes Removed A-O 23 Water Supply Monitoring Yes Removed A-O 24 Private Utility Systems Database Yes Unchanged A-O 25 Public Water and Wastewater Database Yes Removed A-O 26 Aquifer and Soil Percolation Characteristics Database Yes Removed A-O 27 Water Metering Technology Yes Removed A-O 28 Safe Water brining Act Yes Removed A-O 29 Water Deman Education Yes Removed A-O 30 Freight Intermodal Connectivity Yes Removed A-O 31 Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines Yes Removed A-O 32 Public Transit Funding Yes Revised A-O 33 Rail Transit Yes Revised A-O 34 Transportation Improvement Funding Yes Unchanged A-O 35 Transportation and Community Grants Yes Unchanged A-O 36 Travel Demand Management Programs Yes Removed A-O 37 Fair Housing Yes Removed A-O 38 Affordable Housing Public-Private Partnerships Yes Removed A-O 39 Employer Assisted Housing Yes Removed A-O 40 Housing Market Tracking Yes Removed A-O 41 Coordinated Economic and Demographic Research Yes Removed A-O 42 Development Data Analysis Yes Removed A-O 43 Economic Development Incentives Yes Removed A-O 44 Cultural Resources Funding Yes Removed A-O 45 Regional Partnerships Yes Removed A-O 46 Educational Partnerships Yes Removed A-O 47 Business Incubator Yes Removed o~~~2v 13 As of Dec. 4, 2011 Table B January 2011 and November 2011 Implemation Action Matrix Comparison Action Code Action In January, 2011 Draft Plan Status in November, 2011 Plan A-O 48 Small Business Development Training Yes Removed A-O 49 Economic Development Partnerships Yes Removed A-O 50 Business Education and Outreach Yes Removed A-O 51 Retention and Expansion Collaboration Yes Removed A-O 52 Venture Capital Yes Removed A-O 53 Federal and State Coordination Yes Unchanged A-O 54 Regional Agencies Yes Removed A-O 55 Regional Collaboration Yes Removed A-O 56 Community Based Organizations Yes Removed A-O 57 Chesterfield Economic Development Authority (CEDA) Yes Removed A-O 58 Chesterfield County ZIP Codes Yes Removed A-O 59 Water Supply Planning Yes Unchanged A-O 60 Regional MPO Coordination Yes Removed Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Dept., December, 2011 000024 14 As of Dec. 4, 2011 Memorandum Chester$eld County, Virginia DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 2011 TO: JAMES J. L. STEGMAIER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KIRKLAND A. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING K•~~(~ SUBJECT: PLANNING STAFF'S CONCERNS WITH THE REVISED RECOMMENDED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff has prepazed a short list of significant concerns regazding the revised recommended draft Comprehensive Plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2011 and is pending before the Boazd of Supervisors. These concerns aze in no particulaz order or ranking and aze provided for your information. • Regional Center Densities: The revised recommended draft (hereafter referred to as the 11/15/11 draft) of the plan recommends a density range of 8.0 to 12.0 dwellings per acre. The original draft plan recommended by the consultants (hereafter referred to as the 1/6/11 draft) of the plan recommended a density of 8.0 dwellings per acre or more (emphasis added). Staff feels that the proposed narrowing of this range as found in the 11 /1 S/ 11 draft limits the increased development opportunities that are inherent to these areas in creating `urban' type unique, vibrant and thriving places for jobs, housing, shopping and recreation activities not currently available. • Floor Area Ratios: The 11/15/11 draft removed recommendations for Floor Area Ratios (percentage of building mass to lot size) that were proposed in the 1/6/11 draft plan. The setting of these minimum/maximum ratios was made to encourage increased development densities and intensities in appropriate locations in order to promote more efficient use of land and staff feels that their inclusion is critical to achieving the vision outlined in the draft plan. • General Land Use Mix Percentages: The 11/15/11 draft removed recommendations for minimum/maximum percentages of general land uses by land use category. These percentages were provided in the 1 /6/11 draft plan in order to 1) help ensure true mixing of uses in centers; and 2) to help guide future zoning ordinance amendments necessary to carry out the vision outlined in the draft plan. • Branders Bridge Road Area (see attached mail: Both the 11/15/11 and 1/6/11 draft plans recommend primarily residential uses along the west line of Branders Bridge Road. Staff feels that opportunities maybe present for this geography 1 _ 000025 (hatched area) as employment uses and thus recommends this azea be considered for Mixed Employment Center uses. In summazy, the above recommendations aze Planning staff's suggestions regazding significant differences in opinion that Planning staff has with the 11/15/11 recommended draft plan. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information regarding this matter. CC: William Dupler, Deputy County Administrator Attachment 2 - Do~~i~~ M 00002' ~ i' ,~ ~» ~,d CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.1. Subject: Authorize the Receipt and Appropriation of Grant Funds from the United States Department of Homeland Security for Chesterfield Fire and EMS as the Sponsoring Agency of the Virginia Division 1 - Regional Technical Rescue Team County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Action Authorize the Fire and EMS Department, Emergency Management Division, to receive and appropriate $100,000.00 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for Heavy Tactical Rescue Team Equipment, Exercises and Training for the Virginia Division 1 - Regional Technical Rescue Team. Summary of Information: The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve the acceptance and appropriation of $100,000 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for Heavy Tactical Rescue Team Equipment, Exercises and Training for the Division 1 - Regional Technical Rescue Team. Chesterfield Fire and EMS is the sponsoring agency of the Virginia Division 1 - Regional Technical Rescue Team. The funding is used to develop the equipment cache, exercise the team capabilities and train the members assigned to the team. There are no matching funds required. Preparer: Edward L. Senter Title: Chief, Fire & EMS Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget & Management Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 00002 1719 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.2.a. Subject: Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the County Code Relating to Storm Water and Best Management Practices (SWM/BMP's) Facilities in Buffers County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Set public hearing for March 7, 2012. Summary of Information: This amendment has been proposed through the Evaluation of Development Regulations (Cost of Development) Project. The goal of this particular amendment is to streamline the plans review process by allowing administrative approval of encroachment of a SWM/BMP into a buffer under certain circumstances. Currently, the Ordinance prohibits SWM/BMP encroachments into required buffers unless a buffer reduction is approved by the Planning Commission during plans review. On December 12, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on two different ordinance amendments and recommended denial of both (Attached Option 1 and Option 2). The Commission indicated, as they did previously during their consideration of Option 1, that the current ordinance which allows a developer to seek a buffer reduction or modification from the Planning Commission through the plans review process affords those impacted by the proposal immediate consideration through the public process. In consideration of Option 2 which would essentially give the Commission the ability to "override" an administrative decision, the Commission indicated such a process may very well result in a more lengthy process than that provided under the current ordinance and would not, therefore, achieve the original goal of streamlining the process. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No #®00029 1718 Background CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 In July 2011, the Commission held a public hearing on a proposed code amendment that would have allowed administrative approval of a SWM/BMP encroachment into buffers under certain circumstances. As proposed, the amendment would have allowed an applicant or an "aggrieved person," but not Planning Commissioners, to appeal the administrative decision to the Commission without paying an appeal fee. The Commission recommended denial of the amendment indicating that the current Ordinance which allows a developer to seek a buffer reduction or modification from the Planning Commission through the plans review process affords those impacted by the proposal immediate consideration through the public process. (Attached Option 1) Subsequently, in September 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the same amendment. The Board referred the matter back to the Commission and directed that staff and the Commission study a process whereby the Commission could have input into an administrative decision to allow a SWM/BMP encroachment into a buffer. As directed by the Board, staff and the County Attorney's office developed an alternative amendment which would allow the Commission to consider an administrative decision to allow the buffer encroachment. The process would be very similar to the Substantial Accord determinations that the Board considers following the Commission's decision (Attached Option 2). The current Ordinance which requires notification to certain parties of plan submission would continue with both amendment options discussed herein. For site and subdivision plans, property is posted to notify the public of the submission. In addition, for site plans, adjacent property owners are notified of the submission by first class mail. Detailed Overview of Each Option Option 1 This option was originally considered by the Commission and Board and recommended for denial by the Commission on two (2) separate occasions. Option 1 would allow the administrative approval of a buffer encroachment by a SWM/BMP provided a determination is made that the encroachment will not violate the spirit and intent of the required buffer. Further, this option would allow an appeal of the administrative decision by either the applicant or an aggrieved person to the Planning Commission without the necessity to pay an appeal fee. Therefore, an aggrieved person, such as an adjacent property owner or the applicant, would still be able to have their concerns 00003 ~.. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY __ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 °~° AGENDA addressed by the Planning Commission should they so desire. An "aggrieved person" is defined as "an owner or lessee of property adjacent to the site or of property nearby the site who will be adversely affected by the approval in an immediate and substantial manner not shared by the general public." This amendment may very well expedite the plans review process in instances where there is no appeal by an applicant or "aggrieved person" of the administrative decision. Option 2 Option 2 was prepared in response to direction from the Board for staff and the Commission to study a process by which the Commission would have final input into an administrative decision to allow a buffer encroachment. The difference between this option and Option 1 is that in the instance of an administrative approval by staff to allow the encroachment, staff would provide a report to the Commission indicating the reasons for approval. The Commission would then have the right to either confirm or vacate the decision. This option essentially allows the Commission to make the final decision on a buffer encroachment as is the case with the current Ordinance. It is staff's opinion, as well as the Commission and development community's opinion, that Option 2 will not expedite the plans review process and therefore, does not meet the original goal for the amendment, as established through the Evaluation of Development Regulation Project. This option essentially is very similar to the current Ordinance which requires that the Commission approve a buffer reduction or modification to allow a SWM/BMP to encroach into a required buffer during their consideration of a site or subdivision plan. 00003 OPTION 1 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-25, 19-241 AND 19-521 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BUFFERS AND SCREENING AND FEES FOR APPEAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-25, 19-241 and 19-521 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Chapter 19 ZONING ARTICLE IL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER/DISTRICTS DIVISION 3. APPLICATIONS, FEES AND NOTIFICATION Sec. 19-25. Fees. In addition to any other fees required by the county, fees shall be payable to the county treasurer and submitted to the planning department upon filing the following applications: Fee, Based On Office, Application Type Residential Commercial, Uses and Industrial Uses 000 26. Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of planning for decisions related to $400 $350 matters other than buffer encroachment by storm water or best management practices facilities 26.1 Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of planning for decisions related to buffer $0 $0 encroachment by storm water or best mana eg ment practices facilities 000 1928(25)(23):84244.3 00003 OPTION 1 ARTICLE IV. COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DIVISION 6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE BASINS Sec. 19-241. Design criteria for all basins. All basins required by the director of environmental engineering as either a stormwater management facility or a Best Management Practice for water quality improvement or designed as a retention or detention facility for any new development or redevelopment of property shall conform to the following criteria: 000 (2) Perimeter yards. Basins on property located in an R, R-MF or R-TH district or upon any other property used for residential purposes, schools, child care centers, playgrounds, or within residential subdivisions shall be enclosed by a minimum of a 50-foot vegetative perimeter yard around the basin, measured from the 100-year water surface elevation or the downstream toe of the dam, whichever applies. All basins located within 100 feet of the above described uses and any pedestrian access ways (i.e. sidewalks, bicycle paths, walkways) shall be separated from such uses by a minimum of a 50-foot vegetative perimeter yard measured from the 100- year water surface elevation or the downstream toe of the dam, whichever applies. +~. ~. +i. •+ r ~ r ~s >,y +`'° ' "b c"ate==eC ~~~~s-~~t~ro~ The perimeter yard shall be designed to provide a horizontal distance and vegetated open space between the basin and the above listed uses. 000 1928(25)(23):84244.3 2 000033 OPTION 1 ARTICLE VII. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANUAL DIVISION 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Secs. 19-521. General provisions for buffers and screening. 000 (g) The only uses permitted by right in buffers shall be landscaping and screening as permitted herein;, 1}However, signs;1 security fencing71 utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer;1 pedestrian walkways;,, storm water or best mana ement practices facilities, or similar uses may be permitted through subdivision, site or schematic plan review, ,;a°a ~~„* +~,° , ° ° ;~+°„* ..:+i. ~~,° .. ° ~~„~°a :., subject to both section 19-520 °r° m°~^*~~^°a and the screening, topography or other measures effectively accomplishing the intent of the required buffer. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1928(25)(23):84244.3 00003 OPTION 2 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-25, 19-241 AND 19-521 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BUFFERS AND SCREENING AND FEES FOR APPEAL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-25, 19-241 and 19-521 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Chapter 19 ZONING 000 ARTICLE II. AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER/DISTRICTS DIVISION 3. APPLICATIONS, FEES AND NOTIFICATION 000 Sec. 19-25. Fees. In addition to any other fees required by the county, fees shall be payable to the county treasurer and submitted to the planning department upon filing the following applications: Fee, Based On Office, Application Type Residential Commercial, Uses and Industrial Uses 000 26. Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of planning for decisions related to $400 $350 matters other than buffer encroachment by storm water or best mana eg ment practices facilities 26.1 Site plan review: appeal of decision of director of planning for decisions related to buffer $0 $0 encroachment by storm water or best management practices facilities 000 1928.87117.1 oooEy~~ OPTION 2 ARTICLE IV. COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DIVISION 6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE BASINS 000 Sec. 19-241. Design criteria for all basins. All basins required by the director of environmental engineering as either a stormwater management facility or a Best Management Practice for water quality improvement or designed as a retention or detention facility for any new development or redevelopment of property shall conform to the following criteria: 000 (2) Perimeter yards. Basins on property located in an R, R-MF or R-TH district or upon any other property used for residential purposes, schools, child care centers, playgrounds, or within residential subdivisions shall be enclosed by a minimum of a 50-foot vegetative perimeter yard around the basin, measured from the 100-year water surface elevation or the downstream toe of the dam, whichever applies. All basins located within 100 feet of the above described uses and any pedestrian access ways (i.e. sidewalks, bicycle paths, walkways) shall be separated from such uses by a minimum of a 50-foot vegetative perimeter yard measured from the 100- year water surface elevation or the downstream toe of the dam, whichever applies. . The perimeter yard shall be designed to provide a horizontal distance and vegetated open space between the basin and the above listed uses. 000 1928.87117.1 ©oo~~~ nPTTnN 2 ARTICLE VII. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANUAL DIVISION 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 000 Secs. 19-521. General provisions for buffers and screening. (g) Uses Permitted in Buffers. 000 (1) The ems} uses permitted by right in buffers shall be landscaping and screening as permitted herein; however, signs; security fencing; utilities which run generally perpendicular through the buffer; pedestrian walkways; or similar uses may be permitted through subdivision, site or schematic plan review, p~e~ed-t-l~~tl~~ °~ ~~J~~t~t :t, °^ ~*°'°a ~~ subject to screening, topography or other measures necessary to accomplish the intent of Section 19-520. Storm water or best management practices facilities (SWMBMP) may be permitted in buffers through subdivision, site or schematic plan review, subject to screening, topography or other measures necessary to accomplish the intent of Section 19-520. If such facilities are approved to encroach into the buffer throu~;h an administrative plan review process, the director of planning shall provide a report indicating the reasons for the approval to the planning commission at the planning commission's next re ug larly scheduled meeting. The planning commission shall either confirm the administrative decision or vacate the administrative decision. In addition, any administrative decision for approval or denial of an encroachment may be appealed by either the applicant or an aggrieved person in accordance with appeal procedures for site plan review. 000 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 3 o~~~a3~ 1928.87117.1 ,r. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date: February 08, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.2.b. Subject: Set a Public Hearing to Consider Lease of Real Property at Henricus Historical Park to The Henricus Foundation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set a public hearing for February 22, 2012, to consider lease of real property at Henricus Historical Park to The Henricus Foundation. Summary of Information: Since 1993, the County has been working cooperatively with Henrico County and The Henricus Foundation ("Foundation") to develop and operate the Henricus Historical Park. In 1996, the County granted the Foundation permission to construct a visitor's center and other improvements in the Park. In 2006, Henrico County, the Foundation, and Chesterfield County entered into an operations agreement ("Agreement"), which further delineated the respective responsibilities of the parties with respect to development and operation of the park. Over the years, with the financial support of Chesterfield and Henrico counties and the receipt of grant funds, the Foundation has overseen construction of several capital facilities in the park, such as the gift shop/restroom building, Education Center building, Ordinary, Mount Malady, Rocke Hall and the planned church building. Preparers Michael S. Golden Title: Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: ^ Yes ^ No # 004438 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) Under the existing arrangement, all improvements built by the Foundation become the property of the County once constructed. In light of the significant investment the Foundation has made on County property, and the fact that the Foundation has primary responsibility for operation of the park, the Foundation Board has requested that the County grant it a leasehold interest in the real property for a term of years to replace the existing license agreement which can be terminated by the County at any time with six (6) months advance notice. The Foundation believes that having a lease on the fixed assets of the site will help it with future efforts to receive donations and grants. The proposed lease will have an initial term of ten (10) years and three (3) automatic renewal terms of five (5) years each. Under the terms of the lease, the overall responsibilities of the parties as they currently exist related to the operation of the Park will not change, and the lease incorporates by reference the terms of the existing Agreement. The most significant change will be that the lease will convey a real property interest in the capital assets of the Park, which will aid its future fundraising efforts. There will, however, be no detrimental impact on the interests of the County. Parks and Recreation staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors set a public hearing to consider this lease request. 00003 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ ~ ~' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~' AGENDA Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.3. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim a Twenty-Foot Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice Access Easement, a Variable Width Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice Easement and a Sixteen-Foot Drainage Easement (Private) Across the Property of 13531 Hull Street Road, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a 20' SWM/BMP access easement, a variable width SWM/BMP easement and a 16' drainage easement (Private) across the property of 13531 Hull Street Road, LLC Summary of Information: 13531 Hull Street Road, LLC has requested the vacation of a 20' SWM/BMP access easement, and a variable width SWM/BMP easement and a 16' drainage easement (Private) across its property as shown on the attached plat for the Virginia Emergency Specialist project. New easements will be dedicated. This request has been reviewed by the Environmental Engineering Department. Approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Real Property Manager No # 000040 VICINITY SKETCH Request to Quitclaim a Twenty Foot Storm Water Management SystemlBest Management Practice Access Easement, a Variable Width Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice Easement and a Sixteen Foot Drainage Easement (Private) Across the Property of 13531 Hull Street Road, LLC N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w ;, e s I Ircl -666.67 Eet 00004. vtNl~aln'ur~noo ar~I~t~saNO °o p Y a ~al~slav~~volvw ~ T } R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ U31V~tlA 3B Ol ~ rn ~ .. ~ ~ ! ~ y °~ ~'T7'OVOXJ33lLLS~VIHtCSCi ~ ~ g $a E ~~ . ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d0 SONr'13N1 ONISSOtl~ 1N31A136tl3 dIrBIWMS H141M e ` O = ° W f ~ 3iemavA v aNV 1N3Y'133tl3 ss3~v dwalwMS ,oz v " ~ ~ ~ ~ r 8 v ° ~~ ~~~~ a~~~ 3~~? ?>~? '(31tlAWdIl1i3W3SV33O1MItlFW~9lVONIMOHSIV•Id ~ a ~~BSB ~fi2• g'• b ry8h 8 i1 ~dlOu~ J~~.~.~.s~h'1~i~i hl hl ?~.Zi 7~ ? ~ /~m~ yi+• O~ ~~~ ~"~3S".i:°.^.e~~~~~~~i°~°° awn ~ ,1gy~° yy o~ ~ ~~ ~7 U ~~' o U4a „ ~'~110J C N kW~ Q 3~ ~ ~ ~ Rny9fi 1P~~p Q o h` 4, ~feM ~ ~ /• ~~~g~ ~ ~ 2 p:ea4es PP9~~ 2~ ~ 4~'l~Vl~,p•°rd LarA ~~ F`' D•&~t175 P9.833 ~ Mpcl" ~ ~ og7Sfiq pG _~e0 K ~ Ru'_ ~ ~'B I c g~~~ ~ 8 36D -~~ ha > NULL ~~DTM s/"' -r ~ ~ '° a Fe ~~ ~' ,1~I~J _L ~J o"' ~ ti e hQa i t989 ~~ 11..:.1 ~! , 0l~'1 Wh 0~yg'E ~~ I~~ o oro ~U c~ N59 li~~ I ~~ ~~ o0 m $g IFh~~f~~~~I c ~ I ~ I v~ °> C1°. oo ~ ~'~Sbl I`' ''" I mNa Na ~ `'~ @ I~ \ 4 C ` IT~~ ~ W ^l Wh ~~ i -J~ ~ y~h h Wm ro N 36,49~~~6 ~~ 7 ~~i 3Qo ~o ~~ ~, ~ h~ 1 \ ~+~ ~~ moo, I I o \ \ .w I I Huh \ \r b\ I I o o I YO ~ \~n \ I I .- ~ b I ~ i /ice , ~/ i / ~•` \ '~ \L y-c\~ ~~ \\ V_~~iii ~~M ~TTT 3~ ° \ i\ I - -~ 'i ~-----_ a ~ I \ \ i' ~ b O I .~ \ ~ _ / II ~ ~ n ~~~ W~4 ~ \\ g ~ q i I I q ~bh^ I G' I I I ~ I ~WU ~'^ 3Vm \\ \ '~ h I I I II d°i~I o I ~n °c~'im `~° m \\ \ ~~ ~~ ~ 6, I I I II I h^n "~ r- I 3v~',n ~o ~ VA \ ~e 4 I I I II nib J \\ va° I I II 04^ ~ \ `on n II o \\ t~ 3o I I I II O o 0 ~~ 1 ~$g6 ~ W \ ~ 1 ~~~ e I I I~ II b ~ ~ b 11 4 ro Jry~ 3~ \I tt I ~`` ~~~~ I I tl II ~ ~~ I I III 2 I m2V :~ na°i mavnim L ~__~ I I tII 1 t ~~4 ~~n ti gWmro II ~ "' ~~~ v I I tll 1 n ~iW^ z2U q 2VCi Ci ,,1y~_ _- J I I tl ^~rn R2\ b~ W¢`y ~' IIII _~ _~--_---_- I i I l+~i tl I ~ ~~m ~'~ ~~~ II \1 ---- I I I q 1 ~~~ ~2^O e~mm 41-----rY ~==i=`---=-;-rl-- I Iq `---- ~ Wo ~a 4cloo II I } ~n I I I I III i 1 I I °h I ~~ , I^ 4a I I I I II q l ~ I I ~ I ~ h` I I I I II ~ ry II I v ~°o `c "~ I I 1 II ¢2a ~li~Y1b \ \ L- 2 \ Np L --m~-JI-O2N-_-~ I \ \ I I y I n II W n ~ufOC^ \ \ I hWQ I ~ II 'O ~O c~ \ \ I b O jy I W~ 2 \ I I ~~ it ti ~ ~ I ~ ~ 3 II o~~~ o (D/ I D! ~Q67gJ I 1tyxT~, II ~ ~ W 4a ~hg ~~ ,SI'BZ! A6LZ,SS.IB I I ~ -TrJ*y'~- m W~~ ~QV, „~~~ a°p ~m ~ I ~ I II __ ~ nn I I LLL II ,2 m ~bN~ 2 ~m h~ L_r.- b 7f Ih~ h ~m I '~ I L W^O^ "lip ~m ~~/y~ / ~i \ 2ku ¢a I I~~/~J e ~~ o I ~~ / iv N ~.'~ I I ~ o0.a I tF' '~ L~~ II oro~ I I II tih I II io ~~ I/ I II - ~~~ I I it awarJroea irs azvrans~-go- I ar~+s ~i it d O w i r 00'OU4a ~i i ,~ ,,.. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.4.a. Subiect: Resolution Recognizing Ms. Sheila R. Ladd, Purchasing Department, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Ms. Sheila R. Ladd is retiring from the Purchasing Department on March 2, 2012, after having provided more than 31 years of service with Chesterfield County. Preparers Michael J. Bacile Title: Director of Purchasing Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No 000043 SHEILA R. LADD RETIREMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ms. Sheila R. Ladd will retire on March 2, 2012, after providing thirty-one years of dedicated and faithful full-time service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd first began her service on a part-time basis in June of 1979, as a Clerk Typist, and was hired full-time in the position of Data Entry Operator I in the Purchasing Department on March 2, 1981; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd has been promoted and her position reclassified over the years, and she has currently been serving in the position of Contract Officer since August 4, 2001; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd was a member of professional procurement organizations including the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP), the Virginia Association of Governmental Purchasing (VAGP), and the Capital Area Purchasing Association (CAPA) and actively participated in training opportunities from these organizations; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd successfully completed the TQI Advisor Certification requirements in August 1999 and also successfully completed the Employee Certificate from Chesterfield University's School of Leadership and Personal Effectiveness and attended the Employee Leadership Institute in 2007; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd has established and administered requirements contracts during her tenure, which have successfully met the needs of county and school departments through effective, efficient, and cost saving procurement techniques; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd was instrumental in the development of the matching exception process used for over $5000 purchase orders in IFAS; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd worked effectively with Accounting and Purchasing staff to develop a method of tracking and reporting operational leases each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd provided continuous and relentless support daily to both county and schools ensuring that change orders for over $5000 purchase orders were processed timely and correctly in IFAS; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd delivered timely and accurate monthly purchase order volume statistics to Purchasing Department management; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd has always remained calm in her dealings with her customers and vendors; and 000044 WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd was always willing to take on any challenge presented to her with a positive "can-do" attitude; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd was active in volunteering within the Purchasing Department as well as other county-sponsored organizations such as CCHASM and United Way; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd has faithfully and effectively discharged her duties in each and every capacity with proficiency, dedication, and an unwavering commitment to provide excellent customer service to the many customers that the Purchasing Department serves in both county and school operations; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd displayed a commitment to duty along with an unwavering commitment to the highest ethical and moral standards while continually seeking to obtain the best value for the taxpayers of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Ms. Ladd will be tremendously missed for the quality and caliber of her commitment and performance in the Purchasing Department and to its many customers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Ms. Sheila R. Ladd and extends its appreciation for her thirty-one years of dedicated service to the county, congratulates her upon her retirement, and best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000045 ,~. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.4.b. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Kenneth R Department, Upon His Retirement Breitenbach, Parks and Recreation County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing the outstanding contributions of Mr. Kenneth R. Breitenbach, for his 24 years of service to Chesterfield County. Preparers Michael S. Golden Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director-Parks and Recreation No #000046 RECOGNIZING MR. KENNETH R. BREITENBACH UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Kenneth R. Breitenbach will retire from the Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation effective March 1, 2012; and WHEREAS, Mr. Breitenbach began his public service with Chesterfield County in April 1988, with the Parks and Recreation Department, as a part-time County Maintenance Worker; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 1990, Mr. Breitenbach was hired as a full-time Parks Groundskeeper; and WHEREAS, effective December 31, 1994, Mr. Breitenbach advanced to the position of Principal County Maintenance Worker and has continued his service as a Principal County Maintenance Worker within several park districts; and WHEREAS, Mr. Breitenbach has provided excellent customer service, integrity and knowledge in the maintenance and development of Chesterfield County parks and school facilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Breitenbach has been an invaluable asset and mainstay for the Parks and Recreation Department for the past 24 years; and WHEREAS, Mr. Breitenbach has been dedicated, productive and dependable in fulfillment of his position responsibilities; and WHEREAS, Mr. Breitenbach will be missed by his co-workers, supervisors, and the citizens of Chesterfield County, whom he has served. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. Kenneth R. Breitenbach, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his 24 years of service to Chesterfield County, and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. 000047 ~, ---,., ~, ~x, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 8.A.5. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Lewis Road and Bradley Bridge Road from Richard G. Vanamburg and Nancy D. Vanamburg County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Regues d: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land along Lewis Road and Bradley Bridge Road from Richard G. Vanamburg and Nancy D. Vanamburg, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: It is the policy of the county to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of this parcel conforms to that plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when constructed. Approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Real Property Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 000048 VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land Along Lewis Road and Bradley Bridge Road from Richard G. Vanamburg and Nancy D. Vanamburg N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities , W ~E S I ud - 555.e to t 000049 ae~~ iG89~s~~bb~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~lSJ~ 4 ~ ~ ~AR~1~! T +7~~-~S! d ~ f r ~ 340.3(. ~ ~ ~' i ~~ f p~~~r , ~ ARE9 = o. ~5¢,~c. ei ~" g ~a3.J.~.N ~i 3;3. ~3' - i J ~~~~ wy r +O ~ ~~ ' ' ~, o ~' n h ~ ~3 ~ V ' -- s .~y y f ~ , 3l0. i0' ~ j ' `i 4 .' ~ . ~ .. p ,~ ~ F-Dp/~RCEG B' Q ~ ~ • ` ~ . cn ~ '--s 'rz-o9',3o-~r I i . 2'95.40' , ? ~ ~ P~gRCEL ~ t! '~ ~ ~Uy Mp', - • ~ ~ IiMd r ~ ~0. ~ ~ ~ c rtii~ '/" E~ ~ ____ _ -•ar"_ R~Ro --. S.R. No.63~ ~.g ~- ~oF Fav'R ~PRRCEGS flF LANo S i fwafe~ a i the ~rmrrYer~` Carwen of Le~:s .mod ~~<<r~" Afafoac~ ~rcf C/~e4~'~aLa/ Coanr~j', j/`•r3/inris. ~~~~ ~~~ . .~ . «......••••,r ass o4r.ns ~s w~f w ~~ •nY0 ~~rrwa~ww. f t f~ ~rNYGa4.l~ eaa~ t.ir~,ES ~^Mr r ~r .ran, Me r ~~8- V 'CERI'IFICA?f ~„ ~ r~w r ~1 rrw w s ~ww~r • f r 4 AMr,1M +Y1M~ ~ ~ MrrO /~0 A, r..I,wr Yrr.' •Y' '~ta,rr-pn ~ ~~~®~® _.~ ,~ ,n, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 9.A. Subject: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the Deputy County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between County and Developer where there are no County funds involved. The report is submitted to Board members as information. Summary of Information: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: 1. Contract Number: 08-0204 Project Name: Huguenot Robious Mini Storage - Phase 4B Location: 11480 Robious Road Developer: Huguenot-Robious Associates, LLC Shoosmith Construction Incorporated Contractor: Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $20,000.00 District: Midlothian Preparers William O. Wright Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 0000~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) 2. Contract Number: 10-0203 Project Name: Logan's Roadhouse Infrastructure Plan Location: 3. 4. Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: East of Jefferson Davis Highway and along south line of West Hundred Road DSRA II, LLC Buchanan and Rice Contractors, Incorporated Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda Contract Number: 10-0218 Project Name: Kroger Bellgrade - Expansion R-505 Location: 3001 Polo Parkway $34,251.00 $37,438.00 Developer: Kroger Limited Partnership I Contractor: Jord Construction LLC Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $3,500.00 Wastewater Improvements - $4,410.00 District: Midlothian Contract Number: 11-0099 Project Name: Marten Transport at Ruffin Mill Industrial Park Location: Terminus of Port Walthall Drive (Ruffin Mill Industrial Park) Developer: Marten Transport, Ltd. Contractor: Buchannan and Rice Contractors, Inc. Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $59,034.42 Wastewater Improvements - $35,676.73 District: Bermuda o~OQS~ r 1 t CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 9.6. Subject: Report on Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Acceptance of attached report. Summary of Information: Preparers _ James J. L. Stegmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: ^ Yes ^ No # 000OS~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE Budgeted Ending Balances February 8,2012 of General Fund Budgeted Expenditures* FY2008 $50,945,000 7.5% FY2009 $53,495,000 ~.~% FY2010 $53,495,000 g.1 % FY2011 $53,495,000 8.3% FY2012 $53,495,000 8.2% *Effective FY2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted a change to the financial policy ratio to raise the targeted fund balance level from 7.5 percent to 8.0 percent ~DO~s'~ f CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS February 8, 2012 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2010 4/15/2010 FY2011 Budget Addition 13,169,200 17,947,388 4/15/2010 FY2011 Capital Projects (12,962,600) 4,984,788 5/26/2010 FY2011 Part of Sports Quest funding (206,600) 4,778,188 8/25/2010 Replacement generator for the IST building (290,400) 4,487,788 8/25/2010 Replacement funding to complete projects at Clover Hill (340,000) 4,147,788 Sports Complex 11/17/2010 Renovations and Additions to the Manchester Volunteer (120,000) 4,027,788 Rescue Squad (MVRS) Project FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2011 4/13/2011 FY2012 Budget Addition 13,552,500 17,580,288 4/13/2011 FY2012 Capital Projects (13,352,500) 4,227,788 8/24/2011 Construction of first phase of Mary B. Stratton Park (391,735) 3,836,053 11/9/2011 Chesterwood-Cogbill Road Drainage Improvements (32,066) 3,803,987 OOOpS~ z ~~ F W O w V ~ N A ~ ~ w O ~ waR ra ~ w ~ ~ F ~ ~ v~ F x U U ~" F A ea - L" ~ O 0~0 ~ N OHO a ~ 6M9 N ~ 7 ~ 6~ v .fl C y, ea 0 ~ ~ o R o ~o ~, C ~ ~ ~+ Q r.i ~ N "C ~~,, C L O ~ W ~ N O N W l~ M O O~ M O ~O l~ ~ N ~O ~O ~O O O O O O M M M M M Mffj M M M M L' ~ V't ~ 00 ~ M y ~ O~ [ ~ t ~ N v~ Q L 69 N N ~ N L O {. ~L R a U i v •L A R a ~ 0.1 ~ ~ U : A R R ~ ~ ~ o b ~ ;a 3 ~ O U ~0~~.~~ E t Prepared by Accounting Department January 31, 2012 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Date Original Date B~ Desc~tion Amount Ends 04/99 Public Facility Lease -Juvenile Courts Project $16,100,000 01/20 (Refinanced 10/10) O1/O1 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 03/03 Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation 03/04 Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 10/04 Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project 12/04 Energy Improvements at County Facilities OS/OS Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 05/06 Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 08/07 Certificates of Participation -Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED PENDING EXECUTION Description None 13,725,000 6,100,000 21,970,000 16,596,199 1,519,567 14,495,000 11,960,000 22,220,000 124.685.766 11/21 Outstanding Balance 1/31/2012 $6,475,000 5,605,000 11/23 3,540,000 11/24 13,990,000 10/12 16,596,199 12/17 906,120 11/24 8,325,000 11/24 7,145,000 11/27 17,545,000 12 ~ Approved Amount 000®5'~ February 8, 2012 Speakers List Afternoon Session 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~~, Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 14.A. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Boy Scouts Upon Attaining the Rank of Eagle Scout County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff has received requests for the Board to adopt resolutions recognizing Mr. Ian Patrick Westbrook, Troop 1891, sponsored by Bon Air United Methodist Church, and Mr. Austin Charles Grindle, Troop 2837, sponsored by Chester Baptist Church, upon attaining the rank of Eagle Scout. They will be present at the meeting, accompanied by members of their families, to accept their resolutions. Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board ^ No #000058 WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910, and was chartered by Congress in 1916; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to build character, provide citizenship training and promote physical fitness; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of skills including leadership, service and outdoor life, serving in a leadership position in a troop, carrying out a service project beneficial to his community, being active in the troop, demonstrating Scout spirit, and living up to the Scout Oath and Law, Mr. Ian Patrick Westbrook, Troop 1891, sponsored by Bon Air United Methodist Church, and Mr. Austin Charles Grindle, Troop 2837, sponsored by Chester Baptist Church, have accomplished those high standards of commitment and have reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout, which is received by only four percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through their experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and endeavoring to prepare themselves for a role as leaders in society, Ian and Austin have distinguished themselves as members of a new generation of prepared young citizens of whom we can all be very proud. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 8th day of February 2012, publicly recognizes Mr. Ian Patrick Westbrook and Mr. Austin Charles Grindle, extends congratulations on their attainment of Eagle Scout, and acknowledges the good fortune of the county to have such outstanding young men as its citizens. OOOG5~ -" CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 1719 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA _ Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 14.6. Subject: Resolution Recognizing February 2012, as "Children's Dental Health Month" in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Ms. Jaeckle requested that the Board of Supervisors recognize February 2012, as "Children's Dental Health Month." Dr. Samuel W. Galston, Dr. C. Sharone Ward, Dr. Frank Farrington, Dr. James Keeton and Jo Anne Wells, RDH, will be present to receive the resolution. Preparers Janice Blaklev Attachments: ^ Yes ^ No Title: Clerk to the Board 00006 RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2012, AS "CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH MONTH" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, the tenth annual "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day" was conducted in a number of Chesterfield County dental offices and schools on February 3, 2012; and WHEREAS, numerous children's dental health outreach activities and education will take place in Chesterfield County Schools throughout February 2012; and WHEREAS, through the joint efforts of the Southside Dental Society, the Virginia Dental Association, the Virginia Department of Health, Division of Dentistry, the Medical College of Virginia School of Dentistry, the Alliance of the Southside Dental Society, local dentists and dental healthcare providers who volunteer their time, and the school district of Chesterfield County, this program was established to foster the improvement of children's dental health; and WHEREAS, since inception of the "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care" program in 2003, the Southside Dental Society, along with many dental partners, have delivered more than $600,000 in free dental care to more than 5,600 patients utilizing more than 710 volunteers, a tremendous example of community partners and stakeholders working together to decrease barriers to accessing dental care for at-risk children in the community; and WHEREAS, these dental volunteers have provided educational materials and programs and stress the importance of regular dental examinations, daily brushing and flossing, proper nutrition, sealants and the use of mouth guards during athletic activities; and WHEREAS, several local dental offices will volunteer their services on "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day," to provide treatment and education to local underprivileged children. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 8th day of February 2012, publicly recognizes February 3, 2012, as "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day" and February 2012, as "National Children's Dental Health Month" in Chesterfield County, expresses gratitude, on behalf of all Chesterfield County residents, and commends those organizations responsible for their proactive approach to dental heath and also commends Dr. Samuel W. Galstan, Dr. C. Sharone Ward, Dr. Frank Farrington, Dr. James Keeton and Jo Anne Wells, RDH, for helping to protect our children's dental health. ~o00s February 8, 2012 Speaker's List Evening Session #1 (Following Presentation of Resolutions) 1. Mr. Bob Herndon 2. ~~~-~1~1 e A~~2 3. 4. 5. Evening Session #2 (End of the Evening Agenda) 1. ~I/ pOG(~ ~q r KC 2. 3. 4. 5. ~ p -~ r P~~ 11'C ~U''h1M~'1'~' PPYI~U~ Robert W. Herndon, C.P.A. 10401 Beaver Bridge Rd Chesterfield, VA 23838 Ph: 804-938-7303 January 23, 2012 The Honorable members of the Board of Supervisors POBox40 Chesterfield, VA 23832-0040 Re: Public Transit in Chesterfield County Dear Board Members: It's a new year and a new Board of Supervisors leading Chesterfield County. Let me first congratulate each of you on being elected to represent the citizens of Cheste~eld County. It is both an honor and a challenge the citizens have bestowed upon each of you. In 2012, you have the opportunity to take a bold step forward into the twenty-first century and do something none of the boards before you have chosen to do: Financially support public transit service in Chesterfield County. Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) provides two successful Express Routes in Chesterfield County: Rt.81 at Chesterfield Town Centre and Rt. 82 at Swift Creek Baptist Church & Commonwealth 20 Theater. As you know, the current funding for these two routes will expire on June 30, 2012. For the past six years, federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and state primary road funds from the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) plus the fares of riders and their employers have supported the operations of GRTC for these two routes. Chesterfield County has provided no funds for the operations of GRTC despite its ownership of 50% of the system and appointment of three of the six GRTC Board members. Senators John C. Watkins and Stephen H. Martin are co-patrons to amendments to the State Budget in Senate Bi1130. These amendments would provide $68,000 and $200,000, respectively, for Rt. 81 and Rt. 82 in each of the next two fiscal years of the 2012-2014 biennium. However, these appropriations are contingent on your commitment to match these funds. First, I encourage each of you to commit, by an official action of the Board of Supervisors, to match the state appropriations as provided in the amendments to Senate Bi1130 co-patroned by Sen. Watkins and Sen. Martin. Secondly, I encourage you to go one step further and provide the additional funding, over and above the funds necessary to match the state appropriations, to maintain the current level of service for these two very successful Express Routes in Chesterfield County. Robert W. Herndon, C.P.A. Public Transit in Chesterfield County January 23, 2012 Page 2 GRTC has provided you information as to the necessary funding to maintain the current level of service for these routes. The total local funding calculated by GRTC for these routes is $589,628, annually. The state appropriations, matched with an equal amount by Cheste~eld County, would leave a balance of $53,628 each fiscal year for GRTC to maintain the current level of service for both routes. Third, in the event the Senators are unsuccessful in obtaining support from the General Assembly and the Governor's Office for these amendments to the state budget, I encourage you, the elected leaders of Chesterfield County, to find the will and the funds to support and maintain the current level of service for these routes. Why is it important for Chesterfield County to assist financially in continuing and maintaining the current level of service for Routes 81 and 82? Simply stated, it is the right thing to do! Our neighboring localities of Richmond, Petersburg and Henrico County all financially support GRTC. Respectively, in fiscal year 2011 each of these localities provided $11,000,000, $5,000,000 and $150,000 towards the operation of public transit service in their jurisdictions by GRTC. Only Chesterfield County and the City of Richmond, as co-owners of GRTC, have representation on the GRTC Board of Directors. For the last six years, the federal and state governments, businesses with workers using these routes and the citizens of Chesterfield County riding Routes 81 and 82 have provided the funding to support the operations of GRTC. Chesterfield County has been the beneficiary of the operations of GRTC service yet has chosen not to support it financially. As many of you know from prior communications and presentations I have made to the board regarding this subject, Route 82 has exceeded the service goal of 160 average daily riders set by the Chesterfield County Director of Transportation, John McCracken, in January 2006. Rt. 82 has exceeded this goal every month since it was set. In calendar year 2011, the average daily ridership of Rt. 82 was 318. The average daily ridership for Rt 81 in calendar year 2011 was 160. For the entire five plus years it has been in operation, the average daily ridership of Rt 82 has exceeded the service goal by an average of 109 per month, or 168°/0 of the service goal. This type of success deserves to be respected, honored and continued. I urge you to consider these thoug c ents as well as those you have been receiving from others and do what is right gardin ts. 81, 82, the citizens of Chesterfield County and GRTC. Robert W. Herndon, C.P.A. 1108 East Main St., Suite 1108, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 643-1166 Fax: (804) 643-1155 A GROWING PUBLIC TRANSIT PROGRAM REQUIRES GROWING RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN SERVICE Support Budget Amendments to Maintain Public Transportation: $10M in FY12, FY13, FY14 5629 Item 452 #2s (Saslaw) adds $9.9M to the Mass Transit Fund by redirecting 14.7% of $67.2 million in FY11 GF surplus funds for transportation. This is the transit share of the Transportation Trust Fund. o The amendment restores funds that would by statute have gone to transit through the TTF. The introduced budget bypassed the TTF, redirecting $67M in surplus funds to the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Fund. SB 30 Item 441# 4s (Saslaw) provides $lOM in FY13 and $10M in FY14 to fund mass transit services that enhance commuter access to employment centers. (This is a companion to Item 105#3s which reduces Economic Development Incentive Payments and redirects them.) There's a strong relationship between public transportation and economic development. Over 60% of transit riders are commuting to work. Transit operating and capital investment generates a 3 to 1 return on investment. Transit access is sought by employers from small to large communities. Transit can reduce congestion and move people at a fraction of the cost of highway investments. At $117.3 M in FY14, the introduced budget mass transit operating fund would increase by only $1 M over the biennium, even with significant new service expansion. Compared to FY12. the introduced mass transit budget for FY13 drops by (S3.6M) and FY14 exceeds FY12 by only S1M despite significant service expansion. This is insufficient for a successful and growing program. High quality new service has recently come online and significant service will begin operation by 2014. Additionally, fuel and health care costs are also driving up operating costs for all providers. Localities and riders are not in a position to fill the gap in state funds. In FY12 the state contributed only 179'0 of total public transit operating expenses. Additionally new budget language in the introduced budget provides off the top unlimited funds for transit in the I-95 Hot lanes. These funds should come out of the Highway Fund and not the Mass Transit fund since it is adding capacity to the Hot Lanes Im a In FY12 many transit providers have already raised fares and reduced or cut service, because of insufficient funding, despite increased ridership and demand for service. Without added funding this biennium every transit provider could see a reduction in state funds, resulting in more service cuts for people who depend on transit daily. Transportation Legislation -Don't Bvnass Transit Maintaining Public Transportation as well as Highway Maintenance is the most cost effective way to move more people, manage congestion and maximize the capacity of existing roads. • The Mass Transit Fund should receive a share of any new ongoing transportation revenue for Highway Maintenance. z 1108 East Main St., Suite 1108, Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 643-1166 Fax: (804) 643-1155 A GROWING PUBLIC TRANSIT PROGRAM REQUIRES GROWING RESOURCES TO MAINTAIN SERVICE Support Funding to Maintain Public Transportation $lOM in FY12, FY13 and FY14 H629 Item 452 #ih adds $9.9M to the Mass Transit Fund by redirecting 14.79'0 of $67.2 million in FY11 GF surplus funds for transportation. This is the transit share of the Transportation Trust Fund. o The amendment replaces funds that would by statute have gone to transit through the TTF. The introduce budget bypassed the TTF, redirecting $67M in surplus transportation funds to the Virginia Transportation Infrastructure Fund. HB 30 441#ih provides $10M in FY13 and FY14 to fund mass transit services that enhance commuter access to employment centers. (This is a companion to Item 105#2h which reduces and redirects Economic Development Incentive Payments.) There's a strong relationship between public transportation and economic development. Over 60% of transit riders are commuting to work. Transit operating and capital investment generates a 3 to 1 return on investment. Transit access is sought by employers from small to large communities. Transit can reduce congestion and move people at a fraction of the cost of highway investments. At $117.3 M in FY14, the introduced budget mass transit operating fund would increase by only $1 M over the biennium, even with significant new service expansion. Compared to FY12. the introduced mass transit budget for FY13 drops by (S3.6M) and FY14 exceeds FY12 by only S1M despite significant service expansion. This is insufficient for a successful and growing program. High quality new service has recently come online and significant service will begin operation by 2014. Additionally, fuel and health care costs are also driving up operating costs for all providers. Localities and riders are not in a position to fill the gap in state funds. In FY12 the state contributed only 179'0 of total public transit operating expenses. Additionally new budget language in the introduced budget provides off the top unlimited funds for transit in the I-95 Hot lanes. These funds should come out of the Highway Fund and not the Mass Transit fund since it is adding capacity to the Hot Lanes Impact In FY12 Many transit providers have already raised fares and reduced or cut service, because of insufficient funding, despite increased ridership and demand for service. Without added funding this biennium every transit provider could see a reduction in state funds, resulting in more service cuts for people who depend on transit daily. Transportation Legislation-Don't Bvpass Transit Maintaining Public Transportation along with Highway Maintenance is critical to maximize capacity of Virginia's roadways and manage congestion. • The Mass Transit Fund should receive a share of any new ongoing transportation revenue for Highway Maintenance. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ,~. AGENDA Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 16.A. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Section 2-79 of the County Code to Require Criminal Background Checks for Certain Volunteers and for Certain Employees with New Job Assignments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to approve amendments to Section 2-79 of the County Code after holding a public hearing. Summary of Information: Staff is recommending two changes to the current county ordinance which requires background checks for volunteers and employees of the County. The first change relates to volunteers. Chesterfield County currently conducts criminal background checks on volunteers who provide services to juveniles. In recent years the county has provided opportunities for volunteers to provide services to other vulnerable populations, i.e., the elderly and disabled. In addition, it is anticipated that volunteers in certain circumstances will be given opportunities within County government in the future to (i) have access to confidential or personal information, (ii) be responsible for the collection of or have routine access to public funds, and/or (iii) have access to county buildings outside of regular work hours. Accordingly, staff recommends that the current ordinance be amended to Preparer: Mary Martin Selby Title: Director of Human Resource Services Preparer: Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 00006 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA require a criminal background check for volunteers in such positions to help ensure our volunteers have demonstrated past conduct that is compatible with sensitive volunteer opportunities. Staff estimates that the number of background checks could potentially increase by 25 percent. The second change relates to current County employees. On occasion, an employee's terms and condition of employment change such that they are given new assignments and duties that involve (i) having access to confidential or personal information, (ii) collection of or routine access to public funds, and/or (iii) entry into county buildings outside regular work hours. In these cases, to enhance security, staff recommends that for employees that have not previously had a background check within the prior three (3) years to submit to a background check. This will help to ensure that employees working in sensitive positions have demonstrated past conduct that is compatible with the position. The proposed changes to the code are estimated to cost less than $10,000 annually - costs that will be addressed in the FY2013 budget. Staff recommends approving the changes to the County ordinance after a public hearing. ~~~©s AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 2-79 RELATING TO BACKGROUND CHECKS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 2-79 of the Code of the County of Chester field. 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 2-79. Personnel background searches. (a) This section is enacted pursuant to §§ 19.2-389 and 15.2-1503.1 of the Code of Virginia. In the interest of public welfare and safety it is necessary to determine whether the past criminal and/or child protective services conduct of each person described in subsections (b), (c) and (d) is compatible with the nature of each person's employment. (b) In addition to other background searches authorized by local, state, or federal law, the county administrator and his designees within county government shall conduct (1) criminal history record searches and (2) sex offender and crimes against minors registry searches for all applicants for full-time or part-time employment who are offered a conditional offer of employment with the county, all employees who are being promoted to a position in their own or another department or applying for a transfer to a position in another department, and all employees whose terms and conditions of employment change such that they have new responsibilities involving (i) providing services to juveniles, the elderly or disabled, (ii) access to confidential or personal information as defined in Code of Virginia section 2.2-3801, (iii) collection of or routine access to~ublic funds, (iv) entry into county buildings outside of work hours, or (v) service with either the police department, fire and EMS department sheriffs office the emergency communications center, or volunteer rescue squads and who have not had a back r check within three (3) nears of such change in job responsibilities ~ra~rt time,,,,„~ ~* ~ t ,i ~°...~...,°d 1~. t~3(iE6~ ~Pr6yli?cnrzia-~ccr2~f-S~e~i~` e-~6~Si~k9i3S--ir~aecczxrrrrrcc~°7~ (c) In addition to other background searches authorized by local, state or federal law, the county administrator a~ or his designees within county government shall conduct (1) criminal history record searches (2) sex offender and crimes against minors registry searches and (3) child protective services central registry searches on full-time and part- time county employees who provide services to juveniles or who provide maintenance services at county schools, and applicants for county employment, both full-time and part-time, who will hold such positions and who have received a conditional offer of employment. (d) In addition to other background searches authorized by local, state or federal law, the county administrator and or his designees within county government shall conduct (1) criminal history record searches and (2) sex offender and crimes against minors registry searches on volunteers for county departments whose anticipated duties or responsibilities involve iti~ei~de~~~te~ex~'°~a ~i~providing services to 0623:87210.1 1 ~U~ ~~'~-~ juveniles, the elderly or disabled (ii) access to confidential or personal information as defined in Code of Virginia ~ 2.2-3801, (iii) collection of or routine access to public funds, (iv) entry into county buildings outside of work hours or (v) service with either the police department, fire and EMS department sheriff's office the emergency communications center, or volunteer rescue squads. (e) The county administrator is authorized to identify employee and volunteer positions which meet the criteria of subsections (c) and (d) and to incorporate such list into an administrative policy which implements the provisions of this section. Such administrative policy shall indicate whether such searches shall be universal or random and shall identify consequences for past behavior. (f) All employees, volunteers and applicants identified in subsections (b), (c), or (d) shall execute, as a condition of employment or service, the necessary documents to permit the searches described in this section and shall cooperate with all agencies providing information. In addition, all applicants for employment given a conditional offer of employment shall submit to fingerprinting for processing a nationwide background check. (g) Any employee disciplined as a result of a background search may grieve such discipline in accordance with the county grievance procedure. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. O(~(3O6s 0623:87210.1 2 ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue Chesterfield County LN:Background-Checks 1-25, 2-1 1/20P + .67 in. $220.70 Board of Supervisors The Observer, Inc. Publisher of TAKE NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on February 8, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the County Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Administration Building, Rt. 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia will hold a public heazing where persons may appeaz and present their views concerning: Amendments to Section 2-79 of the County Code to require criminal background checks for certain volunteers and for certain county employees with new job assignments. If further information is desired, please contact the County Attorney's Office at 748-1491, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The hearing is held at a public facility designed to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Any persons with questions on the accessibility of the facility or need for reasonable accommodations should contact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Boazd, at 748-1200. Persons needing interpreter services for the deaf must notify the Clerk to the Boazd no later than Friday, February 3, 2011. CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 1/25/2012 & 2/01/2012 Sworn to and subscribed before me this j~ '~^ day of rK,~ r , 2012. ~~, ega Affiant J s T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) ,.~~`'~ G R p ~~'''~. ~~5.~o~~t3Eq~T~S '~~~ ~ : a EXPIRES T ~ ~- =_ `E ; ° 02-29-12 ' ~ ___ ~ :718209' ' ti ~' Gbh' ~ 1 ~~~?.= ~V THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23113 • Phone: (804) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chesterfieldobserver.com • Intemer www.chesterfieldobserver.com CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~~, Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 Item Number: 1e. Subiect: Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting of the Board of Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on February 22, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board ^ No # OOOfl66