The URL can be used to link to this page

04-14-1999 PacketMeeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA April 14, 1999 Item Number: Page 1 o fl Subject: County Administrator's Comments Count~ Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAction Requested: No Action Required Summary of Information: Presentation to the Board of Supervisors and Mr. Lane B. Ramsey, County Administrator, framed 250~ Amniversary Calendar of Events. Presented by Mr. Pete Mann, Chairman. and Mr. Russell Harris, Co-chairman of the 250rh Anniversary Oversight Committee. Attachments: ~ Yes No Co-chairman 250" CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 5.^. Su~ect: Resolution Recognizing Gary McLaren, Director, Department of Economic Development for His Contributions to Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Request the Board of Supervisors pass the attached resolution for Mr. Gary McLaren and present it to Mr. McLaren at the April 14, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting. Summary of Information: Mr. Gary McLaren has recently accepted a position with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership. Over the past 11 years Mr. McLaren developed a strong, nationally recognized economic development program within Chesterfield County while stressing the importance of creating opportunities for the long-term economic vitality of Chesterfield County. Preparer: __ Attachments: 'Yes Title: Deputy County Administrator for Community Development # 002 RECOGNIZING MR. GARY R. MCLAREN FOR HIS SERVICE TO CHESTERFIELD COUNTY W~EREAS, Mr. Gary R. McLaren has faithfully served Chesterfield County as Director of Economic Development from 1988 to 1999 and will leave his position with a significant list of accomPlishments behind him; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren, during his eleven years of service, has developed a strong and nationally recognized program that is regarded by both peers and consultants as one of the top Economic Development organizations in the country; and his leadership has provided for the creation of more than 9,000 new jobs and investments of nearly $1 billion in Chesterfield County during his tenure, allowing Chesterfield County to consistently rank in the top ten communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia for new jobs and investment; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren recognized the importance of Chesterfield County's existing companies and instituted a successful Existing Industry Program that received a NACO Achievement Award in 1996; and, in working with other Community Development departments, has been extremely instrumental in initiating infrastructure improvements and in rezoning of property for Meadowville Technology Park, positioning Chesterfield County for significant future development; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren's work with other State and County agencies provided for creation of a successful Enterprise Zone Program that has enabled Chesterfield County to attract and retain a number of growing industries; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren has been actively involved with career development efforts at local and regional levels by participating in the Chesterfield County Career Development Advisory Committee and Workforce One; and W~EREAS, Mr. McLaren's contribution to the Route 288 Comprehensive Plan and open communication with the development community has helped to preserve future economic growth opportunities in this flourishing area of Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren has worked to bring further recognition to Chesterfield County throughout the economic development community by serving as past-President of the Virginia Economic Developers Association and as State Delegate for the Southern Economic Development Council; and WHEREAS, Mr. McLaren's dedication to providing quality service has fostered respect and cooperation from the business community, Chesterfield residents, and government officials, allowing for support of his vision for creating opportunities for the long-term economic vitality of Chesterfield County. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. Gary R. McLaren and extends, on behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County, their appreciation for his service and dedication to improving the quality of life for Chesterfield residents, and wish him well in his new position. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. McLaren and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. OO3 O0 0 oooooo ~§§ I I II CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 5. B. Subject: Resolution Recognizing E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, Inc. For Their Continued Financial Support of the Annual Winter Lecture Series Sponsored by Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve a resolution to recognize E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, Inc. for their continued financial support of the annual Winter Lecture Series sponsored by the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department. Summary_ of Information: E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, Inc. has graciously donated up to $1.5,000 for each of the past twelve years for the Winter Lecture Series allowing the Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation Department to provide a wholesome, family activity. This series of five free lectures offers a variety of topics from local, national and international speakers that entertain, educate and motivate the audience. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company, Inc. is an excellent example of how a business can participate in promoting interesting educational family oriented events for the citizens of Chesterfield County. Director, Parks and Recreation Attachments: Yes ~ No O04 WHEREAS, donations' from E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Incorporated (Dupont) have made the Winter Lecture Series of the Parks and Recreation Department possible for the past twelve years; and, WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Parks and Recreation Department appreciate the continued financial support of Dupont towards the annual Winter Lecture Series; and, WHEREAS, Dupont, which in Chesterfield County employs 2,400 people and reaches a worldwide market, has given back to the community through continued sponsorship of an annual County special event; and, WHEREAS, through the cooperative efforts of Mr. Bob Dunn, Environmental Affairs Manager for Dupont, the spirit of community/private partnership continues to provide the County with the ability to afford a varied selection of high caliber speakers for area residents to enjoy each year; and, WHEREAS, Chesterfield County Parks and Recreation is looking forward to a continued strong rapport with DuPont. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby publicly recognizes E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Incorporated for their generous support of the Winter Lecture Series. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dupont and that this resolution be recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. OO5 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Date: April 14= 1999 Item Number: 6. Subject: Work Session on the County Administrator's Proposed FY2000 Biennial Financial Plan, FY2000 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Annual Plan and FY2000-2004 Capital Improvement Program County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: __ Board Action Requested: Hold a work session on the County Administrator's Proposed FY2000 Biennial Financial Plan, FY2000 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Annual Plan and FY2000-2004 Capital Improvement Program Summary of Information: This time has been set for a work session on the County Administrator's Proposed FY2000 Financial Plans. Attached is a list of anticipated and proposed revisions to the plans which will be reviewed at the work session. These revisions and any additional revisions requested will be incorporated prior to adoption of the plans on April 28. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Bud,qet and Manaqement Attachments: Yes 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -I~ 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ~ ~.?~ o 0 0 o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 009 0~0 000000 I~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~.,'~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 00~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ooo ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ 0 .1~ .~. ~-.~ Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA April 14, 1999 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 8.A.1. Subiect: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing the Annual Tax Levy on Various Classes of Real Estate and Personal Property County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adopt the attached tax rate ordinance Summary of Information: The Board held a public hearing on March 24, 1999 concerning the attached ordinance. Rates on all existing classes of property are to remain constant. The recommended rates are $1.08 for real estate; $3.60 for personal property; $1.00 for machinery and tools; $0.50 for airplanes; $0.96 for personal property for volunteer firefighters, rescue squads, and auxiliary members; $0.0t for wild and exotic animals; $3.24 foz vehicles using clean and special fuels; and $0.96 for personal property class for vehicle trailers and semi-trailers with a gross weight of 10,000 lbs. or more. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson, Attachments: Yes Title: Director of Budget & Management ~No # 014[ AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY ON VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY FOR THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIEI,D BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Chesterfield that for the year beghufing on the first day of January, 1998c2, and ending on the thirty-first day of December, 1998c2, the taxes on property in all the Magisterial Districts of the County of Chesterfield shall be as follows: Sec. 1. Real Property and Mobile Homes. On tracts of land, lots or improvements thereon and on mobile homes the tax shall be $1.08 on every $100 of assessed value thereof. Sec. 2. Personal Property (a) On automobiles, trailers, boats, boat trailers, other motor vehicles and on all tangible personal property used or held in connection with any mining, manufacturing or other business, trade, occupation or profession, including furnishings, furniture and appliances in rental units, the tax shall be $3.60 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. (b) On aircraft as defined by Section 58.1-3503 and -3506 of the Code of Vi~inia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall be $.50 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. (c) On motor vehicles owned or leased by members of volunteer rescue squads, volunteer fire departments, volunteer police chaplains and by auxiliary police officers as provided in Section 8-13.3, Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, the tax shall be $.96 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. (d) On wild or exotic animals as defmed by Section 58.1-3506 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall be $0.01 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. (e) On motor vehicles which use clean special fuels as def'med in Section 58.1-2101 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall be $3.24 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. (f) On motor vehicles, trailers, and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or more used to transport property for hire by a motor carder engaged in interstate commerce, the tax shall be $.96 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof. Sec. 3. Public Service Corporation Property. 0614:44078.1 - 1- (a) On that portion of real estate and tangible personal property of public service corporations which has been equalized as provided in Section 58.1-2604 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the tax shall be $1.08 on every $100 of the assessed value thereof determined by the State Corporation Commission. (b) The foregoing subsections to the contrary notwithstanding, on automobiles and tracks belonging to such public service corporations the tax shall be $3.60 on every $100 of assessed value thereof. Sec. 4. Machinery and Tools. On machinery and tools used in a manufacturing or mining business the tax shall be $1.00 on every $100 assessed value thereof. 0614:44078.1 -2- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of I Meeting Date: April 14~ 1999 Item Number: 8 .A.2. Subject: Adoption of Ordinance Change Relating to Business License Fees County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adopt State Mandated Ordinance Change Related to Business License Fees Summary of Information: State law requires a change in the BPOL ordinance to reduce the flat fees in place from $100 and $75 down to $50. This change is to be effective January 1, 2000 and will result in an estimated reduction of $100,000 in revenue in FY2000. This reduction is anticipated in the FY2000 Proposed Budget. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson, Title: Director of Budget & Management Attachments: Yes ~-~No # AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 6-4 RELATING TO LICENSE FEES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That S¢cliott 6-4 of the (;ode qf the Coun_tv Qf Chesterfield 1997, as amended, ttmended and re-enacled lo read ax follows: Js Sec. 6-4. License fees. Every person engaged in a business which is licensable pursuant to this chapter shall pay an annual fee if the total gross receipts, or gross purchases in the case of wholesale merchants, from all activities of the business are $10,000.00 or more, but less than $100,000.00, during the base year. An annual license fee shall be paid for each definite place of business provided that the business shall not pay more than a single license fee per place of business regardless of the number of licenses the business must obtain. The annual fee shall be calculated as follows: Gross Receipts Fee of Business $10,000.00--$24,999.99 $ 25.00 $25,000.00--$497999z99599,999,99 50.00 (2) That this ordinance shall become effective January 1, 2000. 0614:44(171.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.B. Subject: Nomination/Appointment to the John Tyler Community College Local Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nominate/Appoint a member to serve on the John Tyler Community College Local Board Summary of Information: The John Tyler Community College Local Board acts in an advisory capacity to the State Board for community colleges and performs such duties with respect to the operations of the College as may be delegated to it by the State Board. The term of Mr. John Grohusky, Member At-Large for Chesterfield expires June 30, 1999. Ail five Board members concur with the reappointment of Mr. Grohusky. The term is effective July 1, 1999 and will expire on June 30, 2003. Mr. John Grohusky meets all eligibility requirements and has indicated his willingness to serve. Under the existing Rules of Procedures, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedure are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in which they are nominated. Lisa H. Elko Attachments: [-"~ Yes No # 019 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. C. Subject: Streetlight Installation Approvals County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: This item requests Board approval of Streetlight Installations in the Bermuda, Dale, and Matoaca Districts and reports on streetlights that have received administrative approval based on qualifying petitions and no associated installation costs. Summary of Information: Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Virginia Power for each request received. When the quotations are received, staff re-examines each request and presents them at the next available regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each request based on the following criteria: 1. Streetlights should be located at intersections; There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per day (VPD) passing the requested location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection; Petitions are required and should include 75% of residents within 200 feet of the requested location and if at an intersection, a majority of those residents immediately adjacent to the intersection. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Preparer: ~d~ ~ ~~,~. 'RiChard 1V~. Mc~sh, P:E. Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering # 0;2O CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) Cost quotations from Virginia Power are valid for a period of 60 days. The Board, upon presentation of the cost quotation may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial will cancel the project and staff will so notify the requestor. A deferral will be brought before the Board again when specified. BERMUDA DISTRICT; * Chester Road and Old Lane Cost to install light: $ 262.00 Meets minimum criteria Bermuda District Streetlight Funds Requested Balance Forward Expenditure $11,893 $262 Effective Remaining Balance $11,631 DALE DISTRICT; Daleshire Drive, in the cul-de-sac, Meadowdale Subdivision Claudehart Road, in the cul-de-sac, Meadowdale Subdivision Cost to install both lights: $ 6,993.00 Neither request meets minimum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day NOTE: Above cost is for installation of both lights. The installation costs for these lights individually are $4,789.00 and $4,702.00, respectively. Due to the close proximity of these installations, the cost for installing them both at the same time is $2,498.00 less than the combined cost of their individual installations. CONTINUED NEXT PAGE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page3 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) DALE DISTRICT: (Continued) Dale District Streetlight Funds Requested Effective Balance Forward Expenditure Remaining Balance IF BOTH REQUESTS ARE APPROVED $21,345 $6,993 $14,352 EFFECT OF SINGLE APPROVALS $21,345 $4,789 $16,556 OR $21,345 $4,702 $16,643 MATOACA DISTRICT: Foxhunt Trail, vicinity of 5737/5742, McCormick Woods Subdivision Cost to install light: $1,467.00 Does not meet minumum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day Foxhunt Trail, vicinity of 5700/5701, in the cul-de-sac, McCormick Woods Subdivision Cost to install light: $ 508.00 Does nOt meet minumum criteria for intersection or vehicles per day Deer Run Drive and Buck Rub Drive, Deer Run Subdivision Cost to install light: $ 2914.07 Meets all minumum criterion Deer Run Drive and Key Deer Drive, Deer Run Subdivision Cost to install light: $ 2,764.51 Meets ali minumum criterion CONTINUED NEXT PAGE CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 4 of 4 Summary of Information: (Continued) MATOACA DISTRICT: (Continued) * Beach Road and Buckhorn Drive, Deerwood Subdivision Cost to install light: $ 50.16 Meets all minumum criterion Matoaca District Streetlight Funds Requested Balance Forward Expenditure $30,319 $1,467 $508 $2,914 $2,765 $50 Effective Remaining Balance $28,852 $28,344 $25,430 $22,665 $22,615 ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED STREETLIGHTS: The following streetlight requests have been administratively approved on the bases of qualified petitions and no costs associated with their installation: Bermuda District: Bradley Bridge Road and Lewis Road Perkinson Drive, vicinity of 18324 Irvenway Lane and Perkinson Drive Clover Hill District: McKesson Court, 2200 block N. Cottonwood Road, vicinity of 1260/1270 Jade Road, dead end off Sutherland Dale District: Pineland Road, vicinity of 5421 Spoke Court, vicinity of 5541/5551 Spoke Court, vicinity of 5521/5531 I# STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: January 18, 1999 Estimate Requested: January 21, 1999 March 24, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: 62 Cost to install light: $ 262,00 Various Citizens through Mr. McHale REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: Chester Road and Old Lane REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: NONE Qualified Qualified No Residents within 200 feet Stret?Light Request Map - April 14~ 1999 Street Light Legend [~ exisang light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. STREETLIGHT REQUEST Dale District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: December 21, 1998 Estimate Requested: December 21, 1998 March 24, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: 93 Cost to install TWO lights: $ 6,993.00 Nancy Hughes 6317 Daleshire Drive Richmond, VA 23234 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: REQUESTS ARE NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATIONS ARE: Daleshire Drive, in the cul-de-sac, Meadowdale Subdivision Claudehart Road, in the cul-de.sac, Meadowdale Subdivision POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Not Qualified, neither location is an intersection Not Qualified, both locations have less than 400 VPD Qualified Staff notes that the Virginia Power is able to offer the cost of $6,993.00 for the installation of both of these lights as their close proximity allows for shadng of services. Individually, these installations will cost $4,789.00 for Daleshire Ddve and $4,702.00 for Claudehart Road. Approval of both installations wilt result in a savings of $2,498.00 off the cost of the combined individual installation costs. 026 Stree. Light Request Map April 14, 1999 C~ Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. STREETLIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: August 3, 1998 Estimate Requested: August 6, 1998 March 24, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: 231 Cost to install Ii,Iht: $1,461,00 Cathy Horton 5742 Fox Hunt Trail Matoaca, VA 23803 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: Fox Hunt Trail, vicinity of 5737/5742, McCormick Woods Subdivision POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Not Qualified, location is not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified Requestor states: "The people that live in McCormick Woods are very concerned about having streetlights installed on our street. At the present time, we have none, it is extremely dark at night. If anyone was hurt or someone's house or car was broken into, you would be unable to see anything or be a witness. We are having some problems now with people walking through the yards at night, running up to doors and ringing doorbells, and destroying property." OZ8 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District Request Received' Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: August 3, 1998 March 24, 1999 Estimate Requested: August 6, 1998 Days Estimate Outstanding: 231 Cost to install light: $ $08,00 Cathy Horton 5742 Fox Hunt Trail Matoaca, VA 23803 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: REQUEST IS NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATION IS: Fox Hunt Trail, at the dead end, vicinity of 570015701, McCom~ick Woods Subdivision POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Requestor states: Not Qualified, location is not an intersection Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Qualified "The people that live in McCormick Woods are very concerned about having streetlights installed on our street. At the present time, we have none, it is extremely dark at night. If anyone was hurt or someone's house or car was broken into, you would be unable to see anything or be a witness. We are having some problems now with people walking through the yards at night, running up to doors and ringing doorbells, and destroying property." 029 Strew. Light Request Map April 14, 1999 Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. 1 ~ = 715.45 Existing streetlight information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. 080 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: January 19, 1999 Estimate Requested: January 21, 1999 March 26, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: 64 Cost to install light: $ 2,914,07 Shelby Tusing 6904 Deer Run Land Midlothian, VA 23112 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: Buck Rub Drive and Deer Run Drive POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Requestor states: REQUESTS ARE NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATIONS ARE: Qualified Qualified Qualified "This is a school bus stop and a very busy intersection." 03l STREETLIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: January 19, 1999 Estimate Requested: January 21, 1999 March 26, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: 64 Cost to install light: $ 2,7'64.51 Shelby Tusing 6904 Deer Run Land Midlothian, VA 23112 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: Deer Run Drive and Key Deer Drive POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Requestor states: REQUESTS ARE NOT AT AN INTERSECTION. REQUESTED LOCATIONS ARE: Qualified Qualified Qualified "This is a school bus stop and a very busy intersection." 08:8 Stre~"Light Request Map 1999 Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requested light This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetli ght information was obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. O33 STREETLIGHT REQUEST Matoaca District Request Received: Estimate Received: NAME OF REQUESTOR: ADDRESS: December 11, 1998 Estimate Requested: March 19, 1999 Days Estimate Outstanding: Cost to install light: $ 50.16 Richard Genty 11641 Buckhorn Road Chesterfield, VA 23838 December 15, 1998 94 REQUESTED LOCATION IS THE INTERSECTION OF: Beach Road and Buckhorn Road REQUESTS ARE NOT AT AN INTERSECTION, REQUESTED LOCATIONS ARE: POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Vehicles per Day: Petition: Staff or Requestor Comments: Requestor states: Qualified Qualified Qualified NONE .034 Stree. Light Request Map 1999 Street Light Legend ~ existing light ~ requestedlight This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was obtained pom the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. 035 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 1. a. Subject: Request Permission to Install a Sewer Line Within the N, Woolridge Road Extended Right of Way County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant B. K. Katherman permission to install a sewer line within the N. Woolridge Road EXtended right of way; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary_ of Information: B. K. Katherman has requested permission to install a sewer line within the N. Woolridge Road Extended right of way to serve the Railey Hill West development. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Midlothian John W. Harmon Attachments: ~--~ Yes No Title: Right of Way Manaqer # 036 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of.1 Meeting Date: A ril 14 3.999 Subject: Request Permission Property to Install Item Number: 8.D.l.b. Underground Cable on County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. permission to install underground cable on County property; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary_ of Information: Bell Atlantic-Virginia, Inc. has requested permission to install underground cable across Airfield Drive as shown on the attached drawing. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Dale John W. Harmon Attachments: YesI [No Title: Riqht of Way Manager # 037 VICINITY 5 .K, J~'i'C H REQUEST PERMISSION TO INSTALL UNDERGROUND CABLE ON COUNTY PROPERTY BELL ATLANTIC-VIRGINIA INC ILA21T]C %o,f~y~s~ PARX: 0 3 Gates ICOURTHOU.~E COORT$ \, Che,. \ 0;38 PLAN VIEW i ~,,~ ~ I I ~ I CDI Telecommunications, Inc. s ow a A D~SION OF CDI CO--OPTION BELL ATLANTIC-~G~, ~C. a~ ~a ~k ~v~, S~it~ ~o~ ~ERGROU~ TELEPHONE CABLE mchmo~a, VA ~ (~) ~ ACROSS A~LD D~ ~ T~ C~STE~LD CO~TY A~ORT (A De~c~ed 50' ~ ~blic S~ ~ht~f-~ay Pte~ed {or BeH ~d~dc: V~ni% Inc. con.oiled & ~int~ned by C~eld Count, AR~: 83~1T~ DIs~: 2199 COUNt: CH~ER~ELD ~ATE: ~RGINIA B/A ~./~O..NO: 83318-~ WIRE CENTER: COGBILL CDI W. O. NO: 982093 DA~: MARCH 5, 1999 PREPPED BY: CDI / SHB ~LE: 1'= 50' (H) R/W PERM~ NO: ~-100351-W CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date:_~ril 14 ~_1999 Item Number: 8. D. t. ¢. Subject: Request Permission to Install Curb and, Gutter Within a 16' Water Easement County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant United States Postal Service permission to install curb and gutter within a 16' water easement; subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: United States Postal Service has requested permission to install curb and gutter within an existing 16' water easement at the Chesterfield Post Office. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparer: ~ --aJ. ~~,n J~hn W. Harmon Title: Attachments: Yes No Riqht of Way Manaqer # O40 REQUEST PERMISSION TO INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER WITHIN A 16' WATER EASEMENT UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE h ..i. COURT RI) Lloyd Don C~)RP CTR TRAILVIEW Clfl WATERVIEW 0~ REFLECTIONS EVERGREEN AR~ PINTAILLANOI~ .\ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I o £ 2 Date: .ril 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 2. Subject: Award of Phase 2A Alternate Bid Item in 'the Amount of $59,454 to Southwood Builders at the Public Safety Training Center Enon and Transfer of $65,000 From the Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects to the Enon Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested:Approval of the award of the alternate B of the bid (Concrete Range Floor) in the amount of $59,454 to Southwood Builders and transfer of $65,000 from the Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects to cover this expense. Summauoflnformation: In August 1998, bids were received for Phase 2A of the Public Safety Training Center at Enon. The projected scope of this phase was reduced at the time due to funding constraints. Consequently, alternate bid items were not awarded at that time. This item requests that the alternative bid for the range floor be awarded to guarantee the bid price received in August 1998. The cost for the range floor, if not awarded, may increase substantially. In addition, it would be advantageous to proceed with this work now, thus minimizing exposure to harsher elements should the work be performed this summer. By awarding the bid item, the scope of the next phase of work will be reduced. Accordingly, in a separate item before the Board this date, staff is recommending a $65,000 decrease in project funding in the proposed FY 2000 CIP. The recommended level of funding in the FY2000 proposed CIP will be $535,000. Preparer: ~ Title:Pirector of General Service~ F~ancis M. Pitaro Attachments: Yes No :' 043 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: A0ril t4. 1999 Number Budget and ManaRement Comments: This item requests Board approval to award a contract for an alternative bid item for the Public Safety Training Center at Enon and to approve a transfer of funds totaling $65,000 from the Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects. Staff is requesting to award the alternative bid item for the range floor in order to guarantee the bid price received in August 1998. Staff is recommending the increase in the project funding for FY99 will be offset with a corresponding reduction in the project funding in the proposed FY2000 Capital Improvement program. This proposed reduction is reflected in a separate item brought before the Board this date. Proposed funding for the next phase of the project in FY2000 is $535,000. Additionally, approval of this item will leave a balance of $585,013 in the Reserve for Capital Improvement Projects. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement 044 Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA April 14~ 1999 Item Number: Page 1 of ~ $ .D.2. Subject: Declaring April 18-24, 1999 as "Volunteer Appreciation Week" in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: BoardAcfion Requested: Adopt the "Volunteer Appreciation Week" resolution at the April 14, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting. Summary of Information: The attached resolution is to recognize the many volunteers who so unselfishly contribute thousands of hours to the citizens of Chesterfield County by declaring April 18-24, 1999 as "Volunteer Appreciation Week" in Chesterfield County. "Volunteer Appreciation Week" will coincide with "National Volunteer Week". The resolution will be presented during the Volunteer Dinner to be held on April 20, 1999 at the Eanes-Pittman Public Safety Building, Classroom~ A-D, 5:30pm. The Volunteer ~ervices Program is coordinated by the Department of Human Resource Manazement. K~r~a J. Ger~r ' Attachments: Yes [--] No Title: Directory Human Resource 045 WHEREAS, volunteers contribute significantly to the quality of life in Chesterfield County, in the Commonwealth, and in the Nation; and WHEREAS, volunteering is recognized as an integral part of government and industry in contributing to the achievements that enhance our Nation; and WHEREAS, volunteers enrich our cultural diversity with their backgrounds, experiences and talents; and WHEREAS, volunteering relies on the energy and wisdom of younger and older generations for complete success; and WHEREAS, volunteering has become a partner with education to further develop students' personal and professional goals; and WHEREAS, volunteers are community leaders in showing a genuine self-sacrificing spirit that benefits countless individuals; and WHEREAS, volunteers enable us to meet and often exceed the strategic goals of the organization, thereby increasing the quality service provided to citizens; and WHEREAS, volunteering provides a positive direction for youths, allowing them to reach their full potential while assisting others. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that, in conjunction with National Volunteer Week, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes April 18-24, 1999 as "Volunteer Appreciation Week" in Chesterfield County and urges all citizens to honor volunteers for their contributions to the County. 04(; CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.4.a. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along the East Right of Way Line of Turner Road from Seibert Properties, Inc. County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.046 acres along the east right of way line of Turner Road (State Route 650) from Seibert Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary 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. District: Clover Hill Preparer~'~..~,~ -'~. ~'~.-,.~-, ~ohn W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Right of Way Manaqer 047 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL C~ LA~D ,~i,ONG THE.EAST RIGHT OF WAY LiNE OF TURNER ROAD FRO~ S~iBERT PROPERTIES iNC. -% N STS OF WAY LINE OF CHESTER 04S N?B '$£' :~5 "E $0.00' STB '3£' I~ 'N 10.00' MIOLOTHIAN TURNPIKE U.S. ROUTE tYO I/AR, }¢IDTH R/N N78 '3.2'15'E 17£. 00' O. 046 ACRES ;2000. O0 SO. FT. TM~76£706386000000 ~7559NIDLO~IIAN TURNPIKE PETROLEUM MARKETErS. ]NC 0.8, £18~ PG. t049 370 $176££99.595 sza;32'j~.rz ~z~. oo' TNt76~?06554100000 #7545 MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE SANFORD SANOELMA~ 'TRUSTEE D.B. 3~69, PG. 0994 PLA T OF PARCEL FOR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD SITE PLAN NO: 99-PN0153 PLA T REV: Jl/15/98 PElT COUNTY CON~fENTS ~walda, K. xetz. ]~hr ~ A~, h~ ,Ills ~Ar ,JS I,BE ,ITIDUT BE~FIT OF A TITLE SURVEY ~ ~PORT J'aX (8~) 673-~ J ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF PETROLEUM MARKETERS, INC. LOCATED IN THE CLOVER HILL DISTRICT, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 4. b. Subject: Acceptance of Three Parcels of Land Along the East Right of Way Line of Chester Road and the South Right of Way Line of Centralia Road from C & G Associates, L.L.C. County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of three parcels of land containing a total of 0.068 acres along the east right of way line of Chester Road (State Route 144) and the south right of way line of Centralia Road (State Route 717) from C & G Associates, L.L.C., and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary 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. District: Bermuda Jo~n W. Harmon Attachments: Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manager # 050 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF THREE PARCELS OF LAND ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHESTER ROAD AND THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CENTRALIA ROAD FROM C & G ASSOCIATES LLC N 00D ACI CHESTEI 051 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 MeetingDate: April 16, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.4.c. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land along the South Right of Way Line of Petersburg Street from Jean A. Oliver County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 0.012 acres along the south right of way line of Petersburg Street (State Route 1522) from Jean A. Oliver, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary deed. Summary_ of Information: This dedication is a requirement for the development of Ivyridge, Section A. District: Bermuda Preparer: c~ 'z.J. ~5k~'~,,~,-,,-, Title: Jo~hn W. Harmon Attachments: yes No Riqht of Way Manager # 053 VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PETERSBURG STREET FROM JEAN A OLIVER SPL~! Ssi' 51HILL ~ 054 .----/t/.¢4~ ",~,¢ I::3E)"/~/ /02. A/o~-~: t~roo~rh~ Iz'n~ , Date://- ~ - (~. sca~e:/'=' ~::)' Job No.: (:~:::~ ~,/-~ / -/ Co. Proj j'to. ~-0/1~ · PLANNERS · ARCHITECTS · ENGINEERS · SURVEYORS 0 501 Branchwa¥ Road · Suite 100 · Richmond, Virginia 23236 · 794-0571 · Fax 794-2635 11038 Lakendge Parkway · Suile I · Ashland, Virginia 23005 · (804) 550-2888 · Fax (804) 550-2057 ~A A SOCIATE$ INC. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Meeting Date:April 14, 19~ Item Number: Page ~ of 3 8 .D.5, Subject: Bensley Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program Grant County Administrator's Comments: CountyAdministrator: ~ BoardAcfion Requested: The School Board requests the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $50,000 of Federal Title I funds to the Instruction appropriation category in the School Grants Fund for the Bensley Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program Grant. Summary oflnformation: The School Board includes anticipated grant funding in their annual financial plan. In addition, CCPS staff applies for and receives additional grant funding at various times during the fiscal year. The School Board received approval on February 25, 1999 from the State Department of Education for a $50,000 federal grant through Title I and these funds need to be appropriated to the School Grants Fund. The Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD) is a federally funded program based on Title I grant authority. The purpose of this funding is to support the implementation of research- based, comprehensive school reform. The U. S. Education Department identified 44 national models that could provide opportunities for improved student achievement, particularly in high poverty schools. Preparer: Title: Attachments: Yes ~ No Superintendent I# ~' CHESTERFIELD COUNT"" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of a AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued~ Bensley Elementary was the only Title I school eligible to apply for the competitive award. After careful review oil the recommended models and looking at the needs of Bensley, the staff at Bensley applied for the Comer School Development Program from Yale University. The Comer School Development Program is a comprehensive reform model which attempts to create a school climate that permits parents and staff to support the overall development of all students making academic achievement and desirable social behavior both possible and expected. The funding period for this grant is March 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000. The funds will primarily be used to purchase the school reform model, provide one full-time instructional aide position at Bensley, plus pay substitutes in order for teachers to receive training on program. this # 057 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page $ of 3 Meeting Date: April 14. '1999 Number Budget and Management Comments: The School Board has received notification from the State Department of Education of award of a $50,000 federal grant for a Comer School Development Program for Bensley Elementary. The Comer School Development Program is a comprehensive reform model from Yale University which attempts to create a school climate that permits parents and staff to support the overall development of all students making academic achievement and desirable social behavior both possible and expected. Funds from the grant will be used primarily to purchase the development model, provide one full time instructional aide position, and pay substitute teachers in order for Bensley teachers to receive training on this program. The duration of the grant is March 1, 1999 to September 30, 2000. The School Board took action on March 23, 1999 to request that the Board of Supervisors appropriate these grant funds in the amount of $50,000. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Bud,qet & Management 058 VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Chesterfield County School Board held Tuesday evening, March 23, 1999, at seven- thirty o'clock in the County meeting room at the Chesterfield County Courthouse Complex PRESEt: Thomas L. Wootton, Jr., Chairman Elizabeth B. Davis, Vice-Chairman Dian_ne E. Pettitt James R. Schroeder, D.D.S. Marshall W. Trammell, Jr. RESOLUTION On motion of Mr. Trammell, seconded by Mrs. Pettitt, the School Board requests the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $50,000 of federal funds for the FY99 Bensley Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program Grant as awarded by the State Department of Education on February 25, 1999. Patricia W. Bartlam, Clerk CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of I Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 6. Subject: Initiate an Application to Amend the Zoning for the Courthouse Water Tank Property County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Initiate an application to amend the zoning (Zoning Case 80A0162) for the Courthouse Water Tank property and appoint John Harmon, County Right of Way Manager, as the Board's agent for the application. Summary_ of Information: On February 11, 1998, the Board approved the sale of a portion of the Courthouse Water Tank property containing 1.571 acres to Gordon M. Bowers Investment Partners Three, LC. However, development of the parcel, will necessitate the removal of some trees and will therefore render the Courthouse Water Tank in violation of existing zoning conditions. These conditions provide that only those trees necessary for the construction of the storage tank and appurtenant facilities, driveways and parking areas may be removed. Gordon M. Bowers Investment Partners Three, L.C. will be applying for zoning on the parcel to be purchased and has requested that the Board of Supervisors initiate the application to amend the zoning condition on the remainder of the parcel occupied by the Courthouse Water Tank. Staff recommends approval of this request. Preparer: ~ -~. ~¢270~.~.. Title: Right ofWayManager ,,z John W. Harmon 1414:44366.1 Attachments: [] Yes · No [# OGO] CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 2 Meetin~ Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.7. Subject: Execution of Supplemental Agreement, with The Design Collaborative, for Design of New LaPrade Branch Library County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize County Administrator to execute Supplemental Agreement in the amount of $21,900 for the design of the new LaPrade Branch Library. Summary of Information: On December 10, 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved award of this contract and authorized the County Administrator to execute it in two phases, the phasing having been necessary to allow design to begin while awaiting the change in fiscal years to provide the fullfunding. Phase one was approved at $142,000. Phase two was approved not to exceed $327,100, but was subsequently authorized at $303,950. On January 4, 1999 the County Administrator authorized an increase in the compensation to the Architect of $5,711.28 due to the increased level of site Master Planning efforts necessary to prepare and present numerous options to various interested parties. This request is for $21,900 to make revisions to the site and building designs requested by the Friends of the Library and will bring the total contract to $473,561.28. Preparer: Title:PirectQr of Genera~ Services Francis M. Pitaro Attachments: -~yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetina Date: Aoril 14. 1999 Number Bud.qet and Manaqement Comments: This item requests the approval of a supplemental agreement in the amount of $21,900 for the new LaPrade Library design contract. Project contingency funds are available. It is noted however that current project estimates indicate the facility as designed will exceed the available funding. Accordingly, measures are underway to bring the project estimates within the available budget prior to advertising for construction bids. Design modifications are being made and the construction contract will be structured with bid alternates. Collectively, these actions are being taken to provide the County with the flexibility to complete this project within the available funding. Project Funding Sources: General Funds FY99 G.O. Bonds Total Sources $1,350,000 3,900,000 $5,250,000 Budgeted Uses: Land Acquisition Professional Services Construction/Sitework Furnishings & Equipment Utility Work Moving Construction Mgmt. Contingency Total Uses $1,021,120 450,000 2,750,000 405,000 70,000 20,000 150,000 383,880 $5,250,000 Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Management Meeting Date: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA April 14, 1999 Item Number: Page 1 of 1 8.D.8. Subject: Street Name Change County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to approve renaming a portion of Genito Road to Genito Lane. Summary. of Information: The Virginia Department of Transportation is currently widening Courthouse Road from Route 360 to Route 288 and will relocate the current intersection of Genito Road and Courthouse Road (see attached sketch). A letter was sent to all affected property owners and a meeting was held at the Central Library, Wednesday, February 17, 1999. Two property owners attended the meeting and the consensus of those present was to change the street name to Genito Lane which would allow the numerical portion of the addresses to remain the same. A notification letter was then sent to all affected property owners informing them of the recommended street name change. There has been no contact from any of the affected property owners regarding this change. Staff Recommendations: Recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve renaming the southern portion of Genito Road to Genito Lane from its proposed new intersection south to Genfion Road in Momingside Woods Subdivision. District: Matoaca Preparer, f~~c ~~ Richard M. ~Elfish, P.E. Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: Director, Environmental Engineering F'"cel Map of Chesterfield Ct'aWA ~ Chesterfield Cowry asson-cs no legal respomibility for the infonmtion conlained on this trap. This N map is not to be used for land conveyance. ~ horizontal data is based on the VA State Plane Coord]mte system, NAD 1983. The topographic information is based on 1989 photogtmm'eay and NAVD29. 100 0 100200 Feet Scale: ~ Printed by: Environmental Engineering Date: Tue Mar 30 07:57:58 1999 Copyright 1999. Chesterfield County CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~l Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.9. Subject: Change Order to the Construction Contract with Kenbridge Construction Company, for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts Facility, in the Amount of $93,892 for additional Undercut and Backfill in the Building Areas County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator:'''~--- ~_~'o~ Board Action Requested: Approval of a Change Order to the construction contract with Kenbridge Construction Company, for the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts Facility, in the Amount of $93,892 for additional undercut and backfill in the Building Areas. Summary of Information: The site for the new Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts Facility was used for disposal of excess and unsuitable soils materials when the Circuit Courts building was constructed. While soil borings confirmed this, the precise quantity of materials disposed of and the extent of suitable underlying soils was largely unknown prior to starting construction of this facility. This cost is for quantities over and above that which was estimated prior to bids, and represents approximately 50% of what is now anticipated for undercut and backfill on the project. Preparer: y .... . TitleiDirector of General Services Francis M. Pitaro Attachments: Yes No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetino Date: Aoril 14. 1999 Number BudRet and Mana.qement Comments: This item requests Board approval for a change order to the construction contract with Kenbridge Construction totaling $93,892. This change will provide additional undercut and backfill in the building areas of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Building. All items in the change order have been evaluated and recommended for acceptance and project contingency funds are available. Approval of this item will leave a balance of $548,099. Preparer: ~~--~ ~' ~/~~ Rebecca T, Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Mana,qement CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: $. D. 10. Subject: Request to Aid Rudolph Inc. in the Acquisition of Right of Way for Jessup Meadows Subdivision County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Right of Way Staff to aid Rudolph Inc. in the acquisition of right of way from Edmund B. Webster, Jr.; subject to the execution of a contract agreeing to pay all acquisition costs. Summary of Information: Rudolph Inc. has requested that the County assist in acquiring right of way for improvements to Jessup Road to serve Jessup Meadows Subdivision. Rudolph Inc. has complied with County policy regarding efforts to reach an agreement with the landowner. Improvements to Jessup Road are zoning requirements imposed for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Staff has reviewed this request and approval is recommended. District: Dale J~hn W. Harmon Attacb_ments: i Yes No Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D. 11. Subject: Authorization for Alltel to Apply for Substantial Accord and a Conditional Use and Variances for Height and Setbacks or a Conditional Use Planned Development with Height and Setback Exceptions for Communications Antenna to Be Installed on the Chester Water Tank County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardActionRequested: Authorize Alltel to apply for substantial accord and a conditional use and variances for height and setbacks or a conditional use planned development with height and setback exceptions for communications antenna to be installed on the Chester Water Tank. Summary_ of Information: Alltel has requested permission to install communications antenna on the Chester Water Tank. Staff has met with Alltel to discuss engineering concerns, aesthetics, accesS, security and interference with the Utilities Department SCADA System. If Alltel meets the Utilities Department criteria and receives substantial accord and conditional use and variances for height and setbacks or a conditional use planned development with height and setback exceptions approval, a lease would be prepared incorporating all conditions. Leasing space on the tank will require approval by the Board at a Public Hearing. District: Bermuda ~ohn W. Harmon Yes Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer Attachments: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of Meeting Date: April 147 1999 Item Number: 8.D.12. Subject: Consideration to Allocate From the Utility Inducement Fund an Amount not to Exceed $35,000.00 to Pay for Wastewater Lines to be Extended onto the Ashton Creek Business Center Property Located Off Ruffin Mill Road. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ ~~ Board Action Requested: Approval to use Utility Inducement Funds not to exceed $35,000.00 to extend wastewater lines to serve industrial property east of Ruffin Mill Road and north of Port Walthall Drive, and to waive the requirement that the County's share of the total cost does not exceed 75%. Summary of Information: The County has adopted the Utility Inducement Program to fund the extension of water and sewer lines for significant economic development projects. The program criteria requires that the County's share of the total cost of extending utilities does not exceed 75%, and that taxes generated from the industry(s) during the first three years of operation in Chesterfield must meet or exceed the County's cost for the utility extension. An existing Chesterfield County manufacturing company intends to purchase approximately 27 acres of land and build a 175,000 square foot manufacturing facility with expansion capability to 300,000 square feet in the Ashton Creek Business Center. This operation will initially create an additional 44 jobs. The revenue anticipated from this project alone is projected to readily meet the repayment requirements of the Utility Inducement Program by the second year of operation. Preparer: ~~~James~G. ~un~ Title: Attachments: [~Yes l No agi9ml/erk Assistant Director, Economic Development CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting] Date: April 14. '1999 Number Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This request is for use of $35,000 in Utility Wastewater Inducement Program funding for extension of wastewater lines to the Ashton Creek Business Center (located off of Ruffin Mill Road). The County initiated the Utility Inducement Program to fund the extension of water and wastewater lines for significant economic development projects. The balance in the wastewater inducement account is $449,121; use of $35,000 will leave a balance of $414,121. Preparer: I c [~ c,¢3 Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Management Meetin~ Date: April 14, 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 1 of 8.D.13. Subject: Authorization to Enter into Agreements with VDOT and Appropriation of Funds for Enhancement Projects County. Administrator: County_ Administrator's Comments; Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to authorize the County Administrator to enter into VDOT/County Enhancement Agreements and appropriate funds for the Enhancement Projects. Summary. of information; In December 1997 and in December 1998, the Board appropriated the local match and adopted resolutions supporting various Enhancement Projects in the County. In order to receive enhancement funds, VDOT now requires local governments to enter into an agreement with them, basically requiring the locality to assume responsibility for administration of the project. Enhancement Projects are financed with 80% VDOT funds and a minimum 20% local match. The local match for the Enhancement Projects, endorsed by the Board, has been provided by the County, by others, or by in-kind contributions. Under the terms of the VDOT/County Enhancement Agreement, the County will perform the various project tasks and be reimbursed by VDOT. VDOT has approved enhancement funding for the Chester Village Street Light Project, the Route 60 Midlothian Sidewalks/Landscaping Phase II Project, and part of the Halloway Avenue Sidewalk Project. The Walton Park Sidewalk Project has been included in the budget bill. The Commonwealth Transportation Board will make a decision later this year on funding for additional Enhancement Projects. In order to proceed with the projects, anticipated reimbursement funds must be appropriated for design and construction. Preparer: ~/~k~ Title: Director of Transportation ' ]~.'J. McCracken Agen384 Attachments: -~ Yes VDOT/County Enhancement Agreements must be executed and No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 13 Summary_ of Information: (Continued). Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board: 1) Authorize the County Administrator to enter into VDOT/County Enhancement Agreements, acceptable to the County Attorney, for all of the Enhancement Projects endorsed by the Board; 2) Appropriate $59,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements and $15,000 in contributions from the Midlothian Village Coalition for the Route 60 Midlothian Sidewalks/Landscaping Phase II Project; 3) Appropriate $100,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursemems for the Halloway Avenue Sidewalk Project; and 4) Appropriate $211,200 in anticipated VDOT reimbursemems for the Walton Park Sidewalk Project. District: Countywide CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page3 of 3 Meeting Date: Aoril 14. 1999 Number BudRet and Mana.qement Comments: On December 10, 1997 and on December 16, 1998 the Board approved the local match and adopted resolutions supporting various Road Enhancement Projects in the County. In order to receive the enhancement funds, VDOT now requires local governments to enter into an agreement with the State to assume responsibility for administration of the projects. Enhancement projects are funded 80% by VDOT with a minimum 20% local match. Local match funding for the projects is identified below. Match funding is provided by the General Road Improvement Account (GRIA) and the Reserve for Future Capital Projects 0tYCIP). Additional VDOT reimbursement must be appropriated for two projects to proceed with the design and/or construction. Project Description 20% Additional Revised Local Match Appropriation Budget Chester Village Street Light Project Halloway Avenue Sidewalk Project Walton Park Sidewalk Project $30,000-GRIA $ 0 $ 30,000 82,000-GRIA 100,000 182,000 52,800-RFCIP 211,200 264,000 The Route 60 Midlothian Sidewalks/Landscaping Phase II project has been identified as a new project and requires the appropriation of $59,000 in anticipated VD OT reimbursements and $15,000 in contributions from the Midlothian Village Coalition for a total project budget of $64,000. Preparer: ~ ~ Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Bud,qet & Mana,qement CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 1 of 3. 8 .D.14. Authorization to Execute Supplemental Agreements, Appropriation of Funds for Secondary Road Highway Projects, and Set a Public Hearing Date for Appropriation of Funds for the Centre Street Project County Administrator's Comments:. County. Administrator; Board Action Requested;, The Board is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute supplemental agreements to the VDOT/County "blanket agreement," for Secondary Road Highway Projects, appropriate anticipated VDOT reimbursements for three separate Secondary Road Projects, and set a public hearing date to appropriate anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Centre Street Project. ~ummary of information;, The Board previously authorized the County Administrator to execute a "blanket agreement" for several VDOT Secondary Road Highway Projects in the County. The agreement allows the County to proceed with the design, right-of-way acquisition and/or construction of various highway projects. Staff is currently proceeding with the projects. VDOT has asked the County to perform additional work not envisioned in the original agreement. Supplemental agreements are necessary to incorporate the affif~onal work into the existing agreement for seven projects as listed in the attachment. Additional VDOT reimbursements need to be appropriated by the Board for the supplemental work for the Old Hundred Road Shoulders, Coalboro Road Paving, and Gordon School Road Sidewalk Projects as outlined in the attachment. Since the anticipated supplemental appropriation for the Centre Street Project exceeds $500,000, a public hearing must be held to consider the appropriation. chments: Preparer: .--~. i ./McCr acken Agen385 Yes ~ Title '. ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 Summary_ of Information: (Continued) Additional supplements may be necessary before the projects are completed. The County Administrator should be authorized to execute future supplemental agreements, if required by VDOT, to continue progress on the projects. It is understood that any additional appropriations needed to carry out the work for the supplements will be brought to the Board for consideration prior to any supplemental work being done. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board take the following actions: 1) Authorize the County Administrator to execute VDOT/County supplemental agreements for the Old Hundred Road Shoulders, Salem Church Road Reconstruction, Coalboro Road Paving, Smoketree Drive Sidewalk, Gordon School Road Sidewalk, Lindberg Drive Rural Addition, and Centre Street Reconstruction Projects; 2) Authorize the County Administrator to execute future supplements, if required, to the VDOT/County blanket agreement; 3) Appropriate anticipated VDOT supplemental reimbursements for the Old Hundred Road Shoulders ($130,000), Coalboro Road Paving ($70,000), and Gordon School Road Sidewalk ($250,000) Projects; and 4) Set April 28, 1999, as the public hearing date to consider the appropriation of $610,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Centre Street Project. District: Countywide CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 3 of 3 Meetinc~ Date: Anril 14. t999 NIJp~ber Bud(~et and Mana.qement Comments: Under previous action, the County was authorized to proceed with the design, right-of-way acquisition and/or construction of various projects. VDOT has asked the County to perform additional work not envisioned in the original agreement. Staff is requesting authorization for the County Administrator to execute supplemental VDOT/County agreements for several projects. These projects were previously approved by the Board and vary in scope and budgeted dollar amounts as noted below. Additional appropriations will enable the projects to proceed with design, right-of-way acquisition, and/or construction phases. Project Description Old Hundred Road (Shoulders) Salem Church Road Reconstruction Coalboro Road Paving Gordon School_Road Sidewalk Current Additional Revised Budget Appropriation Budget $ 400,000 $130,000 $ 530,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 450,000 70,000 520,000 362,000 250,000 612,000 Staff is also requesting a public hearing for April 28, 1999 to consider the appropriation of $610,000 in additional VDOT reimbursement for the Centre Street Project. The Centre Street project currently has an appropriation of $350,000. An additional $610,000 will result in a total project budget of $960,000 for this phase. Preparer: ~ I ) (~ Title: Director, Bud.qet & Mana,qement Rebecca T. Dickson ~76 SUPPLEMENTAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL PROPOSED PROJECT AGREEMENT APPROPRIATION APPROPRIATION SUPPLEMENTAL REQUIRED DATE APPROPRIATION Old Hundred Road YES $400,000 05/22/96 $130,000 Shoulders Salem Church Road YES $1,000,000 08/27/97 $0 Reconstruction Coalboro Road Paving YES $450,000 07/28/98 $70,000 Smoketree Drive YES $362,000 07/23/97 $0 Sidewalk Gordon School Road YES $0 N/A $250,000 Sidewalk Lindberg Drive Rural YES $100,000 07/28/98 $0 Addition Centre Street YES $350,000 02/11/98 $610,000 Reconstruction Date: April 14. 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 8.D.26. Subject: Resolution Recognizing the 100th Birthday of Mr. Irby H. Brown County_ Administrator's Comments: County AdministraWr: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached Resolution Mr. Warren requested that the attached Resolution be adopted. In recognition of Mr. Irby H. Brown, ecologist and environmentalist, who established the Brown Family Farm on Elkhardt Road, and dedicated his talents to the Farmers Club, the Club, the Manchester Volunteer Fire Department, the Chesterfield Historical Society and the Manchester Community Center. Mr. Brown will celebrate his 100th birthday on April 23, 1999. F/Donald J/l~appel/- ( Title: Director, Public Affairs Attachments: WHEREAS, Mr. Irby H. Brown was born in Bon Air on April 23, 1899; and accordingly will mark his centennial on April 23, 1999; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown completed high school in Chester and attended Randolph-Macon College until drafted for military service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown later attended the Virginia Mechanics Institute and became an ecologist and environmentalist; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown worked for the Department of Agriculture for many years; and WHEREAS, with his wife, Ethel Bland, Mr. Brown established the Brown Family Farm on Elkhardt Road; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown has two sons, six grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren; and WHEREAS~ Mr. Brown loaned his talents to the Farmers Club, the Ruritan Club, the Manchester Volunteer Fire Department, the Chesterfield Historical Society and the Manchester Community Center. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the significant contributions of Mr. Irby H. Brown to our County, wishes him a happy 100th birthday, and is proud to have him as a resident of Chesterfield County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OFSUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.27. Subject: Request to Aid John Patrick and Tom Loughran in the Acquisition of Right of Way for Hollymeade Subdivision Coun _ty Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Right of Way staff to aid John Patrick and Tom Loughran in the acquisition of right of way from (1) Bernard E. and Lucille C. Bixler and (2) Donald L. and Laura L. Davis subject to the execution of a contract agreeing to pay all acquisition costs. Summary_ of Information: John Patrick and Tom Loughran have requested that the County assist in acquiring right of way for improvements to Salem Church Road to serve Hollymeade Subdivision. Patrick and Loughran have agreed to comply with normal County policies for right of way acquisition. Improvements to Salem Church Road are zoning requirements imposed for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval. Attachments: [] Yes · No Title: Right of Way Manager 0800:44436.1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~ Date: A~ril 14, 1999 Item Number: Subject: Request to Restrict Through Truck Traffic on Centralia Road 8.D.28. County. Administrator: County_ Administrator's Comments: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road from Route 10 to Chester Road. Summary_ of Information: Centralia Road (Route 145), between Route 10 and Chester Road (Route 144) is a primary road in the state highway system. It has no shoulders, no turn lanes, and poor vertical alignment. Most of the property along Centralia Road is residential. Centralia Road carries over 11,000 vehicles per day, approximately two (2) percent of which are heavy trucks. In 1993, the County requested VDOT to restrict through trucks on Centralia Road for safety concerns. Because Centralia Road is a primary road as opposed to a secondary road, the Board does not have the authority to initiate a no through truck traffic restriction and must rely on VDOT to address the problem with truck traffic. The County also wrote to trucking industries and asked them to voluntarily reroute their truck traffic so that they would not use Centralia Road. Preparer: /ff~7~ ¢~ Title: 'P~. McCracken Agen389 Director of Transportation Attachments: Yes ~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary_ of Information: (Continued) VDOT completed their study of Centralia Road in June 1993. VDOT advised the County that, due to the "minimal" number of trucks observed and the lack of any accident history involving trucks, there was insufficent evidence to support an official truck restriction on Centralia Road. VDOT did recommend several major safety improvements, including the addition of turn lanes at key intersections, and constructing adequate shoulders along the entire length of the road. To date, VDOT has only funded a turn lane improvement at the Chalkley Road/Centralia Road intersection. The County is awaiting authorization from VDOT to initiate the design of this improvement. The remaining improvernents identified by VDOT remain unfunded. Heavy truck traffic along Centralia Road continues to pose a threat to public safety and should be restricted. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution requesting VDOT to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road. District: Bermuda and Dale WHEREAS, Centralia Road (Route 145) is a primary road in the state highway system; and WHEREAS, Centralia Road carries over 11,000 vehicles per day, has no shoulders, no turn lanes and has poor vertical and horizontal alignment; and WHEREAS, Centralia Road passes through a primarily residential area; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has no statutory authority to restrict through truck traffic on primary roads; and WHEREAS, in 1993, Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road (Route 145) from Route 10 to Chester Road (Route 144); and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County also requested trucking industries to voluntarily reroute their trucks and no longer use Centralia Road; and WHEREAS, VDOT advised Chesterfield County that the "minimal" volume of trucks on Centralia Road did not pose a safety problem; and WHEREAS, in 1993, VDOT did a study of the Centralia Road corridor and made recommendations for numerous improvements; and WHEREAS, VDOT has not funded these improvements; and WHEREAS, accidents involving heavy trucks continue to occur on Centralia Road; and WHEREAS, these accidents have resulted in the tragic loss of life; and WHEREAS, acceptable, safer alternate routes such as Route 10, Route 288, and Chester Road exist for the through truck traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors again requests VDOT to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road from Route 10 to Chester Road. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Chesterfield legislative delegation with a request for their support in restricting the through truck traffic on Centralia Road. 4/14/99 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 2 9. Subject: Transfer of Funds and Authorization of Change Orders for the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project County. Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening project and authorize the County Administrator to execute the unsuitable material change orders up to $100,000 for the project. Summary of Information: In February 1994, the Board entered into an agreement with the J. Louis Reynolds Trust and the State Board of Community Colleges concerning the dedication of right of way for Route 288 and a northern campus for John Tyler. A condition of the agreement obligates the County to improve the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway intersection. In August 1998, the Board awarded the construction contract for the improvement and work is underway. Unsuitable soils have been encountered on the project and are being addressed with the original construction contingency established for the project. The exact amount of the required change order will not be determined for a few days. An additional $98,588 of General Road Improvement Account funds being held in reserve for the project should now be transferred to the project to insure adequate contingencies are available if needed on the project. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board: 1) 2) Transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway intersection improvement account; Authorize the County Administrator to execute the unsuitable material change orders for the project up to $100,000. District: Preparer: Midlothian cCracken Agen 390 Title: Director of Transportation Attachments: Yes [-~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: Aoril 14. 1999 Number $.b. 29. Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This request is to transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Rt. 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project. A change order is pending to purchase additional soil for this project. This requested transfer will replenish the contingency account in the Charter Colony Parkway project. The balance in the General Road Improvements Account is $873,869; transfer of $98,588 will leave a balance of $775,281. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Manaqement Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project Appropriations/Transfer Updated Budget Oct. 11, 1996 $1,313,500 Preliminary Engineering $92,000 Right-of-Way $3,925 August 26, 1998 $225,000 Utility $17,580 Construction $1,281,538 Construction Contingency $106,689 April 14, 1999 $98,588* Construction Contingency 2 $98,588 Construction Administration $36,500 Miscellaneous $268 Total $1,637,088 $1,637,088 * Proposed transfer Attachment A Meetin~ Date: April 14, 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 1 of 3 8.D.15. Subject: Appropriation of Funds and Authorization to Execute an Agreement for the Chester Koad/Kingsdale Road Intersection Improvement Project County Ad. ministrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute a design agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and appropriate $110,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the Chester Road/Kingsdale Road Intersection Improvement Project. Summary of information: Mr. McHale has received requests from citizens to install a traffic signal and improve the intersection of Chester Road and Kingsdale Road. VDOT advised staffthat approximately $700,000 in "Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Funding" has been approved for the improvements. The intersection improvements include construction of turn lanes and installation of a traffic signal. VDOT has agreed to allow the County to assume responsibility for the design of the project. If the County assumes the responsibility for the design, a VDOT/County design agreement, similar to those the County has executed in the past, will be necessary. Under the terms of the agreement, the County will prepare the design and be reimbursed by VDOT. Staff anticipates that VDOT will request modifications during the various phases of this project which will increase the overall cost of the project. The County's contract with VDOT will permit County staffto authorize these modifications. Additional reimbursement from VDOT to pay for any additional work will need to be appropriated by the Board. Staffwill bring any such additional appropriation requests back to the Board for approval. Preparer: ~j~ ~'~----'~ Title: Ri5. McCracken Agen386 Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Director of Transportation CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 3 Summary_ of Information: (Continued). Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board take the following actions: 1) Appropriate $110,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursements for the design of the Chester Road/Kingsdale Road Improvement Project; and 2) Authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary VDOT/County design agreement, acceptable to the County Attorney. District: Bermuda CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page3 of 3 Meeting Date: Aoril 14. 1999 Numb{ir Bud,qet and Manaqement Comments: This request is to appropriate $110,000 in anticipated VDOT reimbursement for the design of the Chester Road/Kingsdale Road Intersection Improvement Project. This intersection improvement includes construction of turn lanes and installation of a traffic signal. VDOT has agreed to allow the County to assume responsibility for the design of the project. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Bud,qet & Mana,qement Chester Road l Kingsd,"'le Road Intersection Project 3/30/99 Project CItESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: AprS_ ~_ 24; 19 9 9 Item Number: 8. D. 16. Subject: Consideration of an Application for a U.S. Department of Transportation Highway Safety 402 Funds/Federal Grant Number 20.600 Administered by the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Police Department to apply for a Federal U.S. Department of Transportation 402 Grant which will provide funding for selective Driving Under the Influence, speeding and aggressive driving enforcement; purchase of two state of the art custom radar units and to appropriate the necessary funds when approved. Summary of Information: The purpose of this grant is to target Aggressive Drivers, Driving Under the Influence and Speeding Offenders and to purchase much needed radar equipment. The total grant monies needed are $40,000 with an In-Kind match of $20,000 which is an unmarked vehicle being utilized by the Police Department. Preparer: Colonel Carl R. Baker Yes Title: Chief of Police Attachments: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: Anril 14. 1999 Number Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This item requests Board approval for the Police Department to apply for and appropriate, if received, a grant through the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. This grant, RAGE (Roadway Aggression Gets Enforcement), will provide the Police Department with overtime funds ($16,200) and two custom radar units ($3,800). The total grant award is $20,000 with an in-kind match of $20,000. The in-kind match is an unmarked police vehicle which will be provided by the Police Department. The grant is for one-year, non-renewable. Preparer: ~-~a"~ ~/~L~..~ Title: Director, Budget & Management Rebecca T. Dickson 083 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date Item Number: Sub, ject: Consideration of an Application for a U.S. Department of Justice "Troops to COPS 99" Reimbursement Grant County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Police Department to apply for a U.S. Department of Justice "Troops to COPS 99" Grant which will reimburse law enforcement agencies who have hired honorably discharged military veterans under the COPS Office Universal Hiring Program on or after October 1, 1997. Summary of Information: The purpose of this grant is to apply for reimbursement monies for uniforms, basic issue equipment, and basic training for 16 officers hired on or after October 1, 1997 under the COPS Office Universal Hiring Program who meet the critieria for this grant. The potential reimbursement is $232,896. This is soley a reimbursement grant. Preparer: ~~__~~ Title: Colonel Carl R. Baker Attachments: lYes No Chief of Police 0S4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ~ of ~ Meetin~Date: ADril 14, 1999 Item Number: Subject: Approval of Utility Contract for Rolling Hills, Section D - Contract Number 97-0032 County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: __ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this contract and authorize the County Administrator to execute any necessary documents. Summary of Information: This project includes 2,065 L..F.± of 12" oversized water lines, which also includes 1,959 L.F.± of offsite water improvements. The Developer is required to have an 8" water line to serve the Rolling Hills - Section D development, therefore, staff has requested that the water lines be oversized to provide service to the adjoining properties. In accordance with the ordinance, the Developer is entitled to refunds for the construction cost of offsite and overs±zing the water lines. Developer: Contractor: Luther Caudle Bookman Construction Company Contract Amount: Estimated Total - Total Estimated County Cost: Water - Overs±zing Water - Offsite Estimated Developer Cost Code: (Refund thru connections - overs±zing) (Refund thru connections - offs±re) District: Dale Preparer: ~~ Title: $179,038.00 $19,244.50 $20,965.75 $160,156.00 5B-572VO-E4C 5B-572VO-E4D Assistant Director Attachments: Yes No CONTRACT NUM]~ER 97-0032 R©AD TH[5~ ?ROJECT LiCK/NC DR/V£ CORCORAN DRI V£ ~ .' / f I CHES ?ERFIELD COUN ?Y AIRPORT VICINITY SCALE: 1"' = MAP 2,000' ROLLING HILLS, SECTION D CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of I Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number:8.~. ~. Subject: Authorization to allow the County Administrator to enter into a Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority. County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors grant the County Administrator permission to enter into a Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority. Summary of Information: Chesterfield County is participating in a regional project with the City of Richmond and the Counties of Hanover and Henrico to fund and operate an expanded convention center at the location of the current Richmond Centre. The Greater Richmond Convention Center Authority was created on January 9, 1998. The Commission of the Authority adopted a resolution designating Chesterfield County to act as its fiscal agent effective July 1, 1998 and Chesterfield County accepted such designation. As fiscal agent, Chesterfield will provide the following services: direct and monitor the investment and disbursement of funds held by the Trustee from future revenue bonds to be issued; receive and manage revenues transferred on behalf of the Authority to the Treasurer of the County; maintain accounting records for the Authority; provide information to the auditor retained by the Authority; and secure arbitrage reporting. The Authority agrees to pay Chesterfield $50,000 annually for fiscal agent services during the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2002. The Fiscal Agent Agreement documents the agreed upon terms, conditions, restrictions and regulations of Chesterfield's service as the Authority's fiscal agent. Preparer: Lane B. Ramsey Title: County Administrator Attachments: Yes [---] No OS? This CENTER AUTHORITY (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") and COUNTY, VIRGINIA (hereinafter referred to as "the County") this ~ day of , 1999. Whereas, the Authority was created on January 9, 1998 pursuant to the Public Recreational Facilities Authorities Act, Chapter 56 of Title 15.2, Code of Virginia; and Whereas, on April 17, 1998 the Commission of the Authority adopted a resolution designating Chesterfield County to act as its fiscal agent effective July 1, 1998 and Chesterfield County is willing to accept such designation; recognizing that the Authority has no employees. Now therefore, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. Fiscal Agent Services: The County agrees to serve as Fiscal Agent for the Authority starting July 1, 1998, and specifically agrees to provide the following services in that capacity; a. Direct and monitor the investment and disbursement of funds held by the AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FISCAL SERVICES Agreement is entered into between the GREATER RICHMOND CONVENTION CHESTERFIELD Trustee from future revenue bonds to be issued for expansion and construction of the Richmond Centre. The parties anticipate that the Treasurer of the County will provide investment advice based on anticipated drawdowns to generate reasonable earnings as well as to have cash available when invoices are presented. The Accounting Department of the County will accumulate invoices approved by the authorized individuals, determine the budgeted funds are available, and obtain authorization by an Authorized Issuer Representative to request funds fi.om the Trustee. In addition, the County will reconcile financial records maintained for the Authority with the records 0414:44187.1 maintained by the Trustee. Receive and manage revenues transferred on behalf of the Authority to the Treasurer of the County. The Treasurer of the County will invest these funds in an account separate from County funds in accordance with the Investment Policy established by the Treasurer of the County. Interest earnings will be reported to the Authority's Finance Committee monthly and to the Authority's Commission quarterly. Before payment is made from these funds, an invoice must be forwarded from the Authority to the County to authorize payment. The County will determine that funds are budgeted and available prior to disbursement. All approvals for payment shall be in accordance with the Authority's resolution adopted on July 9, 1998 entitled "Designating Chief Administrative Officer, Delegating Certain General Administrative Authority to such Chief Administrative Officer and to Certain other Officers." Maintain accounting records for the Authority in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to reflect the Authority's assets, liabilities, equity, revenue, expenses, estimated revenues, budgeted expenses and commitments as appropriate and will report on a monthly basis to the Authority's Finance Committee on the Authority's financial status as well as prepare quarterly reports for the Authority's Commission and special reports as appropriate. Provide information to the auditor retained by the Authority, prepare and meet with the auditor to review the preliminary audit report and publish 2 0414:44187.1 audited financial statements for the Authority. The County will be responsible for ensuring compliance with generally accepted accounting principles and all state and federal guidelines. e. The County -will be responsible for securing arbitrage reporting. Payment by the Authority: The Authority agrees to pay the County $50,000 annually for fiscal agent services during the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2002. The County agrees to remit quarterly statements to the Authority requesting payment. If the scope of services changes significantly, the Authority and the County shall renegotiate the fiscal agent services fee. Term: This agreement shall remain in force and effect until the Authority or the County gives written notice to the other of its desire to terminate the Agreement. Such notice shall be given at least 60 days prior to the date of termination, unless otherwise agreed. The Authority shall be liable for the quarterly payment for the quarter within which this Agreement is terminated. The Authority agrees to include the County and its officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives as additional insured on its general liability and excess insurance coverage and to furnish the County with a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage. The Authority shall not change or cancel such coverage without providing the County 30 days prior written notice of such change or cancellation. This Agreement is made in, and shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3 090 6. The County shall not be required to appropriate any County funds for the purpose of performing this Agreement. Wherefore, the parties, by signing this Agreement below, evidence their intent to be bound thereby. GREATER RICHMOND CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY By: CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: 0414:44187.1 4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.20.a Subject: Transfer $3,200 in Midlothian District Streetlight Fund to the School Board to Purchase a Phone Master System for Midlothian Middle School County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Transfer $3,200 from the Midlothian District Streetlight Fund to the School Board to purchase a Phone Master System for Midlothian Middle School. Summary_ of Information: Supervisor Barber requests the Board to transfer $3,200 from the Midlothian District Streetlight Fund to the School Board to purchase a phone master system for Midlothian Middle School. The system will allow the school to communicate with all of its students' homes for announcements, school activities and other school functions. It will also provide voice mailboxes for teachers, school athletic teams, guidance counselors and the school clinic. This is an appropriate capital expenditure for equipment that will be owned and used by school personnel. The balance in the Midlothian District Streetlight Fund account is $55,973; use of $3,200 will leave an available balance of $52,773. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget and Management 0414:44261.1 Attachments: · Yes [] No I THREE CENT ROAD FUND APPLICATION This application must be completed and signed before the County can consider a request for funding with Three Cent Road Funds. Completing and signing this form does not mean that you will receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Virginia law places substantial restrictions on the authority of the County to give public funds, such as Three Cent Road Funds, to private persons or organizations and these restrictions may preclude the County's Board of Supervisors from even considering your request. What is the name of the applicant (person or organization) making this funding request? If an organization is the applicant, what is the nature and purpose of the organization? (Also attach organization's most recent articles of incorporation and/or bylaws to application.) What is the amount of funding you are seeking? Describe in detail the funding request and how the money, if approved, will be spent. Is any County uepartment involved in the project, event or program for which you are seeking funds? If this request for funding will not fully fund your activity or program, what other individuals or organizations will provide the remainder of the funding? 040': :232 gO. 1 Page 2 If applicant is an organization, answer the following: Is the organization a corporation? Is the organization non-profit? Is the organization tax-exempt? Yes Yes Yes No J No No What is the address of the applicant making this funding request? What is the telephone number, fax number, e-mail address of the applicant? Signature of applicant. If you are signing on behalf of an organization you must be the president, vice-president, chairman or vice- chairman of the organization. Signature Title (if signing 6n behalf of an organization) Printed Name CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page I of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.20.b. Subject: Transfer $2,000 from the Matoaca District Street Light Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the Installation of an Underground Irrigation System at the Athletic Complex at Grange Hall. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Transfer $2,000 from the Matoaca District Street Light Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department for the installation of an underground irrigation system at the County's athletic complex at Grange Hall. Summary. of Information: Supervisor Humphrey requests the Board to transfer $2,000 from the Matoaca District Street Light Fund to the Parks and Recreation Department to install an underground irrigation system at the County's athletic complex at Grange Hall. Clover Hill Sports Association originally requested funding for this improvement but the County is legally precluded from donating public funds to such private organizations. The irrigation system is an appropriate project under the Parks and Recreation Department's capital improvement program. The balance in the Matoaca District Street Light Fund account is $30,319; use of $2,000 for this request as well as $7,704 in street light requests for this meeting will leave an available balance of $20,615. Preparer: ~'~c~T~ ' 6''~ Rebecca T. Dickson Attachments: · Yes [] No Title: Director, Budget and Management 0414:44262.1 M~R-~D-1999 08:09 FROM Ua STATE POLICE SUPT. OFC THREE CENT ROAD FUND This application :must be completed and signed before the CoUntyI can consider a request for funding With Three Cent Road Funds. Completing 'and sig~ing ~his form does not mean that yo[I wtll receive funding or that the County can legally consider your request. Vl~ginla law places substantial restrictions on the au,~hority of the County to give public funds, such as Three Cent Road Funds, to private persons or organizations and these.restrictions may preclude the County's Board (~f Supervisors from even conSidering, your request. What is the name of the applicant (person or °r~r~:i'~6i~')'::~i~ih'~''~h;,~ fuilding ....... request?' : ~UUc~..~u~'~[7:'-", ...... . :, '1 tf an organizai~iOn. is the applicant, what is the nature.and purpose of the organization? (Also'attach organization's most recent articles Of Incorporation and/or bylaws to 1 ' What is the amount of funding you are seeking? .... DesCribe'In detail't.e ,un(ling request and _~L 1~ 'i ijh / " ho~ .the, m0ney.~i$ app[oved, will,.be spent. 1/]~ I~U~_~(J ~ ..~.~?.~]........~.....:.~]~..1~:~.~-~.~- ~'~.-,~... ~.~ ..... ~:l~z~:.~;:~ ....... .~ ..... :.. ............ ......: ...... Is any County 'Department involved in the project,, event.or program for which you. are'Seeking funds? If 'this request for funding will not fully fund Your activity or:program, what other individuals or .organizations will provide the. remainder of the funding? 040'?:233g011 · MAR-19-1999 08:53 MAR-19-1999 88:09 FROM UA STATE POLICE SUPT. OFC 97176297 P. 03 " 'Page.2 If applicant is ~sn .organization, answer the following:. Is the orgenizati°n e ~orporation? Is the organ!zation non-profit? Is the organization tax-exempt? What ~s the address of the applicant · making this. funding request? Yes Yes L/~.... Yes ~ . , No .No e-mail ,address of the applicanl:? Signature of applicant.-.If'yoU!'~i'e signing 'On behalf of an organization youJ must bo the president, vice-Presidan~, Chairman or vlce- , ~ignature ' -.-~" '// i ~e ~f ,ig~inion:behalf.of an· O~enization) Print~ Name 0407.~3380.1 : TOTAL P.03 MAR-iD-1999 08:54 804 6?4 2132 96~ P.03 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.21. Subject: Authorize County Administrator to Approve a $23,000 Change Order with RCC Consultants, Inc. for Console Furniture Integration for the New Emergency Communications Center County Administrator's Comments' County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize County Administrator to approve a $23,000 Change Order with RCC Consultants, Inc. for services to be performed in association with the integration of communications console furniture. Summary of Information: A Consulting, Architectural and Engineering Services Agreement was entered into with RCC Consultants, Inc. dated August 1, 1998. This agreement obligates RCC to perform tasks necessary to meet the requirements of the County. The County requires RCC to perform services associated with the integration of communications console furniture in the new Emergency Communications Center. These services include 1) preparation and planning, 2) installation supervision, 3) ancillary equipment/systems integration, and 4) testing and documentation. The total value of RCC's quotation is $23,000. Preparer: Ro~)ert L. E~nes, Jr. ~, Attachments: J----] Yes No Title: Assistant to the County Administrator CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Mcctinc~ Date: APril 14. 1999 Number Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This item requests the approval of a change order in the amount of $23,000 for the new Emergency Communications System design contract. Project contingency funds are available. With approval of this item, the current project contingency balance will be $332,500. Preparer: ~-~~7"/~ I~.~ Title: Director, BudRet & ManaRement Rebecca T. Dickson CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 2 2. Subject: Authorize the County Administrator to Execute a Construction Contract for Iron Bridge Park Phase IV and Transfer Funds to Complete the Project County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to authorize the County Administrator to execute a construction contract with Richard L. Crowder Construction in the amount of $1,549,111 for work at Iron Bridge Park to construct a new baseball complex and additions to the softball complex. Additionally, the Board is requested to transfer $207,000 in surplus funds in FY99 and up to $122,000 in Bond funds in FY2000 from various athletic lighting capital project accounts to the Iron Bridge Park Capital Project Account. Summary_ of Information: This project would expand on the existing facilities at Iron Bridge Park and would include four lighted youth baseball/softball fields, two lighted adult softball fields, a restroom/concession building and parking. These new facilities will begin to replace those at the Courthouse Complex which will eventually be lost due to expansion of the Government Complex. The project also provides for additional parking to alleviate overcrowding at the existing baseball, soccer and football facilities. The funding transfer is requested to take advantage of excellent bids for expanded parking facilities for the project and to cover unanticipated costs associated with wetlands mitigation. Funds required include $113,000 from baseball/softball field improvements and $94,000 from Park Improvements. These funds are available for transfer due to below budget bids on several ballfield lighting jobs. In addition, up to $122,000 in FY2000 Bond funds is required to fully fund this contract. The contract has been structured contingent on thig rem~tining appropriation and transfer in FY2000. Preparer: ~~(0 ~ ~ Title: Director, Parks and Recreation Michael S. Go~de~2~ v Attachments: Yes ~-] No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meetina Date: Aoril 14. '1999 Number Bud,qet and Manaqement Comments: Construction of Iron Bridge Park Phase IV was included as part of the 1996 Bond Referendum. The Board is requested to authorize execution of a construction contract with Richard L. Crowder Construction in the amount of $1,549,111 as outlined below: Sources Current Balance in Iron Bridge Park Project Account Transfer from FY99 Baseball/Softball Field Improvement Project Account Transfer from Park Improvement Project Account Future FY2000 Appropriation/Transfer from Baseball/Softball Field Improvement Project Account $1,274,932 113,000 94,000 122,000 Total Sources $1,603,932 Uses Construction Contract Richard Crowder Contingency, misc. expenses $1,549,111 54,821 Total Uses $1,603,932 Sources of funds show approximately $122,000 in additional funding needed to cover the full amount of the construction contract, as well as contingencies and miscellaneous project expenses. It is anticipated that this amount will become available in the FY2000 Baseball/Softball Field Improvement Project Account through continued cost savings associated with athletic lighting projects. As a result, funding for a portion of this contract will be subject to future appropriation by the Board. If funds are available in the FY2000 Baseball/Softball Field Improvement Project Account, staff requests that the Board authorize the County Administrator to transfer up to $122,000 to the Iron Bridge Park Phase IV Project Account. Preparer: .~/~~c~T - {-~[~ ~,~ Title: Director, Budget & Management Rebecca T. Dickson IDEIYrI~ICATION~ ~U;~ ~_...99.a~3.13_s179 ' -' -'- CODlh ' ' ' ,a~ ~,u,~ ,, ""' , , , BII]JOrlu¥'ZNGDATI~ ~-~, 31. 1999 , ~ _3:30 pwH. ' SUMMARY i(3 80/&O'd ~8~ ~SL · IN I t::e,,4 S~t~ OqB I :t~f~lS3-t3 £E :~I 666I-ES-ad~ 80/80'd 98t~ ISA ~8 'INI~W S>G~ (IqBI:~!~BISBH3 £~:9~ 6~65-CB-~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8.D.23. Subject: Approval of Fire Mutual Aid Agreement between Chesterfield and Henrico County for Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials Response and Related Emergency Services. County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Authorize the County Administrator to enter into the Fire Mutual Aid Agreement. Summary of Information: Since 1976, the County and Henrico County have operated under a Fire Mutual Aid Agreement under which each jurisdiction provides the other with firefighting support. The original agreement covered only fire suppression assistance. Considering the extensive amount of emergency services now provided by each county, the respective fire departments have redrafted the Mutual Aid Agreement to add the following services: fire prevention, hazardous material response, specialized rescue response, incident management, and emergency medical service. As with the original agreement, the County's services would only be offered as assistance to Henrico if such services are not needed in Chesterfield at the time a request for assistance is received. Staffrecommends authorizing the County Administrator to enter into the new Fire Mutual Aid Agreement. Preparer: ~ Title: County Attorney x',,~even L. Micas 0618(00):44297.1 Attachments: ·Yes []No FIRE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT between the cOUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA and the COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA DRAFT THIS FIRE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT (''the Agreement") is made and entered into this day of , 1999, and by and between the COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA ("Chesterfield"), a political'subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA ("HENRICO"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively sometimes "the parties"). WHEREAS, it is deemed to be murk_ally beneficial to both Chesterfield and Henrico to enter into this Agreement concerning mutual aid with regard to the provision of fire suppression and operations, fire prevention, hazardous materials response, specialized rescue response, incident management, and emergency medical services by Chesterfield and by Henrico; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield and Henrico desire that the terms and conditions of this Agreement be established. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by Chesterfield and Henrico from this Agreement, Chesterfield and Henrico hereby covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows: 1. Chesterfield and Henrieo will endeavor to provide each other fire suppression and operations, fire prevention, hazardous materials response, specialized I06 rescue response, i~cident management, and emergency medical services within their respective capabilities available at the time a request for such service is made. 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall be intended, interpreted, or construed to compel or require either party to respond to a request for service from the other party when the services of the party to whom the request is being made are already needed or are in use at the time the request is made, nor shall any such request compel or require the party to whom the request was made to continue to provide service to the other party when its personnel, apparatus, or equipment are needed to meet its own emergency response responsibilities. 3. Chesterfield and Henrico recognize that they are both fully capable of providing the services which are the. subject of this Agreement within their respective boundaries. 4. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any loss, damage, personal injury, or death, including claims of contribution or indemnity, resulting from the performance of this Agreement including but not limited to acts or omissions which occur (1) during joint emergency response activities or (2) while in transit to or from an emergency response scene. 5. Neither party shall be expected or required to reimburse the other for the cost of apparatus, equipment, or personnel utilized as a result of a response to a request for assistance pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a party requesting and receiving assistance shall reimburse the other party for the actual cost of -3- specialized extingfiishing agents used in the requesting jurisdiction in the performance of this Agreement. 6. Either party hereto desiring assistance pursuant to this Agreement shall make a request in the following manner: (1) a request to Henrico for other than emergency medical services shall be made either to the Henrico Emergency Communications Center or directly to a Chief officer of the Hendco Division of Fire or his designee; (2) a request to Hem/co for emergency medical services shall be made to the Hem/co Emergency Communications Center; and (3) a request to Chesterfield shall be made to 7. When a party hereto responds for assistance pursuant to this Agreement, its personnel manning the responding units shall not become employees of the party making such request for purposes of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act. 8. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to require either party to indemnify or save or hold harmless the other party, including its officers, agents, and employees, from any liability for any act or omission occurring during or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. 9. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall confer any right upon any person other than the parties to this Agreement. 10. This Agreement supereedes all previous mutual aid agreements, including memoranda of understanding, for services which are subject to this Agreement between Chesterfield and Henrico. This Agreement may be amended only in writing, signed by an authorized representative of each party, and may be terminated at any lime by either party giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Chesterfield and Henrico have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, all as of the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA By Title COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA By Title Approved as to form: Deputy County Attorney County of Hem/co, Virginia CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 1 of 1 8.D.24. Subject'.,. Authorization for GRTC Bus Stops on Forest Hill Avenue County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution granting the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) the authority to pick up and discharge passengers at previously approved bus stops on Forest Hill Avenue. Summary of information: In January 1998, after notification to the Board, staff advised GRTC that the County had no objections to GRTC's proposal to extend service (70 Forest Hill Route) to the Stoney Point area of the City by using sections of Huguenot Road and Forest Hill Avenue in the County. The service was to be provided at no cost to the County. There were to be no stops in the County and GRTC was to seek the necessary route approvals through the Division of Motor Vehicles process. Subsequently, GRTC initiated the service extension and included stops at Forest Hill Avenue bus stops approved by the Board in 1981. The Board needs to authorize the Forest Hill Avenue bus stops for the 70 Forest Hill Route. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing GRTC bus stops at the previously approved Forest Hill Avenue bus stops. District: Countywide Preparer: ~.J, McCracken Agen387 Attachments: Yes Title: ---]No Director of Transportation 110 INBOUND STOPS Forest Hill Avenue at Choctaw Road Forest Hill Avenue at Anwell Drive 8133 Forest Hill Avenue WHEREAS, the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) has requested permission to have bus stops for the 70 Forest Hill Route as follows: OUTBOUND STOPS Forest Hill Avenue at Professional Road Forest Hill Avenue at Anwell Drive Forest Hill Avenue at McRae Road Forest Hill Avenue at Choctaw Road WHEREAS, GRTC has informed the County that they will provide the service, including paratransit service meeting Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, at no cost to the County. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors grants GRTC the authority to stop at the above referenced locations. 111 ' er ond lltranslt company April 8, 1999 Mr. M,D, "Pet~" Sti~, Jr, Deputy County Adminis~'ator Chesterfield County Post Office Box 40 Chesterfield, VA 23832 RE: Seven (T) Contested Bus Stops along Forest Hill Avenue I am writing to clarify an impm-~t issue associated with ~hese 7 stops. The~e will be no cost to thc county if the Board of Supervisors approves our use of these stop& If you have any questions, please call rue, General Manager C: Lane Ramsey John McCracken ., 10,1. South Davis Aveuue. Richmon&~ ' ' · . ~ P.O. ~ox 27323. ~Vuginia g3261. (804)358-3871. Fax 3424933 --~ April 14, 1999 To: Board of Supervisors Chesterfield County Please if possible, enter this letter into your minutes. REASONS NOT TO APPROVE GRTC BUS STOPS Greater Richmond Transit Company and the City of Richmond have one mission, to expand their political and financial boundaries into the Counties of Ches~rfield and Hendco through misleading statements, facts and though quite innocent but lethal outcome of their actions. And I'll show you how ~his is being done. Like a movie you need a plot, a set-up, a hook and ending. THE PLOT The City needs a stronger and larger tax base and with room for expansion. How can the City expand their boundaries for the same reasons they stated in the mid 60's and were successful in annexing part of Chesterfield County in 1 970? The City of Richmond cannot by law State Law annex Chesterfield and Henrico Counties, but that ~s not going to stop them from t~jing and/or possibly being successful. THE SET-UP The City of Richmond has suggested strongly several times for regional cooperation and government" By using Greater Richmond Transit Company, or GRTC, as a "vehicle" of expansion, thereby starting and or continuing further regional cooperation. Id3(e Alcoholic Anonymous, the city probably has a twelve step program with the objective of obtaining a larger tax base and proper city management. At this time, I only know of five steps. 1 st Step: In 1989, Chesterfield County became a 50% owner of GRTC for around $50,000. 2nd Step: 3rd Step: Shortly thereafter, a request was made from GRTC to add seven bus stops on Forest Hill Ave. in Chesterfield for the Stony Point Express Bus which was approved. in 1997, GRTC requested permission to have buses travel on Forest Hill Ave in Chesterfield County for tile mason of allowing the buses greater access to the Stony Point area or annex area of the City instead of having to travel down Chippenham to Huguenot Rd. Why was the request made for permission in 1997, if GRTC was already approved to have bus stops on Forest Hill Ave years eadier? This request for permission doesn't make sense, yet this board approved GRT~s request. Why wasn't this same request or permission, to travel on Huguenot Road to service stops in the annex area been obtained as of this date? W~I this happen only when GRTC wants to add another bus route on Huguenot RcL? There am three bus stops on Huguenot within the county's boundaries, yet on a state roadway for the Stony Point Express Bus. I believe the Forest Hilt 70 Bus does not run on Huguenot Rd. but might. Remember, the ~ty of Richmond Limits end at the power lines on Huguenot Road and along the edge of the nort~northwest side of the pavement on Huguenot. Page lof4 RPR-L4-L999 11:57 P.02 4th Step Sth Step Page 2 of I also remind you, GRTC stated to this Board in a letter when the request was made for access on Forest Hill Ave. 'The implementation of ~his extension would not require any new bus stops in Chesterfield County." Yet GRTC did not add physical bus stops, but added buses stopping at those seven bus stops. GRT. C as~u.rned., since those seven bus stops were approved on Forest HUI Ave. years earlier for the Stony Point Express, why not add the Forest Hill bus service to those stops. Who will notice? The key word here is ADO. Another words, they didn't think someone would notice or with misleading statements to this Board, assumed they could get away with it. Another key word is ASS/U/ME and we all know what this means. In away, GRTC and the City has lived up to this other meaning of assume, by making an 'a~" out of you and me. In 1998, the City of Richmond started a movement for regional transportation with the complete cooperation of Senators Wafidns and Marsh. This has been approved only if a county wants this temporary service or until the state funds run out. 1999-2007 - Have all four steps and start the City of ~ichmond's true objective, with expansion of GRTC, by expanding the City of Richmond boundaries through annexation. This Board took the frost three steps of bait from the City and both Senators request, or known as in the film business THE HOOK. Don't fall for the trap of the 4th and 5th steps and do not approve the reinstatement of those seven bus stops for the Forest Hill Bus. Please, take immediate necessary actions, with the cooperation of Henrico County, to protect each county from an abduction by the city which is already poor financially and has a proven track recorded of improper government management and spending. Since GRTC's request to travel within Chesterfield was needed for Forest Hill Ave., why was the request approved by this Board, knowing that any request will violate two Sta:e Motor Vehicle Codes? State Code 46,2-893 'Stopping on highways to discharge cargo or passengers; school buses" In Part: 'No Truck or bus, except a school bus, shall be_.st_ opoed wholly or partially on the traveled portion of any hklhwa¥ outside of cities and towns for the purpose of takinCl on or discharginq carqo or passenqem .unle.5. s the operator cannot leave the traveled_portion of the hiqhwa¥, with safe _ty'. (Side note: It is not the responsibility of any locality of providing a safe area for a transit bus to pick- up or discharge passengers based on where the transit company wants a bus stop. It is up to the transit company that provides service to maintain a safe operation in ALL AREAS, including picking up or discharging passengers). State Code ~,6.g-888 In Part: ,".No person shall stop a yehidq....in such a manner as to imoed.e or render dan_~emus the use.of ~;he hiqhway by others, except in the case of an emergency, an accident, or mechanical Breakdown". (Side note: Where is the word bus or exempt of a bus in this language?) APR-14-1999 1~:58 99~ P.03 Page 3 of 4 GRT¢ is in violation of these two state laws, which this Board and also the Board of Supervisors in Hendco Count~ have asd~ted G~C in c~nuing the~e v~ia~. Why am the~ ~o la~ NOT ENFORCED? I ~ a ~er ~ Z/Z~/99 to ~este~eld Com~nweal~'s A~mey, ~r. Daven~ g~n to ~ ~ Board, requ~g ~ look i~o ~e ~la~ons. I have yet to r~eive a ~n on his fi~. I also ~nt~c~d ~~eld Police, ~. Mike Hei~el~n a~ Virginia Stat~ D~n~ and o~ ~ ~ ~ant S~e A~omey ~l's requ~ the same. All have a~ ~ ~u~ and/or m~ to en~e ~ese ~ ~e la~. I'm ~t an a~omey, but so~ ve~ sma~ a~orney should wonder how m~y b~ a~ide~ have ~cu~ in ~e~e~ and Hendco d~ to the~ ~te I~ viola~ and ~ke ~e ~a~ ~o~ for any d~ ~w and in ~e f~m s~ce ~ese am ~e laws ~at should have ~en enforced. How ~ny acci~n~ ~il ~cur in C~e~e~ a~ Henfico b~au~ of GRTC ~ ~ki~ ~o~ in a tm~ la~? Un~ately for GRTC, cou~ roads are not d~ign~ for public tm~~on wh~ can or will r~m ~ tur~u~ being ~ilt at a ~n~ ~ to any I~al~ or the State ~xpayem. As of ~w th~ is not Ch~e~eld's proble~ don't let it ~me one by approving ~ ~. Fo~t Hill Avenue and Huguenot Road am such roads th~ cannot handle b~ ~w~e sa~. ~ you ~ow, ~e ~n of Fo~t Hill in qu~on is a ~o ~ne mad w~ ~ ~ss~ zones. Huguenot Rd. ~vily ~ve~ throughout ~t t~ ~y, and yet, a GRTC b~ ~ blocki~ o~ ~ne of ~ffic ~ sewi~ their c~m on Huguenot and F~e~ Hill. G~C h~ ~ ~ ~o~ in am~ that can ~ tm~n~us ~ ~ncems ~t a~ ha~ se~ eff~ on ~ ~w w~ ~iffe inju~ and dea~ if an a~ent ~uld o~r. W~ ap~ m will ~ ~e r~ibil~ ~r ~e exa~ I~a~on of ~ose bus ~o~ I~t~ within ~e~e~'s ~u~ad~? W~ them any ~ffic ~ ~ies requir~ ~ done by ~e ~un~ or ~te? W~t ~un~ or ~te ~ gNe GRTC the right ~ p~ bus ~ where ~ey wa~ w~o~ ap~o~i and d~re bus ~o~ a 'No Parking Zone"? Where in ~e ~te~eld ~u~ C~r or ~ addr~s ~br~ ~an~bn or bus se~ice au~odzing ~ sm~ a~ no parking zon~ and r~uidng ~lice enforce~nt of no ~ing zone? Le~ I~ at anoth~ ama. Which ~ the inc~venience GRTC all rea~ pu~ on ~ ~i~, chumh~ a~ com~rcial shop~ng centem ~ing Io~ ~ GRTC can se~ce Stony Point ~re~ ~e~. ~ ff not all GRTC dde~ have to ~ their cam ~mewhere to ~e the bus. A Rich~ Tim~ ~patch a~cle, 4/30/99, s~ted thr~ bus r~em were ~m Powha~n, ~i~n from C~e~eld a~ ~ur ~m Rich~ (ann~ area). I ~n't think ~ey all wal~ to ~ b~ ~o~, they par~ ~eir cam somewhere and t~ a~e s~t~ "ample v~ible parking at nea~ Bon Air Bap~ Chur~." T~ a~cle a~o didn't s~te ~s ~m may~ pa~ing at Vil~ge ~re ~h is ~ w~in f~t of a b~ stop ~ well ~ Wac~ Bank. And t~ pa~ing Io~ ~ ~S ~a~, Stony Point and Buford Road Sho~ing ~n~rs all have a veff ~e ~ibil~ ~is is o~u~n~ ~ you r~lize th~ ~ard and Hendco's Board of Su~som h~ a~i~ed in ~ding an i~umnce liabiE~ m any of the places w~m bus ddem ~? What will the ~unt~s liabi~ ~ or ~~m ~o gave a~m~l of bus ~o~ if so~ing s~uld ha~n on those ~i~ Io~7 Proba~ ~ne. I ~ ~er ~ough, has an~ or G~C r~ue~ed ~ion ~r ~ ~m to ~eir ~m on some ~g lot all day? Do the r~i~ ~ies or ownem of ~e ~i~ !o~ I me~b~, kn~ ~e~ b~ ~ght ~ ~i~ ~ for b~ ~em and ha~ taken aw~ ~ ~ ~ir ~~m? Or am ~ese pl~ j~ ~t big enough, like Cbve~af and ~au~nt Malls m ~sion ~m a~. I know GRTC ~ not ~d ~ obtain ~r~bn, they am not parki~ there, j~t m~ t~ cmo~m t~ APR-14-1999 11:58 99~ P.04 ..,,,. Page 4 of 4 A Didn't GRTC have to get right-of way or permission from Cloverleaf and Beaufont Mails before using their parking lots for bus dders who may park there? 'So does anyone know if permission was obtained from the lots I mentioned earlier? Mayor Kain has stated he is amazed that Chesterfield wants the stops eliminated because ~hey aren't costing the county anything. Is there not a cost for police, fire or rescue for any traffic accidents or violations with a bus or bus stop, or the insurance cost placed on businesses for parking and medical insurance or personal injury suits? As I told Mayor Kain, there are hidden cost involved. So please, don't be fooled or mislead by Mayor Kain, Senators Watkins and Marsh's. logic and misinformation and facts. Has any Board Member actually seen any of these bus stops? I submitted to this Board Pictures of the bus stops I know of in Chesterfield. Are there any trash cans placed nearby? Who is picking up any trash generated by bus riders. There's not one trash receptacle located at any of the bus stops within Chesterfields boundaries or in the annex area that is currently being serviced. There are no bus shelters for GRTC Riders, why because there are not enough riders. What stop are in Chesterfield on Jefferson Davis Hwy.? Has anyone checked since this Board also approved GRTC going to K-Mart on Jefferson Davis? Or is everyone going to assume, GRTC is not stopping anywhere else? You know this is very ridiculous, all this hassle for just a few bus riders. According to GRTC spokeswoman Bridget Gilbert, the affected stops in question have been used by up to e'.Ktht; alders a day. I t'~jured this to be an income to GRTC of SZO.O0 a day for those eight dders. By the way, according to GRTC figures in 1996 it cost $49.61 per hour to operate just one GRTC bus or $4.29 per mile. Per five day work week, GRTC's Total Daily Rider Inc;ome is $100.00. Total Daily Hourly Loss $-575.32 using their houdy rate based on 12 hours of operation. Total Weekly L.o~. $-2,876.00 per 5 day week. All figures are based on GRTC's own figures of UP TO EIGHT RIDERS A DAY at $1.25 fare each way, On December 22, 1998, I E-mailed Mayor Kain requesting information regarding regional transportation. Out of twelve questions or statements, he answered seven on 12/29/99. One that was not answered or purposely avoided was, I told him what the City of Richmond was leading up to, further annexation of Chesterfield and Hendco Counties and requested he be up front and tell those citizens and County's Board Members the City's annexation plans so citizens that are able, can move their families from those areas the City wants in Chesterfield and Hendco Counties before annexation begins. Now several months later we all know the City of Richmond and possibly Senators Watkins and Marsh's It wasn't just regional transportation, it was annexation. THE ENDING As I mentioned in the beginning, this is like a movie which needs a plot, a set-up and a hook. Now it is up to Chesterfield and Henrico Board of Supervisors Members to wdte the ending. I will make myself available to any Supervisor for questions or review. I thank you for your time and hopefully your decisions will benefit the many who don't ride GRTC ratl)e~ than the so few who do. Jde Cacciotti, Jr Z155 Old Indian Road Richmond, Virginia Z3Z35-3647 804-272-8787 home 800-490-1988 pager TOTAL P.05 RPR-14-1999 11:59 99~ P.05 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page !,,.of 2_ Item Number: 8. D. 2 5. Subject: Request for Music/Entertainment Festival Permit County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board grant a musical/entertainment festival permit to the Virginia Breast Cancer Foundation, subject to appropriate conditions imposed by staff. Summary_ of Information: The Virginia Breast Cancer Foundation proposes to conduct a series of outdoor music concerts for the purpose of raising funds for the Foundation' s programs and services. A portion of the net proceeds from the concert series will be used for that purpose. Because the concerts will consist primarily of musical renditions conducted in open spaces not within a permanent enclosed structure, the Foundation must obtain a Musical/Entertainment Festival Permit pursuant to §3-12 of the County Code. The concerts are planned to occur on the lawn at the Rivers Bend Center on Kingston Avenue across from the Hewlett-Packard Corporation in the Bermuda District. The concerts will be held on Wednesday evenings starting at 5:30 p.m. beginning May 5th and ending on July 7th. A total of 11 concerts are planned, with an expected average weekly attendance of 400-500 people. Additional concert dates may be added depending on community support. Prepare~ x~J~S~en'~' Mi;as Attachments: [] Yes II No Title: County Attorney 1205:44294.1 # 113 { CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 ,Summary. of Information: The entertainment arrangements have been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and, within the conditions imposed by staff, meet the substantive requirements of the ordinance. Arrangements include adequate measures to insure public safety, fire prevention, medical protection, sanitation, traffic control, insurance coverage, relevant permits and security. 1205:44294.1 114 ~Ieeting Date: April 14. 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: 8.D.26. Page L of ~ Subject: Resolution Recognizing the lOOth Birthday of Mr. Irby H. Brown County_ Administrator's Comments: County AdministraWr: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached Resolution Summary_ of Information: Mr. Warren requested that the attached Resolution be adopted. In recognition of Mr. Irby H. Brown, ecologist and environmentalist, who established the Brown Family Farm on Elkhardt Road, and dedicated his talents to the Farmers Club, the Ruritan Club, the Manchester Volunteer Fire Department, the Chesterfield Historical Society and the Manchester Community Center. Mr. Brown will celebrate his 100th birthday on April 23, 1999. f/Do~ald J/l~appel/ -//~ ( Title: Director, Public Affair8 Attachments: WHEREAS, Mr. Irby H. Brown was born in Bon Air on April 23, 1899; and accordingly will mark his centennial on April 23, 1999; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown completed high school in Chester and attended Randolph-Macon College until drafted for military service; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown later attended the Virginia Mechanics Institute and became an ecologist and environmentalist; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown worked for the Department of Agriculture for many years; and WHEREAS, with his wife, Ethel Bland, Mr. Brown established the Brown Family Farm on Elkhardt Road; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown has two sons, six grandchildren and ten great-grandchildren; and WHEREAS, Mr. Brown loaned his talents to the Farmers Club, the Ruritan Club, the Manchester Volunteer Fire Department, the Chesterfield Historical Society and the Manchester Community Center. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the significant contributions of Mr. Irby H. Brown to our County, wishes him a happy 100th birthday, and is proud to have him as a resident of Chesterfield County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 27. Subject: Request to Aid John Patrick and Tom Loughran in the Acquisition of Right of Way for Hollymeade Subdivision County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize Right of Way staffto aid John Patrick and Tom Loughran in the acquisition of right of way from (1) Bernard E. and Lucille C. Bixler and (2) Donald L. and Laura L. Davis subject to the execution of a contract agreeing to pay ail acquisition costs. Summary of Information: John Patrick and Tom Loughran have requested that the County assist in acquiring right of way for improvements to Salem Church Road to serve Hollymeade Subdivision. Patrick and Loughran have agreed to comply with normal County policies for right of way acquisition. Improvements to Salem Church Road are zoning requirements imposed for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends approval. Preparer: v John W. 'Harmon Attachments: [] Yes · No Title: Right of Way Manager 0800:44436.1 I# I CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meetin~ Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: Subject: Request to Restrict Through Truck Traffic on Centralia Road 8.D.28. County. Administrator: County_ A.dministrator's Comments: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road from Route 10 to Chester Road. Summary. of Information: Centralia Road (Route 145), between Route 10 and Chester Road (Route 144) is a primary road in the state highway system. It has no shoulders, no turn lanes, and poor vertical alignment. Most of the property along Centralia Road is residential. Centralia Road carries over 11,000 vehicles per day, approximately two (2) percent of which are heavy trucks. In 1993, the County requested VDOT to restrict through trucks on Centralia Road for safety concerns. Because Centralia Road is a primary road as opposed to a secondary road, the Board does not have the authority to initiate a no through truck traffic restriction and must rely on VDOT to address the problem with truck traffic. The County also wrote to trucking industries and asked them to voluntarily reroute their truck traffic so that they would not use Centralia Road. Preparer: ~J/~ ¢~ Title: P~. McCracken Agen389 Director of Transportation Attachments: Yes ~-~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Summary of Information: (Continued) VDOT completed their study of Centralia Road in June 1993. VDOT advised the County that, due to the "rdnimal" number of trucks observed and the lack of any accident history involving trucks, there was insufficent evidence to support an official truck restriction on Centralia Road. VDOT did recommend several majgr safety improvements, including the addition of turn lanes at key intersections, and constructing adequate shoulders along the entire length of the road. To date, VDOT has only funded a turn lane improvement at the Chalkley Road/Centralia Road intersection. The County is awaiting authorization from VDOT to initiate the design of this improvement. The remaining improvements identified by VDOT remain unfunded. Heavy truck traffic along Centralia Road continues to pose a threat to public safety and should be restricted. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board adopt the attached resolution requesting VDOT to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road. District: Bermuda and Dale WHEREAS, Centralia Road (Route 145) is a primary road in the state highway system; and WHEREAS, Centralia Road carries over 11,000 vehicles per day, has no shoulders, no turn lanes and has poor vertical and horizontal alignment; and WHEREAS, Centralia Road passes through a primarily residential area; and WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has no statutory authority to restrict through truck traffic on primary roads; and WHEREAS, in 1993, Chesterfield County requested the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road (Route 145) from Route 10 to Chester Road (Route 144); and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County also requested trucking industries to voluntarily reroute their trucks and no longer use Centralia Road; and WHEREAS, VDOT advised Chesterfield County that the "minimal" volume of trucks on Centralia Road did not pose a safety problem; and WHEREAS, in 1993, VDOT did a study of the Centralia Road corridor and made recommendations for numerous improvements; and WHEREAS, VDOT has not funded these improvements; and WHEREAS, accidents involving heavy trucks continue to occur on Centralia Road; and WHEREAS, these accidents have resulted in the tragic loss of life; and WHEREAS, acceptable, safer alternate routes such as Route 10, Route 288, and Chester Road exist for the through truck traffic. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors again requests VDOT to restrict through truck traffic on Centralia Road from Route 10 to Chester Road. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Chesterfield legislative delegation with a request for their support in restricting the through truck traffic on Centralia Road. 4/14/99 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 8. D. 29. Subject: Transfer of Funds and Authorization of Change Orders for the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project County_ Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening project and authorize the County Administrator to execute the unsuitable material change orders up to $100,000 for the project. Summary_ of Information: In February 1994, the Board entered into an agreement with the J. Louis Reynolds Trust and the State Board of Community Colleges concerning the dedication of right of way for Route 288 and a northern campus for John Tyler. A condition of the agreement obligates the County to improve the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway intersection. In August 1998, the Board awarded the construction contract for the improvement and work is underway. Unsuitable soils have been encountered on the project and are being addressed with the original construction contingency established for the project. The exact amount of the required change order will not be determined for a few days. An additional $98,588 of General Road Improvement Account funds being held in reserve for the project should now be transferred to the project to insure adequate contingencies are available if needed on the project. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Board: 1) 2) Transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway intersection improvement account; Authorize the County Administrator to execute the unsuitable material change orders for the project up to $100,000. District: Preparer: Midlothian cCracken Agen 390 Title: Director of Transportation Attachments: Yes ~'~ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14. 1999 Numb{ir 8. D. 29. Bud.qet and Mana.qement Comments: This request is to transfer $98,588 from the General Road Improvement Account to the Rt. 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project. A change order is pending to purchase additional soil for this project~ This requested transfer will replenish the contingency account in the Charter Colony Parkway project. The balance in the General Road Improvements Account is $873,869; transfer of $98,588 will leave a balance of $775,281. Preparer: Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Director, Budget & Management Route 60/Charter Colony Parkway Widening Project Appropriations/Transfer Updated Budget Oct. 11, 1996 $1,313,500 Preliminary Engineering $92,000 Right-of-Way $3,925 August 26, 1998 $225,000 Utility $17,580 Construction $1,281,538 Construction Contingency $106,689 April 14, 1999 $98,588* Construction Contingency 2 $98,588 Construction Administration $36,500 Miscellaneous $268 Total $1,637,088 $1,637,088 * Proposed transfer Attachment A Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page 1 of 1 iO.A. Subject: Report from the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force County. Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: None Summary_ of Information: Mr. James Holland, Chair of the Drug and Alcohol Abuse Task Force, will provide a brief update on the current activities of the Task Force. JanJ'D. '&r~er ---x..,~x --- -- Title: Director. Youth Services Attachments: No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page _1 of 5 Meetin~ Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 10.B. Report On: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts Background: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between the County and the Developer where there are no County funds involved. The report is submitted to the Board members as information. Summary_ of Information: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: County Administrator: Attachments: 94-0086 Cavan at Long Meadow Godsey Properties Godsey and Son, Inc. Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda Prepared By: Yes No $23,919.00 $40,200.00 Agenda Item April 14, 1999 Page 2 o o Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 95-0154 Kentwood Forest, Section 3 at Longmeadow Longmeadow Farms Associates, Inc. Godsey and Son, Inc. Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $71,000.00 $79,032.00 96-0241 Wellington Farms, Section C Miles and Wells, A Partnership Piedmont Construction Company, Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements Bermuda Inc. $32,091.00 $87,258.75 96-0289 Extra Billy's at Alverser Drive Huestis Limited Company Superior Excavating and Construction, Inc. Water Improvements - $5,859.00 Midlothian 97-0223 Bon Air Villas Centex Homes R. R. Snipes Construction Company, Inc. Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Midlothian $70,352.00 $73,349.88 117 Agenda Item April 14, 1999 Page 3 o Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 97-0290 Winn Dixie at Winterpock Village JNB Company LLC Castle Equipment Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Clover Hill $82,819.50 $51,373.91 97-0296 Wellington Farms, Section D Miles and Wells, A Partnership Castle Equipment Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $44,689.35 $168,319.22 98-0249 Devon Office Warehouse at Ruffin Mill Road WBC L.L.C. Greg Jones Excavating Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $85,498.18 $9,231.00 98-0259 Target at Commonwealth Center Dayton Hudson Corporation F. L. Showalter, Inc. Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Matoaca $56,498.00 $27,000.00 Agenda Item April 14, 1999 Page 4 10. 11. 12. 13. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 98-0272 Chesterfield Storage, Phase 6 Investment Partners Three, L.C. Nuckols Enterprises, Inc. Water Improvements - Matoaca $3,000.00 98-0332 Kohl's Department Store at Commonwealth Center Kohl's Department Store, Inc. F. L. Showalter, Inc. Water Improvements Wastewater Improvements - Matoaca $30,091.00 $20,662.00 98-0399 Dale Meadows, Section A (Portion of) Finer Homes, Inc. Bookman Construction Company Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Dale $8,900.00 $28,135.00 98-0405 Allied Signal Warehouse Facility Anthony Bennett Properties A Michigan Co-Partnership Castle Equipment Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $19,667.38 $10,458.70 Agenda Item April 14, 1999 Page 5 14. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 99-0010 Hampton Park Drive and Otterdale Road Hampton Park Associates LLC Biohabitats of Virginia, Inc. Water Improvements - Matoaca $22,619.00 15. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 99-0025 Park Lee Sanitary Sewer Relocation (out parcels) Affordable Residences in Chesterfield II, Inc. Godsey and Son, Inc. Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $42,951.00 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 10.C. Su~ect: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Road and Street Light Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Commen~: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Preparer: Attachments: Yes ~-~ No Title: County Administrator # 12:1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BAI,ANCE April 8, 1999 BOARD MEETING DATE 07/01/98 10/28/98 10/28/98 DESCRIPTION FY99 Actual Beginning Fund Balance Designation of FY98 expenditure savings to address County Unified Pay Plan in future years Reappropriation of FY98 expenditure savings to the Fire Department for use in FY99 AMOUNT (1,885,893) (141,300) BALANCE $33,760,968 $31,875,075 $31,733,775 10/28/98 Designate net school FY98 expenditure savings for school uses (2,092,918) $29,640,857 10/28/98 11/12/98 Reappropriation of FY98 County expenditure savings for Unified Pay Plan in FY99 (700,000) $28,940,857 Board Meeting Date CHESTERFIELD COUNTY A. RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJe;CTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT April 8, 1999 Description Amount FOR FISCAL YEAR '99 BEGINNING JULY 1, 1998 4/8/98 FY99 Budgeted Addition 8,150,000 4/8/98 FY99 Capital Projects (5,918,8oo) 6/24/98 Transfer for Clover Hill Sports Complex, Phase II acceleration of soccer fields, baseball fields, and parking (460,000) 7/29/98 File tracking system in Clerk of Circuit Court's office (5o, ooo) 8/20/98 Designation for potential reduction in grant funds for the Henricus Land purchase (230,000) 10/14/98 Transfer for construction of Phase II of Public Safety Training Center at Enon (7o,ooo) 10/28/98 Transfer funds for County match of DCJS grant for Criminal History Record System Improvement to provide video arraignment capabilities. (contingent upon grant approval) (74,977) 11/12/98 Transfer funds to the Chesterfield Historical Society for museum improvements for the County's 250th anniversary (38,000) 11/24/98 Transfer funds to County Capital Projects to fund construction of soccer field lighting at Manchester Middle School (50,000) 11/24/98 Transfer funds to cover costs of security system for Information Systems Technology. (115,000) Balance 8,411,790 2,492,990 2,032,990 1,982,990 1,752,990 1,682,990 1,608,013 1,570,013 1,520,013 1,405,013 Board Meeting Date 12/16/98 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY A RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJ wCTS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY DEBT April 8, 1999 Description Designation for FY2000 road projects local match: Walton Park Sidewalk Point of Rocks Road Bike Trail, Phase I Centre Street Streetlight Cogbill Road Sidewalk Salem Church Road Sidewalk Amount (52,800) (48,000) (8,000) (26,000) (15,200) Balance 1,255,013 1/27/99 Designation for potential expenses related to the Year 2000 project (15o,ooo) 1,105,013 2/10/99 Transfer funds to bury overhead utility lines along Jury Drive (lOO,OOO) 1,005,013 2/24/99 Transfer for Circuit/General District Courthouse space needs assessment (75,ooo) 930,013 2/24/99 Transfer for requirements analysis for the financial and human resources/payroll system (150,000) 780,013 3/24/99 Transfer for design/engineering of baseball/ (50,000) softball fields to be constructed at Goyne Park. 730,013 3/24/99 Transfer for re-construction of boardwalk (80,000) at Point of Rocks Park. 650,013 Prepared by Accounting Department March 31, 1999 Date Began 12/88 * 12/93 09/96 SCHEDULE OF CAPITAl JZED LEASE PURCHASES Description APPROVED AND EXECUTED Airport State Police Hangar Additions $128,800 County Warehouse 331,200 Total 460,000 Real Property Lease/ Purchase School Technical Center Printing Press Date Ends 12/00 Outstanding Balance 03/31/99 $ 29,745 76,486 106,231 17,510,000 12/01 6,990,000 80,649 11/99 14,060 TOT~PRO~D AND E~CU~D $18,050:649 $7:110,.291. PENDING EXECUTION Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation - Certificates of Participation - $26.8 million Approved August 27, 1997 * Second Refunding of Certificates of Participation, Series 1985 126 Date: April 14. 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: ]?age l__ of__~ 14 .A. Resolution Recognizing Adrian Austin County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reauested: Adoption of attached Resolution Summary_ of Information: Ms. Humphrey requested that the. attached Resolution be adopted. In recognition of Mr. Austin's achievements in wrestling, winning the Region I Western Sectional rifle, the Region I crown, and the state Group AA title in the 135 pound class. For National Achievement Scholarship and for being named a Footaction USA Scholarship and maintaining a 4.21 grade point average as a senior at Matoaca High School. //I~onald J.~app~l/// Attachments: Yes ~ No Director, Public Affairs RECOGNIZING MR. ADRIAN AUSTIN FOR HIS ATHLETIC AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENTS WHEREAS, Mr. Adrian Austin is a senior at Matoaca High School; and WHEREAS, Mr. Austin has achieved a 4.21 grade point average; and WHEREAS, Mr. Austin has won the Region I Western Sectional title for wrestling; the Region I crown and the State Group AA title in the 135 pound class; and WHEREAS, Mr. Austin compiled a record of 10 wins and no losses in the 135 pound weight class; a 40 wins and no losses record overall this year; and a 102 wins, 8 losses record during his four years at Matoaca High School; and WHEREAS, Mr. Austin is both a National Achievement Scholarship and a Footaction USA Scholarship finalist; made honor roll all four years; and takes advanced-placement calculus, history and literature; and WHEREAS, Mr. Austin coaches a youth wrestling team for Matoaca; and WHEREAS, such a well-rounded student and athlete personifies the admirable traits of hard work and persistence and is an example for others to emulate. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby publicly recognizes Mr. Adrian Austin and commends him on his superior accomplishments, is proud to have him as a Chesterfield County resident and extends its best wishes for his continued academic and athletic success. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Austin and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. , Meeting Date: April 14. 1999 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Item Number: Page ~ of 1 14.B. Subject: Resolution Recognizing April 17-23 as "National Latin Week" County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached Resolution Summary_ of Information: Mr. Barber requested that the attached Resolution be adopted. In recognition of 1,447 Latin students in Chesterfield County, and to acknowledge the importance of studying and promoting Latin and the classics. ~Dor~ald J./I~ppei //// ( Attachments: Yes [-~ No Title: Director, Public Affairs I# 129 WHEREAS, modern society owes much of its language, system of laws and culture to the ancient Greek and Roman societies; and WHEREAS, the study of Latin and the classics promotes personal discipline and imbues students with a knowledge of the roots of American society; and WHEREAS, Chesterfield County has 1,447 Latin students, the majority of whom are members of the National Junior Classical League; and WHEREAS, the National Junior Classical League observes the period April 17-23, 1999 as "National Latin Week"; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of studying and promoting Latin and the classics as a means of understanding the foundations of our contemporary world. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby publicly recognizes the week of April 17-23, 1999 as "National Latin Week" in Chesterfield County. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: i~+.C. Subject: Resolution Recognizing L. C. Bird, Clover Hill, James River, Matoaca, Meadowbrook, Midlothian, Monacan, Thomas Dale and the Governor's Schools for Providing Drug and Alcohol-Free Post-Prom Parties County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information' Representatives from each of the schools will be present to accept the resolutions. - ~Lis~'h. Elko Attachments: Yes ~-~ No I I Title: Acting Clerk to the Board # 1;31 RECOGNIZING L. C. BIRD, CLOVER HILL, JAMES RIVER, MATOACA, MEADOWBROOK, MIDLOTHIAN, MONACAN, THOMAS DALE AND THE GOVERNOR'S SCHOOLS FOR PROVIDING DRUG AND ALCOHOL-FREE POST-PROM PARTIES WHEREAS, the two highest risk nights for teens are prom and graduation, with some parents seeming to condone parties where alcohol and drugs are available; and WHEREAS, students need an alternative to drugs and alcohol to which they can and will say ~YES"; and WHEREAS, in 1998, over 350 schools and communities in Virginia participated in Operation Prom/Graduation's alcohol and drug-free parties for students; and WHEREAS, many parents of Juniors and Seniors at L. C. Bird; Clover Hill; James River; Matoaca; Meadowbrook; Midlothian; Monacan; Thomas Dale High and the Governor's Schools, with financial support from the local and surrounding business community, are working to provide alternative "no alcohol or drugs" parties following the Clover Hill Prom on April 17; Matoaca on April 24; Thomas Dale and Meadowbrook on May 7; Monacan and Midlothian on May 1; James River, Manchester and Governor's School on May 8; and L. C. Bird on May 15; and WHEREAS, communities all over Virginia are reaching in many ways to their young people with love and concern, encouraging them to "Celebrate Life". NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors publicly declares the weekends of April 17-18; April 24- 25; May 1-2; May 7-9; and May 15-16 as "Drug and Alcohol-Free Among the Teen and Adult Population of Chesterfield County." AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that adults be encouraged to provide a positive, no alcohol and drugs example for our youth, particularly at the high risk times of prom and graduation, in an effort that we not only change lives, but save them. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 14.D. · Subject: Recognizing the Contributions of County Secretaries and Proclaiming the Week of April 18-24, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Week" and April 21, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Day." County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adopt the "Professional Secretaries Week" resolution at the April 14, 1999 Board of Supervisors meeting. Summary of Information: The attached resolution is to recognize the vital contribution of County secretaries and to proclaim the week of April 18-24, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Week" and April 21, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Day" throughout Chesterfield County. Preparer: IK~rla J. Ge~ner - Title:Director, HRM Attachments: Yes -~No RECOGNIZING PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES WEEK WHEREAS, the importance of professional secretaries to American public and private orgnizations has been recognized by the designation of April 18-24, 1999 as ,,Professional Secretaries Week"; and WHEREAS, secretaries and administrative specialists have increased their contributions in recent years by mastering computer software and taking on management duties; and WHEREAS, persons who serve Chesterfield County in these job classifications must meet high standards of performance through a combination of effective interpersonal abilities and technical clerical skills, responsive and courteous service to citizens and fellow employees, and knowledge and application of numerous County and departmental policies and procedures; and WHEREAS, the Administration wishes to express its appreciation to all County secretaries for their dedication to excellence in public service and for their contributions to the County team. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors hereby recognizes the week of April 18-24, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Week" and April 21, 1999 as "Professional Secretaries Day" throughout Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the citizens of Chesterfield County are invited to join with the Association of Administrative Professionals, originator and sponsor of the Week and Day, as they acknowledge the vital contributions of secretaries in offices everywhere. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 14. ~,. Subject: Recognizing Patrick Keith Coleburn, Troop 876, and Jeffrey Scott Mullin, Troop 897, both sponsored by Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church; and Robert Ulysses Wentz, IV, Venture Crew 806, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church Upon Attaining Rank of Eagle Scout County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolutions. Summary of Information: Staff has received requests for the Board to adopt resolutions recognizing Mr. Coleburn, Troop 876; Mr. Mullin, Troop 897; and Mr. Wentz, Venture Crew 806 upon attaining rank of Eagle Scout. Ail will be present at the meeting, accompanied by members of their family, to accept the resolutions. Midlothian District Patrick Coleburn Parents: Curtis & Kay Matoaca District Robert Wentz Parents: Robert & Cheryl Jeffrey Mullin Parents: Robert & Debra Lisa H. Elko Attachments: Y¢$ -~No Title: Acting Clerk to the Board WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, 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; and WHEREAS, Mr. Jeffrey Scott Mullin, Troop 897, sponsored by Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his Country, Jeffrey is indeed a member 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 hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Jeffrey Scott Mullin and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. 136 WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, 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; and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert Ulysses Wentz, IV, Venture Crew 806, sponsored by Woodlake United Methodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his Country, Robert is indeed a member 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 hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Robert Ulysses Wentz, IV and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. 137 WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Mr. William D. Boyce on February 8, 1910; and WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America was founded to promote citizenship training, personal development, and fitness of individuals; and WHEREAS, after earning at least twenty-one merit badges in a wide variety of fields, 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; and WHEREAS, Mr. Patrick Keith Coleburn, Troop 876, sponsored by Mount Pisgah United Methodist Church, has accomplished those high standards of commitment and has reached the long-sought goal of Eagle Scout which is received by less than two percent of those individuals entering the Scouting movement; and WHEREAS, growing through his experiences in Scouting, learning the lessons of responsible citizenship, and priding himself on the great accomplishments of his Country, Patrick is indeed a member 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 hereby extends its congratulations to Mr. Patrick Keith Coleburn and acknowledges the good fortune of the County to have such an outstanding young man as one of its citizens. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date:__ 14,1999 Item Number: 16.A. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: to Consider the Conveyance of Parcels of Land and Easements for Improvements to Genito Road and Warbro Road County_ Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors approve the conveyance of parcels of land and easements to the Virginia Department of Transportation, and easements to Virginia Electric and Power Company and Bell Atlantic, and authorize the Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator to execute the necessary deeds and easement agreements. Summary of Information: The rights of way and easements are needed for the Genito Road and Warbro Road Widening Project. Staff has reviewed this request and recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve these conveyances. District: Clover Hill John W. Harmon Attach_merits: YesI INo Title: Riqht of Way Manaqer # 1~9 ~ATCH Z/N£ ST~sPO0 SEE S~tE£7~¢ ,~, ,/ i i i i I ! zOm~ -~mZZ. I-ST'D ES-I REQ'~ ,1¢1-0NS EC-I 7~r'PE :111 RECfD ~-.~ I-5T'D WEIR REO'D , ) · PJ.- 12'60170 END DR,'V~IA~E 8ASEUNE MATCtff /JN£ it,,I I; k. sj~O0 P. O. Box 8,5333 An Affiliato of Media General Flichmond, Virginia 232@3-000 (804) 649-6000 Advertising Affidavit (This is not a bill, please pay from invoice) CHESTERFILD CO RIGHT WAY RIGHT OF WAY DEPT Account Num.t 220686 04/07/99 CHESTERFIELD, VA. 23832 04/07/99 121 TAKE NOTICE: THAT ON APRIL 14, 1999, AT 1 x 23 106.03 TAKE NOTICE: That on April 14, 1999, at 7:00 p,m or as soon thereafter as bo heard, the Board of Supervl-I sots of Chesterfield Count-/at its regular meeting place in the Pub-I lic Meetir~j Ro~rn of Chesterfield County, Virginia, will consider theI conveyance of parcels of land and easements necessar~ for road irn-] provements to Gemto Road and Warbro Road, Clover Hill District, Chesterfield County, Virginia: A more particular description of~ the parcels and easements to be conveyed and further information | is on file in the office of the Right[ of Way Manager in Chesterfield[ County, Virginia, and may be~ examined by all interested partiasl between the hours of 8:30 a.m.| and 5:00 p.m., Monday throughl Friday Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH This is to certify that the attached MEETINGS - COMING was published by Richmond Newspapers, Inc., in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the following dates: 04/07/99 The first insertion being given .... Sworn to and subscribed before State~ o'/¢Vi)~jtJnia Notary Public City of Richmond My Commission expires 03/31/01' 04/07/99 Superviso~ EVENTS RECEI~E~ · 1 5 1999 UTILITIES R/W S E.,%'T THIS IS NOT A BILL, PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 16.B. Subject: Public Hearing for Zoning Ordinance Amendment Relative to Bon Air Village County_ Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Planning Commission and staff recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment relative to Bon Air Village. Summary_ of information: This is an ordinance which will establish special village zoning regulations for the commercial area of Bon Air. Similar in structure to the other Village Zoning District ( Chester, Ettrick, and Midlothian) yet, these regulations are specifically tailored to the specific conditions and character of Bon Air. It reduces thc minimum setbacks and parking requirements and provides architectural standards for new construction. Affected property owners and Bon Air business and civic leaders have held several meetings to discuss and provide input to the attached ordinance. An explanation of the proposed ordinance standards is also attached. Preparer:~~~ ~ Thomas E. Jacob Attachments: Yes ~-~No Title: Director of Planning D:DATA/AGENDA/1999/APR1499.1/GOK PROPOSED BON AIR VILLAGE ZONING STANDARDS November 10, 1998 Chesterfield County Planning Department Special village character zoning standards are proposed for the Bon Air commercial area, similar to the other village areas. These standards will guide the design of new development to create a design character which is unique to Bon Air. The smaller scale building appearance of Bon Air should be retained with a building orientation to the pedestrians along the front of the buildings. The fighter building form of the older buildings should be retained through zoning setback reductions from the current post development zoning standards. These standards shall be placed in the Village District Standards of the Zoning Ordinance(Chester Village Core provisions will apply except as noted) Proposed Street Section - Bon Air S mall street tree Sidewalk t, treet j ~u~ tree /Masonrywal ~/or he% R ight-of-Way ARCHITECTURE: No architectural style should be mandated because Bon Air has a variety of architectural styles among its substantial buildings. Rather, an architectural requirement should be adopted which provides for the design of buildings to be compatible with area buildings of high quality using traditional and historic ornamentation. The new Exxon and CVS buildings are examples of this approach. The Bon Air Village Area is proposed to be included in Section 19-611(b): ..... "Buildings shall possess architectural variety but shall be compatible with existing structures, especially nearby structures of high historic interest." PARKING: The sidewalks planned for Bon Air will allow customers to park at one business and walk to nearby businesses, similar to shopping centers. Therefore, the shopping center standard minus 10% (4.0 spaces/1000sq, ft.) is recommended for retail and office uses. In addition, the requirements for other uses should similarly be reduced by 10%. Off site parking is to be allowed at churches or other available parking lots through a lease system if located within the village boundary or within 1000 feet of the village boundary. 147 SIGNS: The village sign requirements should be adopted for Bon Air. PEDESTRIAN SCALE DECORATIVE STREET LIGHTS: These lights are being installed in conjunction with the VDOT street and streetscape project. REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS: Reduce to 0' where adjacent to non-residential zoning or use. Parcels which are adjacent to property designated as residential use on the Comprehensive Plan, except property occupied by non-residential use, will have the following requirements: a 15 foot side yard setback with landscaping B a 25 foot rear yard setback with landscaping B either or both setbacks may be reduced to 0 feet through construction of a wall of similar material as the main building or location of a main building wall with no openings adjacent to the residential use.(note: fire and building codes may require more expensive construction techniques when these setbacks are reduced) FRONT SETBACK: Minimum setback shall be 0'. (Buford Road is 70' ultimate ROW, Forest Hill Avenue is 90'). Since the existing R/W is 60', there will be generally a 5' green space behind the sidewalk along Buford Road and a 15' green space behind the sidewalk along Forest Hill for new development subject to these requirements. LANDSCAPING: One large deciduous tree for each 50' lineal feet of road frontage. Three foot high decorative walls or hedge to be required where the parking lot is in front of the building ( Landscaping G as amended). The trees shall be located as close to the street as permitted by the location of the aerial utility lines. The location may be close to the dedicated R/W or located within the dedicated R/W with VDOT approval. HEIGHT: A maximum of three stories or 45 feet, whichever is less, is recommended. These standards will apply to the Bon Air commercial area centered around the intersection of Forest Hill Avenue and Buford Road See attached map. December 9, 1998' BON AIR VILLAGE ZONING DISTRICT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TIlE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-606, 19-607, 19-608 AND 19-609 AND ADDING SECTION 19-613 CREATING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BON AIR VILLAGE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-606, 19-607, 19-608 and 19-609 of the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-606. Areas of applicability and exemptions. The village district shall include all lands specified in this section. OOO (8) The Bon Air Village, comprised of all that area shown on the map entitled "Bon Air Village Zoning District" prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department and dated December 9, 1998. Sec. 19-607. Implementation of plans and guidelines. In acting upon any zoning approval, development approval, historic district, landmark or landmark site designation; or other decision under this article; which decision will impact a designated village district, the responsible body, officer or agent shall review such decisions for conformity with all and any officially adopted plans and guidelines for development within such districts and the following ordinances. Sec. 19-608. Exceptional development standards. (a) Parking: Parking requirements in the village district for indoor commercial recreational facilities; self-service gasoline stations; office buildings of up to 26,500 square feet; restaurants, including fast-food and drive-in restaurants; retail stores; personal services; repair shops; banks; greenhouses; nursery centers; and lawn and garden centers shall be based on the requirements for shopping centers or similar retail groups of buildings as set forth in section 19-513. Improved, designated parking spaces in a public right-of-way may be counted toward the required number of parking spaces so required when more than one-half of each such space adjoins the site. Further, the required number of parking spaces may be reduced by ten percent if the development contains a sidewalk or other pedestrian walkway system that connects to existing walkways or that may be connected to future walkways. In addition if approved by the Director of Planning, in the Bon Air 1014:43141.1 1 3/29/99 2:47 PM Village, a business may reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces by pro-rata if it has an agreement with another entity permitting off-site parking on a lot located within the Bon Air Village boundaries or within 1000 feet of the Bon Air Village boundaries, All other requirements of division 1, subdivision II of this manual shall apply as described. In the Ettrick Business Core, the following uses shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 19-513 and 19-509(b): offices having a gross floor plan area which does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet, restaurants and retail uses, including personal services, repair shops, specialty shops and contractor offices without heavy vehicles or equipment. o00 Street tree planting: Within the Bon Air Village, it is the intent of perimeter landscaping G, as detailed in section 19-518(g)(9), to require the installation of street trees to increase the aesthetic appeal of the village, encourage high-quality development, provide shade for pedestrians and improve the quality of the environment. TO this end, the following standards shall be met when utilizing perimeter landscaping G: (1) The requirements of § 19-518(g)(9)(a) and (c) shall be met. The requirements of § 19-518(g)(9)(b) shall be modified to require continuous three (3) foot high hedge forms a decorative wall for the entire width of a parking lot only if the parking lot is located in front of a building. Trees shall be installed behind the sidewalk. If it is determined during the site plan process to be impractical to install trees behind the sidewalk, they may be installed between the street and the sidewalk, If it is determined during the site plan process to be impractical to locate large deciduous trees due to conflicts with utility lines the trees may be relocated or if that is impractical, small deciduous trees may be substituted. Trees installed shall be suitable for use as street trees and shall be selected for their ability to survive under adverse growing conditions as well as their aesthetic value. While the intent of this section is not to require a single species to be planted throughout the entire village, the director of planning may require a particular species in a particular location based on existing area landscaping. The minimum acreage requirements set forth in sections 19-105 (i) and 19-111 (a) for R-TH and R-MF districts shall not apply within the Chester Village areas. Buffers and screening in the Ettrick Village Core: Buffers required by section 19-523 shall not apply. If parking is provided on any property in an O, C or I district adjacent to an R, 1014:43141.1 2 3/29/99 2:47 PM R-TH or R-MF district, a 1 O-foot wide buffer shall be provided. This buffer shall include an evergreen hedge with a minimum installed height of four feet or a solid fence or wall six feet in height. Along side property lines that abut property in R, R-TH or R-MF districts, this buffer may be reduced to a width of three feet in accordance with Section 19-609(g)(2). Sec. 19-609. Setback requirements for 0 and C Districts. OOO Bon Air Village: The minimum setbacks for all buildings, drives, and surface and deck parking areas shall be as follows; Front and corner side setbacks: The minimum from and corner side setbacks shall be 0 feet. Side setbacks: Except as noted below, the minimum side setback shall be 15 feet with the installation of perimeter landscaping B for property adjacent to any ~ R- TH, R-MF District or any property designated for an R, R-TH or R-MF District on the comprehensive plan or any property used for residential purposes. This setback may be reduced to 0 feet upon installation of a wall, 8 feet in height, made of material similar to the principal building or by locating the main building's wall (with no openings) adjacent to the residential property. When abutting an O, C or I District or property occupied by an O, C or I use, the minimum setback shall be 0 feet. Rear Setbacks: Except as noted below, the minimum side setback shall be 25 feet with the installation of perimeter landscaping B for property adjacent to any R, R- TH, R-MF District or any property designated for an R, R-TH or R-MF District on the comprehensive plan or any property used for residential purposes. This setback may be reduced to 0 feet upon installation of a wall, 8 feet in height, and made of material similar to the principal building or by locating the main building's wall (with no openings) adjacent to the residential property. When abutting an O, C or I District or property occupied by an O, C or I use, the minimum setback shall be 0 feet. (2) That Section 19-613 of the Code of the Count. RI"Chesterfield, 1997, as amended is added to read as.follows: Sec. 19-613. Signs. The applicable sign standards for property located within a village district are contained in 1014:43141.1 3 3/29/99 2:47 PM § 19-644. (3) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1014:43141.1 4 3/29/99 2:47 PM An ~,ffiliate of Media General P.O. BOX 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293-0001 (804) 649-6000 Advertisin9 Affidavit (This is not a bill, please pay from invoice) CHESTERFIELD CO. BO. SUPV ATTN FAITH DAVIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P 0 BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD VA 23832 220806 04/07/99 04/07/99 121 TAKE NOTICE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE BOARD 0 1 x 28 258.16 ~eetlr~ on April 'i4, 11~9 at 7:00 hOUSe, C~d, Virg~nia'wlll ,pre~r~ ~r~ ~ ~r: of ~ ~ d ~n sta~r~ f~ ~ ~n Air; Vitl~. A ~ ~ ~ ~1 text ~ ~ ~[~'s ~ ~d m~ ~ e~ ~e. ~ ~A~r iMorma- t~ ~ ~, p~ ~m~t ~ ~ Attom~'s ~ et 7~- 1~1, ~ t~ h~rs of 8:~ 5:~ p.m. M~ay ~r~; Richmond Newspapers, Inc. Publisher of THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH This is to certify that the attached MEETINGS - COMING EVENTS was published by Richmond Newspapers, Inc., in the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, on the following dates: 03/31/99 04/07/99 The first insertion being given .... Sworn to and subscribed before me this bi'- c~-~~ StatUe o~Vil~jinia Notary Public City of Richmond My Commission expires 03/31/01 03/31/99 Superviso~J THIS IS NOT A BILL, PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 16.C. Subject: Public Hearing for Thc Route 288 Corridor Plan and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments. County_ Administrator's Comments: County_ Administrator: Board Action Requested: The staff recommends approval of the Thc Route 288 Corridor Plan and related Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Summary_ of information: The Planning Commission has recommended Thc Route 288 Corridor Plan, the Water and Wastewater Ordinance Amendment and the Design Standards Ordinance amendment to the Board of Supervisors. The Plan replaces a portion of The Upper Swit~ Creek Plan, and reviewed part of The Midlothian Community Plan. With the construction of Route 288, change is coming to the northwestern part of Chesterfield County. The Route 288 Corridor Plan provides a guide for development in the area surrounding the extension of Route 288. Important issues addressed in The Route 288 Corridor Plan include: Preparer: Attracting high quality economic development proposals to the area. Updating the County's Thoroughfare Plan to reflect the road network necessary to serve future development in this area. Maintaining' of the Swift Creek Reservoir as a drinking water source for County residents. Title: Director of Planning D:DATA/AGENDA/BOS/1999/APR1499.2/GOK Attachments: Yes ~ No 154 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: Summary_ of Information: (Continued) Major recommendations of The Route 288 Corridor Plan include: · Provide land uses that maximize economic development opportunities in the area for the future of the County and the region - Approximately 2800 acres have been designated for industrial, office and other employment uses. · Adopt standards to increase the quality of development in the area. · Promote ongoing efforts to protect water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir and its tributary streams. · Adopt an ordinance that will require new development to utilize public water and sewer. · Create a historic designated area around Hallsborough Tavern and Bethel Baptist Church that will protect these structures for the future. Outstanding Issue: The original staff version of The Route 288 Corridor Plan recommended Regional Employment Center as the land use for the area around the 288/60 interchange. However, the land owner requested that the Plan allow high-end retail uses on the northwest quadrant of Route 288/60. The Planning Commission, after extensive discussion, decided that they would include a note (Note 2, page RT22) to allow high-end retail at this location. The Midlothian District Planning Commissioner voted against the Plan as a result of this decision, and supports instead, a more detailed Appendix C (which is attached). The Bermuda District Planning Commissioner abstained on the vote for the Plan. Attachments: · Draft version of The Route 288 Corridor Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission · Draft Ordinance amendments · Proposed Appendix C: Alternative language to Note 2 of the Land Use Categories (page RT 22, Chart 3). -1.55 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TI-IE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MANU~ OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 19-518, 19-580, 19-581, AND ADDING SECTIONS 19-590.1 19-590.2, 19-590.3, 1%590.4, 19-590.5, 19-590.6, 19-590.7, 19-590.8, 19-590.9 and 19-509.10 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER AREA OF TH2E ROUTE 288 CORRIDOR PLAN BE IT ORDA/NED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sec~ons 19418, 19-580, 19-581 of the Development Standards Manual of the Code of the County qf Cheste~r~eld. 1997, as amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 19 - 518. Plant material specifications. 000 (g) Perimeter Landscaping. Landscaping shall be required at the outer boundaries of projects m' ~ in the required yards of a lot. parcel or development, except when driveways or other openings may be required. There shall be different landscaping requirements in yards and parking areas, as identified herein and in the particular districts, which shall be provided as follows: OOO (11) Perimeter IcaTdscapingL' At least one and one-half(1.5) times perimeter landscapin, C (option II OOO Sec. ~' ' 5oecified Areas~ 19-580. ' ........ -' The Highway Corridor District shall include those lands identified on the zoning district map that include: The Jefferson Davis Highway corridor;, and The Route 360 corridor. The Einplo_wnent Center District shall include all lands identified on the zoning district ma_~ L[I lle~onal Emvloyment Center. 1014(05):23327.1 Revised 2/10/99 at 1:45 p.m. Sec. 19-581. General development standards. ":-' ....... '"---' ~- "': .... Excent for the develonment standards contained in the ~hwav Corridor District and the Empioment Center District. which shall apply to property_ within those districts, all applicable county-wide, emerging growth or post-development standards shall be met. o0o (2} That Sections 19-590.1, 19-590.2, i9-590.3, 19-590.4, 19-590..5, 19-590.6, 19-590.7, 19-590.8, 19-590.9 and 19-509.10 are ,rtrI,,d to the Development Slar~_d__,?ds Manual of the ~ the Cotmtv qf Oh¢~q_rf~eld, 1997, as amended, to read as follows: ARTICLE III. DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE1VIENTS - OFFICE, COMIVIERC~ AND INDUSTRIAL DMSION 2. DEVELOPMENT REQLTEREMENTS -SPECIFIED AREAS Sec. 19-590.1. Purpose and/n~¢nf~ of Employment Center District: The ouroose of this division is to provide standards that will encourage and enhance the develooment of quail _ty office and indust~l pgrks. The intent of this division is to establish soecial r _egulations which mandate specific land l~S~ regulations and develooment standards and reauirements to nroduce comvafible land use hatteras: create aesthetically pl~,aning developments: encourage the use ofoualitv materials for building construction: orovide continuity_ and sufficient levels of landscaping and lighting throughout each development, and vromote improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation while maintainin~ flexibility where nossible. Sec, 19-590.2. Design Standards for Off-Street Parking in the Employment Center District. (a) Surface Treatment: With the exception of areas where track mounted eouivment is stored. parking areas and driveways shaft be raved with concrete, bituminous concrete or similar material. (b) 3htmber qf'~vaces; The required number of harking snaces may be reduced by ten (10~ percent if the development includes a oedestrian way that connects to an existing or proposed oedestrian way. or that may be connected to a future vedestrian way. Sec. 19-590.3. Yard Requirements in the Employment Center District. 1014(05):23327.1 Revised 2/10/99 at 1:45 p.m. (a) Setbacks ,~lone 29[a_ior Arterials excluding limited access roads: Ali buildings, drives and parking areas shall have a minimum seventy_ -five (75~ foot setback from the proposed rights-of-w~ of major arterials, excluding limited access roads, as indicated on the comvrehensive plan. Within these setbacks, landscaping shall be installed in accordance with perimeter landscaping I. (bi Front and Comer ,gide Yards Setbacks Along Collector ,gtreets: The front and comer side ward setback for buiIdings, drives, and parking areas shall be a minimum of forty (40~ feet from the proposed fights-of-way of collector streets, as indicated on the comprehensive plan. However. in an I-2 district, setbacks shall be increased to sixty_ (60~ feet. and in an I-3 district, setbacks shah be incr~sed to ninety (90~ feet. Within these setbacks, landscanin~ shall be installed in accordance with nerimeter tandscanin~ C. (c) Other Frorlt and Comer ,gide Yards: The front and comer side yard setback for buildings. drives, and parking areas shall be a minimum of twenty-five (255 feet from proposed rights-of-way excent those indicated as limited access, maior arterials, and collector streets on the comr~rehensive plan. Within these setbacks_ landscaping shall be installed in accordance with perimeter landscapinz Sec, 19-590.4. Exterior Lighting in the Employment Center District. (al StreetL~hting: Street li_mhfing shah be installed at all comers of street intersections. Street lights shall be high cut off.shoe-box style lighting fixtures. .(b~_ £i~.h~qrlg ~r7thin a Site: Parking lot and access lighting within an individual site shall be ~igh cut off.shoe-box stvte lighting fixtures and shah not exceed thirty (30~ feet in height and desi[.,ned minimize light st~ilIover into residential areas. Sec. 19-590.5. Outdoor Storage in the Emoiovment Center District. (a) Amount: Outdoor storage, if permitted bv the undert,ving zoning district as accessory_ to permitted use. shall be limited to no more than 50% of the _cross floor area of the principal use. 0o~ Screening: All outdoor storaee shall be screened from view from any adjacent nroperties and public ri_mhts-of-wav. Screenine shah be accomplished by building desire or by the use of durable architectural walls constructed of¢omnarable materials to the t~rincioai buildine and using a desire compatible to the ~rincinal building on the t~ro~ertv. Sec. 19-590.6. Screening of Solid Waste Storage Areas in the Employment Center District. All ~olid waste storage areas shall be screened from view ofadiacent property_ and public rights-of- way_ by a masortrv or concrete wall which is constructed of comparable materials to and desi_tmed to be compatible with' the principal building that the solid waste storage area serves. 1014(05):23327.1 Revised 2/10/99 at 1:45 p.m. Sec. 19-590.7. Architectural Treatment in the Employment Center District. Architectural treatment of buildings, including materials, color and style, shall be compatible with buildines located wit~hin the same proiect or within the same block or directly across an_v street Compatibility may be achieved throueh the use of similar building massing, materials, scale, colors or other architectural features. Nothing_ in this section shall preclude the use of different materials on different building exteriors but rather, shall oreclude the use oflnferior materials on sides which face ad_ioining property_. No building exterior (whether front, side. or rear'} shall consist ot- architectural materials irLferior in nullity_, appearance or d~ail to any other exterior of the same buildimz. No buildin~ ex-terio~; (-whether ~ont. side or rear'~ shah be constructed of metal or un,dom-ed coat-,e lc bloc-k. The exterior of outbuildings shall not be constructed of materials inferior to those of the ~diiiarv building and shall be architecturally consistent with the primary_ building. Mechanical eouiarnent~ whether ground-level or root~op, shall be screened from view of ad_iacent property_ and t~ui~lie rights-of-way and designed to be perceived as an inte_m'al part of the building. Sec. 19-590.8. l:Ieights in the Employment Center District. Excent as outlined in sections 19-507 and 19-507.1. the height of any building within any O nfl qlisi~ i~t shall be t~e~niitted to be a maximum of 150 feet in height. The height of any other building or structure shall be as st~ecified in § 19-598. See. 19-590.9. Loading and Storage Areas in the Employment Center District. Buildings ad_iacent to limited access roads shall be oriented such that loading and storage areas are located internally. This shall be accomnlished through the use ofbuilding orientation and site desire. Sec. 19-590.10. Design of BMP's in the Emnlovment Center District. Any BMPs reo. uired for water ~uantity or quality, control shall be designed as retention basins and ~hall be landscaped or otherwise imnroved, so that the facilities become visual enhancements. BMP's shall include landseanimz adiacent to the BMP's. eentty sloping banks, and an-uric, and where itppropriate, sub-aouatie. ~)antings. Any fencing usec~ shall be of an ornamental desitin. At the time of site ulan review, a alan depicting these reouirements shall be submitted for review and approval. (2} That this orch'nance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1014(05) :23327. i Revised 2/10/99 at 1:45 p.m. 4 AN ORDINANCE TO AMENrD THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CH:ESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 17-91, 18-63 AND 18-64, RELATING TO WATEK AND WASTEWATEK CONNECTIONS IN THE KOUTE 288 CORKIDOR PLAN AREA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County.: (1) That Sections 17-91, 18-63 and 18-64 of the Code of the County. of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, are amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 17-91. Size of lots served by conventional septic systems. (a) In any subdivision utilizing conventional septic systems the average lot size shall be no less than 40,000 square feet, at least 90 percent of all lots in the subdivision shall be at least 40,000 square feet in size, and no lot shall be less than 30,000 square feet in size. In addition, all lots in the subdivision shall have a minimum lot width of 120 feet measured at the building line. This subsection shall apply to any property for which residential zoning is obtained a,ffer February 23, 1989; however, this subsection shall apply to every residential lot which is recorded atter January 1, 1991. (b) No subdivision of Iand within the Southern and Western Plan Area for which residential zoning is obtained after -~- -~'- ~:--- ~ .... ~'~'-' .... ' .... '-- [Ju ] ,,,~ ~.,~,v~ ,,,~,~ ~, ,,,~- o~-~,--~-~,,, ne 23, 1993 may utilize conventional septic systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size and located in those areas designated in the county's comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density category. (Areas colored tan on the Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan.) ~ No subdivision of land within the Route 288 Corridor Plan Area for which residential zoning is obtained after (effective date) may, utilize conventional sentic systems unless all lots in such subdivision are at least one acre in size and located in those areas desi~ated in the counr?'s comt>rehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density category. (Areas colored tan on the Route 288 Corridor Plan areaY (Code 1978, § 18.1-55) ooo Sec. 18-63. Mandatory water connections in certain areas. 0oo (b) Ail structures which are located on property that is included in the Southern and Western 1014:23333.1 I 12/9/98 4:40 PM /.GO Area Plan described in the subdivision ordinance and which received zoning approval aiter .rune 23, 1993 shall connect to the water system. However, the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the water system is otherwise required by law: (1) Temt~orary_ manufactured or mobile homes Mobit-~'~; (2) Structures that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed after .rune 23, 1993; (3) Structures that are anthorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted aiter June 23, 1993 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a private well; (4) Governmental ~ and institutional buildings; and (5) Kesidences-that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. (.~ All structures which are located on property_ that is included in the Route 298 Corridor Plan Area as shown in comprehensive plan. and which received zonin~ approval after (adoption date here] shall connect to The water system. However. ~he following structures shall not be r~quired to connect unless connection to the water system is otherwise reauired by law: (1) Temporary_ manufactured or mobile homes: 5ltrucmres that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were rer~ewed after (adoption date herek (3) gtructures that are authorized bv conditional uses or special exceptions that were wanted after (adoption date betel if the use that is verrnitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was p~'eviously allowed with a private well: (4) Government'al structures and institutional buildin;,s: and (5) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. (cgi) For purposes of this section "structure" and "institutional building" shall have the same meaving as in the zoning ordinance. (de) The planning commission may grant exceptions to subsections (b) ~ during schematic plan, site plan or tentative subdivision review. The PIanning Commission ma_v also ~ant excevtions to subsections (bi and (cl to an ar~vlicant who files an application with the planning d~pm i. ment on a fo~ prescribed bv the d'i~ector of planning and who pays a fee of 5;260.00 to the plarming depa~ient, if the applicant is not su~ect to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review nrocess, i~'t~he planning commission ~hall finds that: (1) The use of~ private well will not adversely affect the ability to extend public water to other property;, (2) The use ora private well will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) The use of a private well is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public healtk, sat'ety or welfare. The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impact of any exception that it grants. 1014:23333.1 2 12/9/98 4:40 PM (Code 1978, § 20-~3) Sec. 18-64. Mandatory. wastewater connection in certain areas. (a) All structures which are located on property that is included in the Southern and Western Area Plan described in the subdivision ordinance and which received zoning approval after 1une 23, 1993 shall connect to the wastewater system. However, the following structures shall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law: (1) Single-family dwellings on lots which are at least one acre in size and which are located in areas that are designated in the comprehensive plan for single-family residential use in the lowest density category (areas colored tan on the Southern and Western Area Land Use Plan); (2) Temnorarv manufactured or M~oblle homes; (3) Stru~ture~ that were authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions which were renewed a~er 1une 23, 1993; (4) Structures 'that are authorized by conditional uses or special exceptions that were granted a~er June 23, 1993 if the use that is permitted by the conditional use or special exception is incidental to a principal use that was previously allowed with a septic system; (5) Govemmemal structures and institutional buildings; and (6) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. ~ ~Ul structures which are located on property that is included in the Route.288 Corridor Plan Area as shown in the comprehensive plan. and which received zoning approval a~er (adoption date here~ shall connect to the wastewater system. However. the folIowing structures ~hall not be required to connect unless connection to the wastewater system is otherwise required by law: (~) (1) Sinele-famiiy dwellings on lots which are at least one acre in size and which are ~ ' local;ed in areas that are designated in the comt~rehensive plan for sinde-familv residential use in the lowest density category_ (areas colored tan on the Route 288 Corridor Plan area'~ ~ Temtmrarv manufactured or mobile homes: L~32 5tru~ture~ that were authorized bv conditional uses or soecial excetnions which were renewed aider (adoprion date here'S: (4) Structures that are authorized bv conditional uses or snecial exceptions that were _erznted after (adoption date here] if the use that is oermitted by the conditional use or special eXCgl~tion is incidental to a _orincipal use that was p~ousty allowed with a semic system: (5) Governmental structures and institutional buildings: and (6) Residences that are located on lots that are exempt from the reouirements of the subdivision ordinance. For purposes of this section, "structure," "single-family dwelling" and 'Lnstitutional 1014:23333.1 3 1219/98 4:40 PM building" shall have the same meaning as in the zoning ordnance. (mil) The Planning Comrrfission may also _tram exceptions to subsections (b) and (c) to an applicant who files an application with the plarm/ng department on a form prescribed by the director of planning and who pays a fee of $260.00 to the planning department, if the applicant is got subject to the schematic, site plan or subdivision review process, iqtI'he planning commission shall finds that: (1) The use of a septic system will not adversely affect the ability to extend public sewer to other property; (2) The use ora septic system will not encourage future development that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) The use of a septic system is not reasonably likely to adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The planning commission may impose conditions to mitigate the impacts of any exception that it grants. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immeda'ately upon adoption. 1014:23333.1 4 12/9/98 4:40 PM 1t::;3 Appendix C The primary purpose of the Regional Employment Center (the "REC") is to encourage the expansion of the local tax base with the development of office, reseamh and development facilities, warehouse and other light industrial uses, as well as retail necessary to support those uses. The REC represents one of the County's last opportunities to establish and promote a large, regional employment center. Planning the development of this area is important to the county and its citizens. Typical strip retail development, if allowed, could overwhelm the Route 60lRoute 288 corridor and frustrate the goals of the REC. But, this does not mean the REC should be devoid of retail development. An employment area of the magnitude suggested by this Plan must allow and provide for retail services needed to support businesses and employees within the REC. Such a design can also create a symbiotic relationship that helps reduce traffic congestion on Route 60 and Route 711. In addition, a convenient, well designed, and attractive shopping complex and lifestyle center within the Northwest quadrant of Route 288 and Route 60 can stimulate economic growth by expanding and diversifying the local tax base. However, any new retail development that simply duplicates the existing retail development by drawing essentially from the existing market area would not be beneficial to the overall tax base of the County. Ample additional areas for future retail development have already been designated and allowing typical retail to continue to creep down Route 60 would only serve to cannibalize exiting retail and frustrate other Plans which already provide for additional retail. Instead, a lifestyle center would be desirable if it did not replace existing retail but was instead designed to attract shoppers from a different and wider (regional) market The lifestyle center could serve as a focal point for the REC, contribute to the local ambience, and create a "sense of place." Consequently, a high fashion and regional-scale lifestyle commercial development (in addition to any permitted supporting and associated/integrated neighborhood scale retail uses) would be appropriate within the northwest quadrant of Route 288 and Route 60 based on the following criteria: 1. The majodty of the proposed major tenants are classified as high end/high fashion companies. Examples include, but are not limited to, Nordstroms, Bloomingdales, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor, and Saks Fifth Avenue. A focus should also be on tenants with a "flagship store" strategy. 2. "Flagship Store." Flagship stores are larger and have a broader scope of merchandise than a prototypical regional mall store. These retailers may combine multiple divisions or merchandise collections within one store. These types of stores are also strategically located to draw customers from a larger geographic base. Usually, although not exclusively, flagship stores have one large store to serve a large metropolitan region. 3. High-end home furnishings or home accessory tenant. 4. Entertainment tenants such as movie theaters, other performance venues such as community stage theaters, or theme destinations entertainment retailers. 5. Related uses such as offices, hotels, upscale restaurants, residential units, and other entertainment uses could also be included within such a lifestyle center provided they ara integrated into the complex. If properly integrated or planned, such a complex could also contain some neighborhood retail uses. 6. Route 288 adjacent to the Regional Employment Center should be open to traffic before any regional retail center is opened. 7. This high-end retail development should complement the employment center and not overwhelm it. 8. Design standards Should incorporate architectural compatibility within the lifestyle center. 9. Any associated and supporting retail use should avoid typical "strip commercial" characteristics and provide architectural compatibility, interior circulation, pedestrian access features, and other design elements to better integrate such uses into the REC. :1.64 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The newest gateway into Chesterfield County, the Route 288 Corridor, will provide unmatched economic development potential for northwestern Chesterfield. Currently, this area mainly contains agricultural uses and vacant land. Over the next several years, with effective planning and the support of local property owners and citizens, this area can become one of the region's premier office and light industrial employment centers. Important issues addressed in the Route 288 Corridor planning effort include: · Recognizing the key strategic location of the Route 288 Corridor for future economic development in northwestern Chesterfield County. · Updating the County's Thoroughfare Plan to reflect the road network necessary to serve future development in this area. · Maintaining the health of the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir as a drinking water source for County residents. · Attracting high quality economic development proposals to the area. · Providing adequate public facilities to address the impact of new development. Key Findings include: · Vacant Land: The area is largely undeveloped and zoned for agriculture at this time, with only three subdivisions and a few other residences scattered throughout the study area. · Potential for Change: With the construction of Route 288, the area will see tremendous change over the next several years, from development of infrastructure to the development of new office parks and light industrial uses. · Swift Creek Reservoir: A model developed by a member of the County's Watershed Committee found that existing and projected land uses in the watershed would result in an in-lake phosphorous concentration of .0493 milligrams/liter (mg/I). A consultant-conducted study found that the land use modifications anticipated by this Plan would result in an in-lake phosphorous concentration of .0501 mg/I, a 1.5 percent increase over the concentration predicted by the original watershed committee model. While both the original model and the consultant's study evaluated the impact of several land use scenarios on phosphorus concentrations in the Reservoir, the values reported in this discussion refer only to average lot sizes of one half acre. This residential density was used because it is considered to be the most likely to be implemented. · Public Facilities: There are limited public facilities and utilities in the area. As development occurs, public utilities will have to be constructed by the developers. · Historic Resources: There are four (4) historic resources in the study area; only one (1) of them, Hallsborough Tavern, is designated as a County historic landmark. All four (4) are in good condition. · Emerging Opportunities: This area, due to its proximity to an excellent transportation network, regional employment centers and a well educated work force, is poised to become another regional employment center. Major Recommendations of The Plan: · Provide land uses that maximize economic development opportunities in the area for the future of the County and the region. · Adopt standards to increase the quality of development required in this area. · Promote ongoing efforts to protect water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir and its tributary streams. · Adopt an ordinance that will require new development to utilize public water and sewer. · Create a historic area around Hallsborough Tavern and Bethel Baptist Church that will protect these structures for the future. DRAFT 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Table Of Contents Introduction The Citizen Participation Process Existing Conditions and Important Issues Emerging Opportunities A Plan For Action Goals Recommendations The Land Use Plan Page RT 1 RT 2 RT 3 RT 13 RT 16 RT 17 RT 20 Map List of Maps A Base Map B Approved Area Developments C Existing Generalized Land Use D Historic Resources E Character Type Map F The Route 288 Corridor Land Plans Use and Thoroughfare Follows Page RT 1 RT 4 RT 5 RT 10 RT 12 RT 21 DRAFT 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor P/an INTRODUCTION The Route 288 Corridor Plan area (as shown on Map A), located in northwest Chesterfield County, is an area that is currently used primarily for agriculture, large lot residences or vacant land. With the construction of Route 288, many changes will occur in the area. Route 288 will bring regional access, connecting western Chesterfield with Powhatan, Goochland and Henrico and providing opportunities for the entire County. Route 288's importance to the region is vital. The limited access highway will connect to Powhite Parkway, extend through Chesterfield, with new interchanges at Lucks Lane/Center Pointe Parkway, Woolridge Road Extended and Midlothian Turnpike. It will go through Powhatan County, cross the James River, connecting with the West Creek development in Goochland County and Interstate 64. Chesterfield County residents and businesses will then have direct access to Goochland and western Henrico County. This access will provide additional opportunities for economic development in the Route 288 Corridor area that were not present previously. Development that occurs as a result of Route 288 must be guided to ensure that full advantage is taken of this unique opportunity for Chesterfield. This area is an important part of Chesterfield County's economic future. This Plan seeks to maximize the opportunities presented by the construction of Route 288, providing a guide for positive development of the area. How This Plan Works The Route 288 Corridor Plan, once adopted by the Board of Supervisors, will become part of The Plan for Chesterfield, the County's comprehensive plan. The Plan for Chesterfield is used by County citizens, staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as a guide for future decisions in the County, including, but not limited to, decisions regarding future land use, road networks and rezonings. Once The Route 288 Corridor Plan is adopted, it will replace parts of The Upper Swift Creek Plan (1991) and The Midlothian Community. Plan (1989). The adoption of The Route 288 Corridor Plan will not, however, change any of the current ordinance requirements adopted to protect water quality in the Upper Swift Creek watershed. The Route 288 Corridor Plan makes no recommendations to change land uses in The Midlothian Community. Plan, but there are proposed amendments to the County's Thoroughfare Plan within The Midlothian Community. Plan area that are recommended. A Plan for Action The following main components are found in The Route 288 Corridor Plan: · Existing Conditions and Important Issues: This information forms the factual basis for the goals, recommendations and implementation strategies found in the Plan. · Emerging Opportunities: This section highlights changes that will be brought by Route 288 and the opportunities that are associated with its construction. · Goals: These are general statements about what is desirable for the future - what the Plan attempts to accomplish. · Recommendations: These are statements on ways to reach the goals and what actions should be taken to achieve them. · The Land Use and Transportation Plan: The Plen will be used as a guide for future development decisions. DRAFT RTl 2/23/99 Study Area Boundary No Scale Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department November, 1998 Revised Draft (Map A) Rt. 288 Corridor Plan ! ! THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS The Importance of Citizen Participation In order for any plan to stand the test of time, citizens must support it. Citizen support for a plan and its concepts is built through a process of citizen involvement where citizens' viewpoints, questions and concerns are considered and taken into account. This Plan seeks to build upon the interests of citizens in the County, present and future. Public Involvement To respond to the high level of citizen and community interest in this Plan, numerous meetings were held with citizens, community groups, property owners and individuals. A mailing list was maintained of all property owners in the area, as well as anyone who requested information about the Pla.n or attended any meetings about the Plan. At two (2) informational meetings held in Summer 1997, approximately 180 citizens attended to find out more about the planning process and the study area. Over the course of the next ten (10) months, approximately twenty (20) smaller meetings were held with interested citizens to keep them informed about the planning process. In June 1998, the concepts of the Plan were reviewed with citizens for their input at four (4) public meetings, with a total attendance of approximately 200 people. Citizens shared ideas with staff throughout the planning process and offered staff suggestions to make this Plarl one that will be successful in the future. The Route 288 Corridor Plan's successful implementation will be a joint effort by the County and community. DRAFT RT2 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan EXISTING CONDITIONS AND IMPORTANT ISSUES Extensive analysis of existing conditions in the Route 288 Corridor planning area, including valuable information generated through the citizen participation process, forms the foundation for identifying key planning issues and factors. Information about the Route 288 Corridor was gathered from many sources, including field surveys and County records. An understanding of the characteristics and trends that influence development potential in the area provides a sound basis for planning and policy decisions that will shape the Route 288 Corridor's future. Key findings from the research include: · The majority of the land in the planning area is currently vacant or held in large agricultural or residential parcels; · Numerous proposed large scale development projects are zoned in or near the planning area that could have a significant effect on future growth and traffic patterns; · The area has important environmental features, including the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir watershed, streams and wetlands. Demographic and Economic Information Demographic and economic information was obtained from 1990 U. S. Census data. The data was updated where possible by using field surveys conducted by the Chesterfield County Planning Department to determine the number and type of houses in the area. Estimates of population were then based on the observed number of houses multiplied by the number of persons per household in 1990. · Population: The population of the planning area in 1997 was approximately 1,040 people, .4 percent of the 1997 Planning Department's County-wide estimate of 250,000. Income and Unemployment: 1990 Census data shows unemployment in the planning area was 2 percent, below the County-wide figure of 3.3 percent. The estimated 1990 median household income of the planning area was $66,535, above Chesterfield's $43,604. The poverty level was 2.7 percent compared to the County's 6 percent. Chart 1 Home Ownership Comparisons Study Area l~ ~ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% '100% Source: Chesterfield County Planning Department/U.S. Census (1990) · Community: The community is very stable as the area is rural and has seen slow growth. Chart 1 shows that 96 percent of the planning area's residences are owner-occupied. Land Use The Route 288 Corridor planning area consists mostly of agricultural uses and vacant land. Land use data was gathered from an existing database of County real estate tax records and field surveys. There DRAFT RT3 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor P/an are 526 parcels in the planning area. The combined area of those parcels is approximately 6,943 acres; 2.4 percent of Chesterfield County's 285,702 total acres. Large Tracts: There are thirty-three (33) parcels that each exceed fifty (50) acres, and combined account for about 5,022 acres or 72 percent of the planning area's acreage. Approximately 67 percent of these parcels are zoned for agriculture and approximately 72 percent are currently vacant or used for agriculture. These tracts are located throughout the area and present opportunities for future large scale development projects. Existing Zoning: The zoning of property determines the uses that are allowed on that land. For example, property that is zoned for residential land uses will have a zoning category that begins with R. The number following the R represents the required lot size for the category (R-7 requires a minimum 7,000 square foot lot, R-9 requires a minimum 9,000 square foot lot and so on). Agricultural (A) zoning allows large lot residential uses and farm uses. It may also be the zoning category for land that has not yet been zoned to another category for development. Table 1 shows a breakdown of zoning categories for the Route 288 planning area. As shown in the table, the majority of the land in the planning area is currently zoned A. The few office and commercially zoned areas are primarily Table 1 Zoning Analysis Percentages given are rounded. Zoning Acres Pct. A (Agricultural) 4,900 71% R-7 (Residential) 481 7% R-9 921 13% R-15 177 3% R-25 33 0% 0-2 (Office) 149 2% C-2 (Commercial) 3 0% C-3 75 1% I-1 (Light Industry) 204 3% Rt. 288 Study Area 6,943 100% Source: Chesterfield County Planning Department located along Midlothian Turnpike with a concentration just before the Powhatan County line. Most of the industrial zoning is in the Sommerville development located on Midlothian Turnpike. Table 2 Approved Future/Adjacent Developments Because most of the existing zoning in this area was zoned through a Conditional Use Planned Development, specific uses allowed may not be reflected through the underlying zoning category. Name Zoning and Acreage per Category Comment Acropolis i69 iO-2 iMixed -Use development allowing office and commercial i iuses' ~'fii'~ls~'i';;~ ...... T~'~:f ............. i.~:~..i~.5;~i.~..~.:~.~..~.~.~i:§.~..~:~/fi:i..i~.~.~ii~.i~.~ki:.~.~.~.~i~.~.~i~i~ ~'~i~i'~i~'~;~'~ ......... iC-3 (41), 0-2 (400) ~mmercial uses. 5~F'~[~'~"~ ............. ~'~:6'D~:'~"~:~'~'[~'~'~:'~"~:~'~:~ ........... ~';;~:'O'~'~'~i~'~F~'[f~g[~"~'~[i'~[:'~:"~'~ ......... commercial uses. This development also includes the Midlothian ~mpus of John Tyler Commun ~ Co ege ~;~'~;FFiR~;"'"~'~'~' ......... ['N:~'t'i'5~:~)':'5:~'5~7 ................................ ~'f;;5:o'~'~'a'~F~'~i'~'i¢~g[~";~'~[i~'i:'3~'~'~'~a ......... commercial uses. f~;"~F;;;' ........... ~'~ ............. ~.~}~.~Z~:~.~:i.~.~(T~:~:~:f~.~;;~:~;~.;~;i~.~i~[[~;~.;;~.;~[(~.i~.~: ................ ~R-MF (21.3), 0-2 (16.6), 0-3 (56.7) ~commercial, outdoor recreational, and publi~semi-public i uses, ~'~'~ ~ ~ii¥~ ....... ~ ~ ~'~ ............. ~i:~' ....................................................................... ~ ~¥;~a:'O~'a'~ ~i~'~i"~'~i~ ~";~'~ ~'~'~;'~;~' ¥i~'~i ..... [industrial and commercial uses. limited commercial uses. .~ource: Chesterti~ld County 151arming Department Approved Area Developments: There are seven (7) major approved developments in, or immediately adjacent to, the planning area and near the proposed extension of Route 288 (see Map B). These seven (7) developments are Acropolis, CenterPointe, Charter Colony, Greensprings, The DRAFT RT4 2/23/99 Virginia Revised Draft (Map B) APPROVED AREA DEVELOPMENTS ~ Watkins Nurseries ."-I \ Ivymont Square Charter Note: The boundaries shown are approximate and for general reference only. Charter Colony John Tyler Community ollege Charter Colony Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department November, 1998 No Scale Brandermill 'Midlothian Village NPIKE Queensmill PK. THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Grove, Sommerville and Waterford. All of these projects have seen limited development or have not begun to develop. Land Use Analysis This land use analysis reviewed the existing use of property in the Route 288 planning area in 1998 (see Map C). It does not analyze what the land is zoned or what the property is designated for in the future. Undeveloped and Agricultural Land: This category includes vacant land and agricultural uses as well as residential uses on parcels ten (10) acres or greater. It accounts for 200 parcels and 6,285 acres, approximately 90 percent of the total acreage in the planning area. These parcels vary in size and are located throughout the planning area. Most of the land is zoned for agricultural or residential uses. Table 3 Existing Land Use Percentages given are rounded. Land Use Acres Percentage Undeveloped and 6,285 90% Agricultural Residential 445 6% Commercial 107 2% Industrial~Office 81 1% Public\Semi-Public 24 1% Total 6,943 100% Source: Chesterfield County Planning Department Residential: This includes all parcels currently used for homes on less than ten (10) acres. Residential land uses comprise 445 acres (6.4 percent) of the planning area. Approximately one-third of the residences are scattered on agriculturally zoned parcels of less than ten (10) acres in size. The remaining are in residential neighborhoods. Currently there are three (3) neighborhoods in the area: Huguenot Ridge, located on Huguenot Springs Road; Buckingham Manor, on Otterdale Road; and Otterdale, also on Otterdale Road. Huguenot Ridge has thirty (30) approved lots, six (6) of which have been developed. Buckingham Manor has developed thirteen (13) of its eighteen (18) approved lots, while Otterdale Subdivision has developed 137 of its 140 approved lots. Commercial: Commercial uses account for approximately 1.5 percent of the planning area's land use (107 acres). These uses are located along Midlothian Turnpike. The primary commercial uses are Watkins Nursery and Windy Hill Sports Complex. Watkins Nursery grows and sells plants for landscaping purposes and plans to relocate before the construction of Route 288. Windy Hill Sports Complex is on the west-bound side of Midlothian Turnpike just past Huguenot Springs Road. The complex has batting cages, miniature golf, a driving range and has recently added a nine-hole golf course. Industrial: Industrial and office land uses account for 1.2 percent or eighty-one (81) acres of the planning area's uses. These uses include the Sommerville Industrial and Office Park and a Virginia Power substation on Dry Bridge Road, one-half mile south of Midlothian Turnpike. It has several high voltage transmission wires leading to it through several properties. · Public/Semi Public: See Public Facilities on page RT 7. Environmental Factors In guiding future land use decisions in the planning area, environmental features should be considered. Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed: The portion of the planning area south of Midlothian Turnpike is located in this 41,950 acre watershed and contains two (2) of the nine (9) major tributaries that drain to the Swift Creek Reservoir. Located west of Route 288 between Route 360 and Genito Road, the Swift Creek Reservoir covers 1,700 acres. One of Chesterfield County's three (3) principal water sources, it produces approximately eight (8) million gallons of drinking water per day for 30 percent of County citizens. The Reservoir also functions as a recreational and aesthetic resource for residents of DRAFT RT5 2/23/99 Residential Commercial Industrial Public/Semi-Publio Vacant/Agrioultural Draft Rt. 288 Corridor Plan J ~r~ ~ ~ ~,~;; StudyArea Boundary No Scale Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department June, 1998 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan surrounding areas. At this time, the Reservoir's overall water quality is good. However, only a small portion of the Reservoir's watershed, approximately 12 percent, is developed. The remainder of the large watershed area has been recommended by County plans for significant future growth. Without adequate management, such growth could result in the generation of large amounts of nutrients and pollutants on the Reservoir. These could cause taste and odor problems in the treated water, excessive algae blooms and depleted oxygen levels, affecting fish and other aquatic organisms, the aesthetic value of the Reservoir and its viability as a drinking water supply. Further, nutrients and pollution in the Reservoir may have an economic impact as well. As water quality decreases, the cost of treatment can increase. To address all of these concerns, in 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Watershed Management Plan for the area. The Watershed Management Plan includes an in-lake phosphorous limit and establishes measures such as a reduced phosphorous standard for new residential development and the construction of regional Best Management Practice(BMP) basins to filter pollutants to meet this limit. Watershed Standards and The Route 288 Corridor Plan: Early in the planning process, citizens expressed concern about the continued health of the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir. Their concerns focused on higher intensity uses that may be allowed as a result of this Plan. In order to respond effectively to these concerns, the Environmental Engineering Department contracted with a consultant to update the land uses in the water quality model used by the County and the County's Watershed Management Committee to reflect the recommended land uses in The Route 288 Corridor Plan. The results of this modeling showed that the land use modifications anticipated by this Plan would result in an in-lake phosphorous concentration of .0501 milligrams/liter, a 1.5% increase over the concentration predicted by the original watershed committee model. While both the original model and the consultant's study evaluated the impact of several land use scenarios on phosphorus concentrations in the Reservoir, the values reported in this discussion refer only to average lot sizes of one half acre. This residential density was used because it is considered to be the most likely to be implemented. Tributary Streams: The Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed contains nine (9) tributary streams that lead to the Reservoir. Two (2) of these, Tomahawk Creek and Little Tomahawk Creek, drain to the Route 288 Corridor planning area. Tributary streams are important to the health of the reservoir because they can convey pollutants to the Reservoir. Further, the streams are also important environmental resources. The direct benefits of the streams include providing wildlife habitat and aesthetic value to an area. Stream water quality can be adversely affected as a result of sediment, metals and bacteria running off parking tots and other paved surfaces. In particular, the high levels of imperviousness (surfaces which do not absorb water) typically associated with commercial and high density residential growth can adversely affect streams by increasing the volume of water draining to them. This can result in a number of impacts, including stream bank erosion and sedimentation, resulting in negative impacts on aquatic organisms in the streams and affect aesthetics as well. VVhere appropriate, stream buffers can provide protection of wetland and floodplain areas which, in turn, serves to control both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. Topography and Soils: The topography of the planning area consists principally of flatlands and rolling hills typical of the Piedmont physiographic region. Soils in the planning area can be characterized as moderately to well drained. There are some areas, however, that are characterized by clayey or hydric soils, which do not drain well. Existing Regulations to Protect the Reservoir: The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, Upper Swift Creek, Floodplain and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinances are the regulations that limit the amount of pollutants entering the Reservoir from both non-residential and residential growth. As a DRAFT RT6 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor P/an means of further reducing the amount of pollutants, the recently adopted Watershed Management Plan for the watershed establishes a stringent phosphorus standard for new development and recommends the installation of a series of regional retention basins to filter a significant portion of the pollutants in stormwater runoff from developed land. Existing Regulations to Protect Streams: The two (2) measures to protect the streams are the County's Erosion and Sediment Control and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Ordinances. The first Ordinance limits the amount of sediment that is allowed to enter a stream during construction activities. The second Ordinance establishes Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) adjacent to perennial streams. The establishment of RPAs is intended to ensure an adequate buffer between environmental resources (such as wetlands and streams) and development. RPAs reduce and filter the pollutants in stormwater runoff. The RPA boundaries in the watershed were established by delineating an area measured from the limits of the 100 year floodplain where available or from the edge of hydric soils. As it is currently written, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Ordinance allows these RPA areas to be reduced by permitting the area to be "redelineated" by measuring the area from field-delineated wetlands rather than the floodplain. In most cases, these redelineations result in a reduction in the RPA, thus affording less protection for the streams. Further, 100 year floodplain areas adjacent to non-perennial streams can be cleared. Public Facilities Facilities: There are no parks, schools, fire or rescue stations currently located in the planning area boundaries. However, the County's 1995 Public Facilities Plan recommends construction of an elementary school in the southeastern part of the planning area by the year 2015. A community park and a fire station are also planned within the planning area. John Tyler Community College: John Tyler Community College-Northern Branch will be located in the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of Charter Colony Parkway and Woolridge Road Extended. Public WaterA/Vastewater Systems Existing Water and Wastewater Systems: The use of public water and wastewater systems is currently recommended for all development within The Upper Swift Creek Plan. Provisions of the County Code and conditions of zoning, tentative subdivision and/or site plan approval may require the use of public systems. Due to the variability of construction costs and other factors, specific water and wastewater line extensions needed for future development should be discussed far in advance with the Utilities Department. Information relating to water and wastewater infrastructure may be found in The Water and Wastewater Facilitie~ Plan. The planning area is served by several large water mains, a twenty-four (24) inch line along Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) and a twenty-four (24) inch line along Coalfield Road. The area is also served by an existing water tank at Huguenot Springs Road. That portion of the planning area located south of Midlothian Turnpike is served by a sixty (60) inch wastewater trunk along Genito Road, the Upper Swift Creek wastewater pumping station and the Bailey's Bridge pumping station. An eighteen (18) to twenty-seven (27) inch wastewater trunk along Little Tomahawk Creek has been DRAFT RT7 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan extended to serve the John Tyler Community College-Northern Campus and adjacent properties. That portion of the planning area located north of Midlothian Turnpike is served by a twenty-one (21) to thirty (30) inch wastewater trunk along Michaux Creek and by the Michaux Creek wastewater pumping station. These two (2) facilities are supported by a thirty/thirty-six (30/36) inch wastewater trunk located along the James River. That area of the Plar~ bordered by Midlothian Turnpike, Huguenot Springs Road and the ChesterfleldlPowhatan County line cannot be served by a direct gravity line extension from the Michaux Creek system. The topography of this area dictates that it naturally drains west toward Powhatan County and would require the construction of a small pumping station to access the public wastewater system. Existing facilities are sized to provide capacity consistent with those land uses reflected in the Plan. Should more intense land uses be pursued which would be considered heavy water users and wastewater generators, detailed analyses may be necessary to address impact on the existing public water and wastewater systems. Future Water and Wastewater Systems: The County's long-standing policy "Growth Pays For Growth," as reflected in the County's Upper Swift Creek Plan is applicable in the Route 288 Corridor planning area as well. Unless the construction of a new facility is undertaken by the County (including upgrading of pumping stations and construction of water tanks) to address system reliability or water quality concerns, the majority of future water and wastewater facilities depicted on the County's Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan are anticipated to be constructed by private development interests. Current County policies may provide some rebating of construction costs to developers for off-site extensions and line over-sizing. Development within the planning area will require the extension of major water mains as well as smaller lines to serve specific sites. Major lines proposed include sixteen (16) inch and twenty-four (24) inch lines along Otterdale Road, north and south of Old Hundred Road, along Old Hundred Road, east and west of Otterdale Road, a twenty (20) inch line along Mt. Hermon Road and a twelve/twenty (12 ~20) inch line between Robious Road and Midlothian Turnpike. A water tank, to be located in the vicinity of DuVal Road, should provide additional system support for the planning area. The extension of major wastewater trunks, as well as sub-trunks, and collector lines will be required for development within the planning area. Major trunks proposed include an eighteen (18) inch to twenty- seven (27) inch trunk along Tomahawk Creek and an eighteen (18) inch to thirty-six (36) inch trunk along Swift Creek. These trunk extensions will begin at the existing sixty (60) inch trunk along Genito Road and will require smaller extensions along several upstream tributaries. Sub-trunk extensions from the Little Tomahawk and Michaux Creek trunks will be necessary to serve specific development sites. Upgrading or expansion of the Michaux Creek, Upper Swift Creek and Bailey's Bridge wastewater pumping stations will eventually be necessary as development occurs within the planning area and within The Upper Swift Creek Plan area. The proposed new and expanded facilities are sized to meet the capacity requirements anticipated by those land uses reflected in the Plan. However, should more intense uses be pursued which would require much higher water demands and generate much higher levels of wastewater flows, detailed analyses may be necessary to address system capacity issues. These analyses would need to address the ability of current water sources and treatment plant sites to meet these potential higher demands and flows. Transportation Existing Conditions: Much of the Route 288 Corridor is served by two-lane roads, such as Huguenot Springs Road, Otterdale Road, Old Hundred Road and Coalfield Road. Charter Colony Parkway, a new two- lane facility, was recently completed from the vicinity of Midlothian High School south to Coalfield Road. Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) is the major East/West road in the Corridor and is a four-lane highway with a median. Traffic signals are located at its intersections D RAFT RT8 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan with Old Hundred Road and Otterdale Road. The following are average daily traffic volumes on some of the major roads in the corridor: Midlothian Turnpike, west of Winterfield Road Charter Colony Parkway, south of Midlothian High School Coalfield Road between Queensmill and the YMCA Huguenot Springs Road Mount Hermon Road between Old Hundred and Hallsboro Roads Old Hundred Road between Dry Bridge and Otterdale Roads Otterdale Road between Midlothian Turnpike and Otterdale Road 23,465 (1997) 2,615 (1997) 15,370 (1997) 1,160 (1996) 340 (1996) 4,260 (1997) 2,150 (1997) Coalfield Road, which originates in the Village of Midlothian and is the primary north/south traffic carrying facility in the Corridor, is the only road that is currently operating at capacity. A Norfolk Southern rail-line runs east and west through the Corridor, south of and parallel to Midlothian Turnpike. According to the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's) Rail and Public Transportation section, this line carries two (2) trains per day. The design of Route 288 from the Powhite Parkway through the Corridor to the northern County line has been completed. Ultimately, Route 288 in the Corridor area will be a four (4) lane, interstate-style limited access facility with interchanges located at Lucks Lane/Centre Pointe Parkway, Woolridge Road Extended and Midlothian Turnpike. Collector/Distributor (C/D) roads will be provided throughout most of the Corridor. These CID roads will run parallel to the mainline lanes and will allow vehicles entering and exiting Route 288 to do so without interfering with mainline traffic. The initial phases of construction will result in a four (4) lane facility between Powhite Parkway and Midlothian Turnpike and a two (2) lane facility north of Midlothian Turnpike. Right-of-way acquisition is currently underway. First phase construction of the section between the Powhite Parkway and Midlothian Turnpike is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 1998. First phase construction of the section north of Midlothian Turnpike is scheduled for the Spring of 2000. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors adopted a County-wide Thoroughfare Plan. Changes to the 1989 Thoroughfare Plan will be necessary due to the Route 288 project and approved development in the area. Other Road Projects In The Route 288 Corridor Area: In addition to Route 288, the following are other road projects in or adjacent to the Route 288 Corridor: 1. Old Hundred Road - Between Dry Bridge Road and Otterdale Road, Old Hundred Road has narrow travel lanes and inadequate shoulders. This project will reconstruct two (2) lanes to provide adequate travel lane and shoulder widths and will improve vertical and horizontal alignments where necessary. Although this project is in the current Six Year Construction Plan. construction funds have not been allocated. 2. Woolridge Road Extended - A short section of Woolridge Road Extended has been completed connecting Charter Colony Parkway, south of Midlothian High School, with Coalfield Road at the YMCA. A further extension of Woolridge Road will connect Coalfield Road at the YMCA with Midlothian Turnpike, east of the Village of Midlothian, at the existing intersection of Midlothian Turnpike with Walton Park Road and Old Buckingham Road. When completed, this road will provide a southern Midlothian bypass and should divert a significant volume of traffic from the section of Midlothian Turnpike that passes through the Village of Midlothian. Construction is underway and should be completed by Falf 1999. 3. Charter Colony Parkway - To improve access to Midlothian High School and the future John Tyler Community College campus, westbound dual left-turn lanes and a traffic signal will be installed at the Midlothian Turnpike/Charter Colony Parkway intersection. Additional lanes will be constructed on Charter Colony Parkway, south of Midtothian Turnpike and across the DRAFT RT9 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan frontage of Midlothian High School, to provide left-turn lanes at school entrances. Construction of this project is anticipated to begin in 1998. Historic Resources This area of Chesterfield County has many significant historical structures (see Map D). Most are still in use today and have been welt preserved. Information on historic resources was taken from Jeffrey O'Dell's 1983 book, Chesterfield County: Early Architecture and Historic Sites. The following list of historic sites includes all of those inventoried in the book which are still existing in the planning area. All of these structures are located near Midlothian Turnpike and are part of what was a small hamlet which centered around Hallsborough Tavern. Bethel Baptist Church (100 Huguenot Springs Road): This structure was erected in 1894 behind Hallsborough Tavern and is the only nineteenth century brick church in Chesterfield County. The building is a Gothic Revival structure with a steep, gable roof sheathed in slate. Chapel Hill (194 Huguenot Springs Road): Built in 1903 by Dr. W. D. Sydnor, this house is a central passage plan I-house featuring a front-cross gable, interior end brick chimneys and octagonal-roofed turrets. Hallsborough Tavern (16300 Midlothian Turnpike): This structure was originally built by James Howard around 1810 to serve as a tavern and retail store. The next owner, Austin Spears, added a two story wing in 1832 to accommodate guests. This structure eventually served as the area's post office. This building has been altered several times since its original construction. Currently, it is being used for retail purposes. DRAFT RTl 0 2./23/99 Study Area Boundary No Scale Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Department November, 1998 Revised Draft (Map D) Rt. 288 Corridor Plan Bethel Baptist Church Chapel Hill Hallsboro Tavern Mt. Sinai Baptist Church & Cemetary THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Mount Sinai Baptist Church (200 Old Hundred Road): Erected in 1884, this was the first church built to serve the area's African-American community. Construction funds were raised from donations and festivals. The original structure underwent major remodeling in 1948 and again in 1969. Land Character Types Based on field surveys, information provided by County Departments, maps of existing land use, the location of significant water bodies and Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas, a character type inventory of the planning area was conducted as a means of classifying land areas (see Map E). Four (4) character types depict the visual environment of the planning area. Below are the character types, their definitions and significance to the area. · Forested Description: Managed forests and natural wooded areas which include a mix of pine and hardwood. Significance: Forest land is significant both environmentally and aesthetically. Environmentally, forests protect the soil, produce oxygen, provide opportunities for recreation and play a role in a variety of natural environmental systems. Forested land contributes to the rural and natural "feel" of an area and may buffer different land uses from one another. · Agriculture and Open Space Description: Cropland, open fields, pastures and recreational areas. Significance: Agricultural land uses are particularly significant to the visual quality and ambiance of an area because of the seasonal changes and variety. The textures and colors of the open fields are particularly attractive from rural roadways, especially in areas with rolling terrain. · Residential Description: Subdivisions are a grouping of suburban type housing linked by a planned road network and are marked with an identifiable entrance. Strip residential development consists of homes located along roadways, generally fronting arterials and collectors in a linear configuration. Significance: Although the planning area remains relatively undeveloped, consisting of only three (3) neighborhoods, growth is expected to occur in the next few years as the completion of Route 288 nears. · Office, Commercial and Industrial Description: Most of these uses in the planning area, which includes Watkins Nursery, are rural, family-owned businesses or are buffered and blend in with the character of the surrounding area. The exception to this is the Virginia Power substation which is significantly screened from view by forested areas. DRAFT RTl 1 2,/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Significance: Currently, these uses account for a very small portion of the development in the planning area. However, upon the completion of Route 288 and other transportation improvements, these types of uses are expected to increase and become dominant in the area. DRAFT RTl2 2/23/99 Revised Draft (Map E) [Rt 288 Corridor Plan Forested Agricultural/Open Space Residential/Churches Office/Commercial/Industrial ,Study Are& Bound&r,/ N No Scale Prepared by the Chesterfield County Planning Depez~me~ January 1% 1999 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES The completion of Route 288 from the Powhite Parkway to Interstate 64 will greatly accelerate development activity in all of northwest Chesterfield County and throughout the region. Not only will this new highway open up access to a relatively undeveloped part of Chesterfield, it will provide a direct link across the James River to Goochland County's West Creek Business Park, home of the proposed Motorola semiconductor plant and western Henrico's business district. Effective planning in this area will assure that, as growth occurs, it is properly guided, taking advantage of a prime opportunity for needed economic development, while maintaining environmental preservation and the County's high quality of life. Chesterfield and The Metropolitan Region's Economy Chesterfield County has historically been a "bedroom community" for the Richmond metropolitan area, providing a greater proportion of places to live than places to work. This has a large fiscal impact on the County, since the cost of providing services to residential development is greater than what it pays the County in taxes (see Chart 2). Business revenue to the County provides most of the additional funds necessary to provide residential services. Therefore, a balance between economic development and residential growth is important. $1,165 Chart 2 Share of Cost of County Services Per Chesterfield Household $642 · Taxes Paid by Household [3Taxes Paid by Business · Other Sources $1,930 Source: Chesterfield County Budget Department In 1997, the Chesterfield Planning Department analyzed the County's Comprehensive Plan to determine the number of acres that should be recommended for office and industrial use to meet long-range economic goals for the County. This analysis compared the County's existing share of the region's economic base and the amount of land recommended for office and industrial use in the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Using a moderate level growth forecast covering the period to 2044, the analysis identified a land use plan deficit of approximately 2,250 acres of land recommended for industry and 4,350 acres of land recommended for office use, totaling 6,600 additional acres necessary, but not yet designated for, office and industrial uses in the County's adopted Plans. Jobs and Location Chesterfield needs more businesses to balance residential growth and provide quality jobs for its citizens. Not all jobs are created equal; attracting "basic sector" jobs, like those associated with corporate offices and light industry, will be of greater benefit to the citizens of Chesterfield County. These jobs are higher paying, with better benefits, and generate spin-off employment in other economic sectors, such as retail and service. Quality jobs are especially important in the Route 288 Corridor planning area, as most of Chesterfield's workers live in the northwestern part of the County and most of Chesterfield's major employers are in the eastern part of Chesterfield. DRAFT RTl 3 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Timing of Development Typically, the demand for residential construction in highway corridors precedes the market for corporate office and light industrial uses. This area is anticipated to have residential demand due to the development of employment centers at West Creek in Goochland, large employment centers in western Henrico and a scarcity of land designated for residential development in Goochland and Henrico. With the construction of Route 288, Chesterfield County will only be a short commute over the new James River bridge. There may also be interest in retail development along Midlothian Turnpike, as businesses consider the potential of attracting commuters from Route 288. However, commercial development is already developed nearby at Chesterfield Towne Center, with additional space already planned and zoned at the Route 288/360 interchange area and east and west of Midlothian Village. Planning and Design Issues The future design and configuration of development in the Route 288 corridor is critical to Chesterfield County. Well-planned and constructed development, consolidated and coordinated to the maximum extent possible, will promote a stronger tax base, an aesthetically pleasing environment and the cost effective provision of County services. Most quality, large-scale suburban office and light industrial development in the Richmond region is found in "corporate parks," such as the Arboretum and the Boulders off Midlothian Turnpike in Chesterfield County, Innsbrook in Richmond's west end and the new West Creek Corporate Park in eastern Goochland County. Common to these developments are basic features that characterize good design and planning including generous landscaping, well designed entrances, use of curbs and gutters along streets, a mix of building heights, effective lighting and parking. Many of these corporate centers have their own strict development standards but, at the same time, incorporate enough flexibility to accommodate market demand. In many cases, a combination of local zoning requirements, improvements proffered by the center's developer at the time of rezoning and deed covenants established by the developer combine to ensure good design and planning. Well-designed corporate centers play an important part in the success of attracting desirable economic development in a regionally and nationally competitive environment. Haphazard and incremental commercial development, especially industrial uses characterized by prefabricated metal buildings, inadequate landscaping and outside storage visible from public areas, can be detrimental to attracting new businesses to an area. DRAFT RTl 4 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Another important factor to successful corporate park design is finding parcels of land large enough to accommodate a large-scale plan of development. Property owners interested in developing their land often find it is more profitable to group together a number of smaller adjacent parcels into one (1) significant holding. When the market is right, this approach can attract quality, large-scale corporate park development and discourage the piecemeal commercial "stripping" of development along major highways. Where practical and appropriate, the design of commercial uses can incorporate elements from nearby historic buildings, creating a common area theme that helps contribute to community continuity. Effective design also takes into consideration adjacent land character types. DRAFT RTl 5 2/23/'99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor P/an A PLAN FOR ACTION L Goals The vision of the Route 288 Corridor Plan is to effectively guide future development in a way that promotes maximum benefit to Chesterfield County's current and future citizens, while recognizing the importance of property rights, healthy neighborhoods, environmental preservation and the County's high quality of life. The goals listed below foster this vision and establish a framework for the Plan's more specific recommendations. A. Basic Principles 1. Recognize the prime importance of the Route 288 Corridor to Chesterfield County's economic future. 2. Take advantage of the benefits to Chesterfield County that Route 288 will have as a primary component of the region's transportation system. 3. Chart a future for the area that takes into account both the interests of the current community and the long-term welfare of all Chesterfield citizens. B. Orderly Growth 1. Guide each type of development to the most appropriate area by following the County's Comprehensive Plan. 2. Discourage development that may be detrimental to long-term economic and environmental goals. 3. Minimize the cost of public facilities by promoting orderly and efficient development. 4. Only approve development proposals supported by public utilities. C. Transportation 1. Provide a safe, efficient and cost-effective transportation system. 2. Control development densities within the Corridor so that smooth flow of traffic is provided on Route 288 and on major arterial and collector streets. 3. Provide for the construction of additional major arterial and collector streets as development occurs to mitigate the increase in traffic generated by development in the Corridor. 4. Properly locate and limit the number of access points to major arterial and collector streets. 5. Encourage pedestrian activity at appropriate locations in the Corridor. D. Economic Opportunities 1. Maximize the economic development potential of the Route 288 Corridor as a prime location for basic sector employment, such as corporate office and light industrial uses. 2. Take advantage of the potential for spin-off economic development from other major employment centers in the region, especially those opportunities for high-tech industry and corporate office centers. 3. Work to provide more basic sector jobs closer to the population centers in northern Chesterfield County. 4. Identify large parcels that are suitable for industrial development. 5. Protect sites identified for industrial use from encroaching residential and retail development. 6. Identify and market parcels appropriate for economic development. E. Resource Protection 1. Maintain the environmental quality of the area. DRAFT RTl6 ~23~9 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan 2. Protect water quality in the Upper Swift Creek Reservoir watershed, as well as in the area's perennial and non-perennial streams. 3. Encourage development to accommodate and preserve existing landscape where possible. 4. Protect historic resources in the area by promoting historic designation of identified structures and encouraging development to preserve historic structures. F. Housing 1. Promote housing development that will meet the needs of future residents and businesses. 2. VVhere residential development is appropriate, strive for a mix of housing options that will complement the County's economic development initiatives. G. Community Character and Design 1. Enhance the aesthetic quality of the area through quality design. 2. Encourage public safety through the effective design of development. 3. Encourage development design that promotes community character. II. Recommendations The following recommendations are the specific actions required to carry out the Route 288 Corridor Plan. These recommendations, combined with the land use plan that follows, will help guide the future of the Route 288 Corridor area. However, these recommendations will require cooperation between businesses, industries, residents and government to make them successful. A. Land Use 1. Land Use Plan: Follow the land use recommendations of the Route 288 Corridor Plan to guide future decision making. Aggregation: Through the zoning process, encourage owners interested in selling smaller land parcels in the Route 288 Corridor to join with adjacent property owners to aggregate land holdings large enough to accommodate a large-scale plan of development. Incompatible Uses: Residential land uses should be discouraged in areas designated for non- residential areas in this Plan (areas designated for light industrial, office or commercial land uses) and vice versa, except where those uses are permitted by right. B. Quality Design Large-Scale Development: Encourage large-scale development projects of quality design which follow an office park-planned development approach (i.e., Arboretum, Moorefield, Boulders). These projects should also include an internal road network and controlled access. Design Standards: Adopt amendments to the County's Design Standards Manual creating an overlay district for the Route 288 Corridor Plan area in all Regional Employment Center land use areas (see Map F) which would: a) Increase landscaping required in front and corner setbacks for new development. b) Require curb and gutter in all new developments. c) Allow building heights of up to 150 feet. d) Require new development adjacent to Route 288 to orient buildings so that the views of buildings from Route 288 will not be of loading docks, storage areas, etc. e) Require developers to design attractive wet ponds for Best Management Practices (BMPs) that can be incorporated into developments as amenities. DRAFT RTl 7 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan f) Enhance requirements for quality architecture. g) Require developments in ~-2 Districts to pave their parking lots. h) Limit outdoor storage uses in I-2 Districts. i) Encourage pedestrian access in and around projects and a plan for linking pedestrian access to adjacent properties. 3. Safety: All development proposals should be designed to accommodate public safety needs. o Urban Design: The area closest to the Route 288/60 interchange may be appropriate for an urban or neo-traditional scaled and designed development. This concept may include reduced setbacks, formal landscaping, pedestrian access, superior architectural design and other features that are representative of this urban or neo-traditional design. A quality development of this type could be submitted and processed through the County's CUPD (Conditional Use Planned Development) process. C. Economic Growth Proactive Zoning: Because of the economic development opportunities available in this area, not present in other areas of the County, there may be situations where the County would like to encourage development. Additional study of proactive rezoning should be conducted following the adoption of The Route 288 Corridor Plan. 2. Opportunity: The Department of Economic Development should continue to identify prime sites in the area and pursue proven developers to build quality office and business parks. Jobs: The Department of Economic Development should determine which types of economic activities (i.e., corporate and divisional headquarters, research and development, light manufacturing, distribution, back office operations, office/office showroom, etc.) will create the best job opportunities (payroll) for County citizens and generate significant tax revenues to Chesterfield County and pursue those uses for the Route 288 planning area. Marketing: The Economic Development Department should develop and implement a marketing plan to capitalize on location advantages of the Route 288 Corridor, such as its proximity to workers, John Tyler Community College, major roads and Motorola's West Creek Campus. D. Public Facilities Utilities Study: A detailed utilities study should be undertaken to address possible demand/capacity issues, if uses are pursued that are more intense than those reflected by the Plan. 2. Water/Wastewater Ordinance: The County should adopt an Ordinance for this area requiring mandatory hook-up to County water and wastewater at the time of development. 3. Policing Office: As the surrounding communities grow and develop, an appropriate location for a policing office should be identified and permitted in a central, strategic location. 4. Fire/Rescue Facility: A fire/rescue station is planned within the area of Midlothian Turnpike and Route 288 to meet the existing and future demands for service and response time standards. E. Transportation Thoroughfare Plan: Amend the County's Thoroughfare Plan in the Route 288 Corridor, as shown on Map F, and use the amended Plan as the guide for transportation recommendations on development proposals. DRAFT RTl 8 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Mitigating Road Improvements: Development proposals within the Corridor should provide mitigating road improvements, to include right-of-way dedication, construction of turn lanes, installation of traffic signalization and shoulder improvements. Access to Arterial and Collector Roads: Through the zoning, site plan review and subdivision review processes, control access to major arterial and collector roads through shared access, adequate access separation and traffic control devices to maintain orderly and efficient traffic flow. Traffic Noise Abatement: Provide setbacks for future sound-sensitive land uses, such as residential devetopment along Route 288, to reduce traffic noise impacts. Pedestrian Access: Develop a network of sidewalks, in accordance with the County's Sidewalk Policy, to provide for pedestrian travel. Route 288 Funding: The funds that have been allocated for the Route 288 project will provide a four (4) lane facility between Powhite Parkway and Midlothian Turnpike and a two (2) lane facility north of Midlothian Turnpike. The County should aggressively pursue completion of Route 288. F. Environmental Resources Vegetation: Through the zoning process, encourage developers to disturb as little landscape and plant life as possible around the entrances and fringes of the project area and bodies of water to preserve the area's environmental character and the natural erosion and pollutant controls provided by the undisturbed vegetation. Upper Swift Creek Ordinance: Review and consider the following in conjunction with the Watershed Management Plan and Maintenance Program for the Swift Creek Reservoir: a) Restrict reductions in the pre-established Resource Protection Area (RPA) boundaries. b) Prohibit tree removal, clearing or filling in the 100 year floodplain adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams. c) Limit clearing and construction on slopes greater than 20 percent within, or contiguous to, Resource Protection Areas (RPAs). Regional BMPs: If development does take place on a site that is expected to be served by a regional BMP facility, staff will assist the developer in identifying a regional site and will attempt to facilitate discussions among the developer and other landowners for a regional facility. However, staff will not require a regional facility unless the developer and other landowners agree on a voluntary regional approach. If such an agreement is not reached, the developer will be required to provide a BMP facility for his own site. New Development Prior to the Regional BMP Master Plan: New development that takes place prior to the adoption of the Regional BMP Master Plan (Watershed Master Plan and Maintenance Program) currently being developed for the Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed must be encouraged to construct regional BMP facilities where there are technically feasible sites and the County should take reasonable steps and actions to protect and promote those sites. VVhen the BMP Master Plan is adopted, new development must comply with the BMP Master Plan. The County should adopt the BMP Master Plan as soon as possible. Future Water Quality Technologies: For rezoning requests in the Upper Swift Creek watershed portion of The Route 288 Corridor Plan area, developers should be encouraged, through the use of voluntary proffers, to conform to possible future water quality protection measures and/or technologies. DRAFT RTl 9 z/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan G. Housing and Community 1. Housing Types: Evaluate whether revisions to the County's residential zoning ordinances would encourage a mix of housing options for new workers, complementing the County's economic development initiatives. H. Historic Resources Preserve Structures: Bethel Baptist Church and Hallsborough Tavern, historic structures, should be preserved. Any adjacent development is encouraged to be architecturally compatible. Historic Area: Create an area around Bethel Baptist Church and Hallsborough Tavern, as shown on Map F. Any development in this area is encouraged to incorporate the design characteristics of these historic structures to preserve the historic character of the area. The goal of this area is to maintain the sense of place at this intersection created by Hallsborough Tavern and Bethel Baptist Church: a) On the north side of Midlothian Turnpike, development is encouraged to incorporate design features from the existing historic properties, including building scale, architectural design and texture. Further, development in this area is encouraged to incorporate pedestrian access and sidewalks. b) On the south side of Midlothian Turnpike, properties adjacent to Midlothian Turnpike are encouraged to be similar in scale and architecture to Hallsborough Tavern and Chapel Hill. Development in the remainder of this portion of the historic district may be larger in scale but not overwhelming to the smaller-scale development. Historic Designations: The Chesterfield County Preservation Committee should work with the property owners of Bethel Baptist Church and Chapel Hill to have these properties designated as County historic landmarks. Historic and Cultural Significance: The Chesterfield County Preservation Committee should recognize Mount Sinai Baptist Church and Cemetery for their historic and cultural significance to the County, including a plaque at the site explaining the story and significance of the church and initiate steps to designate it as a historic landmark. Iil. The Land Use Plan The land use plan for the Route 288 Corridor is a guide for future change. The land use plan illustrates the recommended future development pattern for the Route 288 Corridor area (see Map F). This map will be a useful guide for the future land use and rezoning decisions. Land use categories, their definitions and key features of recommended uses are presented in Chart 3. Successfully implemented, this land use plan will: · Target key land in the northwestern part of Chesterfield County for office, light industrial and corporate park uses; in turn, strengthening the County's tax base and providing new employment opportunities. Promote a land use development pattern that takes best advantage of Route 288's links to the region's transportation system while, at the same time, providing effective transition between new uses and adjacent communities. In the portion of The Route 288 Corridor Plan area that drains to the Swift Creek Reservoir, maintain the current in-lake phosphorous limit and the reduced phosphorous standard for new residential development, as outlined in the County's 1997 Watershed Management Plan. DRAFT RT20 2/23J99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan The land use plan offers guidance to County staff, elected officials and citizens as new development proposals are brought forward and evaluated. For example, if a landowner is interested in developing his vacant property, which is currently zoned for Agricultural (A) uses, the land use plan will be consulted by staff as they determine their recommendation for the rezoning. If the rezoning request does not comply with the land use designation on the land use plan, staff is not likely to recommend approval of the request. Generally, the land use plan does not recommend changes to the zoning of any land. However, as outlined in the land use recommendations, if the Board of Supervisors chooses to rezone property in this area, this land use plan will be used as a guide. DRAFT RT21 2/23/99 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD The Route 288 Corridor Plan Chart 3 LAND USE CATEGORIES The categories shown on Map F are described below. Because land use plans are a general guide for recommended future growth, all uses that could possibly be developed cannot be listed here. More detailed information on potential uses can be found in the corresponding categories (i.e., 0-2) of the Chesterfield County Zoning Ordinance. · Residential (One (1) dwelling or less per acre): Residences, and under certain circumstances, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public facilities. · Residential (One (1) to two and a half (2 1/2) dwellings per acre): Residences, and under certain circumstances, places of worship, public schools, parks and other similar public facilities. · Office/Residential Mixed Use: Professional and administrative offices (0-2), residential developments of varying densities, and light industry (I-1). Under certain circumstances, supporting small-scale, retail uses may be incorporated into a larger development. · Office: Professional and administrative offices (0-2). Under certain circumstances, supporting small-scale, retail uses may be incorporated into a larger development. · Convenience Commercial (not shown on Plan): Limited retail, service and office uses (C-1 and O-1) mainly serving nearby neighborhoods or rural locations, generally located at the intersection of through streets (the intersection of two (2) collectors or a collector and an arterial as designated in the Thoroughfare Plan), provided adequate spacing is provided. In developing areas, they should be planned in conjunction with new residential projects. · Neighborhood Mixed Use: Neighborhood-oriented commercial uses (C-2), including small shopping centers. · Light Industrial/Flex: Offices, warehouses and light industrial uses (I-1 and some I-2 uses), including research and development uses as well as flex space. Under certain circumstances, supporting small-scale, retail uses may be incorporated into a larger development. · Regional Employment Center: Office, research and development uses, warehouses and light industrial uses (I-1). Moderate industrial uses may be appropriate in some locations if appropriate access, buffering and land use transitions are provided. Under certain circumstances, supporting ......... s.m..a I!-.s.c .a I.e., .re. t.a!l .u.s.e.s.m..ay..be. i.n .c .o r.p.o.r .at.e.d.i.n !o..a .la. r.g.e.r .d.e.v.e[o.p.m.e.n.t.. ................... Midlothian Area Community Land Use And Trans_oortation Plan: The shaded area on Map F shows recommended land uses from this Plan, as adopted in 1989 and amended in 1992. It is shown here for information purposes only and is not recommended for revision. · Residential Medium Density (1.01 to 2.5 units/acre): Housing types will be predominantly single family detached units and may also include schools and playgrounds, places of worship and isolated neighborhood service uses. · Planned Transition Area: This ama is appropriate for mixed-use development that contributes to an overall transition to a smaller-scale, pedestrian-oriented environment in Midlothian Village. Primary uses will include office, medium-density housing (7-14 units/acm), personal services and community facilities. · Suburban Commercial District: Suburban, auto-oriented design district to include retail shopping centers, office-service establishments and similar uses. Note 1: The existing single family residential uses should be maintained and protected until appropriate redevelopment occurs in compliance with the recommended regional employment center land use designation. Zoning standards and proffers shall be used to protect the residential character until the property owners develop this area for the planned land uses. See Appendix B for the properties covered by this note. Note 2: A regional scale high fashion mall or lifestyle center can be appropriate at this quadrant if: · integrated with the regional employment center uses, · the majority of the anchor stores serve a metropolitan-wide market. Neighborhood retail uses may be appropriate if integrated with the other designated uses. DRAFT RT22 2J23/99 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Appendix A C MHfli PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: DATE: Kramer Model Update for 1-288 Corridor Changes loan Salvati," C-'aesterfieid Counw Andrea Rvon/CH2M HILL Fernando Pasquel/CH2M HILL March 3, 1998 In 1994, Mary, Kramer, a member of the Chesterfield Count,,' Watershed .Managerv. ent Committee, developed a spreadsheet model (Kramer model) to evaluate the imp,acts of development within the Upper Swift Creek watershed on water quail .ty in Swift Creek Reservoir. The purpose of Mrs. K. ramer's modeling effort `,vas to evaluate if a phosphorus export goal of 0.22 lb/ac/yr from new residential land uses and 0.45 tb/acre/yr from new nonresidential land uses was sufficient to prevent in-lake vhosvhorus concenrranons from exceeding 0.05 mg/L, a ievei considered suitable to controlling eutrophicanon m the reservoir. For existing land uses, watershed pollutant loading factors from two different sources were used: Swift Creek Reservoir Watershed study (CDM, 1989) and CBLAD's factors listed in the Chesterfield Count, Calculation Procedures Manual The empirical Reckhow relationship for southeastern U.S. reservoirs was used to estimate the median summer in- lake totml phosphorus concentration. Mrs. Kramer analyzed six different scenarios · existing land use · zoned land use · proposed land use (zoning plus additional proposed proiects) · proposed land use with remainder of Counn' built cur with 5 acre residennai lots · proposed land use with remainder of Count~' buiit ou~ with I acre residennai lots · proposed land use with remainder of Counw built out with 0.5 acre residennai lots Since the Kramer model ,,vas developed, zoning changes within the 1-288 corridor have been proposed. Because these changes include shifts from residential uses to non-residential uses, total phosphorus loads calculated in the K_ramer model would be expected to increase with the new land uses. To evaluate these changes, the model was re-rum with the proposed 1-288 corridor land use changes. A meeting was held with Plarming Department, Department of Environmental Engineering, Economic Development Department and CH2M HILL staff to identify, the differences between the land uses in the existing Kramer model and the proposed land uses in the 1-288 corridor. The modifications to the model required to reflect tb, e new 1-288 corridor land uses are summarized in Table 1. WOC/O30398~,E.DOC 131400 ~"'"'m~--CATE FOR ;-2~8 CCRRiDOR CHANGES TABLE 1 - CHANGES IN LAND USE BE'FC~EEN KRAMER MODEL AND PROPOSED 1-288 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT Subtract I Add 300 acre Watkins commerc~ai oro~erw ; 1408 acres mooerate mduslnat lano use 300 acre commercial deveioDment along Rou[e 60 : 420 acres light industrial land use '~ 682 acres of 2.2 du/ac resloent~ai area i 454 m~xed use land use Ecluivalent Changes for Residential and Nonresidential Land Uses Subtract Add ~00 acres nonresidential and 1682 acres of res~aenuat 2282 acres of nonres~dentia~ These modifications were made to the model m order to evaluate the impact on phosphorus loads. The change was appt~ed to the following 4 cases: · proposed land use (zoning plus additional prgposed projects) · proposed land use with remainder of County built out with 5 acre residential lots · proposed land use with remainder of County built out with 1 acre residential lots · proposed land use with remainder of Counw built out with 0.5 acre residential lots Ne total phosphorus loads and the resuiting phosphorus concentration in the reservoir are shown in Table 2 for the onginat Kramer model and for the modified model. In addition, the % differences between the original calculations and the modified calcutations are shown. TABLE 2 · MODEL RESULTS FOR ORIGINAL AND MODIFIED MODEL Proposed Proposed with Proposed with Proposed with 5-acre build-out 1-acre build-out 0.5-acre build-out Loading factors based on 1989 Swift Creek Reservoir WatersfTed Study Watershed Phospl~orus load (Ib/yr) Original model 10,525 16,801 16,221 16,221 Modified model 10.912 17,188 16,608 16,608 % change 3.7 2.3 2.4 2.4 Phosphorus concentration m reservoir (mgzL) Odginal model 0.039 0.056 0.051 0.049 Modified model 0.040 0.056 0.052 0.050 % change 2.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 Loading Factors base¢l on CBLAD Watershed Phosptmrus Load (Ib/yr) Original model 8,992 14,254 14,254 14,254 Modified model 9,379 14,641 14,641 14,641 % change 4.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 Phosphorus concentration in reservoir (rog/L) Original model 0.039 0.055 0.050 0.049 Modified model 0.040 0.055 0.051 0.050 % change 2.6 1.6 1.7 3.1 .vOC,'030398UEiX>C 2 For the ?roposed zoning condition, zorun6 moaificanons in the 1-288 corridor ~ncrease the annual phos?horus load to the reservoir approxn_matety 4 %. This change increases the calcuJated phosphorus concentration un the reservoir from 0.039 m§/L to 0.040 rog/' L, an increase of 2.3 - 2.6 percent, which is ap?roxima:eiy $0% of the 0.05 m§/L §oal. For the three build-out conditions, the caicuiated in-Jake 7hosphorus concentrations were near or above 0.05 m§/h for the ongnnai Kramer :~,,odel. ?he modifications increased these estimated concentrations between 1 [o 3 %. ,VDCYO30398ME.DOC 3 Appendix cO 0 E~ E~ 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 An Affiliate of Media General P.O. BOX 85333 Richmond, Virginia 23293-0001 (804) 649-6000 Advertising Affidavit (This is not a bill. please pay from invoice) CHESTERFIELD CO.BO.SUPV ATTN FAITH DAVIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P O BOX 40 CHESTERFIELD VA 23832 220806 04/07/99 04/07/99 121 TAKE NOTICE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE BOARD O 1 x 85 783.70 ~ Richmond Newspapers, Inc. meeting o~ April 14, 1999 at 7:00 ~.rn. in ~ co.~ Puu~ u~ing Publisher of Room at the Chesterfield Court- house, Chesterfield, Vi~g..~ia h~ a ~ h~ ~ ~r- THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH so~s attected may appear and pre~ent their ~ to consider: The Route 288 Corridor Ptarl, an amendment to the Plan for Ches- terfle~ and the Thorougtffare Plan a~mmtaetott~Route28~Corrl- This is to certify that the attached MEETINGS - COMING EVENTS der area, Th~ Plan emen~rr~nt is "~=~r -~..~=~u~'~ was published by Richmond Newspapers. Inc.. in the City u~e, pfo-a~ rezm~mg, devel.op-' m~fo, ~.~, ~ of ~:~'--~-'~~,,u.,,,u.u. State of Virginia. on the following dates: u~e of public water.and waatewa- tar, htetorb structure~ and a histor- 03/31/99 04/07/99 water q,.Jalth/ ~ transportation Hhe, CoaJfier~l Road, ~ Hundred Ro~ m?d Uttie'rornahm~k Creek. A Cz~o¥ ~ the proposed amendmant s on file in the Coun- ~beAdministrator's Office and may examirmd there, For more Infer- marion, contact Sara Habeck at 748-1055. An Ordinance to ame~l the Code of the County Chesterfield, 1997, enacting Sections 19-518, 19-580, 19-581 and adding Sectiorm 19- s90..,s~°4' ~..~o,s,~"-~°'~' ~.-sgo.~,~"'~°'~' ~.-~s- The first insertion being given .... 03/31/99 590.7, 19-51)0~8, 19-590.9 and 19 ~590.10 [elating to development standards ~ the Rm.~e 288 Cord- ~or ~an er~ inc~dingp~ntma- Sworn to and subscribed before merit of parking lots, tho reduction 'of p.~lng ~c. by p~o~in~ me this pedestrian , access, 'increased ~'~exateri°r '~fJng requ' re' ~st°rage a~l,.,~ld' ' ~etreatmen~,°f outdloorstorage StateJ o Vir [~nla' Notary Public Supervisor ~h,~, .~or- City of Rich~nond ~ ~ ~ ~-,~ ~o~ My Commission expires 03/3 ~ ~,8 axamtoed there, ff S NOT A BILL PLI A.qF PAY I::R(3M li%lvnlr'" THAI%II CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: April 14, 1999 Item Number: 15. Subject: 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 next scheduled meeting on April 28, 1999 at 3:30 p.m. u Janice B. Blakley ' Attachments: ~-~ Yes No Title: Deputy Clerk to the Board Statement to the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors At the Public Meeting for the Route 288 Corridor plan April 14, 1999 By Kenneth V. Magdziuk, ASLA Good evening. My name is Kenneth V. Magdziuk, I'm a resident of Midlothian and Director of Planning for TIMMONS, and part of the planning team for Watkins Centre. Some one once said "make no small plans". They could have been speaking of the Route 288 Corridor Plan. To provide a better understanding of the potential of the Route 288 Corridor Plan, I would like to offer a few comparisons. According to the Planning Department, the regional employment center contains approximatelY 2,600 acres of the approximately 7,000 acres the Plan encompasses. Using the 2,600 acres, we generated typical development square footages and the number of occupants for these facilities. To generate these numbers, we took into consideration suburban office/employment designs (at 10,000 s.f./acre) as opposed to an urban setting (substantially higher at 17,000 s.f./acre) to better fit the Chesterfield scenario. That said, let me outline the numbers the Plan embraces: 2,600 acres X 10,000 s.f. = 26,000,000 square feet of development. Again, this is just for the regional employment center component. But what i__s 26 million square feet of development? The entire Richmond Metropolitan area (Richmond, Henrico, Chesterfield and Hanover) has a total of 22,000,000 square feet in this type of development. The Rt. 288 Plan outlines the potential to develop an area that is 118% of the Metropolitan area's accumulated total. Converting those 26,000,000 square feet of office development into numbers of people ( i.e. 250 square feet per person ), we find working spaces for 104,000 people. According to Chesterfield County's Labor Force Estimates, we had 140,417 people employed in the entire county in January 1998. The Rt. 288 Corridor Plan, by land use implications, envisions the potential for over a 70% increase of the County labor force in the corridor area. Again, my numbers are rule-of-thumb planning estimates, but they indicate the parameters of development for the employment center land uses of the Plan. Indeed, this is "no small plan". Now consider the Plan's commercial land use objectives to service these numbers of people and cars. One major retail area is identified in the Plan, a 100-acre site set among historic structures, located at Dry Bridge Road and Rt. 60. The Plan also refers to "support retail", but this is not quantified. Development of this 100-acre area alone for the required services and products needed by the Plan would be grossly inadequate. And from a planning perspective, the location abrogates the Planning Department's rules of locating commercial centers at major arterial crossroads. Dry Bridge Road is a country road with very limited capacity and destination areas, and it is incapable of handling traffic of any magnitude. To my knowledge there are no VDOT plans addressing this need. Without Watkins Centre, most of the daily traffic would head east into Midlothian towards the Towne Centre for needed services, creating an east-west back and forth pattem. Even with a 30% build-out of the Plan's area, traffic levels may require an 8-lane roadway, or even a by-pass road around the Village, for east-west movements. This need not be the case. The Watkins Centre development is ideally sized and located to meet the future need for commercial needs for the elements the Plan envisions. Further, it focuses commercial development into the best area suited for it, and generates the ability to move traffic more efficiently with flyovers and ramps, relieving a substantial amount of the anticipated impacts on Rt. 60 and the Midlothian Village area. Something else must be made clear. The Watkins Centre development is not a by-product of the Rt. 288 Corridor Plan. Years earlier the Planning Department and Board of Supervisors recognized this exact location for a Regional Center. As you know, the existing County Plan identifies this location for a Regional Center that includes: office parks, regional shopping center, light industrial employment centers and higher density residential areas. Our planning team independently reached these same conclusions. We envision the Watkins Centre as a "Lifestyle Regional Center" that specifically addresses the needs of regional shopping, employment centers, recreation and residential uses. We seek to develop a pedestrian friendly "village format" living and shopping experience where people will want to spend time. There will be a major design emphasis on landscaping, streetscapes, recreation and pedestrian areas that create a sense of place unique to the Watkins Center. Guided by the Watkins family commitment, which has been consistently seeking quality development, we aspire to develop a Life Style Center our community can be proud of. Some County representatives have publicly discussed potential adverse affects of competition between the Watkins Centre and the Chesterfield Towne Center. The Cloverleaf Mall was frequently referred to as a negative example of what could happen to the Towne Center. These are two quite unrelated situations having different markets, site and environmental conditions. There are a number of places today where two or more malls occupy sites in close proximity and benefit from specialization and the larger combined market they generate. The competition scenario tends to ignore the facts generated in the Rt. 288 Corridor Plan, and fails to recognize the implied scale of the Plan, its transportation elements, tax revenue benefits, and regional implications for our County. I ask you to consider what could happen to the Towne Center and Midlothian Village if the Watkins Centre is not developed. Is the County prepared to deal with the demand for goods and services, or traffic generated on Rt. 60? As a local resident I personally enjoy shopping at the Towne Center, and have lunch there many times each week, but no one can claim it is a regional market place. The Watkins Centre plan will not be a duplication of the Towne Center. It is geared to regional and local support and will attract economic development to the 288 Corridor. The Watkins Centre is an example of good planning. This development will substantially reduce traffic impacts on Route 60 with improved circulation. It has no water quality issues related to the Swift Creek Reservoir, as it is in another drainage basin. Also, it provides the best opportunity Chesterfield County has to develop a true Regional Center, an amenity long envisioned in the County's own comprehensive plans. We should also consider the physical size of the Route 288 Corridor Plan area in relationship to the Lifestyle Center. Of the approximately 7,000 acres involved in the Master Plan, the Lifestyle Center occupies approximately 2.5% of the land area. The remaining 97.5% is in other uses. There are significant financial aspects related to the Watkins Centre. Our initial calculations indicate the County would receive several million dollars in tax revenue from this development yearly. Consider Chesterfield's sales tax revenue position today. We are the largest population center in the metropolitan area, and we have the largest per capita income in the metropolitan area. But we receive less than 30% of the sales tax revenue while Henrico County receives 38% of that revenue. Recently, I have seen television advertisements for spending your money in Chesterfield County. A group of children are talking in this ad; one child says to the others: "my Daddy said if people spent their money in Chesterfield County, we could build the schools, parks and services we need in our county". As Chesterfield knows, this is true. At the same time this ad is appearing, Chesterfield County has the opportunity to become a serious challenger for regional revenues. For the first time we will be linked to the metropolitan area and beyond by the new circumferential Ronte 288. This is unprecedented for our County, and regional traffic patterns will change. Watkins Centre could be a true regional GATEWAY to Chesterfield. This provides an opportunity for us to enter the new millennium with a plan that addresses our future in terms of regional significance. I ask you to share this vision for our County. Adopt the Ronte 288 Corridor Plan so the County can move forward. Develop pro-active zoning as we have seen in Henrico's developments. And employ a master plan language that guides rather than dictates quality. Together, we can improve the quality of life for Chesterfield County for decades to come. Thank you. Traffic VOlume --- Chester /¢¢7 Beach Road from Route 10 to Nash Rd Mile = 1.6 Nash Road from Beach Rd to Woodpecker Rd Mile = 4.9 Woodpecker Road from Nash Rd to Matoaca Rd Mile = 11.7 Branders Bridge Road. from Route 10 to Happy Hill Rd Mile = 1.4 Branders Bridge ROad from Happy Hill Rd to Treely Rd Mile = 2.7 Branders Bridge Road from Treely Rd to Whitehouse Rd Mile = 2.2 Brandem Bridge Road from Whitehouse Rd to Swift Creak Ln Mile = 1.0 ~ Branders Bridge Road from Swift Creek Ln to Lakeview Ave Mile 1.6 Happy Hill Road from Branders Bridge Rd to Harrowgate Rd Mile = 1.0 Happy Hill Road from Harrowgate Rd to Pheasant Run Mile = 1.1 Happy Hill Road from Pheasant Run to Jeff Davis Hwy Mile = 2.8 Harrowgate Road from Route 10 to Happy Hill Rd Mile = 1.9 Harrowgate Road from Happy Hill Rd to Treely Rd Mile = 2.2 Harrowgate Road from Trealy Rd to Jeff Davis Hwy Mile = 2.7 Mileage is approx. vok~m~ ~, ~m C-,h~t~.~ C~ I II I Volume = 2267 + 4140 Volume = 7402 + 5593-~q')'b Volume = 1699 ...i,,,~t/~ I~l~q~. '~1~ Volume = 1105 Volume - 3023 Volume = 4145 Volume = 3651 Volume = 5835 Volume = 9cj69 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAR~/' G. DANIEL 2 .. ARTHUR ~, WARREN Ct.OVER H~LL ~ MKrOACA D~*'TRICT CHESTERFIELD COUN'I P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-121! TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Members of the Board of Supenrisors Lane B. Ramsey, .County Administrato~ ~~''~ ~v'' March 18, 1999 Option to Limit BPOL Revenue Over the past few months there has been discussion regarding the County's BPOL tax. I have recently received requests from four members of the Board to present an option for limiting future BPOL revenue to the estimated FY99 level. Following is an analysis of BPOL revenue, including the history and impact of ordinance changes to date, as well as an option for accomplishing the Board's request. Since FY97, various State mandated changes to the BPOL ordinance have been implemented. These mandated changes are detailed in Attachment A. Cumulatively, these changes have resulted in lower BPOL taxes to businesses of approximately $1.25 million per year (including the change anticipated for FY2000 on the fiat fees). Revenue from the BPOL tax (net of refunds) totaled $16.1 million in FY98, is expected to total $16.5 million in FY99 and is currently budgeted at $17.1 million for FY2000. The percentage change in BPOL revenue (net of refunds) over the last six fiscal years is as follows. FY93 6.5 FY94 5.1 FY95 6.4 FY96 $.8 FY97 0.0 FY98 13.3 Changes to the BPOL ordinance over the past several years have affected percentage growth as well as predictability of this revenue. Staff's proposal is detailed in Attachment B. The proposal reduces January, 2000 rates by 10% in the Personal and Business Services and Commission Merchant categories (from $ .36 to $ .32) and in the Professional Services category (from $ .58 to $ .52). These changes are expected.'to result in a reduction to the estimated BPOL revenue which, coupled with expected growth in the various classification categories, is projected to yield about the same BPOL revenue in FY2000 as is expected in FY'99. Reductions in these Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors March 18, 1999 Page 2 categories would impact a large number of various types of businesses, would be favorable from an economic development standpoint and would begin to move the County's rates closer to Henrico's. Rate reductions are not proposed in the Contractor, Retail and Wholesale Merchant categories. Currently, these rates are similar to Henrico's and are lower than the County's other rates. Staffconsidered a second option which reduced Business Service from $.36 to $.20. Rate reductions were also propOsed in Person~ and Professional Services and Commission Merchant categories. In order to limit the revenue reducti~ .n to the FY99 level, a proposed 55% reduction in the Business Service category would have caused the ;:6: ductions in the other Categories to be insignificant. Attachment C illustrates the impact of these code changes on BPOL taxes paid by businesses in various license classifications. The FY2000 figures include both the Sta{e mandated change required in January 2000 as well as staff's proposal. For example, a dry cleaner would be included in the personal service classification. In 1996, ii'the dry cleaner had recorded gross receipts of $50,000 the BPOL tax owed would have been $180. After implementation of the State mandated changes as well as staff's option to reduce the rate to $ .32 from $ .36, the BPOL tax owed would be $50. Similarly, a veterinarian included the professional service classification, with gross receipts of $125,000 would have owed BPOL tax of $725 in 1996, but $650 after the changes. Should the Board decide to move forward with this proposal, staff's intention would be to make the necessary accommodations concurrent with the adoption of the Budget in April. As previously communicated, there are unallocated monies in the Proposed Budget which could be used to implement this proposal. If so, this would limit flexibility for the Board to fund additional items in the FY2000 Budget without corresponding decreases elsewhere. Additionally, the Board would need to hold a public hearing and adopt the changes to the BPOL ordinance in May or June. N. Everette Carmichael Jmes J. L. Stegmaier Gary R. McLaren Rebecca T. Dicksor~' Attachment A Summary of Recent Reductions in BPOL Taxes Planned* FY97 FY98 FY2000 Estimated Businesses with Reduced Tax % of all Business Estimated Amount of Tax Reduction 8,000 4,000 2,100 65% 33% 15% $600,000 $550,000 $100,000 Cumulative Annual Amount of Reduction FY97-FY2000:$1,250,000 Summary of Chan~es FY97 Created a tax free threshold for businesses under $100,000 gross receipts. In place of a tax, all businesses between $10,000 and $100,000 assessed a graduated fiat fee. Changes to Professional Services Category - the changes narrowed the scope of the professional services category resulting in approximately 130 businesses being taxed in other categories at lower rates. FY98 Flat fee eliminated for businesses with gross receipts over $100,000. Previously these businesses were paying both the tax and the fee. FY2000 Reduce maximum fiat fee to $50 from $100 and $75. *This change is required by State code. Additional reductions may beimplemented at local option. ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ -' --' 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 oo o o oo oo oo oo oo oo ~o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0© . Vol.8 No. 1 tLA.L., P.O. BOX 1752, MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113 April, 1999 "Hands Across the Lake" is a non-profit community organization of Chesterfield County Residents who are concerned with the preservation of Swift Creek Reservoir as a major source of drinking water for Chesterfield County. THE CASE FOR DELAY OF 288 PLAN Land use is the single most important factor causing extra pollution to run into Swift Creek reservoir. The 288 Corridor Plan, in its present form, will allow the Swift Creek Reservoir reach the maxi- mum pollution permitted by law. Some concerns not addressed by the 288 Corridor Plato According to county consultants CH2MHilI, the other half of the Swift Creek Watershed (SCW) needs lower building density to keep the reservoir at safe pollution levels. With the Maximum pollution loads flow- ing into the reservoir, maximum enforce- ment of existing laws and regulations are needed. Any increase in zoning intensity in the remaining 50% of the watershed will cause reservoirpollution: How should the rights of the last developers be protected? We believe the Board of Supervisors need to delay any vote on the 288 corridor plan until the effect on the entire water- shed is better understood. HAL NEWSLE-q'TER WHAT WILL CHESTERFIELD BE LIKE IN 20 YEARS, BASED ON THE DECISIONS THAT WE ARE MAKING TODAY? Who doesn't know that the Route 288 Corridor Plan is in the "Home Stretch."? Well, it seems to be. The Public Hearing is April 14, 7 PM, Old Court House, Route 10 (Ironbridge Road). Are you concerned about how the Reservoir will survive the intense land uses proposed in the 288 Plan? You should be, because the margin for error is so small comparing the plans for absorbing the pollutants and the MAXimum land use anticipated in the 288 plan. Remember that there is another "Plan" waiting in the wings, due for completion by the end of the year, the "Master Plan" for the Re- gional BMP's in the watershed of the Swift Creek Reservoir.. This blueprint of the protective devices is being methodically prepared by the environmental engineering firm, CH2M Hill. WHERE DO THINGS STAND NOW? The county's planning sta~i~ and the Planning Commission have taken strong leadership by writing clear support of the Regional BMP "Master Plan" into the 288 Corridor Plan document, as well as operating an up-to-date monitoring system at numerous stream and reservoir locations. The county complies with the Chesapeake Bay Act of 1988, which offers some protection to our waterways, and it has hired a Water Quality Administrator, Joan Salvati, whose work has been praised by water quality staff from other jurisdictions. SO WHAT'S TO WORRY ABOUT? Land use with large increases in the amount of impervious cover from pavements and roofs, plus clearing of acres of trees, are the most important factors affecting the amount of pollution entering Swift Creek page I April, t999 Future continued from r)a e Reservoir. When the Route 288 Plan is fully implemented, the reservoir's in-lake phosphorous concentration will be at the county ordinance limit of 0.050 milligrams per liter. This leaves absolutely no room to rnodi.~, the plan in the .future through the zoning process. Supervisors and o county leaders who are aware of the challenge of protec~g a reservoir in a rapidly-urbanizing area. They are wrestling with decisions made before their tenure in many cases. Supervisors need to know that citizens now understand the significance of water resources and insist that these resources to be protected. That lack of "wiggle room" is enough to worry about. It suggests that in the future, any developer's request to change his land use through more intense zoning permits will negatively impact the reservoir. You might even say he would be breaking the law because, according to the model used to calculate pollution loadings, his zoning changes might well cause the in-lake phosphorous standard to be exceeded! HAL has pointed out in previous Newsletters the unfortu- nate GAP created by passing the 288 Plan before passing the ordinances connected to the "Master BMP Plan". This GAP puts the much-improved descriptive language now written into the 288 Plan in the category of suggestions rather than requirements. There are other options that should help, even if they adopt the 288 Plan before the Master Plan: 1. Currently, the 288 Plan is switching 2800 acres of land previously zoned for residential uses (and held to a .22 phosphorous load coefficien0 over to zoning for commer- cial uses ( and held to a .45 P load coefficien0. That DOUBLES the amount of pollution allowed! Instead, one option is to keep the 2800 acres at the .22 standard, then later modify that loading standard if the results of the Regional BMP Study or master plan warrant it. (This option is favored by HAL Co-chair, Dr. Tom Pakurar, who emphasizes that it will avoid the many issues raised by laws associated with Senate Bill 570, the vested property rights law, and the county's trend to proactive zoning.) WHY NOT REQIJlRKTHE PROTECTIVE MEA- SURES? Because of the "Gap". The County has to walt until it gets the CH2M Hill report late this year, and then develop ordinances to require implementation of the protective measures recommended_ in this Mast~ Plan. Once there is a law, the county can require'citizens to follow the law. If you want to pass the 288 Plan now, and you won't pass the ordinances until later, legally you can only encourage, not require. Does it not seem wisest to pass a 288 Plan after we have the wisdom gleaned from the carefully developed "Master Plan"? O.K., BUT WHAT IF THEY GO AHEAD AND PASS THE 288 PLAN NOW? Since that leaves us "MAXed out" fight at the allowable limit for pollution loadings, we will need MAXimum enforcement of all regulations now in place designed to protect waterways. No longer can the County permit a developer in Beckingham, for example, to clear cut 40% of the trees in a Resource Protection Area (RPA) and expect the reservoir to survive. (Beckingham is a residential community on a major tributary going into the Reservoir.). In this example, the County did require the developer to install some compensatory runoff control, but the technology used is not one approved and adopted by the County and by the Watershed Management Committee in 1997. IS THERE ANYTHING PROAClI3/E THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER? Yes, the first being to support the HAL NEWSLETTER 2. Do nothing, but increase the enforcement staff in the Environmental Engineering Department. Allow no further zoning that would be more intense than current land use plans for the entire watershed. 3. Proactively purchase about 5600 acres in the watershed and keep them in a natural state (parks, Wildemess, e.g.) to offset the extra 387 pounds of pollution annually predicted to enter the reservoir when Route 288 area is built out. IS IT GOOD BUSINESS TO BE SO PICKY AND SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON PROTECTING THE RESER- VOIR? Good question. Benjamin Franklin wrote, "When the well is dry, we know the worth of water." Last year's drought was a hint of the worth of water, no? Our neighbor- ing state Maryland has Baltimore threatening to sue for unfettered access to the Susquehanna River for the region's drinking water. Water wars abound, & they are costly. Don't you use the idea of taking care of liule problems before they grow into big ones...like using flouride to avoid big cavities in your teeth? Or getting out a stain before it "sets"? Or keeping the windshield cleaner gizmo full and your driving safer? You go figure. The County is deciding things now that greatly affect your future in many ways. You are one of more than 258,000 who live here in Chesterfield, all who need water every day. Every day. Always. You cannot be the exception to that. You decide. page 2 April, 1999 April 14t~, Wednesday, 7:00 PM, Public Meeting Room, Old Courts Building, Route 10: Chesterfield Board of Supervisors' Public Hearing on Route 288 Corridor Plan. April 24t~, Saturday, Earth Day Celebration at Pocahontas State Park: Ranger-led canoe rides, Audubon Society bird walks, Appalachian Trail hikers, mountain biking, music, and more. At 6 PM, Shakespeare's ~ in the Amphitheatre. Please visit the HAL Booth and say hello. May 3 & 4, Governor's Conference on Greenways and Trails in Roanoke, Va.. On May 2nd, Sunday, a pre-conference tour & hikes of trail systems and greenways in and near Roanoke. Call to obtain information and registration form. Sounds like a dynamite opportunity to learn a lot that could help communities like Woodlake and Brandermill. SMART TALK Surprise your friends. Be in the know about what wetlands do for us. We've heard our readers like to keep informa- tion short & sweet, but it's hard to talk about wetlands in sound-bite form. We'll try! Here goes: Wetlands have water on or near the surface of the soil for at least part of the year, soil must be "hydric" or wet soil, and plants in area are hydrophytic or water- loving plants. Some benefits of wetlands: Y, Improve water quality by removing sediments, nutrients, pesticides, and minerals from flowing water Y, Slow flow of rainwater, reducing erosion. Y, Store rainwater & runoff until it can recharge groundwater supplies or streams. Y~ Provide breeding, nesting, and feeding habitats for millions of waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, frogs and other wildlife. 5', Provide an essential part of the life cycle of many fish and shellfish. Y~ Constitute habitat for nearly 50% of the species on lists of threatened/endangered plants & animals Adapted from WATER WA VES, Spring, 1999, pp.2 & 3. HAL NEWSLETrER Buyer, Bewaret Cc'~' · ned wetlanda (filled in) may O.K. in drier seasons of the year but can be a ~<3~q,% frequent and expensive drainage problems in a fa/ny season.. Ask the people who live Another buzz word to toss around is buffer (or actually the term is riparian buffer zone). The term refers to an undeveloped area maintained alongside the banks of streams. Strips of wooded land beside the streams maintain shade & COver to protect fish & wildlife, and to keep the water cool in summer.. In fact, scient/sts are beginning to think that buffer systems are a superior way protect water quality, and Virginia will restore the buffer systems along many miles of its streams in the next few years. Other benefits of the riparian forest buffer zone include: Y~ Modifies stream temperature & control light quantity & quality (This keeps fish happy!) Enhances habitat diversity Helps stabilize banks of the stream. Helps control sediment and sediment-borne pollutants Helps control nitrate in shallow groundwater moving toward streams. X Helps control sediment-bound phosphorous, but not as effective in retaining soluble phosphorous. Provides "hiding places for aquatic creatures with detritus (fallen branches, twigs, insects falling from trees? etc.) which also feeds aquatic life important in the food chain.' ' Who would Object to such impressive reasons to buffer all our streams?' Farmers, land developers, land owners who need to make a living from the land! Taking 100-foot- wide strips of land out of production in some cases might limit the profits they need. Other concerns are fears of over-regulation, of incompatibility of a forested buffer with the adjacent use, of maintenance issues, and of abuse by trespassers. Anyone studying the long-term advantages of restoring our riparian forest buffers can only conclude that, although the challenge is enormous, the price is too high to do other- wise. page 3 April, 1999 wINg TI-IE DAY Or at least that's what the director of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Bill Matuszeski, writes in the january/February BAY JOURNAL as he reviews improvements in Bay management and looks ahead to set goals for the 2Pt century. As he cites the contributions "Bay science" has made: basic under- standing of the hydrodynamics of an estuarine system, use of computer models to test management options, proving the importance of air disposition in the over- load of nitrogen to coastal estuaries, quantifying groundwater lag time, and integrating the disciplines, Matuszeski reports that some people complain that science no longer leads policy. His response is that science can and should influence policy and science must be as alert to events and their implications as the public is, that it must deal with purpose and goal-setting, and have science there with the best information when the windows of political opportunity open. In Chesterfield County, the leadership of our local government has given a strong emphaSis to the very same idea and has brought good science to influence policy on several important issues. One of those issues is water quality, and as you read this, competent environmental engineers are walking the land in the watershed of the Swift Creek Reservoir so they can more accurately plot the sites of the regional ponds (BMP's) and develop a Master Plan . The results of their scientific assessments will be reported late this year. Will their science influence policy? It should. But it will carry a price tag, and everybody will have to decide how much science will lead us, and how much economics will lead us in our policy making about the protection of the Swift Creek Reservoir. Get ready. Stay informed. Let us hope that science will be there with the best information, as Matuszeski sug- gests, and then all of us will have a say in whether the window of political opportunity will be open to use this best scientific information to guide our policies. Dissa & D a: You're not a/one if you're thinking of dieting. Our lake's wanting to diet, too. Waterwa~ys in tb.e United States are being overfed with nutrients, which - like other foods - are crucial to life but a bad thing when overdone. Instead of a stomach bulge, excess nutri- ents in our lake can show up as "bulges" of algae and bacteria, lower levels of oxygen in the water, and even bad smells. The .22 phosphorous limit for new resi- dential development in the SCR watershed will help the diet program of our valuable reservoir. the first time, scientists recently said they have ew- dence that industrial pollution and dust from Asia travels thousands of miles across the Pacific Ocean and degrade air quality in the United States. Two out of the four businesses receiving Bay Excel- lence Awards in 1998 for their efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay are from Virginia! Hercules, Inc. in Hopewell and Robert Dunn, of E.I. Dupont de Nemours & CompanY, Inc. were acknowledged for outstanding work in implementing pollution preven- tion activities. . ..... : ..... __,___~ Virginians are fighting over using the Pamunkey River as part of a reservoir system. We are not alone. Serious international tensions have surfaced among Turkey, Syria, and Iraq because of disagreements over water rights to the Euphrates River. Iraq and Syria have threatened military action. you'd like to receive WATERWAVES, a handy- dandy little publication full of helpful tips for your home, yard, and garden, and improving water quality, call Elise Zylstra at the Chesterfield Extension Office: 751-4401. You will be put on their mailing list in a jiffy. Somewhere nearby, or even miles away you may own land that would be eligible to be an open-space ease- ment or conservation easement arranged with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and such an easement enables landowners to permanently protect their land April, 1999 page 4 HAL NEWSLETTER while still continuing to own it and ~'oy it:. The land may be sold or passed to heirs and yet will re- main subject to the donor's easement. There are tax benefits, and the land remains private property. The public benefits from the preservation of environmental qualities such as clean drinking water and streams, scenic views, open-space, and conserva- tion of soil and other natural resources. Call 225-2147 for more information about this program. People in Virginia are increasingly using this method to ease the strain on our natural resources. For example, the number of acres under "Ease ,, merits as of January, 1999, in some counties are: Albemarle, 20,799; Bath - 3,094; Faiffax - 33,958; King William _ 2,571; Rappahannock _ 6,988; Goochland _ 383; Chesterfield - 95. In January of this year a break in the only pipeline bringing water from the Shenandoah River to Win- chester lowered the city water levels so drastically that city officials declared a state of emergency. AH, YOUTH! AH, PRIZE MONEY! Grades 4 and 5 are ,,olCed to writ a on the ways trees benefit us, also. The first prize is $50.00, second is $30.00 and third is $20.00. Hands Across the Lake wishes to express Sincere appreciation to the school principals whoposted the contest announcement and rules in each school, and to the following for agreeing to be .judges in this contest: Dana Bradshaw, Research Biologist, College of William & Mary, and Coordinator, James River Association Riparian Habitat Project Dave Sirois, Environmental Engineer and Laboratory Director, Swift Creek Water Treatment Plant Richard Nunnally, Director of the Virginia Coopera- tive Extension Service in Chesterfield Stephanie Feaser, Biology Educator & Lab Techni- cian, Swift Creek Water Treatment Plant Dawn Larch, Educator, Virginia Cooperative Exten- sion Service in Chesterfield Four school personnel will also help .judge the essays. Their names are not available as we go to press, but we appreciate their help, nonetheless, as well as the assistance of Wally Pendleton. Encourage your school-age offspring to participate in an essay/story contest sponsored by Hands Across the Lake. They will have a chance to win prize money and to also hold up our natural environment for obser- vation and comment. Al1 school children in Chester- field are eligible. Papers are due April 30 at HAL, P. O. Box 1752, Midlothian, Va. 32113. (744-3054 for information.) Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12, are asked to write on the topic, "Are Wetlands a Bother or a Benefit?" First prize is $100.00 and second is $50.00. Grades 6, 7, and 8 are asked to write an essay discuss- ing the ways trees benefit our lives, and the prizes are the same as above. HAL NEWSLETT~ page 5 April, 1999 Riparian forests are often considered a stream's last defense against pollution because they reduce nonpoint source pollation and erosion. Riparian forests also protect adjacent land from floods, in addition to providing food and habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for humans. Co-chairpersons: Betty Hunter-Clapp, Thomas A. l~akurar, Ph.D. Ph.D. and Secretary: Mary Earle Treasurer- Don Pliszka HAL P.O. BOX 1752 MIDLOTHIAN, VA 23113 HAL NEWSLEITER page 6 DEPARTMENT OF/~ BUDGET AND MA .~ENT TO: The Honorable Members of the B ar~of Supervisors FROM: Rebecca T. Dickson, Director, Budget and Management ~ DATE: April 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Comments Received at March 24a Public Hearing on Budget Attached is a listing of the organizations (along with corresponding issue(s) and number of speakers) that provided comments at the March 24a Public Hearings on the Proposed FY2000 CIP, Proposed FY2000 CDBG Annual Plan and Proposed FY2000 Biennial Financial Plan. I have received Board requests to address several of the issues raised at the public hearings. These proposals will be presented at the Board's work session on April 14a. If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cc: Lane B. Ramsey Attachment The Honorable Harry Daniels, Chairman Jack McHale Arthur Warren Renny Humphrey Chesterfield CounO~ Board of Supervisor~ P. O. Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 Edward Barber Dear Mr. Daniels and Metnbera: Subject: Route 2~8 Corridor Plan Public Heating and Cononents. Counties of our entire state are wrestling with ways to develop necessary water quality standards and methods to reduce nonpoint source pollution, and meet goals to reduce, by the year 2000, the annual load of nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the main Bay from controllable sources by 40%. The Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes that the protection of the quality of state waters is a responsibility shared among state and local governments. Chesterfield has a more urgent reason to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen load from our streams and reservoirs. Thirty per cent of Chesterfield drinking water, before the recent 1998 drought, was derived from the Swift Creek, and upland tributaries and wetlands filtering this water. We have only recently obtained a full basin from which to draw, and this is April lVater tables are not yet fully recovered from last year. Alternative sources have been impacted by increased drawdown in upland headwaters. The environmental community is alarmed about not only quality of our water, but quantity. Virginia has approximately I million acres of wetlands. One quarter of these are tidal wetlands and three quarters are nontidal. Forested wetlands are the most common variety of nontidal wetlands in Virginia. However, there is a new threat taken very seriously by the environmental community. There is now risk offurther loss of wetlands with the judicial ruling last June, 1998 against the Army Corps of Engineer right to regulate draining of wetlands. This ruling may seriously impede Chesterfield's own ordinances to protect Swift Creek Reservoir unless the Board acts to implement stricter buffer protections within our borders, which is allowed under Virginia code. Chesterfield ordinances must protect the wetlands with increased buffers and stream protections for commercial and residential development. We must also follow a strict code of enforcement of our ordinances. We can no longer afford to shrug off violations that results in degradation of our wetlands, streams, and reservoir. With the buildout of the 288 Corridor, serious consequences may be seen in the interruption of wetlands, tributary streams, and the usually ignored springs which perpetuate upland tributaries. As our water table drops from increased use, and aquifers are drawn down by private and commercial enterprises, those dependent upon wells will risk economic hardship with the heavy buildout of the county. Because County citizens west of 95 are not currently managed under Virginia's Ground Water Management Act of199Z we ask that the county undertake immediate request for a management study from The Virginia Ground Water Protec~on Steering Committee (GF, rPSCJ for our county west of interstate 95 to include specific requirements for agricultural ground water withdrawal permits and to require DEQ to perform technical evaluations of proposed withdrawals. A complete inventory of Chesterfield streams with levels of impairment is also needed and should be included in future environmental assessments for our comprehensive plans for area buildout. Sincerely, Diana C. Parker 4/14/99 Chair, Fall of the James Group, Virginia Chapter Sierra Club 10700 Chalkley Road Rtchmond, Vtr nta 23237-4048 KWIK KOP¥ N1045 TEL No.804-78~-~u¢~ To: Lisa Elko: Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors clcrk From: John E. Schubert Jr, 100~ Jenny's Place, Midlothian VA 23113 Dear Ms. Elko: I would greatly appreciate your assistance in conveying to each of the Supervisors my personal thanks for their decision to retain the present status of the 'in-county' stops on GRTC BuS Route ~70, those along Forest Hill Avenue and in Stoney Point. Although my immediate interest in this issue relaues to my use of the GRTC routes up into that portion of the county, I also generally support the extension of bus service into our County for the benefits of reduced traffic congestion, possible avoidance or postponement of road widening and construction, and the clear and positive environmental effects such action would provide. associates are We c~t~zen appreciate the good work you and your doiDg. Please keep it up! j.E.Schubert P. 01 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY G. DANIEL CHAIRMAN DALE DISTRICT ARTHUR S. WARREN VICE CHAIRMAN CLOVER HILL DISTRICT J. L. McHALE, III BERMUDA DISTRICT RENNY BUSH HUMPHREY MATOACA DISTRICT EDWARD B. BARBER MIDLOTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY P.O. Box 40 CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA 23832-0040 (804) 748-1050 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Art Warren, Clover Hill Supervisor FROM: Sara Habeck, Senior Planner 748-1055 Joan Salvati, Water Quality Administrator 751-4665 SUBJECT: The Route 288 Corridor Plan Water Quality Modeling LANE B. RAMSEY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: April 14, 1999 In response to citizen concerns regarding the water quality modeling conducted for The Route 288 Corridor Plan, here is some information regarding the assumptions and calculations given to CH2M Hill by County staff. CH2M Hill is the group of the consultants contracted by the County's Environmental Engineering Department to analyze the impact of land use changes for The Route 288 Corridor Plan on the Swift Creek Reservoir. They are also the firm completing the County's Regional BMP Study. · The total acreage of the Upper Swift Creek watershed is 41,950. Of that, 34,069 acres are in Chesterfield County, with the balance in Powhatan County. The Route 288 Corridor Plan area contains 4,416 acres within the watershed, or slightly more than 10%. · Mrs. Kramer's original model accounted for all existing zoning cases in the area, including Charter Colony, Center Pointe, Acropolis, etc. Mrs. Kramer also accounted for developments shown in the County's adopted comprehensive plan, such as 300 acres at the 288/60 interchange and commercial land uses along both sides of Midlothian Turnpike from 288 to the Powhatan County line. · For the purposes of the water quality modeling, 1,682 acres were assumed to be converted from residential to non-residential land uses. The updated model includes all non-residential land uses contemplated by Th~ Route 288 Corridor Plan, even in areas where there are existing residential structures. The non-residential calculation also includes 454 acres that are designated for mixed uses, including residential. · Because the model includes existing homes and land designated (and zoned) for mixed use developments, the phosphorous loading anticipated by the model is the worst case scenario, given the County's current ordinances. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service. Memo to Art Warren April 14, 1999 Page 2 · Including all possible non-residential land uses, the model showed a 1.5 to 3% change in phosphorous over the existing situation and did not exceed the County's standard. · Given existing houses and zoning in the study area. it is highly unlikely that all of these areas will be converted from residential to non-residential. Please call if we can provide any information or answer any questions regarding this topic. C-' Board of Supervisors Lane Ramsey, County Administrator M.D. "Pete" Stith, Deputy County Administrator, Community Development Tom Jacobson, Director, Planning Department Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service.