91SR0146June 26, 1991BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
91SR0146
Chesterfield Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 47
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Beach Road
REQUEST:
Renewal of Conditional Use (Case 85S083) to permit a fraternal
organization in an Agricultural (A) District. Specifically, Condition
3 of Case 85S083 granted the Conditional Use for five (5) years from
the date of approval. ~]~is Conditional Use expired on July 24, 1990.
PROPOSED LAAID USE:
At present, the request property is vacant. However, a fraternal
organization, with associated parking and driveway areas, is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMP[END APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3 AND ACCEPTANCE OF
THE PROFFKRED CONDITIONS ON PAGE 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
The proposed use does not conform to the Western Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, which designates the property for low density
residential use.
Although staff supported the original Conditional Use (Case 85S083),
such support was contingent upon the anticipation that the surrounding
area would remain relatively undeveloped for the foreseeable future.
Since approval of the original Conditional Use, property to the north,
east and southwest of the request site has been zoned residentially
and two (2) subdivisions (i.e., Brandy Oaks and Carters Mill) are
being developed in the immediate vicinity. Given the proximity of
existing and anticipated residential development, the area is no
longer suitable for the kinds of activities and hours of operation
associated with a fraternal organization.
As area residential development occurs, the potential adverse impacts
upon area residents from any use that generates traffic, lights from
automobiles at night, and noise will increase. The proposed use would
be best located in or near established commercial or transitional
areas, away from existing and emerging residential neighborhoods.
However, should the Board wish to approve this request, imposition of the
following conditions and acceptance of the proffered conditions would be
appropriate.
(NOTE: THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND
THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOM}~EI) SOLEI~ BY STAFF.
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITIONS
(cpc)
(cPc) 2.
Except as stated herein, development shall comply with emerging
growth standards for Community Business (C-3) Districts adjacent
to residentially zoned property.
A 500 foot setback shall be maintained adjacent to Beach Road;
Within this setback, a seventy-five (75) foot buffer shall be
maintained adjacent to Beach Road. The width of this buffer
shall not be reduced through the site plan review process.
(NOTES:
(a) Within required setbacks, existing trees eight (8)
inches in caliper or greater must be retained except where
removal is necessary to provide access.
(b) Within the required buffer, landscaping must be
provided where existing vegetation is insufficient to meet
Zoning Ordinance landscaping requirements for a seventy-five
(75) foot buffer.)
(cpc)
All structures shall have an architectural style compatible with
area neighborhoods. Compatibility may be achieved through the
use of similar building massing materials, scale, or other
architectural features. Loading docks and drive-in doors shall
be prohibited.
(cpc)
(cPc)
(cpc)
With the exception of maintenance activities, hours of operation
shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Sunday
through Thursday; and between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight,
Friday through Saturday.
There shall be no outdoor public address or speaker system.
Activities shall be limited to the following:
a) Fraternal or other similar organized activities, when
restricted to the interior of a building;
b) Passive recreational facilities, such as picnic areas;
c) Jogging and exercise trails and equipment;
2 91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
d)
Playgrounds and/or athletic fields provided that playfields,
courts or other similar active recreational uses shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from adjacent properties and
the 100 foot setback shall be landscaped per Section
21.1-228 (a) (4) of the Zoning Ordinance.
(cPc) ?.
One (1) freestanding sign, not to exceed fifty (50) square feet
in area and ten (10) feet in height, shall be permitted to
identify the use. The area of the sign may be increased by
thirty-two (32) square feet if an interchangeable copy sign is
incorporated. This sign shall comply with Section 21.1-266 of
the Zoning Ordinance, where applicable.
PROFlZERKD CONDITIONS
(cPc) 1.
Prior to site plan approval, forty-five (45) feet right of way on
the south side of Beach Road measured from the centerline of that
part of Beach Road immediately adjacent to the property shall be
dedicated free and unrestricted to and for the benefit of
Chesterfield County.
(CPC) 2.
The ditch along the south side of Beach Road shall be relocated
to provide an adequate shoulder for the entire property frontage.
Such relocation shall occur in conjunction with development of
the property.
(cpc) 3.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, one of the following shall
be accomplished for fire protection:
For building permits obtained on or before June 30, 1991,
the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall pay to the County
$150 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. If the
building permit is obtained after June 30, 1991, the amount
of the required payment shall be adjusted upward or downward
by the same percentage that the Marshall Swift Building Cost
Index increased or decreased between June 30, 1991, and the
date of payment. With the approval of the County's Fire
Chief, the owner, developer or assignee(s) shall receive a
credit toward the required payment for the cost of any fire
suppression system not otherwise required by law which is
included as a part of the development.
OR
The owner, developer or assignee(s) shall provide a fire
suppression system not otherwise required by law which the
County's Fire Chief determines substantially reduces the need for
County facilities otherwise necessary for fire protection.
3 91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
South line of Beach Road, southeast of Brandy Oaks Drive. Tax Map 109-12
(1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 29).
Existing ZoninR.:
A
Size:
14.0
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning & Land Use:
North - R-25; Brandy Oaks Subdivision
South - A and A with Conditional Use; Commercial (100 foot communications
tower) or vacant
East - A; Vacant
West - A; Vacant
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
Water:
The request site lies within the Swift Creek Pressure Zone and water
is supplied by the Swift Creek Treatment Plant. A sixteen (16) inch
water main is~ located approximately 100 feet from the easternmost
property line of the site. The results of a computer-simulated flow
test indicate that adequate flow and pressure should be available to
supply the domestic and fire protection needs of the proposed site.
Use of the public water system is required by Ordinance (Chapter 20,
Article II) and intended.
Sewerage:
At present, public wastewater is not available. Use of a private
septic tank and drainfield system intended. Use of a private septic
system must be approved by the Health Department. The Health
Department has indicated that preliminary soil studies demonstrate the
suitability of the area for the use of septic tank and drainfield
systp_mm.
91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
Drainage and Erosion:
Drains to Second Branch and ultimately to Swift Creek. No existing or
anticipated on- or off-site drainage or erosion probl~m~. Off-site
drainage easements and improvements may be required.
Fire Service:
Clover Hill Fire Station, Company ~7.
fire hydrants may be required.
Dependent upon present locations,
The proposed use will generate additional need for fire protection
services. The applicant has submitted a proffered condition to address
this need. (Proffered Condition 3)
Transportation:
Traffic information is not available for fraternal uses. Vehicles
generated by this development will be distributed along Beach Road, which
had a 1991 traffic count of 948 vehicles per day.
The Th0rou~hfare Plan identifies Beach Road as a major arterial with a
recommended right of way width of ninety (90) feet. The applicant has
agreed to dedicate forty-five (45) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Beach Road, in accordance with the Plan. (Proffered
Condition 1)
Beach Road is a narrow roadway with minimal shoulders and poor vertical and
horizontal alignments. At minimum, the ditch along Beach Road should be
relocated to provide an adequate shoulder for the entire property frontage.
· (Proffered Condition 2)
VDOT has indicated that sight distance along Beach Road is limited and
"off-site" easements may be required to provide line of sight. At the time
of site plan review, specific recommendations will be provided regarding
access and internal circulation. ,
LAND USE
General Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Western Area Land Use and Transportation
Plan, which designates the property for rural density residential use (1.5
units per acre or less).
Area Development Trends:
The majority of area properties are zoned agriculturally and residentially
and are being developed for a single family residential subdivisions (i.e.,
Brandy Oaks and Carters Mill) or remain vacant. Adjacent property to the
south has been zoned and developed for a 100 foot communications tower.
5 91SR0146/PC/JUNE16G
Zoning History:
On July 24, 1985, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation
by the Planning Commission, approved a Conditional Use to permit a
fraternal organization on the request property and adjacent property to the
south (Case 85S083). Conditions were imposed to address land use
compatibility issues. In particular, Condition 3 of Case 85S083 limited
the use to a period not to exceed five (5) years from the date of approval.
The time period was imposed in anticipation that the area would experience
residential development and a fraternal organization may become
inappropriate in the future. Specifically, the following conditions were
imposed:
CONDITIONS
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted with
the application shall be considered the plan of development. (P)
This Conditiona~ Use shall be granted to and for the Chesterfield
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #47, and shall not be
transferable nor run with the land. (P)
This Conditional Use shall be granted for a period not to exceed
five (5) years from date of approval and may be renewed upon
satisfactory reapplication and demonstration that the use has not~
adversely affected adjacent or area development. (P)
(Note: If renewal is granted, more stringent conditions may be
imposed depending on area development.)
There shall be no outdoor lighting other than that necessary for
security purposes. Any security light shall be positioned so as
not to project into adjacent properties. (P)
Hours of operation shall be confined to between 8:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday; between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00
a.m. on Friday and Saturday. (P)
The proposed building shall have a brick facade and an appearance
similar to the Dale Rurit~n Club building at Route 10 and
Chippenham Parkway. (P)
Ye
The buffers and landscaping as shown on the plan shall be
maintained and, where necessary to effectively screen the use,
additional planting may be required. Final site plans shall
reflect this requirement. (p)
Prior to the release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Beach Road,
shall be dedicated to and for the County of Chesterfield, free
and unrestricted. (T)
6 91SR0146/PC/JIPNE26G
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of thirty-eight (38)
ten foot by 20 foot paved parking spaces for the 7,500 square foot
building. The plan submitted with the application fails to show a
sufficient number of spaces. Final site plans must reflect this
requirement.
Since approval of Case 85S083, a portion of the original request property
has been zoned and developed for a communications tower (Case 88SN0041).
The fraternal organization has not yet been developed.
As noted herein, the applicant seeks to renew the original Conditional Use
to allow development of the fraternal organization.
Site Design:
The original Master Plan approved with Case 85S083 depicts the fraternal
use and associated parking centrally located on the property, well south of
Beach Road. Access was provided via a driveway to Beach Road.
The plan submitted with the current application depicts these facilities
much closer to Beach Road, with parking located within twenty-two (22) feet
of the ultimate right of way of Beach Road. It should be noted that the
minimum building and parking setback along Beach Road is fifty (50) feet.
As noted herein, property to the north along Beach Road has been zoned and
developed for a single family residential subdivision. Given the proximity
of this subdivision, a site design for any non-residential development on
the request property should reflect the greater setbacks depicted on the
original Maater Plan. It should be noted, however, that given the width of
the property, it will be difficult to provide sufficient buffers on the
west and east boundaries to protect future residential development on
adjacent properties.
Architectural Treatment:
Condition 6 of Case 85S083 required that the proposed building have a brick
facade and an appearance similar to the Dale Ruritan Club building, located
at the intersection of Iron Bridge Road and Chippenham Parkway. The
applicant has indicated a desire to develop the proposed fraternal
organization building in accordance with this required treatment.
Buffers & Screening:
Condition 7 of Case 85S083 required buffers surrounding the improvements.
Buffers were to be landscaped to provide effective visual screening, of
improvements. The approved Master Plan depicted preservation of existing
vegetation along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property and
new vegetation along the western boundary and Beach Road. While the
applicant has indicated a desire to develop the request property subject to
these buffers, the plan submitted with the application fails to comply with
these requirements.
91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
Conclusions:
The proposed use does not conform to the Western Area Land Use and
Transportation Plan, which designates the property for low density
residential use. Although staff supported the original Conditional Use
(Case 85S083), such support was contingent upon the anticipation that the
surrounding area would remain relatively undeveloped for the foreseeable
future. However, since approval of the original Conditional Use, property
to the north, east and southwest of the request site has been zoned
residentially, and a subdivision (Brandy Oaks) is being developed on the
property directly across Beach Road from the request site. Given the
proximity of existing and anticipated residential development, the area is
no longer suitable for the kinds of activities and hours of operation
associated with a fraternal organization. As residential development
continues to occur along this portion of Beach Road, the potential adverse
impacts upon area residents, from any use that generates traffic, lights
from automobiles at night, and noise will increase. Such uses would be
better located in or near established commercial areas and away from
evolving residential neighborhoods.
However, should the Board wish to approve this request, such approval
should be subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation portion
of this "Request Analysis and Recommendation," which address the issues
discussed herein (Conditions 1 through 7). It should be noted that
Planning staff had recommended that if this request were to be approved,
hours of operation on Friday and Saturday, be limited to between 8:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. The Planning Commission, however, approved 12:00 midnight
(Condition 4). ~ese conditions are designed to minimize the impact that
this use would have on existing and anticipated area residential
development and include provisions relative to site design and layout,
hours of operation, outdoor activities, lighting, landscaping, parking,
access, architectural treatment, setbacks, signs, utilities, buffers and
screening of dumpsters and loading areas. In pmrticular, any
non-residential use should be centrally located on the property to provide
the maximum possible perimeter setbacks and buffers, similar to the layout
depicted on the origimal Master Plan approved with Case 85S083 (Condition
2). Even with such conditions, however, staff anticipates severe land use
conflicts between the subject use and future residential development.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/16/91):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for
thirty (30) days to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with staff
and develop a list of conditions should the Commission and Board wish to
approve the fraternal use.
8 91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
Staff (4/17/91):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information
should be submitted no later than April 22, 1991, for consideration at the
May Planning Commission meeting.
Applicant's Representative and Staff (4/29/91):
A meeting was held to discuss a list of conditions that the Commission and
Board could impose should they wish to approve the fraternal use. The
conditions discussed at the meeting, which are listed in the Recommendation
portion of this "Request Analysis and Recommendation," regulate development
standards, setbacks, buffers, architectural treatment, hours of operation,
outdoor activities and signs for the fraternal use adjacent to existing and
anticipated area residential development. Again, even with these
conditions, staff anticipates severe land use conflicts. The applicant's
representative indicated that he would discuss these conditions with the
applicant and Matoaca District Commissioner.
Staff (5/3/91):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/21/91):
The applicant accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation and
submitted Proffered Condition 3 relative to fire service impacts.
One (1) citizen suggested that the Conditional Use be approved for a
limited time period to allow the applicants an opportunity to use the site
and establish what impact the facility would have on the neighborhood.
On motion of Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mrs. Warren, the Commission
recommended approval of this request, subject to the conditions on pages 2
and 3 and acceptance of the proffered conditions on page 3.
AYES: Messrs. Warren, Perkins, Belcher and Miller.
ABSENT: Mrs. Boisineau.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June 26, 1991, beginning at 2:00 p.m.,
will take under consideration this request.
9 91SR0146/PC/JUNE26G
,4
R-25
N
R-25
CARTE~3
~'15R014~
I~ENEWAL
5H. Zc/
OF
ORI¢INAL PLAN
N
R'E_X,/I 5E D PLAN
915 Roi4~-Z
ZONING DISCLOSURE AFFIDAVIT
I, "~~ ~-~~-,----~-- do hereby Swear or afF~u that to
the best of my knowledge ~d be~ef, the follow~g ~forma~on is t~e:
1. I ~ the applicant for ~e l~d use ~endment on parcel number
[ of t~ map number i0 ~
requesting
2. With the exception of governmental entities and public service
compani, es owning recorded easements over the proper}y (the "Subject
Property") which is the subject of the land use amendment application referred
to in Paragraph 1, the following is a list of the names and addresses of all
persons owning any legal or equitable interest in the Subject Property as a
title owner, lessee, easement owner, contract purchaser, assignee, optionee,
licensee or noteholder, including trustees, beneficiaries of trusts, general
partners, limited partners and all other natural or artificial persons:
Name Address
Type of Ownership Interest
3. The following is a list 'of the names and addresses of ali natursl or
artiflcisI persons owning an interest in any corporation, partnership, joint
, 'venture, trust or other artificial person disclosed in Paragraph 2 (other than
those listed in Paragraph $ or Paragraph 7 below) which has a total of ten or
fewer shareholders, partners, beneficiaries or owners:
Name Address
Name of Artificisl Person
-2-
SM/nwp4770: N27
4. The following is a list of the names .and addresses of all natural or
artificial persons owning 10% or more of any class of stock issued by a
'corporation or an interest of 10% or more in any partnership, joint venture,
trust or other artificial person disclosed in Paragraph 2 (other than those
listed in Paragraph 6 or 7 below):
.Name Address Name of Corporation
-3-
SM/nwp4770:N27
$. If any of the persons disclosed in Paragraphs 3 or 4 above is a
corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other artificial person, the
following is a list of all members of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission or their immediate
households owning any interest in the Subject Property as a title owner,
easement owner, contract purchaser, lessee,, assignee, optionee or licensee,
either individually or by ownership of an interest in a corporation, trust,
partnership, joint venture or other artificial person owning any such interest:
Name of Household Name of Supervisor
Member or Commissioner'
Description of Ownership
Interest
-4- SM/nwp4770: N27
$. I hereby certify that the following corporations disclosed in
Paragraph 2 are regularly traded on a stock exchange or in the over the
,'counter market or have more than 100 shareholders:
7. I hereby certify that after the exercise of due diligence, I have
been unable to learn the identifies of the owners of the following corporations,
partnerships, joint ventures, trusts or other artificial persons disclosed in
Paragraph 2:
-5- SM/nwp4770: N27
8. If any of the persons disclosed in Paragraphs 3 or 4 above is a
corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other artificial person, I
'hereby certify that no member of the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County, the Chesterfield County Planning Commission or their immediate
households, other than those Supervisors, Commissioners or household members
named in Paragraph $ above, owns any interest in the Subject Property as a
title owner, easement owner, contract purchaser, lessee, assignee, optionee or
licensee, either individually or by ownership of an interst in a corporation,
trust, partnership, joint venture or other artificial person owning any such
interest.
9. Prior to every public hearing in connection with the land use
amendment application referred.to in Paragraph 1 above, I will file a revised
Zoning Disclosure Affidavit if there has been any change in the information set
forth above.
WITNt~S$ the following signature:
-6-
SM/nwp4770: N27
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, to-wiT:
This day~ "\'~~ ~__. ~,~ personally appe~ed before me,
~~~ ~~ , a Not~y Pubic ~ ~d for ~e Co~ ~d
State ~ores~d, ~d swore or ~med that the matters stated ~ the foregoing
Zon~g Dis~osure Affida~t ~e t~e to ~e best of his ~owledge ~d belief.
My Commission Expires:
tary Public
-7-
SM/nwp4770: N27
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEET lNG DATE:
SUBJECT:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
ITEM NUMBER:~ /J/~--~
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Executive session, pursuant to ~ 2.1-344(a) (3), Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, to discuss the condition, acquisition
and use of real property for public purposes relating to the
extension of Route 288 to Route 60.
County Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: YES
0805:1273:44
NO I-I
$1GNAT URE:
COUNTY ADMI N~ISTRATOR
BOS9891
MOTION:
SECOND:
DATE:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
HELD IN CONFORMANCE WIT~ LAW
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned
into Executive Session in accordance with a formal vote of the
Board, and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective
July 1, 1989, provides for certification that sdch Executive
Session was conducted in conformity with law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each
member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of
Information Act were discussed in the Executive Session to
which this certification applies, and ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the
Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or
considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certifi-
cation.
Vote:
(by roll call)
The Board being polled, the vote was as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT DURING VOTE:
ABSENT DURING MEETING:
**CERTIFIED**
CLERK TO THE BOARD
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
mO
om
o
o
I.-'-
ri- D.I= t~.O
~ 0 ~
0 ID IzI
I,~ 0 I~
0 0 0 0
I~.
O
0
0
o Izl ol
o o 0 0
~0
I~ u'l
o o o o
I-l: cf Il:
I,~ 0 I-~
I-.-.
I ID
o o
o o
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 IZl ~ 0 ~ tn
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~o 12o
· * 0 0 *
I~ I
m
c~ I~ ex)
I m Go
~ o
~-' I
tn i~ o o
o o o o o o o o o
o o o
0 o o
H-
o 01 01
o o 0
o
~ 0
o
o
o o o
tn tn o
0 0 o o o o
' ' 0 0 ·
00 F~ tn
U'l u't o
o o o o o o
o o
o o o
~ 0
0
m ri-
~ m 0
~-h 0 0
CHESTERFI ELD COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGE NDA
MEETING DATE : June 26, 1991
ITEM NUMBER: 11. D. 2
~UBJECT:
Route 288 North Design Public Hearing
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The Board is requested to approve the attached statement supporting
VDOT's design for the extension of Route 288 from the Powhite Parkway
interchange to the Powhatan County line.
A58
ATTACHMENTS: YES ~3 NO [2]
BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Transportation has scheduled a
design public hearing on Tuesday JUly 16, 1991, at 7 p.m. in the
Midlothian High School auditorium. A summary of the major aspects of
the design follows:
· VDOT's year 2007 traffic forecasts for Route 288 in Chesterfield
range from 67,400 to 94,500 vehicles per day.
· The project begins approximately 1.2 miles south of the
Powhite/Route 288 interchange and eXtends approximately 7.5 miles to
the Chesterfield/Powhatan County line. The main lanes of Route 288
are designed to accommodate a six lane facility. Two lane collector
distributor roads (CD), on each side of the main lines, will begin
just south of Genito Road and will extend through the Powhite
Parkway interchange, the proposed Lucks Lane interchange, and the
proposed Relocated Coalfield Road interchange. The CD's will
terminate north of the Relocated Coalfield Road interchange.
R.J. McCr~cken
Director of Transportation
SIGNATURE:
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
O000GO
BOS-9891
Route 288 North Design
June 26, 1991
Page 2
® The existing Powhite Parkway/Route 288 interchange will be
expanded to provide a full cloverleaf interchange.
· Lucks Lane will be relocated as a six lane divided facility
crossing over Route 288 and connecting.with existing Centerpointe
Parkway. A new signalized, "urban diamond" interchange is proposed
at Lucks Lane/Route 288. Route 288 and the collector distributor
roads will be depressed below ground level in the Lucks Lane area to
lessen the impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
· A new six lane "Relocated Coalfield Road" will be constructed
approximately 3,800 feet north of existing Coalfield Road. Relocated
Coalfield will bridge over Route 288. A new signalized, "urban
diamond" interchange is proposed at Relocated Coalfield/Route 288.
Existing Coalfield Road will be bridged over Route 288. Access to
Route 288 will not be provided from existing Coalfield Road. Route
288 and the collector distributor roads will be mostly depressed
below ground level through the Coalfield Road Relocated interchange
area to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.
· After leaving the Coalfield Road Relocated/Route 288
interchange, Route 288 will cross the Virginia Power transmission
lines and run parallel to the lines toward Otterdale Road. Route
288 will bridge over Otterdale Road. Access to Route 288 will not be
provided to or from Otterdale Road. Route 288 will also bridge over
the Southern Railroad.
® Route 288 will pass under Route 60 and a new cloverleaf
interchange will be provided.
~ After leaving the Route 288/Route 60 interchange, Route 288
will proceed northward toward the Powhatan/Chesterfield County line
along an alignment slightly west of Micheaux Creek.
® Five family dwellings and five commercial businesses lie within
the limits of the proposed right-of-way for Route 288 and are
expected to be displaced.
~ The estimated cost of engineering, right-of-way, and
construction of Route 288 North in Chesterfield County is
approximately $115 million. No funds have been allocated in VDOT's
current six year improvement program for the acquisition of
right-of-way or construction of the project.
· After considering the public hearing comments, the project will
be submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for their
approval.
~COMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Chairman present the
attached statement supporting VDOT's design for Route 288 North.
000061
./
./
O0006S
-F
oooo6a
-[
7-
00006'~
00006~
PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT
I AM MAURY SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. IT IS MY
PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD, TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROPOSED
DESIGN FOR ROUTE 288. YOUR DESIGN DOES AN EXCELLENT
JOB OF ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN THE
COUNTY AND THE REGION. WE ARE ESPECIALLY
APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS
OF ROUTE 288 ON ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENTS. THE LOCATION AND DESIGN STAFF IS TO
BE PARTICULARLY COMMENDED FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO
INCORPORATE INTO THE
ALTERNATIVES SUBMITTED
BUSINESSMEN ALONG THE
ORIGINAL DESIGN CONCEPT
BY CITIZEN GROUPS AND
CORRIDOR. IF THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS PUT FORTH TONIGHT, WE ASK
THAT YOU ALSO GIVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDERATION.
O000BG
ROUTE 288 CERTAINLY HAS A LONG, DRAWN OUT
HISTORY. I AM SURE, ALL OF US HAVE WONDERED, AT ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER, IF ITS BENEFITS WOULD EVER BE WORTH
THE DISAPPOINTMENTS AND CONTROVERSY WE'VE ENDURED.
THE SOUTHERN LEG OF ROUTE 288 HAS BE OPEN FOR ABOUT
A YEAR. ALREADY, THOUSANDS OF OUR CITIZENS ARE
ENJOYING THE BENEFITS OF A SAFE, EFFICIENT HIGHWAY.
THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S PROMPT
APPROVAL OF THE ROUTE 288 DESIGN WILL BE A MAJOR
STEP TOWARD EXTENDING THESE BENEFITS TO EVEN MORE OF
OUR CITIZENS.
LOOK FORWARD
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND
TO WORKING WITH YOU TO ASSURE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 288.
000067
PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT
I AM MAURY SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. IT IS MY
PLEASURE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, ON BEHALF OF
THE BOARD, TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR YOUR PROPOSED
DESIGN FOR ROUTE 288. YOUR DESIGN DOES AN EXCELLENT
JOB OF ADDRESSING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN THE
COUNTY AND THE REGION. WE ARE ESPECIALLY
APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS
OF ROUTE 288 ON ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENTS. THE LOCATION AND DESIGN STAFF IS TO
BE PARTICULARLY COMMENDED FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO
INCORPORATE INTO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN CONCEPT
ALTERNATIVES SUBMITTED BY CITIZEN · GROUPS AND
BUSINESSMEN ALONG THE CORRIDOR. IF THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
PUT FORTH TONIGHT, WE ASK
THAT YOU ALSO GIVE THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONSIDERATION.
ROUTE 288 CERTAINLY HAS A LONG, DRAWN OUT
HISTORY. I AM SURE, ALL OF US HAVE WONDERED, AT ONE
TIME OR ANOTHER, IF ITS BENEFITS WOULD EVER BE WORTH
THE DISAPPOINTMENTS AND CONTROVERSY WE'VE ENDURED.
THE SOUTHERN LEG OF ROUTE 288 HAS BEEN OPEN FOR
ABOUT A YEAR.
ARE ENJOYING
ALREADY, THOUSANDS
THE BENEFITS OF A
HIGHWAY. THE COMMONWEALTH
PROMPT APPROVAL OF THE ROUTE
MAJOR STEP
OF OUR CITIZENS
SAFE, EFFICIENT.
MORE OF
TRANSPORTATION BOARD'S
288 DESIGN WILL BE A
TOWARD EXTENDING THESE BENEFITS TO EVEN
OUR CITIZENS. 'THE DEPARTMENT
CONSTRUCT THE LOOPS AND RAMPS AT THE POWHITE
INTERCHANGE IMMEDIATELY SO THAT THE PEOPLE TRYING TO
GET ONTO EXISTING ROUTE 288 CAN AVOID THE HAZARDS
THEY MUST FACE TODAY OF U-TURNING ON POWHITE OR
SHOULD
DRIVING DOWN OLD HUNDRED ROAD . WE THANK YOU FOR
YOUR COOPERATION AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
YOU TO ASSURE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 288.
WITH