The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-02-13 Packet~~~~~~\ .~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ 1' - - ~ .I - - .s ~~!RGINlA CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 2.A. Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Director, Intergovernmental Relations will provide a legislative update to the Board of Supervisors. Preparers Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No ~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 7 AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 2.B. Subject: County Administrator's Comments County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to recognize the recent appointment of George E. Braunstein, Executive Director of the Community Services Board of Chesterfield County, to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Advisory Council. This appointment was made by Michael 0. Leavitt, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Summary of Information: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is a public health agency within the federal Department of Health and Human Services. This agency is responsible for improving the accountability, capacity, and effectiveness of the nation's substance abuse prevention, addictions treatment, and mental health services delivery systems. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Advisory Council is a 12-member panel of experts that meets regularly to advise the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA's Administrator on a wide range of public health matters related to prevention, treatment and recovery support services. Preparers Rebecca T. Dickson Title: Deputy County Administrator Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 1~00~~12 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA As a current member and past chair of the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, Mr. Braunstein has been recognized for designing conference programs that uniquely combine legislative and policy making issues, with academically based educational experiences. Mr. Braunstein's term on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration National Advisory Council will end November 30, 2010. '~ ~ ,> A ~'~% ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~, ~~ ~ C u~ ~~ ~~~ ~R~s~t~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 5. Subject: Resolutions Recognizing Dr. Walter R. Beam, Mr. Reuben J. Waller, Jr., Mrs. Sarah C. Eastwood and Mr. Kevin L. Salminen for their Contributions to the Committee on the Future and Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Committee on the Future has requested that the Board of Supervisors commend and recognize Dr. Walter R. Beam, Mr. Reuben J. Waller, Jr., Mrs. Sarah C. Eastwood and Mr. Kevin L. Salminen for their outstanding service to Chesterfield County and the Committee on the Future. Summary of Information: Dr. Beam, Mr. Waller, Mrs. Eastwood, and Mr. Salminen are being recognized for their commitment and dedicated service to the county and the Committee on the Future. The Committee is appointed by the board to identify and address issues in terms of their long range impact on the county. Preparers Mary C. Kruse Title: GovernmentAffairs Analyst Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~D00~4 RECOGNIZING DR. WALTER R. BEAM FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Committee on the Future was established in 1987 by the Board of Supervisors and included in the County Charter for the purpose of assessing the future and long range challenges facing the county, advising the Board of Supervisors, and making recommendations for minimizing the adverse effect of future changes on the county; and WHEREAS, Dr. Walter R. Beam was appointed as a member of the Committee on January 12, 2000; and WHEREAS, Dr. Beam has served the citizens of the Bermuda District with distinction; and WHEREAS, Dr. Beam served as an active committee member for eight years; and WHEREAS, during his tenure, the Committee completed the "Aging of the Population" report recognizing the opportunities created by the growing population of senior citizens, acknowledging the collective community obligation to meet seniors' needs, and offering suggestions that address the needs and opportunities of senior citizens in the areas of health, information services, mobility, education, social and leisure time, finances and housing; and WHEREAS, the Committee also compiled the "Green Infrastructure" report concerning the conservation of open spaces, the protection of natural resources and the preservation of heritage places for the benefit of the economy, the environment and the health and well being of current Chesterfield County residents and future generations; and WHEREAS, Dr. Beam helped the Committee identify and research the challenges of globalization facing Chesterfield County in the future; and WHEREAS, Dr. Beam was instrumental in the completion of two reports, the development of extensive research and dedicated countless hours to the Committee during the past eight years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 13th day of February 2008, publicly recognizes Dr. Walter R. Beam and commends him for his dedication and outstanding service to the Committee on the Future and to the citizens of Chesterfield County.. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Dr. Beam and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. ~000~5 RECOGNIZING MR. REUBEN J. WALLER, JR. FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Committee on the Future was established in 1987 by the Board of Supervisors and included in the County Charter for the purpose of assessing the future and long range challenges facing the county, advising the Board of Supervisors, and making recommendations for minimizing the adverse effect of future changes on the county; and WHEREAS, Mr. Reuben J. Waller, Jr. was appointed as a member of the Committee on January 14, 2004; and WHEREAS, Mr. Waller has served the citizens of the Midlothian District with distinction; and WHEREAS, Mr. Waller served as an active committee member for four years'; and WHEREAS, Mr. Waller has served as Vice-chairman of the Committee from January 2006 through December 2007; and WHEREAS, Mr. Waller conducted numerous Committee meetings and public forums; and WHEREAS, during his tenure, the Committee completed the "Green Infrastructure" report concerning the conservation of open spaces, the protection of natural resources and the preservation of heritage places for the benefit of the economy, the environment and the health and well being of current Chesterfield County residents and future generations; and WHEREAS, he also helped the Committee identify and research the challenges of globalization facing Chesterfield County in the future; and WHEREAS, Mr. Waller was instrumental in the completion of one report, the development of extensive research and dedicated countless hours to the Committee during the past four years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 13th day of February 2008, publicly recognizes Mr. Reuben J. Waller, Jr. and commends him for his dedication and outstanding service to the Committee on the Future and to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Waller and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. u€)~Q~6 RECOGNIZING MRS. SARAH C. EASTWOOD FOR HER SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Committee on the Future was established in 1987 by the Board of Supervisors and included in the County Charter for the purpose of assessing the future and long range challenges facing the county, advising the Board of Supervisors, and making recommendations for minimizing the adverse effect of future changes on the county; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Sarah C. Eastwood was appointed as a member of the Committee on March 24, 2004; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Eastwood has served the citizens of the Bermuda District with distinction; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Eastwood served as an active committee member for four years; and WHEREAS, during her tenure, the Committee completed the "Green Infrastructure" report concerning the conservation of open spaces, the protection of natural resources and the preservation of heritage places for the benefit of the economy, the environment and the health and well being of current Chesterfield County residents and future generations; and WHEREAS, she also helped the Committee identify and research the challenges of globalization facing Chesterfield County in the future; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Eastwood was instrumental in the completion of one report, the development of extensive research and dedicated countless hours to the Committee during the past four years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 13th day of February 2008, publicly recognizes Mrs. Sarah C. Eastwood and commends her for her dedication and outstanding service to the Committee on the Future and to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mrs. Eastwood and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. i~a~~0~-7 RECOGNIZING MR. KEVIN L. SALMINEN FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE WHEREAS, the Chesterfield County Committee on the Future was established in 1987 by the Board of Supervisors and included in the County Charter for the purpose of assessing the future and long range challenges facing the county, advising the Board of Supervisors, and making recommendations for minimizing the adverse effect of future changes on the county; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kevin L. Salminen was appointed as a member of the Committee on April 12, 2006; and WHEREAS, Mr. Salminen has served the citizens of the Matoaca District with distinction; and WHEREAS, Mr. Salminen served as an active committee member for two years; and WHEREAS, during his tenure, the Committee identified and researched the challenges of globalization facing Chesterfield County in the future ; and WHEREAS, Mr. Salminen was instrumental in the development of extensive research and dedicated countless hours to the Committee during the past two years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 13th day of February 2008, publicly recognizes Mr. Kevin L. Salminen and commends him for his dedication and outstanding service to the Committee on the Future and to the citizens of Chesterfield County. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Salminen and that this resolution be permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia. t3~3~C138 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ., AGENDA ~, a- ~..- Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 6. Subject: Work Sessions on Projected Revenues for the FY2009-FY2010 Budget, Financial Policies, and the Chesterfield Community Services Board Proposed FY2009- FY2010 Budget County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board is requested to hold a work session to review projected revenues for the Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget, financial policies, and the Chesterfield Community Services Board FY2009-FY2010 proposed budget. Summary of Information: A work session to review revenues for the Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget and a review of financial policies has been scheduled for this date. In addition, the Chesterfield Community Services Board will present its proposed budget. The County Administrator's overall proposed budget will be presented on March 10th. Work sessions on the proposed budget will take place over the next two months. Copies of the planned presentations are attached. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Manage Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No r ~: . _ 1 • _ ~~ •' ~ :1~ t~ ti_ .~ ••~~ l 1 1 ' ~ ~ f ~ ~~ 7 '. ~r .1 ~1 ~4 . ~ ., ~ ~ ~~ 1 '~ ~ ' . ~~ ~' ~ti . _ 7 - Ly~ ~ - r~~ S ti 1'1 ~. N N V '~ . ,.., ~ •~ ~ Cam/) ~ v O u .,._, bA c~ Cn c~ u a~ 0 '.~ c~ a~ +~ ~ a~ c~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ v ~ w N c~ a~oo~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ V • rl V }.~ n •.r V~.J ~ ~--- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~+ O y ~ ~ -F-+ ~ m b~A r_~ U ~•v v i--I X y v v ~ .a a~ [~ w ~ ~ o r"~i o ~ U c~ u .,~ a~ 0 V ~--i U i '~ .-~ Fr N '~ .'., O O H N ,--. O a~ w .,. w O .'., c~ ts' .'., '~ O s~ X O w 3 0 v 0 H c~i O .~' .'., ~ ~ ~ o v O ~ u ~ ~~., 'v~ ~ ~ u v ,Q m •~ W ~ ~ ~ o ~ V ~ ~ H o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ 0 H H H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 C~ C7 C7 0 .~ v a~ w O m O u v O v .~ .,. m G O p-, O H ri O C~ M v ~.~ ~ Q:c.r~ • ~--~ r-~ '}, ~ N c~ ~ ~ O O '~ W -~' ~ c~ U i~-~+ r--+ r--1 r--+ ~ ~ Q ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a` a` ° ~ c!~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x .~ O ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ V V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ V .~'' v cn ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ r--+ r+ r+ ~ ~ ~ ~' a ~ o x ~ N ,O ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ v p ~ ,s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d~ r-+ ~ n r-+ d~ r-+ o r--+ ~ ~ V O c~ w ~, r~-~ ~ ~ ~ '~ N O ~i-+ '~ ~ .. ~ . i ~ ~ r-~+ r--~ r-+ Q ~ ~ O O O O V O ~ r"' ~ .a..' ~ w ~ w ~ w ~ w t3~(~Ow4 ~ ++ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ .~ v ~ ~ O ~j ~ ~ 'i~ .,~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $~'+ X c~ N ~ ~ O N ~-+ N ~ O O c~ H ~ ~ ~ .--, .~-' c~ `n O $~,, C~ -~-' O O N a-+ ., V v a-+ •,~ 'C~ X W 0 o a~ o a~ N L~ ~ ~ O d~ ~ d~ 00 d1 N N c'*) N c'n Ef} E~} E~} ff} Ef3 ~ ~ . ~ '~ r-, ~ o ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ '~ U x ~ ~ w G~l~C3^5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ".~ •,~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'i X c~ N ,-~ ~ ~ O v ~ O O c~ H ~ ~k ~ c~ `n O ~~,., C~ -~ 00 0 0 N ~r O m .'., nY O C.~ 0 ..., U a~ a ... H v x d v u VJ v . ~.., w ~~ v U ~ ~ ~ 3 3 ~ 0 0 0 ,~ ~ '~ N 0 a~ 0 V .,.., ~ ~ a~ o ~ ~ °~ o u ~-' c~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ u , ~ c~ .,.., ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ .~ •~--~ ~ a~ x ~ a~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~~ac~~s . ,.~ V .,.~ r--a O ~~-1 .,.~ V c~ .,.., w -F-+ U .,,.,.~ y--~ N U ~ ~ N . ~ ~ v ~ ~ 0 V • bA O '~, .-. +~ ~' v ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ,.,.., ~ v ~ U Q ~-, i i i ~~~~~~ o ,~ v ~ ~ °~ .~ a ~ o ,~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o ~ • ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ o u ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ w -~ ~/ O p O "~ ~ "~ V ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ "~ ~ Q w Q v~ a~ a~ c~ ... V b!J .,. .y ~r O 3 a~ bA O O v O Z O ... c~ .., V .,~ .~.+ "~ O F4 m O '.~ .,., .~-+ O O Q v~ a~ N ~, a-+ w 0 0 .~ 0 a 0 0 ~, o '~ u ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ ~~ o ~ +~ ~ ~ v cn .'v., bA ~ fr N ~ ~ V ~ U ~i N ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~~~~~8 0 O O w O ~r~-~~ v V ~ O . ~ y"'~ ~ ''"~ ~ O F=-~ ~ ~ C.~ -~-' ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o v .., .,. '.~ .~ a~ m 0 0 0 a~ a~ a~ v .., +~ 0 ,~ °' a~ ~ .r., .~ ~ 3 ,~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a~ v 3 ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ,-°' ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ N '.~ i ~ ~ .,-, ~i ~.~r ~ ~ `-Fr ~I Q ^.~ ~ I~ C/1 0 V bA .,..~ u a~ 0 a~~aw~ a~ a~ C7 0 0 ~ ~ N .~ ~V ~' ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ b.A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ v .'., v .'., a~ 0 u O .., .'., m v u .'., '.~ .-~ O O ~+-a .~ m a~ .., '.~ x '~ w v~ a~ a~ ~. bA .'., u '~ .,~ U v bA N c~ .r., u c~ .~ w m .'., o ~ ~ ~ n a~ w ~ O ~., ++ O 41 ~ v ,~ O ~ w N ~, ~ ~ ~ w F4 ~ '~ ~ w o .~ V ~ ~ 41 ~ '~~" ~ ~ ,~ O N ~ ~ ,~ ~ H w a~ a~ C7 a~ V "~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, m "~ ~ "~ •-• c~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o w °~ 0 ~ ~ C7 v +, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ,~ o N O ~, m m O v bA . r, Q, O bA .'., O bA v~ a1 v~ ~ ~ '. ~ ~ X b1~ N ~ ~ b!J ~ ~ w o f~~~~~~~ cA ~ ~ •~ . ,V~ ~~+ .--~ +, !=-i U -F-+ ~..~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ o -d ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .° '.~ •^ 'o 0 ~ ~, a ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ a, s~.. X x a~ ~ ~' ~ ., ~ ~ ~ u c~ c~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 -~' .., .., a~ ~ ~ ~. ~ °r~ v CA ~ ~ Q, •~ ~ ~ ~ '~ dj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cct ~ ~ .., C cn '.~ bA ~ .~ . ~ v~ N ~ ~ Qi a~ u ~ O O '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ N-i -~ v~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w O O 'd .+~ ~ ~ 3 ;~~' o ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ U ~ ~ .Q U) G~Of3uS cA ~ ~ • ~--a .,,v.,~ ~ ~-+ ~, O ~ ~'-+ O b~A ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~p +, o . ~ ~A-~ '.~ w ~ a~ ~ '.~ . ~ ~ '.~ o ~ Q-, "-' c~ u ~ o +r ~ b~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ N ~ ~ ,~ .~ v p ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ '.~ ~ ~ ~A W ~ ~ o '3 0 ~ cn -~ a~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ .~ o aJ V "~ ~ O ~ +' O •~ ~ ~ uj it ~ . ~--~ ~ ~ U ~ .~ ~ O ~ •~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ O U O ~ a.~, 3 ~ ~~ a~ o ... ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x o ~' .~ a~ ~ ~ o o ~, ~ ~ ~~ o ~ 0 0 ~ ~ cn v 0 u ,~ ~ ~ `~ '~ 3 ~ -~ o v ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ ~.°~,~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~cc~uz i O V1 .,.~ ~ a~ ~ '-' ~ o ~ o ~ ~. +~ ~ ~ ~-i ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ O ~ ~ ~., ~ ~ w °' ~ ~~ v ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ o ~~ ~ c~' ~ ~ U o~ o ~~ ~~ ~ w O o° N V O r-, O O ,~ u bf~ .,, "C w v 0 ~, .~ U 0 on ~^ M ~.J~.1 ~ .'y W 3`~1 Q W O ,'~~•y `i O i~~ Q~ O O ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `n O ~ ~ +J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ +~~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ C.7 U u ~ 0~3~C+ ;3 C/1 . ,..~ V . r..~ 0 O . ~..,, c~ -F-+ Q ('~ bA "~ ~ +, ~~ aJ ~ v~ X30 ~o~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~~ m N "~ ~ "d ~ ~." ~ ~~ ~ ~ y~ .-=. ~i Oo ~ ~~ ~ bA~r~ ~, ~~ ~~ ~ •~, 3 Q,~ ~ o .~ u~ m ~ ~~ .~o~ ~ ao Q~v 0 0 0 .'., .~ a~ V .,~ 3 0 0 0 a .,, a .~ a V N Q bA ... .r, bA ,~ 0 N m ~~ v '.~ ~' 0 v u .,. '.~ .., v .~ u a~ w O ~ m a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ o cry o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . bD O v b~A c~ O ~, ~ ~ "-' ~ v ~ ~ aJ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ . '~' ~ +~ Q '~ ~ GOfPn.4 ~--1 bA ~ ~ 'u ~ ''~ U ~~ v ~ o . ~ v +, c°~ ~ ~ ''--' .~... ~ ~ w o u ~ u ~ ~~ a~ ~ ~ .~ ~, .~ ~ ~ U Q i i • ~~ .i V '' ~ _ ~- ^ 7 ~I .l a , 1 - : ~ . . 1 l a'IIA ~ ~, ~ - r I 1 I ~ ~ • I I l ,' , • , 1•^ti - ~, r l ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ - . . ^ 1 ' I ,1 : I I , ~ - ' -~1 .'J~1 ~ I_ ~. .. 1 1. =. ~- II L r~ _ 11~ ~~ ''1^~ III 1 '1. ~ '~ I;+ll ~ ~~ ~~~ - ' ~~ ~ ~ '',~ x.14 ~~ype ' ' 1 ~' ~ - ~ ~ _ _ 11 f . =. ^ Ifs 1 ~c 1 ^ ^ ~ , ~ ,{~ 1 I i ~ ~ ~ ~ I I g;..+-L~~1 _ ~ • ~~ - m - - 1 r °~. 1 . ~ Y~;"7 ~ I I 1 1 ~ 1~ III ~ ~ I ~ QI ~ ~ N 1i ~ ~ 17 ii ' - ~ ! I a I ~ d ' I ' ~'-,i' - . - i 1Y I C "M~ - I ~ ^ 1 ~_ Z.1 I I, ^ . 1 ~ I i, ~ 1- Y ~19i ~ ~ I ~ + ~ I ~; I ^~^ I'~' ^ ^ III I I +I ' ^ ~' ~ ^ I I ^ 1 I I ~ ~1P~ I ^ I ~ 1 Ilpyf•~r^ I ^ _ ~T 1 f 1 ^ ^ 1 1 :~ - o' I I . ~ ' ^ - ~ ' r '. 1 i '~ ^ ~ ~,i ~ ~ ~ ~~` ~~.- I I I ~~ ~ [r, ~~• ~ ~ r=*~ N`-" ! ~ _ v 1 I 1 ^ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~I r^ N{' I ~I 1 ~ I+ ~ I ^ 1 ~ ~ ^ I 4 ^ I ~1 ^ ~.:."; II '~f '. per-..I ~~ - - ~ ~YJ:~~v?T,, ^ ^ '•1 I r ~ .,^ •,1 ^ ~ '. ~~~ ^ ~~.^ ,III I I~ I ^~ Ir ~ II L^~ ~ M I I '-11 ^^ ^ ~ ~ ~. ^~ ~ (, I ~ ~ ~• J 1 ~ ~ ! _ 1 11 ' h_. _ I 1 I I ~ I ^ ~ _ I ~ I Y ~,. ~~ I ^ ^ ~ ^~ ~ { ^ ; 1, I + I ~i III I I 1 ~ I I ~ ~ ~ ^ I ^ ~ I ~ ~ rr ^ 111 ~ 1 A ~ tl: 1 ^ L• L ' ' ) a ,C '~- ! r L' ^ I `1_ i 1 1 ^ ~ 1 5 1 `I ^ ~ J}II ~ ~ .~i 11 I ^ ~° 511 ' ~~:L '. ^' i ' 5. . ~• 1 Q. _+SQ' •L' J~ I 3 , `` ~ ~ - ~~_. ~. ~ 171 5 t Lp 11. .f 1. ~~~~ ~.I' i ~ 1 ' 01 I' ~'I' ~.~ •' . ~.~ III , r 1 i . 1.' . 1. ^1 511 ti~ ~ L I 1 I I •~ ~ . P. I , . •. 1 ~ - .. ~1 '~-- , ~ \._ „+. ~ ~•_3d, 1- .~ 1._r ~ . . 1 I ~J~I, 1~i _~ ~~IL ~_ ~ ~. ~•~~~ + 1 ~I ~ ~ _~ _~' _ ~ i~., 5~ ~ui~i ~r ~ ~ ~~('.---s,~. 1 L 5~ ~' 79 1 1 _ 7~-~ ~ ^ ^ r ~~ 1 _ y ^ J ^ .1 1 1 1 ~I 11 ~ •- rl w U 0 x ~ ~ o o 0 U ~ °' o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 w ~ _ ~ o o .~ ~ o ~ u ~- o +~ ~ U ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ O 0 O O O O o N O N ~ m ~ c ~ ~+ d .~ ~ c-+ N r-+ ~ ~ Efl- Eft ffl- { f} ~ O O bF} ~ O N ~ N o 0 G~ G~ .~ N N c~ r-+ N ,-, ~ O ~+ O ~-' O ,4; O '~ '~ ~ -{f}-- ^~ a~ ~ o ~ - ~ ~ U ~ ~ O X w ~~ •~ ~ ~ a~ O ~ V ~ ~ w ~ ~ n U , o o ~~~~~~ .- -Y .. .I / f I- - 1 ~ I I I 1 "tin -- ~ ~, I I^ ^ 1 P _ ~ I 1 S ~ _ ~ _ 1 rl`V ~~I ^ 1- ^ 11^^ ^ 1 1 I_ ^- I ~ yPa ~ ~nY~ ~ I ^ ^ 1 ~ I 1 s1r„ ~- I L II ^ N I~'` ^ I~ ] 1 I' V ~ I I ' I I 1 ' i I ' I ~ 11 ~ I ~ • I ~' ~^ ^ q y f .' 1' IC I ~~/~ ~. V~ I I ^ ' 1 . 1- „ -- 1 I y1- r ~ I _.,1 1 ~r. ~s~ ' .. 1 ~~ ~ '4i` 1 . ...-- ~ 4 -r~~I ' ~`,~-I ' •1 ; I I ••~ 1' .' I .~'l '_' I- 7 ~- ,~fr~'II I I - II~ ~ '_h '. I' ~ i 'I'.1 ~ _ ~J'~~`^. ,~f, ~i^ I . ~ ^ . •'~,~^' UA~ '' ~- ' ' _'`F - I ~~~- x~Vll I ^ I 1 . 1 r ^ 1. Y~' I . i . ' I _.... ~ ~' -:J~ rte!' ` ^ -I I ^ r 'l ' ~ I ~ ~ ^ ~ • ~ 5 J ^ ll~ ^ - - `~~ ^ ~~ ~~ il, , _ ~ 1 _ 4~'-r~~V~l ^ I--.~ ; ^i p1 1' ` ~ ~ I. ~~ ~ ^ ^~1-1 • I I • I ~1 ~~T' ^^ I I 1 f{ I {' 1 '_~ 1 ~f - ; I I I ~ 1' 1 II ..•. ^~''J~^'^' ' - . . - J - F ~^ I t^- C, V ~:,- J(I 1 ~ ' ~ E'r ^,•^r^ ^^'~ ~^ ' '_ 1., 'I I II ~ ~ I L . . . ^ . 1 I ~I it , . . .'. '1 _ bi I ~ "~ ~ I~J.~ . 1^1' 1 ^ . . ^J ' ~•• •I ~ ~~i! .:- ,(r • ~ ~F ^ ~ ~ • ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ' ^ r 1} ., . -- e v,, Tom , h • ~ I. : ,I~ I- I~ . 1 - _ - '. I ~ ~ ~~ ~ J I I ~•1 ~1 f '1' I f ~ ~ I r ^ . . ' f ~ ~ . ~ N i~l .~ ' ^ I ~ ~W ~Y ~ li ^ ~ ' ' ^~ ~^ ^ ~ 1 ^^ ~ = I . . / ~; 1 -'. L i I - ' 1 ~ ~,• L L-- 1^~'~ 5 'i ~ -~ ~ ~ . I f' 1 ~ >s-i -I 1~ 1••,' _ ~I ,r' -,; I r ' ~ _ . .I !^~ ~, ' L -I 1 I ~ ~ !' I, ! Y - @ 1 ^ d,L-~Y - 'fit d ^ L . - ~' I~~~~~I,I a I ~ _ ' ,i ' , >4~ 1~~- I ;, 1R'~-_• _ ~ } 1 . ~ -r - ti ,1~ p,I I ~ ,I , ,•-,. ray ti .' I1 : I , III ~ ~. ~1 `r ~f I -\oi 11 1~~ "~ t. I f '~ '• k~ Z~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~41 r y ^ ~ 'L• V~s~ ~~a+IrI ,• 7 l~'E ' 1 I az-[f ,4--=5d R Y. 1 ^ ^' I ^ ~ J"~~~G~ I .I^ - . I V . ~ ^^.I I ~ - + ~I ~ • - ^ ^ ^ I I ~ _ _ - 1. ^ ^ ~ /, ~\Y, ' 7^1 I^ 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 11 ~ ~r I C VL ' ' ~ ~.A'E_ ~~~ 1 , I I I ~ ,1111 ^ 1 ~~~ vl _ ' tA~' I ~ 1 ^ ^ I ~ I 1 ' ^ , ^ L ' ^ T ~ ~~r ~ ^ J ~ ~ ~~ - ~ ~ i }} ~ ~ ' I1 . I ~ I ~ 9 C~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ l~ L ~ ~ ~ i, . ^1 . Y . . L ~ I -I a . 1 ~Lr --~ ~y;•. ' - :~ a. r . 1111 ~•x--.1 I `..-- 1 .~ 1 1 ~ ~' .. ' I ~, I I)~.»`-),; 4.' ' ill ..~_~_-•.~~ ~. 1 -__k _' ~ _?,I ~.f- ~ f~f.. r~.~ J ~ '~~11-t { _1 ~ ~ ' ~'~~ ' ~--1 N ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ V O •~ u O ~ x W N O u ,-~ O N O (~ .,.., O O N ~ ~ ~ N c*) r-+ N r-+ N L~ L~ d'+ ~ ~ ~ ~} ~}} ~} Cn "d ~ '~ ~ ~ , ~ x ~ r--i O .,._, c~ v r--~ . r..~ -F-+ (~ O H • Jli i!1~ - it f ^ I I C.... F \„ I I ~, y r i "~ I I ~~1 r y i I VI F r _ I ; n! l ' -; /l ~ ,~ - - ( ` + r I i I ,, Ir .y Vlr 1 ,r. ;. - _. ^ - ^^~^ _ ~ f _ P «Y -i; I ~'_.. /_ 1 ~ f' x"11 I -I -1'~., ^ I l~ ~.. _ I ~~ N ~~ I_ ^ I y Irl r ., ~" 1 ' ~y Yw~I yil I ~ ' r.r f l ._ "'. ~ ~ I I ~ II ~ ~ ill I 1 _J . i ~ I ~t -~ ~ - r~ ~ - ~ {~4 ' ~~ 17~ .~> i ml ~K: ^ ~~ ~ ^ ^^ I~ ~~ 1~' ~ I ..9 ~I _~~ J -H ~ I I Y 'n I IS_. G"fix I I I l:~ dC ~ III I \ _4 r ~, ~ _.1 I- II IJ_ ,I I ^I I,w ^-_ _ ~ ^ ~ I14 ^^7f~r^•i~• y~ I ~~ ^ I~1I I I ~ ~3 i~ I I I I I - 1.- ~: ~ 1 I I I I - ~^ I ~ " ~I^ 7 ~! ,A ~ ~ .. Y..1 ~~ I I: I _ I I •. .~ / I' 1I I~~. ~ II ^ ^ - S^ ^^ ' II ^ ^ I ^ i 71 J7 ~ ~ 1 ^ ~~ ~ ,~ ~, - I i J I I ^ _ l 1 I I^^ ^ ,^ . ^^ I I ~ ~ I I I I I I I I ^~ ^I ,. I I { ^ ^ r ~ ^ ~l ^, ^ ~ ~ ,.ll~ I ~~ ~ r ,~. I .-~!, I ^ I I . ~ I : ^ ^ I ^ 7 ~ ~ ^7 ^ ~I ~ ^ ^ ,, ^~ I L f ~ ~. 1 I ~ r ~r "~ }~ I II l • ~ L r,I;~ ^ ^ r ~ n - I 'n ~ ~~ I~ I I "y 14 ~ _ ^ ^ I ^ ~ ~l^V es '•I I' ~ ^ f. ' I~~~I~, ~' ^ : ~I . ` ~ - .. ~ ~ . ~ _ LLel L r' ~ ~ hi • j I I` ~. 5 1 `e-.~ I ~ ^ , Y ~ ^ 9 ~~ i. ~ I ^ 1 ~~ ~ ~ III ^ ^ - ~ I I _r h ~ «. .^ ^r = ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ I • ~ ^ d ~ { I n ~ /~ P' ~} ~ I If ^ ^ I 'I ^ I ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I ^ ^ : I I _ . . _ Y ~f'~ ''_ _ 1 ~!: 1 _ 1 _ ' ~~ _ ' J ^ ; ~ . J J ^ ' ~ .., ~ Ill ~: 1 .. ' _ ~ ^ • ~ - • ~ ~ .. - . ^ _ I ^ - - - ~ ^ ^ ~ \ ~4 ! 1 1. ~ ~~ " _ V N O w a~ H v N W .Li ~V o o o ~ ~~ O N ~ O ~ ~-I o a"'~ H . ~..~ r--~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~I .~ ~~ N o \ ~ \ o ~r ~ o o~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ N ~ t~ d~ ~ r~ G~ ~ d~ M N M ~ ~ r-~ N r~ \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ o \ a \ o \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 d~ d~ M ~ ~ ~ a0 N N M c~ d~ O . N ~ N G1 M • r-~ d~ r-~ r~ O N O ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ d~ N ~ M ~ ~ ~ d~ • ~ • o • ~ • ~ • o • ~ • ~ • ~ • ~ • o~ • ~ • ~ • ~ N ~ M ~ ~ oa e-~ N r~ ~ ~ ~ \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 ao o ~ N ~ ~o a~ ~ ao a~ M ~ o . ~ n ~ ~ o M ~ N r~ o o r~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N . ~ . N . M . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ N O O i~ di d~ ~ N d~ ~ ~ M . l~ . ~ . c~ . r~ . ~ . 1~ N to N r-~ M d~ r~ ~ r~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ?~ 0 ~ ~ X ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ u .~ ~ *~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ •~ W X ~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ N "' o N ~ ~ ~ ~ ''~ a~ ~' o W 4~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w .N ~ G~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"'~ o ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ ~ . a~ a~ ~ ~, ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a~ ''~ N ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ w u ~ ~ w o c~~€~ ~s .~ ~~. } ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~ ti . ~ ''~ ~ .~ .~ .. ~ .. .. . . .- . ti ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~i~ '~Y ^ ^r ~~ • '~ ~'~J ., 1 ^ ~ ~ ^ ~ • ~ ~~ n -fir. r . - ~ ' ~~ • . ~ i I~ _ x',-4 ~ i i " ~ i } r~ ~`' it I .v~I ,, h ~' ~? - ~ r 5 1~.'. __, ~ 1 ~ . ~Y. ~ ., ~ .. _ ~' • ^ • ~ ~ ~ ti. „ . •ti . .. ~ . ~• ~ l 1~. ' - l ~ ' • .ti ~~ l' ~ ~ 'i ~. i ii ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^- ~ ^ ~i ^ ~ i^ • ~ ~,~ ..1 • . l ~ .i . ,~ -. ~ i i~ ~• •I~ r r'~~ -. ti -.~ -. ; ~~ L 4 ~r ~~;~ti .. ~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1 }•~•~~ ''• ~ 1 r.' ~~ ~~ ~~ •.~~~~ • ~ J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~• ~ .~ _ ` , .. , . ~. .. ~- r i ^ ~ ~ ~ ~L i i i ^ . '.:. ^ ^ ` - JI ^ i.~ 1 _ ~ ' ' ~ 1 . - I ~,~ .,i ~ ~ ~' :~ 1'1, ' ~~ - ~ _ ' _~ ~ '~•. .. „~ _ x ~ ~~ Fe ~ i ~~,~`. ^ _ ~ . ~ S~~i ~ * i ~. L 7•ti~IIB.i!•L.7 I• .' 1 ~ '~ l 1 1^ . 1 1 ~~ ~ ~' . ~. ~~ .i ~ ~ ~ rti~ ^-~ _~_ t I ~ ~V ~ _ =4 ~ ' ~. W ~ ~ ~J ~ I~ ~ ~ ~'.P .~ 1.71'~~ .~ ~'~ ' y :' 1 ,i ~ ,, I' ~ i 1 f ^ .~ 7 .. ~. ti S _ 1. ice. ~~- - I ~ ~ ~ - l ~ _- `":- ~ ~ , i I ~'~ ~.~~ ' ~ ^~ I ^i i - i ' .. ~' I ~~ ~ i i tii i I '~ I '~I - ~' ", i i' ' _ ~ r,,~-~,ir: I ~ rz°'q '• q f,' . ~~' I ~ ~~•'''~ ~^ . .~~~+' ^- ' _L I^^^ i ^ ^^ - ~ ^ _~ ' „te - - 1. ~' i ' 15r.ti ~~ r^ 1 ~i^ 1 c~ u a~ ~ ~ o a~ w ~ ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ o H ~ v~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ O O N .,,.., c~ ,,,~ o N ~ ~ ~ V ~ N ~.., • r, .--~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~ w ~ O .,~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ 'd ~ Cl~ ~ '(~ • • 0 O '~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 3 ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ .,.., ~ ~ ~ ~ +, ~' o ~ ~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ w r-+ O ~° 0 c~ '.d u .,__, O 3 0 0 0 N w (~~3QCt;s3 7 1 I - ^ - - - ^ ~ r _ ^ ~ ~ I 1 : 1 - r~ I ^ ~J I I - I ~~ I - T ^ - 7 ~ ^ ~- _I. :~ ~.. • ~ 1 -I .1 ~ , - If 1 I _ - I _ I I ~.' l .. 'I ' ' - ~ _ ' AI ~ ~ . ~ I ^ ^~. •1 I -- ~- ~ ~ V ~ N ~ ~ w° °' ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ p °o ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ °o ~ N N w ~ ~ ~--a • O m O N u ~ ' ^' ~ .,..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b~A O ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p O .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o° O .~~ ~ ~ CefSCw€Za6 -F-~ c~ u O w '~ '~ N H N N N v '~ N X c~ H c~ u O 0 N '~ w '--~ c~ bA O N d~ v a~ c~ c~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ v V ~ ~ ~ .~ O ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ ""' ~ ~ ~ ,ski V ~ bf~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~+ ~ .~ O .,_, ~ p ~ ~ ~ o U ~-, M -F-+ c~ u a~ O w '~ '~ N N c~ Cn v ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~--~ ~ N ~L+ '.~ '~ ~ ~ w v °' .~ ~ ~ ~ v 00 O w 0 0 0 ,o a~ u ~-: X c~ H 0 'd'+ r-~i ~., O O ,c ~ ~ ~ N ~ O '.~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ N . ,.., ~ 4J ~ V dj cci ~ b~A .~ ~ ~ v c~ c~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w O w 0 M M ~ ~ V ~ ~ V ~ ~ O ~ w o ~~ ~ ~ ~w ~~ a~ ~ H ~ a~ ~ ~~ ~o ~ o ~~ a~ w ~+ c~ ,~ \ d~ o '~'~ ~ \ O 0 \ ~ d~ \ d~ \ ~ 0 ~ ~ N O L~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ O O ~ O cv N ~ v V~ .,..~ A ~'1 O~ `'~ N N r I o0 L~ O M ~ ~ M I N M N ~ d + ~ O ~ • W p ,---~ ~., ,---r ,~ .,.~ ''"'i c0 ~"~ L~ eM ~ ~A ~A ~ ~ '~'r O ~ ~ ~ I N O d + M ~ W ,.~ ~- x E" x ~ ~ H ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 w o ' ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ 0 0 0 o o \ 0 \ 0 \ 0 o 0 0 r~ ~ N N ~ ~ 4~ d~ ~ c~ L~ C o c o ° ~ ~ ~+ ~' ~ ~ ~n~O~~ro~~N~cr ~ . . . . . . . . . . . oooo~noooc~~ n ~ N ~na~n~n~o~c~~~ n 'd t~-I ~ M l~A ~ M ~ ~ I M ~ M L~ ~3 ~ OG~~9~N~d~~d~1N ~ 'd r~-1 ~ M~~ M t~-I n I N M M L~ ~ ~i4 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ a a~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~ u u ~ ~ ~ v o -~ .~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~, ~ ~ ~ o o ~ o w o W Z W W Ey O H c~~c~:.~ ~.~. ~~~ 1 ^ ^ i- ^ ii i ~ ^^.^' i^ ' , _ - i i ~ ii ii ^ ^ ,I 1 I r '^ ,:^ ~ ^ ^ . i i i ~ ~ ', i ti~ ' i ' ~ ' ii ~' ~' •-i ^ ~~ r l.~`~L ~ ^ iii '-ti I ' i i i ,, i_ i i '~ ' . ~ . ~•. - ^1 i ~ ^.i 1 i:, ,- ' ~. '~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ I ~ .' ~ ~-ti ~ I. ~' ti ~ ~~1,-' I . ,:ti ~I ~ ti' ~ ~, ti'1 ~-^' I~ ti - ~^ ~~ ~ 7 ~ ^' 1 _ . ..~~'~ 1~~~ •ti ~ L t. ^~ . ^ ~. ~~ l 1 ~~. ~'.= 1 ~~ ~ ~, L ii n i r ~ ~~ ~ J ^ ~, 7 ^ ^ ~ 1~ • ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~' ~ r. 1 ~ ,~'~1 '. 1 ~~ • ~. } ~:~'1_ _. _ ~ r _ .'n _ _ ~ _ ~i~ ~ti~ r:ti Lr ~ 1 0 0 N w O O N ~'' w i a~ bA U w '~ O O O . r, U N i--i b!J . ,~ 'G ,-~ . r., V . r..i ~--i ~ O ~' O ~ •.-i ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ O ~ ~ v ~ ~ O ~ ~, u ~ a~ `a~ O '~ ~ .~.~ O bA ~ '~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ o ~ Q ~ ~ G~(B(3v4 0 O ~ ~"~ O w ~, ~ ~~ :-~ ~~ 0 0 0 N ~ `~' ~„i ~ b~A ~ ~ ''~ '~ i ~ ~ ~ y O ~ ~ ~ u ~ o ~~ c~ ~ U ~~~ ~ ~ ~-',~ f~ ~ ~ ~p ~ '.~ . ~ ' c,~n '~ 0 .~ ~ ~ p, ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~'-~ • 0 a~ a~ 0 U O \° 0 O 00 c~ U O ~--~ . r., ,--, c~ O O r--' bA '~ ~ ~ • •--• ~ •~ a y ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ o p ~ ~ 0 0 . ,.~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ • ~ Q-, . ,-~ ~ ~ ~ y s.., ~ ,~ ~ O .~ ~ ,--~ a~ `~ '~ ~ ~ ~' ~ o ~ ° a ~~~~~ 0 0 N w O O N w bIJ c~ U N w ''C~ O O '~ l..~ -~ i r^^{ • r^^~ • • . '..~ N c~ U . ,.., 0 0 a~ O ~--~ c~ O O bA .,~ c~ .-. c~ W 4~ U C~ ....., U 4~ .~ c~ ~ O 4~ • ,--' 4J ~ c~' ~ ~ ~ 4~ rr~ ~ ~ O ~ '~ ~ ~ ,-~ U O v~ U C~ ,-~ C~ ~ .~ . ~...i C~ ~ V C~ C~ U . ,.., 4~ U '~ C~ ~I--~ C~ U 4~ E-+ ~--~ 4~ c~ 4~ .~ 4J r--~ c~ 3 G~ G6J(bfv~ O O N w 0 0 N w N bA c~ U a~ a~ w a~ 0 0 '.d c~ U N .--.a c~ N O r--~ ~ ~ ~ U N U '~' . ,.., N ~ G~ ~ bA ~ ~ O ~ U ~ . b~A ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O a c~ bA O 3 ap c~ U N i~ G~ O O N w '.d c~ O O N w ~3 0 0 c~ '.d c~ O N O O ~--~ '~ N . ,.., ~, c~ca~~ C~ ~--~ c~ O V V . ,.~ -F-+ (~ a--+ C~ -~+ . r.., -~ v bA .,._, O O u a~ bA .,.., O c~ 0 ''~ O N 0 O O u bA c~ u '~ O O C~ V .,.~ O ~~}' ~~ O .,._, N C1~ ~ ~ O o ~ v '~ ~ 0 ~ v o ~ N N ~ ~I ~ H ~ H w w 0 0 O ,~; o ~N-+ A ~"~ A w bA '.d ~ ~ ~ •~ v ~ o ~ .~ ~ r..~ ~, ~ w u~ ~ ,~ ~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ •~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~+ cn° x wcnU ~w 0 0 m ~ 0 N ^~ u ~ ~ w ~ 0 0 c~ ~ ~ '~ ,.~ `. u .., v v bA ~'~t-Cs 9 ~ ~ O ~ ~ . ~ ° ° ~n ,1 Q ors cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ,~ ~~ ~ ~ .~ +~+ ~ r~-i ~ O ~' v~ ~ ~ ors o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~' p ~ o N ~ o 0 0 ~ ~'' H c*~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ O O ~ Q N N d~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~~~~' CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGEND Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 7. u b eCt: Deferred Streetlight Installation Cost Approval County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Re uested: This item requests Board approval of anew streetlight installation in the Bermuda District. This request was deferred for one month at the January 9, 2008, Board of Supervisors meeting. Summary of Information: Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Dominion 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 far consideration. Staff provides the Board with an evaluation of each request based on the following criteria: 1. Streetlights should be located at intersections; CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Preparers Richard M. McElfish Attachments: Yes Title: Director, Environmental Enaineerinq No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) 2. There should be a minimum average of 600 vehicles per day (VPD} passing the requested location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection; 3. Petitions are required and should include 750 of residents within 200 feet of the requested location and if at an intersection, a majority of those residents immediately adjacent to the intersection. Cost quotations from Dominion 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 from available District Improvement Funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Dominion Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial of a project will result in its cancellation and the District Improvement Fund will be charged the design cost spawn; staff will notify the requestor of the denial. Projects cannot be deferred for more than 30 days due to quotation expiration. Quotation expiration has the same effect as a denial. BERMUDA DISTRICT: • In the Forest Glenn subdivision, on Forest Glenn Circle, in the vicinity of 1657 Cost to install streetlight: $176.41 Design Cost: $114.92) Does not meet minimum criteria for intersection, petition, nor vehicles per day For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. a~oc~^a STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District Request Received: April 2, 2007 Estimate Received: December 13, 2007 Estimate Requested: April 2, 2007 Days Estimate Outstanding: 268 NAME OF REQUESTOR: Mr and Mrs. Joe Johnson ADDRESS: 1657 Forest Glenn Circle Chester, VA 23236 REQUESTED LOCATION: Forest Glenn Circle, vicinity of 1651 Gost to install streetlight: $176.41 POLICY CRITERIA: Intersection: Not Qualified, location not an intersection Vehicles Per Day: Not Qualified, less than 400 VPD Petition: Not Qualified, less than 75% of residents within 200 feet Requestor Comments: "We have a lot of senior citizens living on Forest Glenn Circle, as well as young people, and it is dark here at night. Some of the homes have only ane person living in them, as their spouse is deceased. We also have people with health problems and we need a light on our street at night." 6~10E~ :" 3 Streetlight Request Map February 13, 2008 ~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~o ~ ~ s ~ ~~ ~~ ~a o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ This map is a copyrighted product of N the Chesterfield County GIS office. This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation to existing streetlights. Streetlight Legend Existing streetlight information was existing light obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Eng~neerrng Department. • requested light 225 112.5 0 225 Feet (3~4-0'"4 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS j~, AGENDA ~~~ i Meetina Date: February 13.2008 Item Number: Subject: Page ~ of 4 8.A. Advertisement of Tax Rates far the Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget, Financial Plans and Other Ordinance Changes Coun Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Sts Authorize advertisement of Tax Rates, the Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget, Proposed FY2009-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program, Proposed FY2009 Community Development Block Grant Program, and other ordinance changes for public hearings on April 2, 2008 for these items as outlined below. Summary of Information: The Board has already set public hearings for the evening of April 2, 2008 on proposed tax rates, the Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget, the Proposed FY2009-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program, the Proposed FY2009 Community Development Block Grant Program, and other ordinance changes. Advertisement requirements differ depending on the item. This item requests authorization to advertise the necessary public hearings in accordance with the state code. The request to advertise the tax rates is before the Board earlier than in years past due to a change in the state code. Financial policies specify that fees be reviewed annually in comparison to the costs of services. The County Administrator's Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Budget will include a recommendation for an increase in certain fees to cover the cast of services. Staff will brief the Board of Supervisors on the proposed fee changes at a future budget work session prior to advertisement. Ordinance changes are required for some of these recommended fee increases. Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director of Budget & Management Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 4 AGENDA Summary of Information (continued) Fees Requiring a Public Hearing and Ordinance Amendment Utilities Fee Changes: The Utilities Department's analysis of the FY2009 budget, capital replacement projects, and projections over the next ten years indicate that current revenues, without fee increases, will not be sufficient to cover operating expenses. In addition, the department' s analysis of costs for expansion projects and projections over the next ten years reflect a wastewater connection fee adjustment to cover capital costs. As an enterprise fund fully supported by payments from users, the increases are necessary to offset operating cost increases including the cost of purchased water City of Richmond and Appomattox River Water Authority), chemicals, and payments for wastewater treatment (City of Richmond). In addition, increases in capital projects to comply with the nutrient regulations for the Chesapeake Bay, upgrades to pump stations, new/replacement water tanks, as well as maintaining the integrity of the county's water and wastewater facilities are all contributing to the need for the proposed increased rates and fees. Building Inspection Fee Changes: The Building Inspection Department will be recommending changes to their fee structure to move closer to recovering all expenses associated with that function. Costs associated with delivery of all services are affected by annual salary and benefit changes as well as other operating cost increases. Residential permit fees are based upon the average number of inspections conducted times the cost per inspection. other residential fee categories are proposed to increase in the same proportion. Commercial permit fees are based upon the estimated cost of the project. Fee increases across the board f or the Building Inspection office have not been implemented since FY20D5. c~~~~`~ ~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 4 AGENDA Summary of Information (continued) Planning and Environmental Engineering Fee Changes The Planning Department and the Environmental Engineering Department are currently reviewing their respective fee structures with respect to expenses in each of these areas for services. Fee Adjustments Not Requiring A Public Hearing Waste and Resource Recover~r Fees: In FY2005 and FY2006, user fee changes were implemented to move toward a "pay as you throw" system, in an attempt to reduce the cost of the service that is subsidized by the general fund. Staff is recommending changes in the customer value card (CVC) program that was implemented as a convenience for entrance into the Convenience Centers. These fees have not been adjusted since FY2005. Proposed Tax Rates: The FY2009-FY2010 Proposed Budget was prepared using a real estate tax rate of $0.97. other tax rate assumptions are listed below. The Board must advertise a rate of assessment for each tax classification for the 2008 tax year. Advertisement of a specific rate leaves the Board the flexibility to adopt any rate up to the advertised rate. The proposed tax rates are: Real Estate (January, 2008) $0.97 Tangible Personal Property (excluding automobiles and trucks) and Real Estate for Public Service Corporations $0.97 Real Esta te (January, 2008)for the Charter Colony Powhite Parkway Transportation District $1.12 Personal Property $3.60 Personal Property (automobiles and trucks) of Public Service Corporations $3.60 Personal Property Tax for members of Volunteer $0.96 Rescue Squads, Volunteer Fire Departments, Volunte er Police Chaplains, and Auxiliary Police Personal Property Tax for Wild and exotic Animals $0.01 Personal Property Tax for Motor Vehicles that use $3.24 "Clean and Special Fuels" ~~~t~~'~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Summary of Information (continued) Machinery and Tools Personal Property Tax for Motor Vehicles, Trailers, And Semi-Trailers with a gross weight of 10,000 Pounds or more Airplanes Personal Property Tax for Specially Equipped Motor Vehicles Page 4 of 4 $1.00 $0.96 $0.50 $0.01 The Code of Virginia requires that public hearings on the budget and on tax rates be held at different times , but can be on the same day . Therefore , public hearings are planned to be advertised for April 2, 2008 as follows: Proposed ordinance Changes: 6:30 p.m. Proposed Tax Rates: 6:40 p.m. Proposed FY2008 Community Development Block Grant Program: 7:00 p.m. Proposed FY2009-FY2010 Financial Plan: 7:15 p.m. Proposed FY2009-FY2014 Capital Improvement Program: 8:00 p.m. c~~o:~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.1. Subject: Appointment to Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Cou ; ty Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Confirm Planning Commission's appointment of Russell Gulley to the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission (RRPDC). Summary of Information: The Board requested that the Planning Commission appoint a representative to the RRPDC. on January 15, 2008, the Commission appointed Russell Gulley, Chairman, Planning Commission to the RRPDC. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # 0001 :"~ .. ~~ u ~, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page ~ of ~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.2. Subject: Nomination/Appointments to the Towing Advisory Board G,ounty Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: BoardAction Requested: Nominate/appoint members to serve on the Towing Advisory Board Summary of Information: Under state statute, the county contracts with motor vehicle towing companies to tow vehicles that are involved in accidents, are abandoned or are involved in criminal activity. The county has a Towing Advisory Board which is appointed by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to state law and advises the Police Department on the towing contract-which regulates towers that are on the Police Department's list of approved towing companies. The Towing Advisory Board also discusses issues of interest to both the contract towing companies and the Police Department relating to towing. The members of the Towing Advisory Board serve at the pleasure of the Board. In accordance with the Code of Virginia X46.2-1217, the Towing Advisory Board shall include representatives of local law enforcement, towing operators, and the general public. There are three towing operators on the Advisory Board. Preparers Thierrv G. Dupuis Title: Chief of Police Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # ~~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The towing operators submitted to the Board of Supervisors for appointment are chosen by the towing companies that are on the Police Department's approved towing list. Every two years the towing companies hold an election and the three towers who receive the most votes are submitted to the Board of Supervisors to consider for appointment. An election was recently held and the three names recommended below would replace the current towing company representatives on the Towing Advisory Board. Colonel Dupuis has recommended that the Board nominate and appoint Mr. Bruce C. Eagle Jr., Ms. Constance C. Miller and Mr. Edward S. Hudson to replace Mr. Ray Cullop, Mr. Anthony Purcell, and Mr. Roger Kendrick on the Towing Advisory Board. The nominees meet all eligibility requirements to fill the vacancy and have indicated their willingness to serve. Board members concur with the appointment of Mr. Eagle, Ms. Miller and Mr. Hudson. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, appointments to boards and committees are nominated at one meeting and appointed at the subsequent meeting unless the Rules of Procedures are suspended by a unanimous vote of the Board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order in ,which they are nominated. C3~(b(3U1 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~t' AGENDA ~.~,~, !' Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.3. Sub'ect: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to the Airport Advisory Board Coun Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested ~~ The Board is requested to nominate/appoint/reappoint four members to serve on the Airport Advisory Board. Summary of Information: The purpose of the Airport Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Supervisors on those matters pertaining to the airport, including long-term conceptual planning, the Airport Master and Development Plans, and flight and airport safety. The Advisory Board may perform other duties as may be directed by the Board of Supervisors. Dr. John F. McClellan, Matoaca District, Mr. John Thayer, Clover Hill District, and Mr. Richard "Rick" L. Young, III, Bermuda District, were appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve on the Airport Advisory Board for a three-year term that expires February l4, 2008. All 3 board members have accepted the nomination for re-appointment for another three-year term set to expire February 14, 2011. The Board is also being asked to appoint Mr. Rob Key, Director of General Services to replace Mr. Fran Pitaro on the Airport Advisory Board, for a term effective immediately and expiring February 14, 2011. Ms. Durfee concurs with the reappointment of Dr. McClellan, Mr. Warren concurs with the reappointment of Mr. Thayer, and Ms. Jaeckle concurs with the reappointment of Mr. Young. Preparers Robert C. Kev Title: Director of General Services Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA 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 procedures are suspended by unanimous vote of the board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order that they are nominated. 0~0(i3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ,_~ . AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.4. Sub'ect: Nomination/Appointment/Reappointment to Chesterfield Community Services Board County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Nomination/appointment/reappointment of three members of the Chesterfield Community Services Board. The term of appointment is effective February l3, 2008 through December 31, 2010. Summary of Information: The Chesterfield Community Services Board is designated as an Administrative/Policy Board responsible for the provision of public mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse services. Ms. Janet Stephens resides in the Dale District. Ms. Stephens' personal and professional background would make a positive contribution to the Community Services Board and she has expressed her willingness to serve as the Dale District representative on our Board should the Board of Supervisors so choose. Mr. Holland concurs with the appointment of Ms, Stephens. The following members are currently serving in terms that were due to expire on December 3l, 2007 and have expressed a desire to serve another term should the Board of Supervisors so choose: Lorenzo Ross II, Member at Large resides in the Clover Hill District and Jack Stewart, Jr,, Member at Large resides in the Bermuda District. Mr. Warren and Ms. Jaeckle concur with the reappointment of Mr. Ross and Mr. Stewart. Under the existing Rules of Procedure, 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 they are nominated. Preparers ,,, George E. Braunstein Title: Executive Director MHIMRISA Department Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No ~. ~~. t~ ~~~~~ ~' r ~i ~~,~ ~yr ~A~ ~~RC[N CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of ~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.6.5. Subject: Nomination/Appointment to the Committee on the Future Coun Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Re uested: Nomination/appointment of members to serve on the Committee on the Future. Summary of Information: The Committee on the Future is a Citizens committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors for the purpose of identifying, studying and making recommendations on long-range issues impacting the county. The appointees to the Committee on the Future serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Holland has nominated Mr. Thomas ovens for reappointment and Ms. Andrea Brown to fill the vacancy representing the Dale District. 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 procedures are suspended by unanimous vote of the board members present. Nominees are voted on in the order that they are nominated. Preparers Ma C. Kruse Attachments: ~ Yes Title: Government Affairs Anal st ^ No #~ l3~~i(4J5 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 7 of 2 - AGENDA ~~ ~ ~, Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.C. u b ect: Streetlight Installation Cost Approval County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: This item requests Board approval of new streetlight installations in the Bermuda District. Summary of Information: Streetlight requests from individual citizens or civic groups are received in the Department of Environmental Engineering. Staff requests cost quotations from Dominion 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; 2. There should be a minimum average of 644 vehicles per day ~VPD) passing the requested location if it is an intersection, or 400 VPD if the requested location is not an intersection; CONTINUED NEXT PAGE Preparers Richard M. McEl~ish Attachments: Yes Title: Director, Environmental En~ iq neerinq ^ No #~~00~6 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) 3. Petitions are required and should include 750 of residents within 200 feet of the requested location and if at an intersection, a majority of those residents immediately adjacent to the intersection. Cost quotations from Dominion Virginia Power are valid for a period of 50 days. The Board, upon presentation of the cost quotation may approve, defer, or deny the expenditure of funds from available District Improvement Funds for the streetlight installation. If the expenditure is approved, staff authorizes Dominion Virginia Power to install the streetlight. A denial of a project will result in its cancellation and the District Improvement Fund will be charged the design cost shown; staff will notify the requestor of the denial. Projects cannot be deferred for more than 30 days due to quotation expiration. Quotation expiration has the same effect as a denial. BERMUDA DISTRICT: • In the Woods Edge Subdivision, on the existing poles, at locations noted, eight (8} streetlights Cost to install all eight streetlights: $880.26 (Design Cost: $220.98} Installation sites: Ramblewood Road and Vance Drive Location meets minimum criteria Vance Drive and Willowynde Road Location does not meet minimum criterion far vehicles per day Vance Road Road, Willowynde Road, Willowynde Road, Willowynde Road, Willowynde Road, Willowynde Road, vicinity vicinity vicinity vicinity vicinity vicinity of of of of of of 13601/13605 17805 17821 17829 17841 17848 Locations do not meet minimum criteria for intersection nor vehicles per day For information regarding available balances in the District Improvement Fund accounts, please reference the District Improvement Fund Report. o~oou~ STREETLIGHT REQUEST Bermuda District Request Received : June 20, 2007 Estimate Received: January 2, 2008 Estimate Requested: June 20, 2007 Days Estimate Outstanding: 196 NAME OF REQUESTER: Ms. Sharon Brown ADDRESS: 17800 Willowynde Road Chester, VA 23236 REQUESTED LOCATION: Woods Edge subdivision at locations noted, eight ~8~ streetlights Ramblewood Road and Vance Drive Location meets minimum criteria Vance Drive and Willowynde Road Location does not meet minimum criterion for vehicles per day Vance Road Road, vicinity of 13601113605 Willowynde Road, vicinity of 17805 Willowynde Road, vicinity of 17821 Willowynde Road, vicinity of 17829 Willowynde Road, vicinity of 17841 Willowynde Road, vicinity of 17848 Locations do not meet minimum criteria for intersection nor vehicles per day All locations meet minimum petition criterion Cost to install all eight streetlights: $880.26 Requestor Comments: "Our subdivision within the last year has seen an increase in crime, ex: break-ins, tire slashings, mailboxes stolen, lights stolen, car vandalism, tools stolen, and toys destroyed. "We are requesting lights throughout the subdivision. This is an overhead service subdivision and some of the original homeowners were told in the 1970's when the road was paved that streetlight would be installed then - we have yet to see that. "Please help us stop the increase of crime in our dead end subdivision by installing streetlights. "Thanking you in advance foryour immediate attention to this very important situation." Staff Comments: Staff notes that the requestor submitted these projects individually, but Dominion Virginia Power grouped them all together as one in order to reduce the cost of installation. Staff also notes that the two intersections, Vance Drive &Willowynde Road and Ramblewood Road & Vance Drive are school bus stop locations. ~e~ r~~ Streetlight Request Map February 13, 2008 a Q U Q ~~~e~ `~~o °o,~ 1 ~~<<0 ~~ N0~ ~Q ~ ~~ 0~' ~~ ~~ Vy ~\ i This map is a copyrighted product of I V the Chesterfield County GIS office. This map shows citizen requested streetlight installations in relation Streetlight Legend to existing streetlights. Existing streetlight information was existing light obtained from the Chesterfield County Environmental Engineering Department. • requested light 330 165 0 330 Feet (~~~~- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.1. Subject: Transfer of Funds from the County' s Reserve for Future Capital Projects to Support the Web Streaming Project Coun Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested To authorize the transfer of $72,240 from the County's Reserve for Future Capital Projects to fund the purchase of web streaming hardware, software, services and support. Summary of Information: The web streaming project will allow Chesterfield to publish the Board of Supervisors meetings, Planning Commission meetings and special content to the Internet. Citizens will be able to watch the meetings live from the Internet, to search the documents associated with the meetings and select parts of the recorded video for viewing. The agenda and minutes will be indexed to the video to allow citizens easy access. This project demonstrates Chesterfield County's commitment to openness in government. Chesterfield County will be first in the region to provide this service, demonstrating our commitment to be a First Choice community through excellence in public service. This project has been approved as a Technology Improvement Project (TIP) by the Information Technology Steering Committee, for implementation in fiscal year 2008. Implementation will take a phased approach with full capabilities being on-line for the April 2nd Board meeting. The Planning Commission will be brought on-line in early June. Preparers Barry Condrev Title: Chief Information Officer Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # ~~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA Budget and Management Comments: This item requests that the Board consider the transfer of $72,240 from the County's Reserve for Future Capital Projects to pay for web streaming hardware, software, services and support. Sufficient funds are available in the County's Reserve for Future Capital Projects. The balance in the reserve is $1,579,798. A transfer of $72,240 would leave a balance of $1,507,558. Preparers Allan M. Carmody _ _ Title: Director] Budget a_ndManagement O~l(~0~1 ~~~~~ ~ ~~~.. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~i _ - _ _ ~, ~:~ ~~ ,.~s~~. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.2.a. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mr. Kenneth C. Howerton, Department, Upon His Retirement County Administrator's Comments: ,_~~~~~_ County Administrator: Board Action Re uested: Park and Recreation Staff requests that the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board adopt the attached resolution recognizing the outstanding contributions of Mr. Kenneth C. Howerton, for over l5 gears of dedicated service to Chesterfield County. Preparers Michael S. Golden Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director, Parks and Recreation No # 0~300:3~ RECOGNIZING MR. KENNETH C. HOWERTON UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Mr. Kenneth C. Howerton will retire on February 29, 2 0 0 8 , after providing over f if teen years of dedicated and faithful service to Chesterfield County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howerton began his public service with the Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation on September 2l, 1992, in the capacity of part-time maintenance worker; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howerton was promoted to full-time principal maintenance worker with the Parks and Recreation Department in October 19 9 4 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howerton has been an invaluable asset and mainstay for the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howerton has always remained upbeat, productive and prompt throughout his career with the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howerton will be greatly missed by his co-workers, supervisors and the citizens of Chesterfield County, whom he has served. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding contributions of Mr. Kenneth C. Howerton, expresses the appreciation of all residents for his years of service to Chesterfield County, and extends appreciation for his dedicated service to the county and congratulations upon his retirement, as well as best wishes for a long and happy retirement. f~~C~~~3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.2.b. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Mrs. Catherine A. Hamilton, Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Upon Her Retirement C~ty.,Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Mrs. Catherine A. Hamilton will retire from the Chesterfield County Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue after providing over 22 years of service to Chesterfield County citizens in various roles. Preparers Jose h A. Horbal MCR Title: Commissioner ofthe Revenue Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # 1i7~0~;4 RECOGNIZING CATHERINE A. HAMILTON UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Catherine A. Hamilton will retire from the Chesterfield County and the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue on March 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton began her public service with the County as an account clerk for the Office of the Real Estate Assessor on January 6, 1986, and has faithfully served Chesterfield County and its citizens for over twenty-two years; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton demonstrated versatility in her service to the citizens of Chesterfield County by serving in a broad variety of other capacities over her career, including truant officer for the School Board from 1998 to 2004 and her current business audit position for the commissioner of the revenue; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton grew with the County and always demonstrated flexibility and the highest level of customer service when working with both citizens and co-workers; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton displayed a helpful and understanding attitude toward all of her customers, often going out of her way to help those in need, and remaining available to assist her co-workers despite a heavy workload; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton, when dealing with concerned citizens, was always respectful and willing to reach out to people with comfort and support; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Hamilton's years of experience and tireless dedication to supporting and achieving the goals and objectives of the various offices within the County for which she has worked, have enabled her to make a significant contribution to the County overall; and WHEREAS, more than anything else, Mrs. Hamilton has been a loyal friend to many, with a warm and caring attitude firmly grounded in her faith in Christ; once she is your friend, you have a true friend for life . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions of Catherine A. Hamilton to the citizens and administration of Chesterfield County; and that the Board extends its appreciation for her commitment to the County, its congratulations upon her retirement, and its best wishes for a long and happy retirement. e~~ ~~:~.~ rlti ~~ ~ _ ,w ~1RCiNtA . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 7 of 2 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.2.c. Subject: Resolution Recognizing Ms. Viola Davis, Utilities Department, Upon Her Retirement County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Staff requests the Board adopt the attached resolution. Summary of Information: Staff requested the Board adapt the attached resolution recognizing Viola Davis for 19 years of service to the Chesterfield County Utilities Department. Preparers Roy Covington Title: Director, Utilities Department Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # (F7E3~1~6 RECOGNIZING MS. VIOLA DAVIS UPON HER RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Ms. Viola Davis retired from Chesterfield County Utilities Department on January ll, 2008; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis began her public service with Chesterfield County on July ll, 1988, as a senior clerk typist/receptionist in the Engineering Data Management Section maintaining vital project records for the Utilities Department; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis was promoted to a data entry operator in July of 1989, where she was responsible for entering information into the department's Project Tracking application and overseeing the filing system; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis was promoted to senior customer service representative in July of 1993, responsible for daily operations of the Utilities central filing system and the preservation of data within the filing system through the use of microfilm media; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis was promoted to Utilities imaging coordinator in July of 2000, responsible for the staff who scanned project information and created digital folders for the department's electronic document management system; and WHEREAS, Ms, Davis was promoted to Utilities records supervisor in July of 2004, responsible for all aspects of the department's paper records, including the preservation of data through the systematic creation of microfilm media and the destruction of records according to the Utilities Record Retention Policy for which she maintained; and WHEREAS, from 1988 to 2008, Ms, Davis brought the Chesterfield County Utilities Department into the new millennium, as a leader in customer service by consistently meeting and exceeding our customers' expectations; as an exemplary steward of the public trust by meeting our customers' needs; to be the employer of choice by sustaining a high-performing work force through her dedication to excellence and her abilities as a leader; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis was committed to improving the protection and preservation of utilities records through her active membership in the Virginia Association of Government Archivists and Records Administrators as well as the Association of Records Managers and Administrators; and WHEREAS, Ms. Davis' display of character, aptitude and genuine concern for her fellow co-workers during her 19 years of faithful employment with the Utilities Department has resulted in her positive and professional reputation throughout the county. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes Ms. Viola Davis and extends on behalf of its members and citizens of Chesterfield County, appreciation for l9 years of exceptional service to the county and wishes her the best for a long and happy retirement. ~~ i~~ I~ U~ ~'~~, ~ - -~ .~, - ,,~ ,: RCIR.... CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.3. $UbleCt: State Road Acceptance Coun Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Regueste . ...~.~, Summary of Information: Clover Hill: Sunnybrook, Section 12 Dale: Rosemead at the Highlands Woodland Pond, Section 18 Preparers Richard M. McElfish Attachments: Yes Title: Director, Environmental Engineering No # ~~~~~~ h i. s ti ~. a! ~.~ -. .~ F~ J l r' .- ~ _ 5. `~ ~ ~ ~_ ...~ ~' tiL TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Environmental Engineering SUBJECT: State Road Acceptance -WOODLAND POND, SEC 18 DISTRICT: DALE MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008 ROADS FOR CONSIDERATION: BRANT HOLLOW CT SHORECREST CT Vicinity Map: WOODLAND POND, SEC 18 Q PLO _ ~~. O U ~ N ycs owc Q~ GEC NPS o~ ~ zOv ~ Q m CT Produced By Chestertield County GIS C~`)~s_ __ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY _ ~~'"" `~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ ~ AGENDA 4~RCINIr~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.4.a. Subiect: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land for the Extension of Westerleigh Parkway from Westerleigh, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 3.54 acres for the extension of Westerleigh Parkway from Westerleigh, LLC, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 3.54 acres for the extension of Westerleigh Parkway. This dedication is a requirement for the development of Westerleigh, Section 2. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Right of Way Manager VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPTANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND FOR THE ExTENSION OF WESTERLEIGH PARKWAY FROM WESTERLEIGH LLC 3.54 acre parcel to be dedicated ~_ .., ~o~~ Q N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W ~~' E ,-.-r S I I~cl eq~ak 153.15 tet ~~~~_~e3 {. ,~G,yl! ~ ~~ 4 g YY1 W Z C 0 ~ '~ m WWW ~=a O C~?~O wO~W~C~ < 0~3 Z g ~/U^Li~ W= w~i~ 7 a LL. m ~ ~ ~ a=a~a w ~^} ~~~ u,pZ~~~~ ~~~~~~~ \ ~- d F- -- Qw~~QO~ ~ .si' ~ ~~ z a ~ ~ . o ~ ~~~~ a ~ z ~~~za~ ~~ ~ ~ Q~~ 0^wwE-~n ~ `\ =w~gz0 ~'' !n^~wW~ --- -- ~~ g =QWQ Uwtn a W ~''. ~, o ~ ' r a ~ ~, ~` ~1 `~ ~ BN a 4~ ~ ~~ ~ L t m ~m~ •6i,^a ~ ~ ` ,, t ~ 6 ~ ~ } ~~~~ '~ m n, m !L '~ ~ ~T Comm 3 d ~d~ ~. ~o z w ~Q ~ , c~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ m ~~g~ ~ y~ i i i _ ~ ~ N V ~ i r 4e ~ i i ~ ryro P ~ % I W 1 ~ 31 ~ ~ ; Af a ~- _. ~ ~tl.ry ~° ~ni r, e J f- O T 2 ~p f'~_ $~~ a ~~q ~ ~_ ~~w° ~ c a ~O ~pg~ ~i 7 h 1 r ~v ~ i • O ~ ~ ~ L p p ( (~~ va P $~ Q ~€ ~( ~b mo I W g$~ ~yy 3 ~ d3no Q~ 2 S O W Al ipe =W $ O 3g=_qo ~ $~ _.___.._ .0 ~oC ~~ ~p//~ ~0i / / ' ~ ~ N O ~ ~ ~qq ~ N ` / ''~~' ~ ,e ~p a c ~ z' ~ Q' y~ ~~~ ~~W / ao ~' U N p ~ ~i Gib ~,~lr u / \ c Q~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ I `` ~ ~ J v 8 8 ~ ,8 \ ----~.-_./ ~ U n a ~ ~~_ y ~~ ~ 7~ - ee ~ ~ ` Y ! ~\ ~/ a ^ i"~~ / ^~ 9R~ RO / ,b `\ ~ / ry `^ • \ `~~ a d ro ~ r c ~ O, pQ ~~ l y Q NO l / ~_ _- ~, Q y' ~o 3 0 =s3J !i X31 ~eMeS Yps. ~b~ ` 4 V ~~ " Q ~ ~B3J V N R ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ryh N °n ryr io Up.~N ~~ ~ L O N KIMMERfDOE L ~ONa ~~ Y p„Nm n N d3m1O i'JH ^i3o~oo m° is ~o z a c'-r P F fM/bpsl _ m ,`~ ~' ~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "'6`°"'~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 -. AGENDA '' Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.4.b. Subject: Acceptance of Parcels of Land Along Jefferson Davis Highway from CDA Chester, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Accept the conveyance of two parcels of land containing a total of 0.092 acres along Jefferson Davis Highway (State Route 1) from CDA Chester, LLC; and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: It is the policy of the county to acquire right of way whenever possible through development to meet the ultimate road width as shown on the County Thoroughfare Plan. The dedication of these parcels conforms to that plan, and will decrease the right of way costs for road improvements when constructed. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ®Yes ~ No Title: Right of Way Manager 40~~_Q~5 VICINITY S KETC H aCCEPTa1VCE OF PARCELS OF LAND ALONCT JEFFERSON DAMS HIGH«'~,Y FROM CDA CHESTER LLC', ~- ~--- 4 `NOS pR O j' fQ ~ a s ~~ ~ ~ ~ a,~ ~ ~ ~ 04 2~ G~~ ~ L J ~d u j ¢ / 5~s~ 4~ G 0.092 Acre Dedication / `~ ,~ MOORES KE RD ~~.14 DR C ~ ~~~~ a, ~ >•.1l.TQN DR O ~~ SO N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities - w f~~~~- E $ I lrol egra5656b7 Ret ~~~~~~ E a ~ O C9 em ~~ ~ r ~_ ~ v ~ ~ ~ pry ~ 7~~ ~. ~ d ~~ ~ s ~ x ~iC 8 Q `~ a z Q ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ rn ~ z >,- p o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. o ~o ~ i ~. o~ ~~ U ~. ~ffig ~~~ ~~ rg N ~q-$ f o~ v ~ a Df ~ . Z ,~g~y Mal) 48g 3 8 ~ g ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ _ T ~ , v ~ ~ ~3j ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~5~~ F I ~~~~ '~RL 3 ~!`~ N _ I ~ ~~ ~'~~~_~~ . _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~' '~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 :~ -- _~~ AGENDA 4~qC~ ~N~p~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.4.c. Subject: Acceptance of a Parcel of Land for the Extension of Brandermill Parkway from Glenn M. Hill County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Reguestedti Accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 1.832 acres for the extension of Brandermill Parkway from Glenn M. Hill, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of a parcel of land containing 1.832 acres for the extension of Brandermill Parkway. This dedication is for the development of the new Clover Hill High SCr1001 . District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Right of Way Manager os1o~'_m~ VICINITY SKETCH Acceptance of a Parcel of Land for the Extension of Brandermill Parkway from Glenn M. Hill G ,~ New Clover Hill High School Site G2 O~ ~O ~~. l ~~, Parcel of land to be dedicated for the extension of Brandermill Parkway to the New Clover Hill High School a`~ N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W I ~- E rt S I hcl a qua ft 33333 Ae t c • 8 ~$ S~ ~ ~° ~ ~~~ ~~~~ vv ~~~ ~~ ~~~ r N /~ f)~ A G N v o O c ~ ~ ~~ ~ s o ~ yy Y'J yy~ 4 4N V 4 ~8Q ~ NNd v Y jQij (~ O yy y ~ y I,f ~ ~ v ~~ A'+fPN '~ m y _~ ~ ~ ~° 9s° ~~ ~ PPPPP ~~&~s ~ E ~ ~ Q ~ 1 j ~~ yy~7 A ~ ~'}rp -~•1 Z .pp OI* RRO +~y O D z O ~ OD D ,.~ 3~y~0 _=O~O~ F~m~" oho T ~_ I j O D llQllxo ~V~~ Q N QQ b g0 `{2i+', ni tt8yy~ ~t..= + ~e ~ ~~F ~ ~~ ~ b~ ~~ . G .y A `~6~ ~A~ \~ ~Qv F~§ ~J U /rH G N V 4 \~ bq T~.i, VVV777 ~FFr ? M/a iuaun 3ieviavn TZ6T 31(102! 31tl15 AtlNURitld 11IW2l34Nb'219 ~~~~_~ ~ c: ~~ S~ c~ s Y x n e a ~,yyi~ \ OTC! .~'~ Srq'S'Uy N ~A,ge~kRo~oR ~l ~~ ~~ ~o~~sgo ~ e R~9 \ / d ~~ ~g \, ~ ~' ~ ~ ~. ~~ ' ~/ 4 / .NN rr N/ V J ~/ ~_ pp' I; 7 ~~ UI `~ I ~~ ~ GI a =~ ~~~ 3 rn I ~~ v~~oN G ~ ~p1 _ B~B W~~ Nl ~ w~~ ~1 aaF I. ~ ~m~ y~ ~i ~ f.a ~n'~ m v~~~ I ~ W ~i~ ~ NI ~ y ~? ~ ~ ~ rl ~! _ 0 I -t. ~~ , _ '~, w ~m p a ~~^~ ~Z ~~ ~3 Y ~~'d~ G~V DN~° "8 ~ ~I` ern-~ ~D5 I$ 9 = V ZrnC~N I ~ 3~N~0 JI V ~n ~ 3 D +~ AAP.TCH SHEET 3 Imo d ~~ ~~®~_~~. MATCH SHEET 2 :f ~ ~I $$ ~n o o `q~ ~ m ~ m ~y~ 3 ~~~~3 ~ ~~a~~ ~ ` ~ ~~. _ 6 $ :['i ~ '~. 148 ~ "~ A ~ ~ LAg •L. E °-1 _ < ~ ~ ~ 3 N A ~-,~ ~ I ~i V + ~~ `~\~ ~~ ~¢~~ v ~~W g ~~~. ~g~gF ~~5~ ~e J ~Q ~ G P. ~~ ,\ 1 L .u9 0 iie~ Lu.1us ~' ~ ~ c P ~ '~ L38 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~~ ~~ ~ d ~ s~ D o°~ ~~~N~ ~~~~~ 3~N~0 =O~OZ` ~~3s~ ~rn o~° 'T1 ~~~. $~~ ~~~ A~A~ T~ mg 4 4 -- - vd q~oz xooe aa3~ _ _ _ _ _ __-"-~ IbL 30 -_.- ~. ,0£ 1NN3Y135v3 N~lA35 _ __ ______l___-----=-- - J-_ 90t 3~3 ~~ yjp'107 1N3 NI'13dW / ~,~` .~~~~ ~ '~~ .~~ --- ~ti _-____ ___ ____ e~'~.~' -- -" ~y`yogy,~vp d~~~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~RO ~ ~ • •~~~ vouiwna~ooHmnamuanouu. ~m°~sarn~ °" ~ ~ ~ IM{UY~IIYIIY.tl i01~~14MD0~ ~Yi" dt-- -~- _ ~~~~~~~ _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~`'""~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ ~ AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.4.d. Subject: Acceptance of Parcels of Land Along the North Right of Way Line of Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land, L.L.C. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Accept the conveyance of three parcels of land containing a total of 3.442 acres along the north right of way line of Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land, L.L. C, and authorize the County Administrator to execute the deed. Summary of Information: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors accept the conveyance of three parcels of land containing a total of 3.442 acres along the north right of way line of Watkins Centre Parkway from Watkins Land, L.L.C. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~®~.~~~ VICINITY SKETCH ACCEPT~1vCE OF PARCELS OF LAND ~I.UNCT THE NORTH RIGHT OF ~V~Y LINE OF ~~~'ATIiZNS CENTRE P.aiRit`~~'AY FRUNI ~~'~TIt1NS L_a1~TD LLC N Chesterfield County Department of Utildies i w '~~J`E s I IYCY a qYa lc 665b7 >Qe t ~g ZZ ~~ ~~ ~o Z~ o~ z 0 ~o am 00 N G O V N N ~~ ~`>oof ~~~~~ ~~~~o o~~ Z = < ~.-~~` ~. ~ ~ ~ y Ap 2 y 1 l' rn ~' '\. / Z! A .y $ R51 ~8 N ~ p IO O m V n g ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ y n sPO a~ rsZ~ vom~~ ,\ ~~ Y a W l2 tT O W ro _ s N 8~ ~Op~ g G A,O,0ppppN Op ~VI~ /~ Q O~b'~ ('~ 1 ~ONb "VN N~n ~,p 'O 'N y rn~ yj O I~ I ~_ ~ ~ Y J QS dry T~ C / ~ w W ~ .. n 70. ~ N - r Q+ ~ ^ b'.' ~ n- ~ ~ ~ - - MATCH LINE SBE SHEET 4 a° 'I d ~ N N n ~~ g ~ ~~. ~/ ~ ~ ~~~~_~.~ N poOpD V N Y ~pmyyW/,~~ ro a ~~~~~ g~~~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ n ~v ffi ~ ' 3 _~ _ r z m {nn S m N °~moy~ ~~~~~8~ E~~~~~~ i z ~ ~~~~ g y , y{' Z=~~ ' 40~ w m Z ~ - K m ~ cp61. ,C ~' y "i'. q .V ~~ m u m CD ~ W~ ~ .A~ V ~ y y~ o~~°N oril~~~ L~' py - '~ ti N^~b. ~oQV~ ~ ~ _ tia2 _ . ~ ya• ~p. In 4~ ~~ ~~ `~+'~+ ~^" "" u ~' ~. t~ m Z U . I ~Z '~i^ GmG N ~O V y9? u~ ~?y Dti _ - LtZ L29 ~'I,~ L?.B L26 SZ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~'~ m A S0 ~ C o~ ~ ° ~ c ~ Op ~ ~ n~ , x .~ ^~J~Qx `?~ °'pV ~ x ~! ~ ~ ~.g+~ aV~ ~~V~~ ~s ` ~.~` W aa O~ ..p 9 g .~ N I 4 ? p O m U'~ m . W ~o C Q~ C ~ MATS GlN~ SpF SN~~ 4 - ~ ~ ~ .. - c ~i ~ ~ o ~ s ~ -p nz5 A g o ~ g p ~~(/)~_~ gg b ~~ ~~ ~K - . ~ z ° c nrn~ z Z ° ~p r G1 w o ~ ~ M ~ p ~ o ~ ~ ~ n s p p F o~~ ~o 3 ~ ~ n~~~ s w T d 0 ~~~ ~ T I ~ ~ O h~l S GROUP .- rowvpmu.olwmixrolialwu.. ~ "'6~°T° - . ~~~- ~~ .~-.w~ ,,. ,~ ®~~~_~.~ c~ x ~Q x Y ~ ... $ 9 ~m 55 Oo j 1 e O~ v A g 7 4 ~ ~ N o~ ~r~ ~~V~~ s~~~~~ s a ~ a ~~Oa°~D ~ ~a~ o ~~~ P'G~ a~PV~ n ~ e~~n~y~ n ~ Gr~ C B 2u~ m 7op 7pp v z ~ ~~ \ ~~ . ~ ~ Bob" ~s~ ~o ~z 0 Y3 D v ~ - ~A~ ~~~ ~~T ~oQN ~~ ~a ~'_~s ~NrNt x ZZ ~~, ? ~ ~~ ~" r1i' ~ ~~ ~ fog ~a`a zp w ~ ~~~ K e N ~ i N~~~ rFi/'Y~'~~~wn oN ~ UI y 11 V ~ ~' ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~O ~, ~ ••~~•~ YgIP4Ul0AMMM1OnIAGWO~. ~GUeleae116X! ~ ~~\~ ,~ j~,, h!vc„n~i° CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.5.a. Subject: Set Public Hearing to Consider Amending Section 19'-48 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Preservation Committee County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set a public hearing date of March 12, 2008 to consider the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 19-48. Summary of Information: On January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance amendment. Currently, the Preservation Committee and the Planning Commission are required to have a joint meeting. This amendment would separate the meetings of the Planning Commission and. Preservation Committee, with both occurring on the same date and same location, but the Planning'Commission's meeting will immediately follow the Preservation Committee's meeting. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning 2723:77844.1(75072.3) Attachments: ^ Yes a No ~~~®~~~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 19-48 RELATING TO RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Section 19-48 of the Code o the Counl~ofChester~eld; 1997, as amended, is amended and re-enacted to read as follows: Sec. 19-48. Responsibilities of the planning commission and preservation committee. (a) Upon receipt of an application, the director of planning shall refer such application to the planning commission and the preservation committee for their respective review and reports. (b) The planning commission and the preservation committee shall each hold a t public hearing. pursuant to section 19-26(a), (c)~ a~ (d) and e to review such application. The respective public hearin sg o~planning commission and the preservation committee shall be held on the same date and at the same location. The planning commission's public hearing shall immediately follow the public hearin og_ f the preservation committee. Within 60 days after the ublic hearings *'~° ~ ° „* ^~ ~ ^'' „ °' ^ r'~^°*~^~, the commission and committee shall forward their independent reports to the board of supervisors. (c) In their reports, the planning commission and the preservation committee shall address the effect of the designation of the proposed district or building on the future development of the county and may address such other matters as they shall deem appropriate. The commission and committee shall recommend to the board of supervisors that the proposed district or landmark either be designated, be designated with altered boundaries or not be designated. (d) An application to withdraw the creation of an historic district, or the designation of a landmark or landmark site, may... be made when the original reason for the designation no longer exists. An application for withdrawal shall be processed in the same manner as an application for approval. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1923:75072.3 ~ ~ ~ ~-~-~ ti' ero ,~ -. h~~N,a CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.5.b. Subject: Set a Public Hearing for a Proposed Amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment Relative to Levels of Service for Transportation and Schools County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Set March 12, 2008, for a public hearing to consider adoption of a proposed amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment relative to levels of service for transportation and schools. Summary of Information: At a Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended amending the Upper Swift Creek Plan amendment to incorporate levels of service for transportation and schools. This Amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission itself. Pursuant to state law, the Board must take action on the Commission's recommendation within 90 days. If the Board votes to approve or disapprove this item, then it will have acted on the Commission's recommendation. If the Board approves this item, then it will have a public hearing on the amendment on March 10 and vote to approve or disapprove the proposed amendment. If the Board votes to disapprove this item, then no further action is required. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ~ Yes Title: Director of Planning 77845.1 No 4~~~_ ~'~ CHESTERFIELD. COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA This amendment to the Upper Swift Creek Plan, if 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 affecting the County including, but not limited to, decisions regarding future land use, road networks and zoning actions. The proposed amendment relating to level of service standards for roads reads as follows: All rezoning applications are expected to pass a test for Adequate Road Facilities. A proposed rezoning does not pass the test for Adequate Road Facilities if the nearest major road and/or existing signalized intersection that will carry the majority of the traffic expected to be generated by the future development on the property proposed to be rezoned will have a Level of Service ("LOS") of "E" or "F". The LOS shall be determined by the Chesterfield Department of Transportation or designee based on current traffic studies and other reliable traffic data. Further, a proposed rezoning will pass the test for Adequate Road Facilities only if roads to be impacted by the proposed development have adequate shoulders, or where roads with inadequate shoulders are carrying, or are projected to carry, less than 4,000 vehicles per day. The proposed amendment relating to level of service standards for schools reads as follows: School Goal: Provide adequate facilities to relieve overcrowding and to respond to new growth. Recommendation a. All residential rezoning applications are expected to pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. A proposed residential rezoning will pass the test for Adequate School Facilities if all public elementary, middle and high schools that would serve the future development on the property proposed for residential rezoning currently have adequate capacity to accommodate additional students to be generated by the proposed rezoning. Schools shall be responsible for determining 1) the current enrollment for each school; 2) the capacity of each school; and 3) the anticipated impact of the proposed development based on the maximum number and type of residential dwelling units or lots, including proffers for limited or delayed development. b. If any of the applicable public schools which would serve the future residential development on the subject property exceed 1200 of capacity. at the time of the review of the subject rezoning request, the proposed rezoning CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA does not pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. In addition, the proposed rezoning will not pass the test for Adequate School Facilities if the anticipated enrollment at any school to serve the subject rezoning will exceed 120a of capacity upon the development of 1) the property proposed for rezoning; and 2) all unimproved residential lots in the service area shown on approved preliminary site plans, preliminary subdivision plans and construction plans. c. When the capacity of any public school in the service area is determined to exceed 120% under the conditions described above, and where such school is expected to be improved to less than 120% of capacity within one year of the date that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider the subject rezoning request, the residential rezoning will pass the test for Adequate School Facilities. ~~~~_~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 ~ ~~~ AGENDA ;~ j!~ -~,~~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.5.c. Subiect: Set Date for Public Hearing for the Board to Consider a Proposed Amendment to the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as Amended, to Amend and Re- enact Sections 19-41, 19-301, 19-508.3, 19-509, 19-510, 19-512, 19-518, 19- 644, and 19-645 and add Sections 19-200.1 Through 19-200.11, 19-508.4, 19- 509.1, and 19-514.1 Relating to Creation of the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Zoning District, and County-wide Standards for Off-street Parking, Parallel Parking, Tree Planting Within Sidewalk Areas, and Signs Projecting from Buildings, and a Proposed Amendment to the Introduction to the Plan For Chesterfield to Provide for Opportunities for TND Development in Areas with the Following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations: Community Mixed Use; Community Mixed Use Center; Community Mixed Use Node; Regional Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use Center; and Regional Mixed Use Node County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Set March 12, 2008 for a public hearing to consider amendments to the Code of the County of Chesterfield and the Plan For Chesterfield. Summary of Information: Traditional neighborhood development (TND) provides opportunities for creating new mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, activity centers containing a variety of uses, including, business, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and other public and private uses. Traditional neighborhood development encourages physical community building at the neighborhood scale, while providing a range of housing choice. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ~ Yes ~ No # ~~~~_~ 3 CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA The ,proposed ordinance amendment embraces the principles of neotraditional or new urbanism development. Neotraditional development reverses the trend towards sprawl by promoting compact mixed-use neighborhoods that include residential blocks with a variety of densities and housing types within a neighborhood distinguished by many activities within comfortable walking distances of most homes. The proposed ordinance would establish a TND zoning district, development procedures, and unique development standards. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow designation of TND districts, subject to Board of Supervisors approval, for areas with the following Comprehensive Plan land use designations: Community Mixed Use; Community Mixed Use Center; Community Mixed Use Node; Regional Mixed Use; Regional Mixed Use Center; and Regional Mixed Use Node. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 15, 2008. No citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed amendment during the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal. ~~~~~~~ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 19-41, 19-301, 19-508.3, 19-509, 19-510, 19-512, 19-518, 19-644 AND 19- 645 AND ADDING SECTIONS 19-200.1 THROUGH 19-200.11, 19-508.4, 19-509.1, AND 19-514.1 TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO CREATION OF THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND REQUIREMENTS THEREOF BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That Sections 19-41, 19-301, 19-508.3, 19-509, 19-510, 19-512, 19-518, 19-644 and 19-645 of the Code of the County o Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, are amended and re-enacted and Sections 19-200.1 through 19-200.11, 19-508.4, 19-509.1 and 19- 514.1 are added and enacted to read as follows: ARTICLE III. DISTRICTS DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 19-41. Districts enumerated. (a) For the purpose of this chapter the county is hereby divided into districts as follows: 000 24 TND Traditional Neighborhood Development 000 DIVISION 26: TND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Section 19-200.1. Purposes and Intent of District (a) The purpose of the Traditional Neighborhood Development District (TND) is to allow development of mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented, activity centers containing a variety of uses, including business, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and other public and private uses. The TND district incorporates publicly accessible community open space areas, encoura eg s high quality development and redevelopment that stimulates investment, generates Lobs, increases available housing options, and expands the county's tax base. The TND district also permits a compatible mix of uses in a single structure or a roup of structures on a parcel or group of parcels and is intended to discourage piecemeal development. The TND district will facilitate investment by increasing the number of permitted principal and accessory uses in a sin>;le district and will encourage high quality redevelopment by permitting_~reater re ulatory flexibility, and innovative and creative desi>;n. 1925:77691.1 ~~®~- ~~ fib) This district is meant to allow the optional development and redevelopment of land consistent with the design principles of traditional neighborhoods, which are referred to as neotraditional, and new urbanism. Generally, the following design principles are associated with TND development. (~ Compact development patterns that promote eff cient use of land and lower costs of providing_public infrastructure and services; Development is designed for the human scale such that close attention is paid to walking distances, the height of buildings, and the design of streetlights, sidewalks, signs, and other features; Nonresidential land uses, civic and open space, are mixed with residential land uses. The TND district also provides a community center and focus to establish a strong neighborhood identity. Traditional neighborhood development promotes a mix of housing types on var~g lot sizes to accommodate households of var~g ages, and incomes. In-fill residential and/or nonresidential development and redevelopment is encouraged. Development incorporates a system of relatively narrow, interconnected streets with sidewalks, bikeways, and transit that offer multiple routes for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and provides for the connection of those streets to existing and future developments. The following is an illustrative example only, depicting characteristics and elements of a TND development. None of the notations shown on this illustration are meant to be regulatory. I f Street Pattern ~°° - Interconnected, Open Spaces '. OO wr/ ~ _ walkable streets Larger open spaces at edge oa.a.,w i~\~~ ~~~ -i\ I O...rwse Formal open space at '" ~ ~ ~~ ~~ . ~' Neighborhood Center 0 ' _ Community Certtc ~---~ ~ More intense Small formal open spaces ~ ®0~~ ~, residential and should be within a 3-minute o ~ ~ ~~~ ~ .' commercial r walk of residences ,~ OO^ ©OOD^ ~ ~itezlopment, civic lots should face formal ~ open spaces `r i 0~ -'-' ~OOO^ . _ o 0[1^~0 Devefoprrrent Pattern ~, O~1 C~l k; ~ ~~~ ~~ Q ~ 1/4 mile radius from Neighborhood Center ~ ~O ~ Neighborhood Center Generally, the neighborhood ~ a~~ ~~-'--~(~~ Service lane (alley) center should be within a 5- \J~ ~U( j~ ~ network encouraged minute walk (1/4 mile) of the l IL'9 edge of the neighborhood ~ Least intense Transition to different building 4' s residential should types should occur at alley or ~~ ~ CJ occur at the edge of interior of block, not the corner a neighborhood 1925:77691.1 ~ ~ ~ ~. ' Sec. 19-200.2. Uses Permitted By-Right The following uses are permitted subject to Board of Supervisor approval of a TND district. ~ Access to any land located in an A, O, C, or I district or used for A, O, C, or I ,purposes. Automobile self-service stations. ~ Bed and breakfast establishments. Boardin>?~houses. ~ Catering establishments. ~f Churches and other places of worship, ~ Clubs and lodges: civic, fraternal, non-profit, private, public, or social. Cocktail lounges and nightclubs. Colleges, public or private. Communication antennas integrated into the desi ng_ of a permitted building ~k,~ Communication offices, studios, and stations; not including towers. Conference centers. ~m,~ Convenience store. ~ Dwellings: attached, detached, live/work, multiple-famil~ngle-family1 townhouse, two-family. ~o,~ Fire stations and emergency rescue squads, buildin sand grounds. ~ Fraternities (in conjunction with school or college). ~ Funeral homes. ~ Galleries, art. ~ Government buildings. ~ Group homes. ] 925:77691.1 ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ sf 3 ~ Hospitals and other medical facilities. ~ Hotels. ~ Laboratories: dental, medical, and optical. ~ Libraries, public or private. ~ Meal preparation and delivery services. ~ Messenger services. as Model homes. b~b,~ Mortuaries. cc Museums, public or private. Offices: dental, general, medical, propert~gement, temporary real estate. ee Parking lots: commercial, non-commercial, park and ride. f(~f Personal service establishments. (gg~ Post offices. Public utility service buildings. ii Recreational establishments, commercial-indoor. Restaurants and cafes: carryout, fast food, or sit-down. Retail, eg_neral. Schools, public or private. mm Schools, specialty ~ Sororities (in conjunction with school or colle;;e). 0o Telephone exchanges. ~ Theaters (except drive-in theaters). 1925:77691.1 ~~'®.~~ 4 ~gg~ Utility uses located underground or not requiring~a structure ,~ The Director of Planning, as per Section 19-19.1(a), ma~pprove those uses that are not ~ecifically enumerated in this chapter and that are of the same eg neral character as the specifically enumerated uses allowed in this district. The Director of Planning shall consider, among other things, the following: the size and proposed configuration of the site; the size, height and exterior architectural appearance of an~proposed structure(s); noise; light; glare; odors; dust; outdoor activities; traffic; parking; signage; and hours of operation. .Based on these considerations, he shall determine that the proposed use's operating characteristics are substantially similar to, and its impact on nei hg boring properties no greater than, the operating characteristics and impacts of the specifically enumerated uses allowed in the district. Sec. 19-200.3. Uses Permitted With Certain Restrictions The following uses shall be permitted in the TND District subject to compliance with the following conditions and other applicable standards of this chapter. If these restrictions cannot be met, these uses may be allowed by conditional use, subject to Section 19-13. ~ Check cashing, incidental, subject to the limitations of Section 19-145(h). Christmas tree sales temporary outdoor, subject to the limitations of Section 19- 152h. ~ Construction buildings/trailers, temporary, subject to the limitations of Section 19-131 e . Group care facilities provided that facilities in excess of 10,000 square feet of floor area shall be limited to the Community Center. Group care facilities in the Community Center shall have at least fifty (50) percent of the ground-floor frontage that faces adjoining streets include tenant spaces for commercial uses with primary entrances facin tg he ad' of inin stg_reet. ~ Home occupations, subject to the limitations of Section 19-65(e). ~f Intercoms accessory to~ermitted uses, not audible to any residential use. ~ Motor vehicle rental service and repair, subject to the limitations of Section 19- 159 Outside display or storage subject to the limitations of Section 19-159(i). 1925:7769].1 ~®®~..~~, Parking and storage of any commercial truck, commercial vehicle, or service vehicle, in conjunction with any residential use, subject to the limitations of Section 19-65(fl. Parks, public or private, not exceeding five acres of active recreational uses. Pet rod oming shops, subject to the limitations of Section 19-145(d). Plant nurseries not exceeding 10,000 square feet of total floor area. ~ Public address systems (outside), not audible to any residential use. (n Recreational establishments or facilities, outdoor (public, private, or commercialj, not exceeding five acres. ~ Satellite dishes, subject to the limitations of Section 19-131 ~ Utility uses requiring a structure, public or private, subject to the limitations of Section 19-1310). ~ Veterinary clinics or offices, subject to the limitations of Section 19-131(fl. ~ Warehouses, subject to the limitations of Section 19-138(i). Sec. 19-200.4. Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures The following accessory uses, buildings and structures shall be permitted in the TND district. ~ Boathouses, private. Docks, private. ~ Equipment storage buildings. Garages, private, subject to the provisions of Section 19-66(a). ~e,~ Gardens and garden buildings, private, subject to the provisions of Section 19- 66(a). ~f Grounds keeping buildings, subject to the provisions of Section 19-66(a). ~ Hothouses, residential. ~h,~ In-law dwelling units. ~~®~~~ 1925:77691.1 6 • ~ Maintenance buildin~ject to the provisions of Section 19-66(a). Microbreweries. Piers, private. Plant propagation and cultivation (not for sale :crop, flower, tree, and shrub. ~ Signs. ~ Storage buildings; private, subject to the provisions of Section 19-66(a). ~ Swimming_pools and adjoining deck areas. ~ Tennis courts, and similar recreational facilities. ~ Tool buildingprivate, subject to the provisions of Section 19-66(a). (r) Yard sales. (s) Other accessory uses, building not otherwise prohibited, customarily accessor and incidental to ant permitted use. Sec. 19-200.5. Conditional Uses The following uses may be allowed in the TND district by conditional use subject to the provisions of Section 19-13. ~a,~ Communication towers. ~b,~ Halfway houses. Liquor stores. ~d,~ Mini warehouse facilities. Sec. 19-200.6. Special Exceptions The following uses may be allowed in the TND district by special exception, subject to the provisions of Section 19-21. ~ Kennel, private. Yard sales in excess of two (2) dates. 1925:77691.1 ~~~ Sec. 19-200.7. Application Procedures and Approval Process The TND district becomes part of the zoning map upon approval of an application to rezone property according_to specified criteria contained in Section 19-200.9. The process to create a TND district consists of two parts• rezoning the property to TND, and, as part of the rezoning process approval of a Master Plan and a Design Guidelines Manual. The Master Plan consists of a generalized graphic description of the proiect's proposed mix of land uses densities open space and other amenities accordin tg o the provisions of section 19-14(d)(1). The Design Guidelines Manual will govern the site- specific design features associated with the project throughout its development. The standards for development that are submitted by an applicant and approved by the board of supervisors for a particular TND district as well as any other applicable provisions of the County Code shall be the standards by which the project will be developed. Sec. 19-200.8. Rezoning Application Requirements; Required Documents and Information The following documents and information shall be submitted to the planning department and any other information required by the director of planning necessary to evaluate a rezoning application and its associated plans for development. ~ Master Plan In addition to the requirements of section 19-14(d)(1), the following items shall be shown in the Master Plan. (1) The location of existing_property lines watercourses or lakes wooded areas and existing roads within or adjoining the property. (2) The maximum residential densities and the maximum number of residential units for individual residential land use categories and mixed- use categories delineating at least two housing types. (3) The maximum non-residential square footage by use type and function. (4) The amount of land devoted to open space and amenities, including conservation areas or preservation areas, etc. Design Guidelines Manual The design guidelines manual shall address the following components of the built environment within a proposed TND district: The form massing and proportions of structures; Vertical separation between streets and single-family residential uses; Architectural stems= Front porches for single-family residential uses; 1925:77691.1 ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ e~ Materials, colors; and textures; Roof form and pitch; Architectural elements and ornamentation; Facade treatments, including window and door openings; Landscape treatments; Sidewalks and pathway treatments and other pedestrian amenities; 11 Preservation of historic structures, sites, and archeological sites identified by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and those designated by the county; Signage. Section 19-200.9. Development Plan Review Process: Overall Development Plan Upon approval of the rezoning application, the development plan review process for a TND project shall include an Overall Development Plan (ODP) that describes the layout, uses, and other pertinent information for the entire development, or for individual tracts of development as ma_y be approved with the Master Plan. However, for areas within the project that are not ready to be submitted for site plan review, the la o buildings and parking lots shall not be required to be shown except as required by the director of planning to complete reviews on other development areas. Layout of roads shall be shown as required to accomplish road construction per section 200.11(b)(3). Once an ODP is approved, site plans and/or subdivision plans may be submitted that document the actual construction of the development. ~ An ODP shall be submitted for any TND development. The ODP may be approved administrativel~y the planning commission and shall be updated and revised as the project evolves over time, as required by the director of planning_ Overall Development Plans shall include information deemed necessar~by the director of planning to insure compliance with zoning conditions and the zoning ordinance's purposes, including but not limited to: The horizontal layout of the project based upon a metes and bounds survey with two points tied to the Virginia State Coordinate System. The designation of public and private roads including alley ~ 925:7769 ~ . ~ ~ `!.D ~ ~ a~ 3 ~3,~ A list of residential and non-residential products and the maximum building he~ht within each block of the TND; ~4,~ A layout of single-family lots in each block; Build to lines establishing required distances between road rights of wad and principal buildings; Density block and overall density Sidewalk and pedestrian path locations; Areas of common open space that achieve a minimum of 20% common men space within the entire TND project and the spacing r~uirements specified in section 19-200.11 (e); Conceptual layout of sewer and water service; Conceptual landscapingplans for streets and buffers; (11) A traffic impact analysis if deemed necessary the director of transportation; and Sign package for community identification and announcements. ~c,~ For the purposes of subsequent site plan and subdivision review, the ODP shall identify the blocks and/or areas, including adjoining roads and common open space areas that shall be reviewed using the site plan or subdivision review process. Determination of which review process shall be used for each block and/or area shall be made by the planning_ department based upon input from participating review departments. Overall Development Plans shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with TND requirements, zoning conditions, and the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan; to ensure land use compatibility and transition, and to miti atg e any adverse impact on public health, safety and welfare. The planning commission or the director of planning may impose conditions to accomplish these purposes. An administrative decision on an ODP may be appealed in conformity with section 19-268(d . The planning commission's decision on an ODP ma~ppealed in conformity with section 19-269(e). ~ If the applicant requests administrative review of the ODP, the director of ,plannin sg_hall post a notice of the ODP submission to adjacent property owners by first class mail as soon after plan submission as practicable, but in no event less than 21 days prior to approval or disapproval of the ODP. The director of 1925:77691.1 10 ~lanning_ shall make affidavit that such notice has been sent and shall file the affidavit with the application. ~f If the applicant requests a planning commission review of the ODP, the director of planning shall post a notice of an ODP hearing b~plannin~ commission in accordance with section 19-26(b). ~ Review of the ODP shall be in accordance with section 19-268(c). Section 19-200.10. Site Plan and Subdivision Plans Based upon approval of the Overall Development Plan for the TND project, the ~~licant may file for site plan review/approval or subdivision plan review/approval. Section 19-200.11. General Design Standards and Guidelines The followin~gn standards and guidelines shall be applicable for all development within the TND district. ~ Minimum Area: A TND Proiect must contain a minimum of sixty (60) acres. For infill and redevelopment~rojects, a minimum of twenty (20) acres are allowed if a sphere-of-influence is established into existing and/or future neighborhoods and commercial areas equalin sixt~(60) acres at time of rezoning. However, any subsequent TND request to expand a TND or infill TND shall not have a minimum size as long as the area of expansion conforms to the requirements of the original TND it adjoins. Mix of Uses in Proiect Design: To achieve the compact design necessar~to make the TND full pedestrian oriented, residential and non-residential land uses must be sufficiently mixed horizontally across the project and vertically within buildings. The non-residential development serving the TND shall progress with the residential development. The project should be organized so that higher density residential blocks are located within one-quarter ('/4) mile of the community center. Lower density residential blocks may be located beyond one- quarter mile from the community center. Because existing uses surround an in- fill TND project, lower residential densities adjacent to the community center should be evaluated at time of zoning_with regards to transition of uses. Within a TND Proiect, a minimum of thirt~(30) percent of the acreage shall be used for non-residential development, and at least 40 percent of the total square footage of ground floor non-residential development shall have over shop housing. The percentage of project acreage for non- residential buildings shall include the buildings and all parking, sidewalks, streets, and open space directly associated with these buildings. 1925:77691.1 ~~~~.~~ 11 ~, Within an infill TND project including the area within its desi ng ated sphere of influence, a minimum of thirt~30) percent of the acrea eg shall be used for non-residential development. This may include existing and/or proposed retail development within the TND sphere of influence as long as pedestrian pathways and streets are provided to the proposed infill TND area. At least 40 percent of the total square footage of ground floor non-residential development shall have over shop housing. This maybe reduced to the extent that existing non-residential development exceeds the remaining 60 percent of ground floor non-residential square footage. Within a TND project, no more than 40 percent of residential building permits in residential areas shall be released until 75 percent of all public and private roads serving non-residential development are constructed. No more than 75 percent of residential building_permits shall be released until building permits are released and uses are under construction for at least 40 percent of the land area designated for non-residential development. The board of supervisors may approve alternate phasing at time of zoning. TND and in-fill TND projects should incorporate as many categories of residential uses as possible, but at least three categories of residential uses shall be included. Infill TND projects may include existing residential use categories that exist within the sphere of influence to achieve at least three categories of residential use Cate o ~ Residential Uses. The following residential categories are allowed within the residential areas of a TND up to the maximum density levels established below. Density for each residential category shall be calculated based upon the developable acreage identified within each block in the overall development plan. Single- amily detached dwellings - Up to eight (8) dwelling units per acre. A maximum of sixt~60~percent of the residential development area may be used for single-family detached dwellings. Single-family attached dwellings - Up to sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. A maximum of fort~40) percent of the residential development area may be used for single-family attached dwellings. Live/work units - Up to sixteen (16 dwelling units per acre. No more than ten (10) percent of the residential development area shall be used for live/work dwellings and these units shall be located within the same block or across the street from non-residential development areas. Multi- amily dwellings - Up to 25 dwelling units per acre. No more than twenty (20) percent of the residential development area shall be used for multi-family dwellinss. Multi-family dwellin sg incorporated into upper 1925:77691.1 ~~®~~~ 12 stories of non-residential buildings may exceed 25 dwelling units per acre as long as parking requirements for additional dwellings are provided through multi-story parking facilities (parkin arages). Community Center: The community center of a TND project shall consist of a mix of office, commercial; "residential, civic or institutional, and open space uses as identified below. Office and Commercial uses in the community center. Except as maybe approved at time of zoning or for government buildings, no individual building shall exceed 10,000 square feet in ground floor area until buildings are under construction for the minimum percentage of rg ound floor building_square footage with overshop housing. For each stor~of overshop housing, the 10,000 square feet giound floor area limit maw increased by right by fifth 50) percent above the base limit. Once building construction has started for the minimum area of buildings with overshop housing, individual buildings may increase in ground floor area to a maximum of 30;000 square feet. (~ Residential uses in the community center: The following residential uses are permitted in the community center: a. Residential dwellings, as over shop housing, may exceed 25 dwelling- units per acre as long as parkin requirements for dwellings beyond 25 units per acre are provided through multi- stor~parking facilities (parking- ag_rages). b. Senior apartments, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes as long as each use is designed within a single building with a minimum of three stories. and the area for all of these uses does not exceed 25 percent of the total acreage in the community center. c. Work/live units -Community center may include up to ten percent of the developable area of the entire community center with work live units. Civic or institutional uses in the community center: The communit center shall provide locations that serve as focal points for civic, reli i~ous, and/or institutional uses. These focal points shall be at ends of si ht lines such as ma~occur at a tee intersection of two streets, at a sudden road bend, or at one end of a central commons area, and these buildings shall be designed with a strong architectural appearance in character with the project's theme. Such uses include but are not limited to the following: a. Munic~al offices, fire stations, libraries, museums, community meeting facilities, and post offices; 1925:77691.1 13 b. Places of worship; c. Public schools. (~ Common open space uses in the community center: Common open space is a significant part of the design of a traditional neighborhood development. Formal and informal non-linear spaces are required with a formall~gned central square or commons of 40,000 square feet minimum established as the primary common open space near the center of the community center. A smaller informall~gned common open space area shall serve as a children's park of 20,000 square feet minimum and shall be located within two blocks of the community center and adjacent to a primarypedestrian path or sidewalk. This park shall be furnished with a variety of children's pla~quipment and with seating areas for adults. (e) Common Open Space: At least 20 percent of the gross acreage of the entire TND project shall consist of common open space for the common use and enjoyment of residents, visitors and employees within the TND and shall be clearly delineated in the overall development plan. A minimum of 85 percent of the residential units within the TND project devoted to residential uses shall be within '/4 mile of an improved common open space area such as a park or plaza having a minimum area of 20,000 square feet that includes, at a minimum, improvements such as benches, activity areas, and landscaping Internal bikeways and pedestrian walkways shall connect between all improved common open space areas. Within an infill TND, the percenta e of common open space, the distance to common open space areas, and the connectivity between common open space areas for infill TND projects may be modified by the director of planning based upon available common open space and pathways within the sphere of influence and the amount of land available within the infill TND. f~ Building Height: Within a TND project, building height shall not exceed four (4) stories or fift~50) feet, whichever is less, except within the community center where building height shall not exceed eight (8) stories or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is less. However, within any block, no structures shall exceed a height of twent -f~25) feet taller than any other adjacent buildings within the same block. ~ Minimum Lot Requirements and Block Standards: There shall be no minimum lot area or acrd (front, rear, and side requirements except as defined in the Overall Development Plan for the project. A build-to-line along the street front of each block shall be established that defines the maximum distance between the street right-of--way and the face of the principal building on each lot. 1925:77691.1 ~~~~~~ 14 Motor Vehicle Circulation: Motor vehicle circulation shall be desi neg d to promote pedestrian and bicycle activity. Streets within the TND shall include traffic calming elements to encourage slow traffic speeds such as "queuing streets", curb extensions, traffic circles, parallel and angled on-street parking and medians, as determined by the directors of planning and transportation. All roads that accommodate general traffic circulation, as determined by the director of transportation, shall be constructed to state .standards and accepted for maintenance by the Vir inia Department of Transportation. Street Layout. Development in the TND district shall maintain a street rid pattern of generally parallel interconnectin>; streets with no cul-de-sacs except as maw approved during the review of the Overall Development Plan due to topo>raphic or site design constraints. Each proposal's topographic and other physical site impacts will be considered regarding this standard. Intersections should be at ri ht an>?les whenever possible. (2) Curb cuts for driveways to individual residential lots shall be prohibited along all roads identified on the county's Thoroughfare Plan. Modifications o~~re prevention code. During the design of TND developments, all structures are required to meet the provisions of the Statewide Fire Prevention Code as amended by Chesterfield County, Modification of the fire prevention code as permitted by the Statewide Fire Prevention Code, will be considered by the fire code official upon request by the designer or developer when there are practical difficulties involved in meetin>; the provisions of this code. Parking spaces required: Parking within TND districts shall be in accordance with Sections 19-509 through 19-514. Landscaping and Buffering: Landscaping within TND districts shall be in accordance with Sections 19-516 through 19-519. ~ Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting_general requirements for TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-508.3. ~ Exterior Lighti~ within a TND: Exterior lightin requirements for TND districts shall be in accordance with 19-508.4. ~ _Off- Street Parking: Off street parking requirements for TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-509. ~ On -Street Parkingin a TND: On- street parkin requirements for TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-509.1. 1925:77691.1 ~ ~ ~ ~- 15 ~ Restrictions and Limitations: Agricultural, residential, residential townhouse, multi-family residential, manufactured homes. Restrictions and limitations applicable to TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-510. ~ Interpretation of Specific requirements: Interpretation of certain specific requirements for TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-512. ~s,~ Design Standards for Parallel Parking: Design standards for parallel parkin in TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-514.1. ~ Plant Material Specifications: Plant material specifications for TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-518. ~ Other Restrictions for Building Mounted Signs: Restrictions for building mounted signs in TND districts shall be in accordance with 19-644. ~ Freestanding Sign Design: Free standing sign design in TND districts shall be in accordance with section 19-645. 000 Section 19-301. Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 000 Acreage. developable: The total land area within a zoning lot, or within a block for a TND project, minus areas that are not developable including but not limited to resource protection areas, wetlands, perennial stream protection .areas, lakes, railroad rights of ways, and cemeteries. Within a TND, common open space as approved in the overall development plan shall be included as developable acreage within each block. The total land area within a zoning lot or a block shall be measured from existing_public rights of wav. from the center of t~ronosed street ris?hts of wav. and from the edge of anv land or water area not developable. 000 Infill TND nroiect: The intent ofthe in-fill TND proiect is to establish a complete TND with a blend of residential types and densities that relate to a commercial community center and that is interconnected with streets for vehicular access and with pedestrian pathways and common open space. By inserting residential or commercial components of a TND~roject that are missing in an area with existin~i development or redevelopment, an infill TND project begins establishing a network of pedestrian pathways with areas of common open space and opportunities -for economic development 1925:77691.1 ~~~:.~ 16 within walki>~ distance of existing nei>;hborhoods. The extent that an in-fill TND, combined with other properties within its sphere of influence to equa160 acres minimum, accomplishes the~eneral characteristics of a TND project shall be established at time of zomn . 000 Live/Work Units: A building, or a unit space within a portion of a building that combines a commercial use allowed in the zoning district with a residential living space for the owner of the business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The residence occurs on upper floors and the business occurs on the first floor. Live/work units shall be located only in residential areas of a TND. Architecture eg nerally emphasizes a residential townhome character, but the first floor for the business shall be on-grade with the adjoining street and shall have a minimum of a 12 feet high ceiling. A business in a live/work unit shall not be open to the public between the hours of 9 pm and 7 am. 000 Open space common: Any area within the TND project area as shown on the overall Development Plan (section 19-200.9 that may be used by residents and the eg neral public that is maintained for any of the following_purposes: as natural ve etg ation or landscaped areas• aesthetic and accessible ponds and BMPs; active or passive recreational uses including_ but not limited to sidewalks, walking and biking paths, playgrounds swimming_pools, and tennis courts; outside public gathering areas set aside for temporary activities and events such as, but not limited to, art shows, annual celebrations and,~ecial outings that support the recreational nature of open space; and related parking lots and buildings accessor ty o any of these uses. Resource protection areas wetlands perennial stream protection areas, and storm water management and "best mans eg ment practices" (BMP) areas are excluded from minimum common open space area requirements except for those areas used as a design feature or recreational amenit~greenway. 000 Over shop housing: Residential units in upper stories of commercial and office development. 000 Personal service establishments: Primarily non-industrial establishments which provide various service functions to residents and businesses, including; banks; barber shops• beauty shops• brokerages• child care centers• clinics (massage medical or optical); credit unions• day care (familyday care homes, day care centers, adult or child); dress making shops dry cleaning (pick-up drop-off coin-operated); laundries and Laundromats (not including dr~cleaning.~ lip ants); locksmith operations; mailing services; printing shops ~hotography studios• rental establishments (small home hardware tools and equipment health and~art~ equipment • repair services• sewing machine sales service and instruction• savings and loans institutions; shoe repair; tailoring; telegraph 1925:77691.1 17 services; travel agencies; tutoring centers; and other uses of similar intensity and nature as determined by the director of planning 000 Recreational establishments, commercial indoor: Primarily non-industrial establishments which provide commercial indoor recreational services, including: billiard parlors• dance studios; exercise studios; fitness centers; health clubs; martial arts studios; pool halls; and other uses of similar intensity and nature as determined by the director of planning. 000 Retail general: Non-industrial establishments characterized by the offering for sale o~oods and related services to the eg neral public, includirigi antiques (not including pawnbrokers flea markets or second-hand stores)• appliances; artist materials and supplies• bakery goods• beer and wine• bicycles• books• cameras candy, clothing= consignment stores (excluding motor vehicles); curios; department stores; home electronics• eye wear drug-stores• flowers food (prepared)• fruit• furniture• gasoline• groceries• gifts• hardware• hobby supplies; home entertainment items; iewelry; magazines• meat• motor vehicle accessories• musical products and instruments• newspapers• office supplies• packaging• paint• pets• pharmacies• seafood• shopping centers• sporting_goods• stationar ~~telephones• to~s• videos (rental and sales)• ve etg ables• wallpaper and other uses of similar intensity and nature as determined by the director of planning. 000 School specialty: Educational facilities offering specialized instruction for art, business• commerce• dance• music• trades• training purposes• or vocational education• and other uses of similar intensity and nature as determined by the director of planning. This definition includes kindergarten and nursery schools. 000 where o~nfluence • The sphere of influence of an in-fill TND project includes the devel~ed and/or undeveloped areas outside of and adjacent to the boundaries of the in-fill TND that physically connect with the infill TND via streets bic~_paths, and pedestrian paths and sidewalks in order to establish a larger TND community area of at least 60 acres Streets bicycle paths and pedestrian paths and sidewalks shall extend and connect from th~roposed TND project to access locations in adjoinin dg evelopments, as required by the board of supervisors at time of zoning. 000 Work/live units• A building or a unit space within a portion of a building that combines a commercial use allowed in the zoning district with a residential living space 1925:77691.1 ~~~'~_~~ 18 for the owner of the business, or the owner's employee, and that person's household. The residence occurs on upper floors and the business occurs on the first floor. Work live units shall be located only in the community center of a TND. Architecture eng_erallY emphasizes the commercial character of the TND community center, and the first floor for the business shall be on-grade with the adjoining street and shall have a minimum of a 12 feet high ceilins;. There is no limit to the hours that the business use ma~pen to the public. 000 Sec. 19-508.3. Exterior lighting. With the exception of single family residential uses, all exterior lights shall be arranged and installed so that the direct or reflected illumination does not exceed five- tenths foot candle above background, measured at the lot line of any adjoining A, R, R- TH, MH, TND, or R-MF district. Except in village and TND districts where light standards may be required to be compatible with unique architectural styles or developments having ornamental pedestrian style lighting, lighting standards shall be of a directional type capable of shielding the light source from direct view from any adjoining A, R, R-TH, MH, TND, or R-MF district or public right-of way. 000 Sec. 19-508.4. Exterior lightin;: within a TND proiect. Within a TNDtpedestrian environments require lighting to provide visibility safety along streets and within public parking areas while minimizin>; the effects of lighting on residential uses. ~ Lighting Level Standards. Streets with on-street parking and, all sidewalks within public rights-of--way shall maintain a minimum illumination level of 0.5- foot candle. Parking areas for all uses other than single-family residential uses shall maintain a minimum illumination level of 1.0 foot-candle. to single-famil business security lighting shall not exceed the 1.0 foot-candle illumination level beyond the property line. Light Fixture Mounting~Heights. Street lighting shall not exceed a mounting height of twenty-five X25) feet above the closest street rg ade. 1925:77691.1 19 Parkin a~ghting, whether pole or building mounted, shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet above the grade of the parking area closest to the light source. 000 Sec. 19-509. Off-street parking. 000 (c) For residential uses, parking within a garage or an enclosed or covered space may be counted toward meeting parking requirements. Conversion of such a garage or enclosure to another use is prohibited unless sufficient off-street parking is provided. (d) Within the community center of a TND project, public parking facilities may be constructed to provide sufficient required parking for uses within 1000 feet of the facility. However, parking decks shall be screened from view from public and private roads by locating other buildings around their perimeter. Sec. 19-509.1. On-street narking in a TND. Except along roads identified. on the county's Thoroughfare Plan, improved, desi ng ated parking spaces in a public right-of-wa~y be counted toward the required number of parking spaces for each use within a TND District when more than one-half of each such space resides in front of the use. However, parking spaces in a public right-of--way shall not be designated in any way for a use. On-street parking spaces not in front of a use may be counted toward the required number of parking spaces within an overall block. 000 Sec. 19-510. Restrictions and limitations-Agricultural, residential, residential townhouse, multi-family residential, manufactured homes. (a) Parking and storing recreational equipment in R, R-TH, MH, TND and R- MF Districts: 000 (3) In R-TH, a~ R-MF, and TND Districts, parking and storing recreational equipment shall be prohibited unless a common storage area(s) is (are) provided for the parking. Parking spaces for recreational equipment and/or vehicles shall be in addition to that required for parking private vehicles. The storage area(s) shall be effectively screened. from view. 000 1925:77691.1 20 Sec. 19-512. Interpretation of specific requirements. 000 (c) Within a TND district, the minimum requirements for on and off-street parking spaces for each use shall be calculated based on the lesser of either section 19- 513 or four (4, parking spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. Required parking for live/work units shall be based~on the residential use and parking for work/live units shall be based upon the commercial use. {c-~~d,) When fractional space results, the required number of parking spaces shall be rounded to the next highest whole number. 000 Sec. 19-514.1. Design standards for parallel parking. Parallel parking_may be used for required parking off-street, and on-street in village districts and the TND zoning district. Spaces shall be legibly striped to be seven (7) feet wide and twenty-two (22) feet long with 4 inch white lines perpendicular to the curb or edge of pavement. Sec. 19-518. Plant material specifications. 000 (b) Minimum size standards: 000 (2) Large deciduous trees: Large deciduous trees shall be of a species that reach a minimum crown spread of greater than 30 feet within 20 years. At a time of planting, a minimum caliper of at least two and one-half inches shall be required except for street trees within a TND project when three and one-half inches shall be required. If a native species is selected from the Chesterfield County Plant Materials List, the minimum caliper shall be reduced *° +~~~° ~~~~°~ by a half inch. Multi-stem plants shall be minimum of 10 feet tall except that large deciduous street trees in a TND project shall not be allowed to be multi-stem. 000 (h) Street trees: During the site and subdivision construction plan review processes and for a TND project during the overall development plan review process, required street trees shall be shown , 1925:77691.1 21 including species and caliper, and submitted to and approved by the director of planning and VDOT. •rt, ~ ~ + ~~„ ~i..,ii ~.° „~,,,.,;++°a ,.~ ~+~, ~ ~:^~ i.,~~ rnc~crcc~crc ccctrasirpurc-orrri~c8irs crca~~. 1.~....~ Unless otherwise approved by the director of planning and VDOT during the review of the overall development plan for a TND project, all public and private streets except alleys shall be planted with large maturin sg treet trees on an average of fort~40) feet on center within the street ri hg t-of- way of each block, either within a sidewalk area or within a planting strip between the curb and sidewalk having a minimum width of six (6 feet. When small maturing ornamental street trees are proposed, spacing shall avera eg twenty-five (25) feet on center. Within a TND project, the minimum clear zone shall be established for proposed trees within the public street right-of--way big six (6) inch vertical curbing for all public streets. Within a TND project, planting strips within a street right-of--way shall be planted with turf grasses or other low growing plants as approved by Vn(~T_ For all trees planted in tree wells in a sidewalk area within or adjacent to a public or private street, a minimum of sevent -f~75Zsquare feet by three (3 feet dew beneath the- sidewalk shall contain an uncompacted soil mix favorable to health ty ree growth, irrigation, and a subdrain tied to the storm drain s. sum. ~l-}~5,~ Unless otherwise required during subdivision review, trees shall be lp anted at a maximum spacing of 40 feet on center and °'~~" "°'^°~+°a no greater more than five~5,~ feet outside of the right-of--way in an easement granted to the homeowners association or within the right-of--way if approved by VDOT. For single trunk trees the minimum allowable caliper measured four feet above grade shall be two and one half inches. Multistem trees shall have a minimum of three canes and be a minimum of ten feet in height. Species selected for planting shall be suitable for growing in this vegetative zone and shall be drought tolerant. (~}~ The subdivider or developer shall at their expense install all required street trees identified on the approved plans prior to recordation or surety shall be provided in the amount approved by the director of planning and in a form accepted by the county attorney's office, sufficient to guarantee installation. Any surety shall be held by the director of planning. Installation within a subdivision shall be completed prior to state acceptance of the subdivision's streets. {~}~ Required street trees shall be guaranteed by the installer for a period of not less than one year. Replacement of dead trees is required in accordance 1925:77691.1 22 with section 19-518(d). Maintenance responsibilities of the required street trees within a subdivision shall be .specified on the final check plan and record plat to be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Street trees shall not be removed during or after residences are constructed. Trees removed shall be replaced with a like species and in a size comparable to the original planting. 000 19-644. Other restrictions for building mounted signs. 000 (b) Signs may be mounted perpendicular to a building provided that no sign shall project more than 36 inches from the building, roof or canopy, exceed a face to face thickness of eight inches or exceed the height of the fascia or parapet wall. All projecting signs shall maintain a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above grade below the sign. Within a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND ,buildin signs projectin og ver a sidewalk may extend up to eight (8) feet from the buildin ag s long as the sign is no closer than four (4) feet from the face of curb at the street. 000 Sec. 19-645. Freestanding sign design. (b) Any freestanding sign in an TND, O-1 or C-1 District shall conform to village district standards, with the exception that uses in a TND District that front on a major arterial outside of a village district may use countywide size restrictions for area and height for signs located on the major arterial. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 1925:77691.1 23 IELp ~ _~~ S h~,N,p~ _A CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.6. Subject: Award of Construction Contract for County Project #06-0421, Happy Hill Ground Storage Tank Repairs and Repainting County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to award the construction contract to Town Hall Painting Corporation, in the amount of $319,830.00 and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents. Summary of Information: This project consists of painting and related repairs to Happy Hill Ground Storage Tank. Staff received five (5) bids ranging from $319,830.00 to $565,499.99. Town Hall Painting Corporation submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $319,830.00. The County's engineering consultant, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP, has evaluated the bids and recommends award of the contract to the low bidder. Funds are available in the current CIP. District: Matoaca Preparers George B. Haves P.E. Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ~ Yes ® No - # ~~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY. ~;~,~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 ~ ~~ AGENDA S =~6j/ ~J~jCIp~P.d e Budget and Management Comments: This item requests that the Board award the construction contract to Town Hall Painting Corporation in the amount of $319,830 for the painting of and repairs to the Happy Hill Ground Storage Tank. Funds are available in the Utilities Capital Improvement Program for this project. ~~ Preparers Allan M. Carmody Title: Director, Budget and Management _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~Q ~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA h~~n Meeting Date: February 13, 2008. Item Number: 8.D.7.a. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim a Twenty-Foot Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice (BMP) Access Easement and a Variable Width Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice (BMP) Easement Across the Property of BB Hunt, L.L.C. County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a 20' SWM/BMP access easement and a variable width SWM/BMP easement across the property of BB Hunt, L.L.C. Summary of Information: BB Hunt, L.L.C. has requested the quitclaim of a 20' SWM/BMP access easement and a variable width SWM/BMP easement across its property as shown on the attached plat. The Upper Swift Creek Watershed ordinance was amended to repeal the requirement to .use regional ponds therefore, these SWM/BMP and access easements are not needed. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ®Yes Title: Right of Way Manager ^ No # ®~~~_~~~ VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A 20' SWM/BMP ACCESS EASEMENT & A VARIABLE 1NIDTH SWM/BMP EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF BB HUNT LLC N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W f.. "~ ~E S I hol egiaz lI6bT lpet ~~~~~~. !' ~'^ v ~~ ^``. 9 0 s~~~ s 722 ~~ ~~3 p e °O°_z.,\ ~~S ~~ ~ W ~s ~"•'~g ° ~ ' ~~~ ~ g ~ ~~t > _ Q O a m E~ p ~E ~g ~~ ~S 9~ 8 $E ~W ~~ ~ : ~ ~oa~o J- 13<~~ I ~~~ /~/ ~ '~~ i~ ~ i.i ; ~l .'W /..b~ 1N370N07.39- e~nrsss~.n b ~ l1 N e . ~~ a ,~gg,~a<3 °a ~ 3 n; a~ t~511 y~ 3 . ~ .. .. ,o Qi z= J {Fi7 fU^ ~ ~Z~ p~< ~<~ O y UW ~1a' ¢4 ~.~ U OzNpVj ~Oll LL~ V Ci ~aK Jv / tom' u§ ~~~ f7 ~p_~W rQ f` ~~M wu ~ ~ ~~~uU4 to' ~ e ~ M ~~ ~~.~~ h- N t+W QZ~N .~ ~ ~~ m ~~_~~ m J~~II ~ .<m A Q~U npo a,A~ ~ -~ ~ Z ,~ °'m ~= o ~ oW ' ~'o N ~ ax a ~ ~ a = r a a 3 J K ^~~' S W l7 g P N it - Q°~T~ W S;~ ~ d ~ N N m n~~$ Cy N C_ ~"> ° ~~ {W{~~ OqHO y SSW. €~§ _~ „ sry x~ ~~ ~w 2y.4b. ~, o.' ~`~ J ~Y ~ Syn ton ~~ ~+ ~i ~~.1119~-~ 8g ~W 9 // ~a~ ` ~~ G~Z1lA ~.$ 9 .ate- ~ ~~~~ m ^ ~~ ~ ~ d ~ n ~ ~~'OJ ~' 4 a 4 c 4 ~.1~ ®..~A. ~ d'ro CHESTERFIELD COUNTY '~"'~~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~!RG~N11's~ 7 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.7.b. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim Portions of a Sixteen-Foot Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Easement and a Sixteen-Foot Water Easement Across the Property of Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: _ Board Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate portions of a 16' VDOT. drainage easement and a 16' water easement across the property of Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC. Summary of Information: Commonwealth Centre Storage, LLC has requested the relocation of portions of a 16' VDOT drainage easement and a 16' water easement across its property as shown on the attached plat to accommodate the development of Spacemart. VDOT, Utilities and Environmental Engineering have reviewed the plans and approval is recommended. District: Matoaca Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ®Yes ~ No # ~~~~~~ VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST TU QUITCL~~Z PURTItrN OF ~ 16' ~~UT DR~,IlV~GE EASEl~•IENT ~1VD A 16' «~~TER EASEN~NT ACRUSS THE PRUPERTY OF CUR•I11r~IU1V~t~'EAI.TH CENTRE STURAGE LLC ~~ T ~~~ O~ p ~ ~ ~~tL O ~ ~ \\~ ~~ ~~~ `~ \` ~~ ~~ ~~~ fi \~~ ~ ~~`~ VDOT Drainage Easement ti ~~\ to be quitclaimed R~ P ~ - ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ 3 6 /~ ~ \ ~\ ~ ~ \\~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Water Easement ~ ~ to be quitclaimed SWrfir ~~ F BLUFF WAY RIDGE Lc~GP PQINTE RD ~~ EIGHTS DR 5 ~p~ RACE LN ~~ GE RUN LN ~ ARBQR CIR = w N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W t~' E 5 I hcl egraa b55.67 fret ~®® . .. - ..wwpiV . DiGDDO~, ~P ~ .uiyd ~J~q9 yi/cawuomt~ -ODYD1170YQh DODdJ A` !. S ... tlINI0tl41'A1NI100 tl~Id1®188H0 - ~ ~ _ ~ -rte ~~ as a ~ ~ ~ ionuei~ ~Yno ~ ti ~ .. } #~ ~~ l ~ XvM~l~ra:aluta~ r•u,~-NOwwaa assts al~- ~ ~ . ~ ~ y gg ~ ~~~ ~ i ~ ~ OfWO'dN~9 ©N~SgOi!'31N~VIIBBV>~;~OMNlbkl~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ Q 9 3~~~ ~~~ tl8~~. ~~~! ~~~~! loan bNri>~r-ry~tgM d bNIMOHS tend ~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~° - ~-------- - q ~a,+ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ;~ ,~ ~ i O 0 eWy¢ i /~~ ~~~~ ~ b~ - w ~ RR y yyy - `~ I ~ ~~ +~~ ~ i ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ ;: o ~ ~ ~^ ~I i g $ ~ _J-- y,'hi i ~s gyp) v / i X10 \~~G~~rPZD ~ c' . w ~ i X38 /" ~~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ACC a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i i ~ g I ~ ~~ ~ ~ r ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ r ~ i ~ ,1 ~ ~ 1x~ ~ ~ i ~c l IBS !,/ ' l~, 3~5' ~i~ ~~ 1 I' ~ w e CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~'~`~`° BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 i AGENDA . S~ ~,~,a Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.7.c. Subject: Request to Quitclaim Sixteen-Foot Water Easements, a Variable Width Sewer and Water Easement and a Portion of a Variable Width Water Easement Across the Properties. of Midlothian Mini Storage LLC and William C. and Christine A. Martyn County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute quitclaim deeds to vacate 16' water ,easements, a variable width sewer and water easement and a portion of a variable width water easement across the properties of Midlothian Mini Storage LLC and William C. and Christine A. Martyn. Summary of Information: Midlothian Mini Storage LLC and William C. and Christine A. Martyn have requested the quitclaim of 16' water easements, a variable width sewer and water easement and a portion of a variable width water easement across their property as shown on the attached plat. Staff has reviewed the request and approval is recommended. DlStriCt: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ~ Yes ~ No # ~~~~~~ VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST TO QUiTCLAIlI~Z 16' ~VATER E ~,SENIENTS ~,. ~'~RI~BLE ~~'IDTH SE~~~ER AND ~~rATER E~SENIENT ,AND ~ PORTION OF ~ VARIABLE <<+IDTH ~V~TER E~,SE14'IENT t1CROSS THE PROPERTIES OF I41mLOTFIIAN NIIPTI STORAGE LLC APTD ~t~'II..LAIlVI C' ANI) CHRISTINE ~ 1VIART~IV N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities J / , ,. W I: 'E x $ 1 I~ci eyraa 656b7 Ret ~~~~~~~ 4 ~. v u~ o °: .~~~ '~ , ,~ ~, ;~~ ~ ~, ~ I i - / ~ ~~,~ I I n , ~ ,I i N M2 I / ''/ ~~ I F I~ ,, $ I u AI` R4 I I / ~ ~ ~~ I ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~I I I '~ -" 'e~'" ~ "' , '' I o -~ ~ I I~ .;- ~.ACiEii $~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ~e` ``fie."- ---- ------- -"-- ~_ I ~ I .' d'~ __ _ _ 1 ' I y7 ' '. '-~ ~_ ~ I 1 ~ _~ ~ _,__ ~ , I I s S3S77'17'W ?00.00, ~ _ ~ I.. p q ~ I ~.+ g i ~--~~_ ~ !p i I 0G n - ~ .. ~ cr ~ ~ 6 %~ ~ ~ ~~ 8 v ° h~ gp - ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 3 'PLATSIIOW/NGAWATEREASEMENTANDA~YAR/ABLE~.~ ~R~~~pp ~~~~_¢~~i~~' ~~~9 ~~~}®® $ O ~ l ~~ ~ 3 W/OTf/SEWERANOWATEREASEMENTIGBE -- ~ ;j ~ ~i ~:. 7 ~ ~ ~~. R. ~~. t/AG97FD,,CRASS/NGTWO PARCELSOFCANDLY/NO j ppx1j B pF aY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ON TNEEASTGINEOFNORTNOTTEROALEROAO ~~ ~ 64~~ ~~ ~ 8~~~ ~8 S ~ yy y qS - NIaY:07NpNO137RlCI - ~ -Y ff ~~~ . . CHES7ERi7ELD, NRO/Nl4 . ~A~ ~~ ~~ ~$ ~~ / o ~ $ / I a' SS ~ % d / v4 a~ I / / I ~ ,~ '. m. ~ \ / / ~ . ~~- ®V' iLi _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "p~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ ,~- _~ AGENDA 4~RGIN~?' ;~ . Meeting Date:. February 13; 2008 Item Number: 8.D.7.d. Subiect: Request to Quitclaim a Portion of a Variable Width Storm Water Management System/Best Management Practice (BMP) Easement Across the Property of Vincenzo R. and Marianna Parlanti County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: ~~ ~~ Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute a quitclaim deed to vacate a portion of a variable width SWM/BMP easement across the property of Vincenzo R. and Marianna Parlanti. Summary of Information.: Vincenzo R. and Marianna Parlanti have requested the relocation of a portion of a variable width SWM/BMP easement across their property as shown on the attached plat to accommodate the development of A Taste of Italy. Additional easement will be dedicated to accommodate the relocation. Environmental Engineering has reviewed the plans and approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Yes ^ No Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager ::. VICI N ITY SKETGH REQUEST TO QUITCLAIM A PORTION OF A VARIABLE WIDTH SWM/BMP EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF VINCENZO R & MARIANNA PARLANTI N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities ~i W , : -E S - I Iwt eq~au 665b7 12et ~~®~~~ C~`14R7FR GIDLONY PAl7K1Y.4Y V ST ~ N?6J?707y /JT.60' J97,6%' /U !i/E S/E CORNER OF 1~17ERi'ORO CAKE OR/Vf: . __. -.---_ - _-_4~~ --- - - _ -- _ ~~ m~ 4 b __~ __ __ _ _ g m4Z~ p 2 (y((~~~.jj4 ti~N v v ~,~i ~ ~ ~i~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ p`~~ v~~e A ~+~ ~~~ ~~ilib~ a~A u~ h u a ~q ~ y~~~~ N ~~C ~Z ~~ q 2 M a m~ 4i,~ b cn o M ~ o p~~ ~ ~ ~~S ~ ~~ aAi " a iii [~ `.~Sy ~M -tea ~ ~~T ~N =~2p ~ l7 ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ < q ~ti ~ ~ IC~ s 97 b7 ~ ~~ ~~ l ~~ ,- ~w _ ~,. bm.u _-._.l-__ __ - __ _.._ __ p ~ b ___ ~Q.` __-._ _________._-__.__ .. c ~m I I nt ~ ~an~, m ~~ 1.. I I \ I ~ v~~~ 1 L--- -------- - -- ,- ~ er -- -- a IQ a- 1 ----- ~:A g ~~a~ ~ _ .__J ~`il Nil ~ ~ 002 ~?mac; pa~~ ~~ ~~ 4 ~yy~i~ ~N ~~ i7 ~ ~ H4~ yM \ p~ +~~~ nn~C ~~~ C axti~ b~ ~ ~q. ~~ ~~Otl (n .ern ON' r o b g n ~ p ~i'I (v(.. ~'•( $D '~`~C~ ~ ~ppp o ny~ pC~ (p ~ ~ ~, IDN _lm'~ti A g" HY~ v ~_° ~ ~ o II a~~ c~ ~n O o ~ \o ~ m m m n"°f ~~~ v o Oe 6~ Yl ~.o ~ PLAT SNON7NG A VAR/ABLE W/OTN SWM/BMP ~ 7 ~ x ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ g t ~ d a ~ ~ y ~ ~ n ° 1 ~ LL .? ~ ~ ~ pg ACCESS EASEA/£NT AND A VARKBLE W/OTN ! ~ ~ 9 Oo0 ~ F r'1. ~ ~ Y ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~a" ~ g~ °i3 9 S P EASEMENT TO BE DEO/CATEO TO THE ~ ¢ 3' .° ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ C~ OF CNES1ERf1£LD AND AFORT/ON OF A ~ ~ T ~ p~p ~ jj ~g ~ ~ ~ Y ~9~ i ~ s: ~, w T ~ m ~ SWAI(/BA/P EASEMENT TO BE VACATED ~ t" 6 ~ 1 ~ e C s # ~ y ~ ~ ~; a ~ ~ ~ m -i ~ $ ~ CLOVER H/LL LNSTR/CT G ~ ~ `b j '~~ a ~ g CNESTERfI£LO COUNTY, NRC/N/A ® J V ~~~ _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY "'~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ~~ AGENDA -, ~ ~~RGIN~p Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.8.a. Subject: Request Permission fora Concrete Dumpster Pad to Encroach Within a Variable Width Water and Sewer Easement and a Sixteen-Foot Drainage Easement Across the Property of Ellmer Properties Chesterfield II, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant Ellmer Properties Chesterfield II, LLC permission for a concrete dumpster pad to encroach within a variable width water and sewer easement and a 16' drainage easement across its property, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Ellmer Properties Chesterfield II, LLC has requested permission for a concrete dumpster pad to encroach within a variable width water and sewer easement and a 16' drainage easement across its property as shown on the attached plan. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. DIStrICt: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: Yes No # ~'~3 ~ ~~~ VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A CONCRETE DUMPSTER PAD TO ENCROACH WITHIN A VARIABLE WIDTH WATER AND SEWER EASEMENT AND A 16' DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF ELLMER PROPERTIES CHESTERFIELD II LLC ~ ~ T A~ '~~N ~ ~<< ~p ~~ ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ O 4 a. l ~ \ ~ REQUEST PERMISSION FOR ~O~ ACONCRETE DUMPSTER PAD P~ OZ '~~~ c.> ~~ ~~ G~ M Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W I•E S I hcl eyraa 500 fief ~~~~-~~ t _ o -j x R51 t r- y } '~ N Y ,1 t ~ k ,/ ~ k ~. ~ ~(~ k x .F -t .y k ~_ ~ ~:'I/ 1-1/Y'.WA1ER S£RNCE. '~..~ FOR (PRIVATFa ~ I 4 Ellmer Property Chesterfield II LLC -16201 Priority Way . DB. 7622 PG. 292 . i I :PIN: 805637300300000 r ;-" Q I:N I AREA = 33,709 S F ..-- ~~ ~'~ ~~I ~ I I '. ELEV: _.77.00 L-_ . ik k ; - I I r rir __. ~ ` .r ` *2Q I Y j` %~ rt I.- IC f ~~ ROOF LEADERS SHALL TIE ty ,~ i - TO UNDERGROUND ROOF ~ -- ~ ~ 1 ~r y r-~- - 2 ( DRAINAGE SYSTEM USING '~ ~~ .~ ~.~_.I a PREFAB. TEES &~ I ~..._ ..~~ k Y 1 I ~ I -DOWNSPOUT CONNECTORS. - LICENSED AREA 3 I ,. tIT SEPARATOR ~~ ,mo,tt~ I I :TAILS SHEET. C 3 'o ~,~ ~ ' Z'i I I - ~' ~ k ~ I 1~ Ee.' V f Pqb ie~ x ~o N I I L ~. .79~ c:.;~ k Y .k k t' k 'i i EpLTM pF, ?o~~ `~~~ D, ~ Y T GA ON No.37085 06/07/07 FfSS/ONAL ENO\ ~~\ W ~ ~ h V ~ y ~" ~~~~ ~ ~i ti Cr ~ . a. ~, ~ A o. ~wA~ q p. O ~w Qi d . ~ a ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ x Q ~ REVISIONS DATE ITEM 04/25 2007 PER COMMENT' OS 02 2007~~. PER COMMENT: ~~ OB 07/2007. ~ .'PER COMMENII - STAt Z9+85,40 E.O.L. _~t GRAPHIC .SCALE r.:: ~ ~;--~-- ~`. -~-"~ 1 inch a 30 [t. DATE 03 / 19 / 2007 SCALE I ... _. 90' PROJECT MANAGER D. BRYANT GAMMON, P.E. CHECKED BY PROJ.~ C - ~ CO. PROD N07PR0938 / OB-04~ '.IE G~~w~ awnps~r P~ ~s ~}O~x 30, F~o~a~vv dumps-r .ne-losure.,_ is o-„ly 30~ X30 os.s~own. _.- ~~~:~" CHESTERFIELD COUNTY '~"~`e"°°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~~~ AGENDA ~j~`~N~p..° Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.8.b. Subiect: Request Permission for an Existing Concrete Parking Area and Curb and Gutter to Encroach Within a Twenty-Foot Water Easement and a Sixteen-Foot Water Easement Across the Property of R-Key Investments, LLC County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Grant R-Key Investments, LLC permission for an existing concrete parking area and curb and gutter to encroach, within a 20' water easement and a 16' water easement across its property, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: R-Key Investment, LLC has requested permission for an existing .concrete parking area and curb and gutter to encroach within a 20' water easement and a 16' water easement across its property as shown on the attached plat. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~®x_65 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION FOR AN EXISTING CONCRETE PARKING AREA AND CURB AND GUTTER TO ENCROACH WITHIN A 20' WATER EASEMENT AND A 16' WATER EASEMENT ACROSS THE PROPERTY OF R-KEY INVESTMENTS LLC poRr q~ r hgLL DR }- ~ ~ •. Rv ~i o ~~~c ~ a ~ ~~ I o m-~ a i ~~ REQUEST PERMISSION FOR AN EXISTING CONCRETE PARKING AREA &CURBAND GUTTER TO~ C TAN ~O N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities w ~~ - E S I Irol a qra lc Soo fee t ~~~- ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ea :;.. - ~ ~ ;.?ter., "t. .~.,, ` ..;~ -. ~;.. ".~.~ ~. 1 ~ ~ ~:<<:. ,. .. 1 u x ~~'' t~' ~ F~ ~~ ~ :k: '~ ,'s:f.' cs=i \ ~ ~ 1 Ncoon'° i Q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~ \~\\~\`~\ \~ \ may'. ~ '::.. \ ro \ \ •'~• - \\ l \ .--. --g-_----------------"-_ __ .~1rr ~ __i---- ~,~^ ." PORT WALTHALL COURT ~I - _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _..__25. MPH _ - -~~_______________________~_ ~R+b(~TE ROAD ~ ~= ~~ r ,} S~ -+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LICENSE AGREEMENT PLAT V ~~~4~ l~~~ ~~~~' ~~~~ G~~9 ~~ ~ SHOWING CONCRETE PAVING AND CONCRETE iii { gi tt 't ' ~ $ CURB AND GUTTER OVER ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~" ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 .~~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AN EXI3TING PUBLIC WATER LINE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ c - - --- --~ "- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~p'~`°~ .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA :xc~x. Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.8.c. Subject: Request Permission for a Proposed Fence to Encroach Within a Sixteen-Foot Drainage Easement and an Eight-Foot Easement Across Lot 14, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Grant Munnirpallam Sankar and Sarada Sankar permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16' drainage easement and an 8' easement across Lot 14, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony, subject to the execution of a license agreement. Summary of Information: Munnirpallam Sankar and Sarada Sankar have requested permission for a proposed fence to encroach within a 16' drainage easement and an 8' easement across Lot 14, Berkley Village, Section A at Charter Colony. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. DlstrlCt: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~~~~~ VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN A 16' EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 14 BERKLEY VILLAGE SECTION A AT CHARTER COLONY N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W j ~ >`C~/ • E S I hcl eq~ax ~I5b7 ket ~~®~~J b~+5~ f~tz PIN: 723705452100000 Ls3e.9e, PROFIT=3o• cDE ~ ~ ~~~T ~ coRl~ ~ ~ aaD ~T~HAc (44' R/V) PROPOSED 1't7iJ1YGElAOD, TYLER ~ IMPROVEI~NTS pNl AS50CIAT6.S. P.C. LOT 14 clvn. ENGINEERS, PLANNERS L LAND SURVEYORS Y Vn.L~ 7~ 7309 WIf~DVER GREEN DRIVE SECTII~ A P.O. HOX 517 lECFWNICSVD_LE, Va AT CFIi4RTEI~ ~Vr DATE~.1uLr a zoo? scaLE~ 1• MID<_OTHIAN DISTRICT CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA DRAVN HY'16836 c~+EacEn Hr+ IcElrrl a SNR L.~ PURCHASERS BANDAR .AH Na 16.836 I ~ ~ tip, / ~\ ~ "20.63' _ \ _~ Munnirpallam Sankar ~DD~ § ~ ,~ f~, Sarada Sankar ~ L~ J ~ 14637 Charter Walk Ct. 1 C TIOH DB. 8102 PG. 598 ~ ~~sa~ 360 7.~1E] - FENCE XX - - LICENSED AREA RYAN HOMES STE E ~ VALLAGE k'9'a ~ ? ~ \ ~ LOT $ ~°'~ ~ .16 PG.39-43 \ PB ~, ~ \ ~ C~ .- _ "*~ / /~ \ \ 9- • F 20' SEVER 1 1 \ t EASEMENT-=---..! ~ \\ `,I,r 1~ P~16S PG.39-43 I I I \ \ I / MIN. FF<S) \ \ I 1 I ~ \ \ 348.00 \ \ 1 -- \ \ / LOT LINE _ ~ / i ~ ! ~ \ \ \ ~ \~ ~ -C~ISSRUCTD7N ~ ^ \~ ~ ~ LIMITS OF LAND / ~ ~ DISTURBANCE \ X S \ ~ ' ~ 340 F~ ~ . ' ~ N ,r ~ ~7 .33 ~ \ X ~ ~ ~ 04 ~ 345 ~ ~ E S4 ~ ` ~ LOT 13 ~ NT HA p I ~ ~ ~ / I ~ \ LOT 13 ~ 3~0 12.04' 9. 11.41' / CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~`'"~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 AGENDA ~~gC ,.~* Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.8.d. Subject: Request Permission to Install a Private Water Service Within a Private Easement to Serve Property at 9817 Castleburg Drive County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Grant Alvaro E. Jimenez and Catherine G. Jimenez permission to install a private water service within a private easement and authorize the County Administrator to execute the water connection agreement. Summary of Information: Alvaro E. Jimenez and Catherine G. Jimenez have requested permission to install a private water service within a private easement to serve property at 9817 Castleburg Drive. This request has been reviewed by staff and approval is recommended. District: Clover Hill Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No Title: Right of Way Manager # 0~0~.71 VICINITY SKETCH REQUEST PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE WITHIN A PRIVATE EASEMENT TO SERVE PROPERTY AT 9817 CASTLEBURG DRIVE REQUEST PERMISSION TO INSTALL A PRIVATE WATER SERVICE 0,~ C,gsTL~~.~,. ~ ~ ~z as ~ ~ 'yo ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ i w ~ G cn D ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 'A . o ~ ~ .'A r ; ` ~ ~~ ~ ~ O M Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W {~E S I hcl eq~ax 11557 1Pet ~~~~_~~ C o N54°I9'8'W CH=17.32' Shenandoah Community Assoc. L=18.46' R=15' y GPIN7s070314a100000 S89°35'E~ 9800 Casdebiug Drive 5.86 ~ ~ D.B.1024, PG.549 NO°25'0'E, 10' 20' `~ ~ -N89°35'W 0 i ; CAS SC, R/ SCALE I'=20' T~Ee~R W Nip°sr3p TE' /4S~RlVE 79 68• F~ N 3,703,246.17 Sv R~6/g E 11,750,442.3 ~°^;0 20.32, o b, e=15°58'3p• °tia' N 3 703 255.48 90' r=86.91' L=172.69' S89°; to N C t1 7Cl1 9AA to ~~.~_ ~n ><~~ 154°I9'8'W CH=17.32' L=18.46' R=15' 0=105°23' R=15' I C=23.86' L=27.59' T=19.68' N :L ~ N N 4 David C. & Rebekah F. w Branch David C. & Rebekah F. h ~ ~ o Branch N 2 GPIN 750703271400000 { 9809 Casdeburg Ihive GPIN 7s0703361200000 'T 2 D.B.7181, PG.48s ~ 100 1 Road x0~ D.B.7181, PG.485 ~ h l ~ O6 9 ~ POCOSHOCK HEI GHTS ~ 8 ~ - P.B.B, PG.78-78 ~ /6'Fq O 3~+~ -~~Rq Nq~ MFryT F E ~R ~ ~ I A ~. N r` ~ l?~34,~ UTIL/r/F5 o ,~ h ~ IW ~ ~~22~32' ~~ Z ~8 w~^ ~ ~~~ ~ 98Og•~~ ~~,;~ E - , ~ 5 ~ ° ~ Joseph Z. & Cameron P. -Z z° ~ Surma E W ~ W ~ w GPW 760702289700000 5 ~ 0 122 Heppel Road c Q IZ D.B.7634, PG.589 c ,o o ~ 1 ~ S7q °/2, 17 U~ NI 20.:.._ E ~- % CN=91.g7~ W --N89°32'17'W 2 x=91.48• CH=64.06' --N89°35'W R=61q,36, L=64.08' 61.65' Alvaro E. dt Catherne G. R=619.36' Jimenez n, PROPOSED GP1N 7s07D3171700000 N PRIVATE 10' PROPOSED 9817CasUeburgDrive WATER EASEMENT VARIABLE WIDTH D.H.19s0, PG.1221 WATER EASEMENT PLAT SHOWING / A VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT, AND A 10' PRIVATE WATER EASEMENT o 25• so' goo' ACROSS THE PROPERTYS BELONGING TO DAVID C. AND REBEKAH F. BRANCH SCALE I'=50' Midlothian District, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Chesterfield County, Virginia. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT INFORMATION ON PLAT BASED ON DRAWN BY: VAG SUBDIVISION PLAT POCOSHOCK HEIGHTS P.B.9, PG.78-79 CHECKED BY: R.PHELPS TILE NUMBER: 74&702 CHESTERFlELD COUNTY GIS SYSTEM COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER: J^~ ~, r~ _ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~~'""`~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - ~ AGENDA ~~Rc~H~~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 8.D.9. Subject: Conveyance of an Easement to Verizon Virginia Incorporated County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Verizon Virginia Inc. to install underground cable and access across county property to serve the Goyne Park cell tower. Summary of Information: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisor and the County Administrator to execute an easement agreement with Verizon Virginia Inc. to install underground cable and access across county property to serve the Goyne Park cell tower. District: Bermuda Preparers John W. Harmon Title: Right of Way Manager Attachments: ~ Yes ~ No # VICINITY SKETCH CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VERIZON VIRGINIA INC z o r ~(,~ ~ ~ x C-~ CONVEYANCE OF AN ~ EAS EM EN T r r~ R ~~~ ~ ~ F ~q N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities i W ~'~' E ~ I IICI egr3x 115b712et Y.7 _PL., 6 w~ ytl~a Y~~ ' H ep'~% ~I ~~; ~~~ Ali i !n R~ ~~~~ 1 ~~ X% d~~ l '; N-l ,I „~ r-~ ~ yam--~ I c ~', 's'^'o~ ~ 1 - ~u~' ~ ; `,ni~pp '9 ,. ~ 11x11 '1 ~i~ ~~~ d,~ =__ -, n'~ _~ ' -~ , 1~ yJ~ K ` I o ~{ ~ 3~~C3 ~G ~K ~~~~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ _ ~ O ~; rn M . ~h ~' N n co r; N O fp ~ ~ Of ~ ~ h N ro M t~ t~ ~ 1o O ~ ~ N ~O .- M 1n w 3 w w w ~ w w w Z tN~ N N !O r7 O tp V tt) N ~ Y e ~ ._ !n . ^ O O N h O ^ b N N '- ~ ~- O h h N M O ~ 2 2 Z Z h 1n 2 Z V1 W N M rn 0 ^ N M ~ Z ~ J ~ J g J g :J ~ J ~ J a J ~ J :~ J 0 ~~ $g m ~~ o ~~ ~o~ UdV~i /r,`"~~ o O~~ Uv'"~iGa ~ z~ i~ ~ Wk$ / ~ % //~ f ~ l `~~ •~ W~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,F. - a ~ ~ :° '%i.~ a ,~ ~~~ ~$~ ~~a w m ~i m s ,E~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY `~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f ~~ ~ AGENDA ~~RCIN~* leetinq Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: Subject: Page 1 of 2 8.D.10. Cancellation of Previously Approved Streetlight Installation Requests County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Cancellation of streetlight installation projects previously approved that will not be installed by Dominion Virginia Power. Summary of Information: Dominion Virginia Power has notified the County of several outstanding streetlight installations that they will not be able to complete due to their inability to acquire necessary easements from property owners in the vicinity of those proposed installations. These streetlights are located throughout the county .as indicated below. If the Board is in agreement with cancellation of these installations, the funding associated with each light request will be returned to the respective magisterial district street light account and will, therefore, be available for use. Bermuda District: Date Approved: Dollar Amotmt: In the Glen Oakes Subdivision: Glen Oaks Dr & Walters Dr 11/12/1997 $1,602.16 In the Walthall Subdivision Quarterpath Ln & Walthall Dr 01/10/2001 2,615.40 Walthall Center Drive 06/28/2006 1,732,08 Preparers Richard McElfish Title: Director, Environmental Engineering Attachments: ~ Yes ® No # ,~ ~':J lY Jt~ Y...~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Summary of Information (continued) Clover Hill: In the Surreywood Subdivision Surreywood Drive & Court 01/28/2004 Page 2 of 2 $4,398.66 Dale District: In the Chesswood Subdivision Chesswood Dr & Shiloh Dr 07/24/1996 $1,141.73 Matoaca: In the Hunters Landing Subdivision Genito Rd & Hunters Landing Dr 12/20/2000 $2,037.52 ~~,~~~~~ _ ~~ s ~ __ ~~~~N.~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meeting .Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: s,.p, il. Subject: Establishment of a Trust for the Purpose of Accumulating and Investing Assets to Fund Post-Employment Benefits Other than Pensions and Appropriation of Funds to the Trust County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors is requested to: • Establish a trust for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions (OPEB); and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents • Agree to permit Chesterfield County Schools to participate in the trust; • Appropriate $7.5 million, available from FY07 year-end financial results, into the Trust; and, • Authorize the County Administrator to Appoint the Finance Board and Investment Manager to manage the assets of the Trust and execute the necessary documents Summary of Information: The cost of retiree healthcare benefits has been a topic of discussion among organizations nationwide, private and public alike, for the past several years. Dramatic cost increases in the county's benefit over the years, triggered changes to the benefit in the early 1990's and further evaluation Preparers Karla J. Gerner Title: Director, Human Resource Management Attachments: ~ Yes ^ No # . CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) of the benefit was completed in 2004 by Wachovia Retirement Services, a national benefits consulting firm. The result of this evaluation was confirmation that the county was no longer going to be able to afford to offer the benefit as it was structured. If changes were not implemented, the entire .. benefit could be jeopardized for all employees, both active and retired. In addition, the county's financial viability was at stake. At the same time, beginning July 1, 2007, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) began requiring public sector employers to account for the cost of future retiree healthcare benefits on their annual financial statements. Employers who promise such benefits must either set aside assets to pay for them or begin to show the accrued liability on their financial statements. As a result, reductions to retiree healthcare benefits were announced in early 2006. In summary, the 2006 changes 1) did not impact those already retired, 2) divided current employees into two groups which determined how much the county would contribute to the retiree healthcare premium and 3) allowed new employees to access the county's plan at their own expense, but they would no longer be eligible for any county contribution. These changes proved to be insufficient in reducing the county's liability to a manageable level and in maintaining the-long-term viability of the retirement benefit. It was determined that additional changes would. be necessary. In December, 2007, the School Board approved a plan that will cap future employer contributions toward retirees' Medicare Supplement plans at 30 annually for all current retirees and for all active employees with at least 30 years of service as of January 1, 2009. Other employees who are eligible for retiree healthcare benefits would be provided a $4/month credit for each year of full-time service to offset the cost of the Medicare Supplement Plan when they retire and become Medicare eligible. If the employee qualifies for a $4 state health credit, the employee would receive $2 for each year of service. A similar policy could apply to county employees. If so, staff would suggest that LEGS eligible public safety employees with 25 years of full-time county service as of January 1, 2009 and any employees who will be age 65 or older as of that date also receive the 3% cap, rather than the $4 credit. A $21.4 million annual required contribution will be necessary to fund this benefit for the county and schools. Of that amount, $16.2 million would already be funded, leaving a net required contribution of approximately $5.2 million annually . ~,~,~.~ ,~ - CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3 of 3 AGENDA Summary of Information: (Continued) In 2007, the General Assembly passed legislation authorizing counties and school divisions to establish trusts for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post-employment benefits other than pensions. This item requests the Board to authorize creation of such a trust and to permit Chesterfield Schools to participate. The School Board is scheduled to approve a similar agenda item on February 26, 2008. Section 15.2-1547 of the Code of Virginia requires the creation of a finance board to serve as trustee of the trust and to manage., and invest the assets of the trust. In lieu of establishing such a board,- the Board of Supervisors may designate an existing retirement board to perform those duties. This item requests that the Board of Trustees of the county's Supplemental Retirement Plan be designated for this purpose. Current trustees are: Richard Cordle, Treasurer, Mary Lou Lyle, Director of Accounting, Thierry Dupuis, Police Chief and Craig Bryant, retiree. The finance board, once appointed, will contract with an investment manager to provide professional investment counseling. This item also requests the Board to appropriate $7.5 million in property tax revenue reserved at June 30, 2007 to fund the OPEB Trust. The county and schools intend to budget cash each year to fund the benefit long-term for retirees and future retirees. ~~~~~F{off CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~`~,N~P BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 9.A. Subject: Developer Water and Sewer Contracts County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: The Board of Supervisors has authorized the County Administrator to execute water and/or sewer contracts between County and Developer where there are no County funds involved. The report is submitted to Board members as information. Summary of Information: The following water and sewer contracts were executed by the County Administrator: 1. Contract Number: 01-0226 Project Name: Belmont Ridge Developer: Leo House, LLC Contractor: Duval Development, Incorporated Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $2,550.00 Wastewater Improvements - $7,030.00 District: Dale Preparers William O. Wright Title: Assistant Director of Utilities Attachments: ~ Yes No # 0~~~~ Agenda Item February 33, 2008 Page 2 2. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 3. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 4. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 5. Contract Number: Project Name: Developer: Contractor: Contract Amount: District: 05-0046 Clover Hill - Spencer Spencer Contracting, LLC Groundsman Incorporated water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Clover Hill 06-0075 Hazelmere .Enterprise Builders and Developers, LLC R.M.C. Contractors, Incorporated Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Clover Hill $9,280.00 $6,300.00 $5,400.00 $23,600.00 06-0360 Pre Con Plant 5 Compactor Building Addition Pre Con, Incorporated Buchannan and Rice Contractors, Inc. Water Improvements - $27,985:00 Bermuda 06-0453 Hamlin Creek B1uff,.Section 1 Mineola Land Development, LLC Excalibur Construction Corporation Water Improvements - Wastewater Improvements - Bermuda $4,950.00 $28,775.00 Agenda Item ,February 13, 2008 Page 3 6. Contract Number: 06-0454 Project Name: Hamlin Creek Bluff, Section 2 Developer: Mineola Land Development, LLC Contractor: Excalibur Construction Corporation Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $27,965.00 Wastewater Improvements - $66,989.00 District: Bermuda 7. Contract Number: 07-0350 Project Name: Blueprint Automation Building Addition Developer: Blueprint Holding Incorporated Contractor: Jord Construction LLC Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $33,292.50 District: Bermuda 8. Contract Number: 07-0351 Project Name: Westerleigh Section 7 (a Resubdivision of Lot Numbers 7-9, 14-19 of Westerleigh Section 1) Developer: Windswept Development, LLC Contractor: Piedmont Construction Company Incorporated Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $10,000.00 Wastewater Improvements - $19,145.00 District: Matoaca 9. Contract Number: 07-0399 Project Name: 20630 Bass Street Water Line Improvements Developer: Ralph Kent Shriver and Michaele Shriver Contractor: Gerald K. Moody, Incoporated Contract Amount: Water Improvements - $9,800.00 District: Matoaca _ ~~~~~"~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 " AGENDA R6jNe Meeting Date: February 13, 2008. Item Number: 9.B. Subject: Status of General Fund Balance, Reserve for Future Capital Projects, District Improvement Funds, and Lease Purchases County Administrator's Comments: Cclunty Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Preparers James J. L. Stegmaier Title: County Administrator Attachments: Yes ^ No CHESTERFIELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND BALANCE February 13, 2008 BOARD MEETING DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 07/01/07 FY2008 Actual Beginning Fund Balance 11/28/07 Schools: Appropriate transfer to Schools for use in ($571,000) FY2008 for trailer purchases 11/28/07 Schools: Designate for non-recurring items in FY2009 ($4,092,800) 11/28/07 County: Appropriate transfer to Parks CIP for ($145,000) FY2008 land purchase 11/28/07 County: designate for non-recurring items in FY2009 „ . ($6,900,500) BALANCE $65,204,300 $64,633,300 $60,540,500 $60,395,500 $53,495,000 ~~®~:~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY RESERVE FOR FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS February 13, 2008 Board Meeting Date Description Amount Balance 6/30/2007 FY07 Ending Balance $1,097,798 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 BEGINNING JULY 1, 2007 4/11/2007 FY08 Budgeted Addition 15,521,300 16,619,098 4/11/2007 FY08 Capital Projects (14,889,300) 1,729,798 10/10/2007 Fire Logistics Facility, Phase II (150,000) 1,579,798 ~'~®~_~~ A F z~ wp N ~° M ~--i a ~ H ~ U Ey A ti ~ ~ ~n o0 0 0 ~o o ~ 'LS ~ . ~ ~ ~ N M C ~ ~ .--i N M M ~ a ~ ~ ~ .-~ ~ y Q ~ ~ v .d b ~ L ~ ~ , "" N U p .d ~ O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ y ~+ ~ '"~ 64 'O ' ~ cn ~' M N O U U cCt ^C ~ 00 O~ l~ d1 N O iwi ~ Q '~ A M 00 M O •--~ v~ O l~ M N ~ l~ ~ ~ ++ O N M O M •~ ~ w ~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ .~ 'C O y O O O O O O O O on .~ ~ p~ O O O O O O N ~ ° o .. ~" o d ~: ;~ ~ ~ • H ~ ~ GC 7 O O ~ M N ~ Q O ~ M ~ O~ ' 'd 'C v1 Q~ v1 [~ ~--~ V' ~ ~ i, ~O 00 00 ~ 1 9 y O O },,, 6A 6R 69 69 6 bA ... ~ ~ ~ a U ° ~ ~ o > ° a~ o ~ ~ ~ -- ;-~ a ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~- E > ~ ° ~ ~ a, r.+ L O 'r C~ ~ r "~ A W U A ~ ~ U ~ .~ ~.~®~_~~ Prepared by Accounting Department January 31, 2008 SCHEDULE OF CAPITALIZED LEASE PURCHASES APPROVED AND EXECUTED Date Original B~ Descrigtion Amount 04/99 Public Facility Lease -Juvenile Courts Project $16,100,000 O1/O1 Certificates of Participation - Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 03/03 Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation 03/04 Certificates of Participation -Building Construction, Expansion and Renovation; • Acquisition/Installation of Systems 10/04 Cloverleaf Mall Redevelopment Project 11/04 School ArchivaURetrieval System Lease 12/04 Energy Improvements at County Facilities 12/04 Energy Improvements at School Facilities OS/OS Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 05/06 Certificates of Participation -Building Acquisition, Construction, Installation, Furnishing and Equipping; Acquisition/Installation of Systems 08/07 Certificates of Participation -Building Expansion/Renovation, Equipment Acquisition TOTAL APPROVED AND EXECUTED PENDING EXECUTION Description None Approved Amount 13,725,000 6,100,000 Date Ends 11/19 11/21 11/23 Outstanding Balance 1/31/08 $9,660,000 8,210,000 4,820,000 21,970,000 11/24 ~ 18,550,000 9,225,000 10/08 9,225,000 21,639 01/08 637 1,519,567 12/17 1,335,826 427,633 12/10 265,326 14,495,000 11/24 12,435,000 11,960,000 11 /24 10,3 50,000 22,220,000 11/27 22,220,000 117.763.839 97.071.789 r CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ^~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 - AGENDA .Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 9.C. Subiect: Roads Accepted into the State Secondary System County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Preparers Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board Attachments: ~ Yes ~ No # ~~0~~~~ r O O N M a L Ol 7 O t n O O N O N .~ Oa Q o~ v4i I ~I I w b w ~. ~o '~ U U O ~ ~ O O ~ U O _a N N Q .~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 40~ ~ O h ~ O N +'Y.~ ~x ~ ~ ~ °' ~~ N ~ ~ O •~ '~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ Ci y rte, O I •C', i ' CS U ~ O ~ ~ ~ '~ O ~ y o~'i ~ ~ ~ 'I ~ ~ c, ~ ti h ~ q +., -~. obi ~4 ~ 'b '~ ~ '~ x +~ til A Q ~ .d W r> r V +~ ~ 0 V Oa v s ;~ i +~. 0 n O O N N N , r 0 0 N .p N O M O O O ~ ~ O O N n N N I n 0 0 N N O r O O O n O O N r N n 0 0 N V N O O O O O O O N n N N n 0 0 N a N O r O O O O O n N N r 0 0 N N O O O O O O N n N N o 0 N N O (O O O O 0 O N N N n 0 0 N N O O O O n O O N N N 0 0 N d' O n O O O 0 O N N n 0 0 N tY' N O O O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ N N ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ - I Vl U ~ N ~ U i' ~ ~ ~ U C ~ ~~ U N U U N y ~ U •4 U Y ~i U ~R v ~ ~ ~ m N •O U 7 I U ~ N •° I ~ U I W ~ U o N ~_ n N ~ II ~ o ~ N n ~ ~ ~ U N F~ n l M ~ ~ ~ y U F-. M ~ i ~ N r ~ U H M ~ U H ~ M ~ N O M ~A O N b a e b O J! Y '~ _ ~ d Y U Y `. T .~ T J Y ... T ~ T V ~ O ~ ~ ; ~ y m ~ ~ m ~ ~ c n U ~! ~ U U 7 j U 7 ~ 7 V O v E v v I m m ~ m m Z N 7 ~p N ~ C ~ C C ~ ~ ~ y C «p d ... U ~ ~ ~ «. ... ~ N U U i J (n J U J U J U cn t0 J U fn ~ d N U I~ U (n V U ~ L •~ ti ~ '~ E m E ~ E m E j m E m E ~ E V E a I £ ° ~ r o U o ~i I U ° ~ ~ U ° ~- ~ U ° LL ~ U ° LL ~ U ° ~- ~ U ° ~ ~ ° LL , ~, p LL •y y 1 d m ~ ' m ~ I m m w ~ .. o .. o ,.. i A b v v t E y E N v fy0 N v l0 N c R N ~ ~ N I ~o i b € N i O o i E ~ ~ U ~ ~, U ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~~ ~ .r ~ v d ~, ~ ~~ O O O O O N O 00 ~ ~ d ~ O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ S'j tl Q C y ~ h V G O U ,o~. .,~ d ~ 4~ I~ ~ o ~,0 0 0 o ~'0 0 O y w N ~ N N N ~I N ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ N N ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ a O O ~ N I N N N ~'.~ N ~ N N ~ 7 O ~ L_ ? I n Q ? ~ °o ' o °o °o °o i °o °o C ,O N i N N N '. N ~ N N N O A rr V „~~, N ~~. N N N I N N N '~ '" O O O O ''. O 1 0 O .N- a ~ Oi i ~ y N "~ I I ~ ~ Iii i ~ ~ ~~ ~ o I i o o O ~ 0 0 'w '~ ~ o 0 0 0 ~ o c o Y v '~ ~ Ct I ~ 4 v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ' o ao w ,~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M I i CS +.~ N h ~ _ O r ~ N N f ` ~~ ~ ~ ~ CS ~y ~i ~ N '~ ~ . ! ch ~ N ~ V i N Ov r ' ' r n D I h h ~ ~ ~ ~~~ y ,, ''I _ ~ ~ - C ~ S ~ C ~ ~ ~''' ~ - ~ 07 '~ J I ~ ~ U ~ ', d ~ O N ! y C ! ~ d ' U 0~1 V I U N lVD ~ 'I C O w ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O 'I p H N N w N O; C I fl Z ~ b~ ~ ~ c`~i i fq o ~ V 7 ~ 7 ~o. ~I (n ~ . ~ p E M ~ ~j ~n U U ' o H °• ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ I N ~ ~ N W C N N ', m ~', n N o~ O 'ZS ~ ! m ~ ~ ~ J ~ ..~ ~, Q , I w ~ _. U ~ _ ~ •~ O U v l ~ I ~ ~ I i ?~ ' ;~ ~ o ~ C7 C7 '' E ~ ~ C7 Q CS ~' '~ ~ m c I' c ~ c ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ '~ +~. A U i T ~ 7 fn > fn > (n p U p fn "~i ~ y j L~ ~ L~ N IL ~ d L~ N LL '~ Q LL 0 LL "~ ' ~ ~ ''" ~ ~ c ~ c ~ c c c ~ b 4 ~ Cc_ ~ c_- [ 01 Cf a~ W 01 11 A VI ~V r~ ^V ~ O C i O C G L ~ V ~ ~ V L ~ ~ V C ~ ~ N N H ' H N H y F-- to i H b) F- N F- ~ ~ L y U ~ ~ ~ , ,~ ~ ~ w i rd V r ' a0 ~ c0 M v N M N M N ~ ~ ~ C~ ,~ ~ a o ~ a ,~ p a o Q 1 0 0 0 0 o a U ~ q ~ `ti ~ ~ h ~ `~ U ~ ~ ~ a O ~ ~ U ~ U ~~ 4 N O a bq o " .. °v .; o N N y O w O '~ A ~Q t e ti ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ . L y ~ ' V 0 A ~a h ti ~~~~al~ e O O N a L O 0 t n 0 0 N O r '~ ,O d O ai '~ '~ ~I +~., ~ O ~ +.~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ a0 ~ +~ is U V ~ ~ o ° ~ C O O ~ V d N 4I Q O .~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ O O ti O ~ ~ ,bp '~ ~ ~ i ~ h ~ ~' U h ~ ,~ N h ~ ~, ~ ~ ~_ Cri y i ~ Q q ;~ i +., Cs ~ U ~ N O ~ ~ ~ O r y ~ ~ v c~ ~ y ~ ~ aq ~~ ~~ g '~ ~I A d w V w ti y ~ h v ~ o ~ N ~Q ',CiV I.i m obi w w 0 ~i O O O O O O O N O N ~ O ~ N O N O N O N O ` O N t~ p N N ~V N N N N d N ~ N ~ N N ~ N ~ N N p4 a ~ ~ "~ N b a N I~ N N ~ N N ~ I b v ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ v v ~ ~ v ~ v ~ 1 Q ~ ~ '- r r r '- I r ~ ~ z I O ~ O N ~ O O O V ~ v O O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ O :y ~ ~ ii ~ , C ~°n '~,°n ~°n i°n I u°> ~ ~ b1o v b j ~ o i C y i b~+ ~ ~ w h c '~ N p O ~ ~- N i ~y G O ~ ~ i ~ ~ CD ~ N ~ n M _ U r, V '~ ~ ~ : ; N ~ ~ ~ z b ~'~ ~ w ~I t ~ , v m ~~ m y o. E °o y o ~ cu i ~I C F h 7 1 U 7 U ~.° ~ ~ N F 00 ~ ~ U f. r I~ M I N J r~ N~ r~ _ N n ~ N ~ r~ i N ~ ~ ~ _ N ~ V ° a o ~ ~ U ~ ~ U O ~ C ° M o ~ ~ p -I d ~ _ U -gyp -) 0! v ~ H y '', N T i N N € N c d H N F- f`6 ~ f0 , ~ ~ N i f-- ! N ~ N m a ~ I i .~ 1 o ~ U o ~ o m o i m o! m 0 m 0 m 0 ~ I ao ~ ° .h L LL. i 7 O LL > ~ LL > C lL > C ~ LL > C lL ~ LL j ~ c .~ ~ ~ .~ o .~ o o .~ .~ i o .~ a .~ ~ O T € I m € _~ € ~ € ~ € d € m € I °~' d C~ L a~ L° ~ ~ ~"~ a~ ~ L° ~ a~ ~ L° f"' a~ ~ L° ~ ~ a~ ~ I"' L° I"~ a~ ~ L° ~ a~ ~ ~I o .y w~_ C ° W c ~ 'a o 0 0 0 0 0 o r s, O Q • y Q ~ ~ t °c ~ d V ,o,, "~ d ~ h yam.. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 9.D. Subject: Report of Planning Commission Substantial Accord Determination for Alltel Communications, Incorporated (-Case 08PD0221) to Co-locate an Antenna on a Virginia Power Structure Located on the East Line of North Woolridge Road, South of Walton Park Road County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: On January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission held found Case 08PD0221 in substantial accord with the the attached. (AYES: Messrs: Gulley, Bass, Hassen, recommends no action. Summary of Information: a public hearing and then Comprehensive Plan, as per Brown and Waller.) Staff State law provides that the Board may overrule the Planning Commission's determination or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for an additional public hearing and decision. If the Board takes no action, the substantial accord determination will become final. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Title: Director of Planning Attachments: ^ Yes ~ No # ~~~~.~~$ ` January 15, 2008 CPC _ ~ h ,N,e• SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD REVIEW 08PD0221 Alltel Communications, Inc. .Midlothian Magisterial District East line of North Woolridge Road. RE UEST: Substantial accord determination for a public facility (communications tower). PROPOSED LAND USE: A communications tower, incorporated into an existing electrical transmission structure, and associated improvements are planned. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reasons: A. The proposal conforms to the Public Facilities Plan and Tower Siting Polio Incorporation of the communications facilities into an existing electrical transmission tower eliminates the need for an additional freestanding structure in the area, thereby minimizing tower proliferation. B. The recommended condition ensures architectural compatibility with area development. C. The Ordinance minimizes the possibility of any adverse impact on the County Communications System or the County Airport. CONDITION: Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with Village District development standards relative to architectural treatment, and screening of mechanical equipment. (P) (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS.) Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service ~ ~ ~.'~_ ~ 4~ GENERAL INFORMATION Location: East line of North Woolridge Road, south of Walton Park Road. Tax ID 731-704-5127. Existing Zoning: A Size: 43.6 acres Existing_Land Use: Vacant Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North, South and East - R-7, R-9 and R-12; Single-family residential or vacant West - R-12, R-TH and C-3; Single-family residential, townhouse or vacant UTILITIES• PUBLIC FACILITIES: AND TRANSPORTATION The proposed use will have no impact on these facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL If more than 2,500 square feet of land is disturbed, a land disturbance permit must be obtained from the Department of Environmental Engineering. COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty (80) feet in height be reviewed by the County's Public Safety Review Team for potential detrimental impacts the structure could have on the County's Radio Communications System microwave paths. This determination must be made prior to construction of the communications tower. COUNTY AIRPORT A preliminary review of this proposal indicates that, given the approximate location and elevation of the proposed installation, it appears there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport. 2 08PD0221 JAN15-CPC-RPT~~~j~ ~~ LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Midlothian Area Community Plan which suggests the request property is appropriate for passive recreation/conservation and village fringe area uses. The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that energy and communications uses should be co-located, whenever feasible, to minimize impacts on existing and future areas of development. Area Development Trends: The property is to be developed as the Grove Shaft Park. In addition, a Virginia Power high- tension transmission line traverses the property. Area property is characterized by single- familyresidential uses in Walton Park and Kingham At The Grove subdivisions, townhouses in Scooter Hills At The Grove or vacant parcels. Mixed-use development is expected to continue in this area for the foreseeable future, in accordance with the Plan. Development Standards: The Zoning Ordinance allows communications towers, in Agricultural (A) Districts provided that antennae are co-located on electric transmission structures; are flush-mount; are restricted to a maximum height of twenty (20) feet above the height of the transmission structure; and are gray or other neutral color. In addition, to ensure architectural compatibility with area development, Village District standards should apply for any building or mechanical equipment. (Condition) CONCLUSION The proposed communications tower satisfies the criteria of location, character and extent as specified in the Code of Virginia. Specifically, the Public Facilities Plan suggests that communications towers should be located to minimize the impact on existing or planned areas of development and that energy and communications facilities should co-locate whenever feasible. The communications tower will be incorporated into an existing permitted electrical transmission structure. The addition of the communications facilities into the structure of the existing transmission tower does not generate a visual impact that is significantly greater than the visual impact of the existing electrical transmission tower. This co-location will eliminate the need for an additional freestanding communications tower in the area, thereby minimizing tower proliferation. In addition, .the Ordinance minimizes the possibility of any adverse impact on the County Communications System or the County Airport. Given these considerations, staff recommends the Commission find the proposal consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. t~~~~_~~ 3 08PD0221 JAN15-CPC-RPT i f ~~~~.~~ 4 08PD0221 JAN15-CPC-RPT ~~ ~~ ° CHESTERFIELD COUNTY '"" BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 ;~ AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13; 2008 Item Number; I ~, Subject: Resolution Recognizing February 2008, as "Children's Dental Health Month" in Chesterfield County County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Adoption of attached resolution. Summary of Information: Ms. Jaeckle requested that the Board of Supervisors recognize February 2008, as "National Children's Dental Health Month". Dr. .Samuel W. Galston, Dr. C. Sharone Ward and Dr. Frank Farrington will be present to receive the resolution. Preparers Janice Blakley Title: Clerk to the Board Yes No RECOGNIZING FEBRUARY 2008, AS "CHILDREN'S DENTAL HEALTH MONTH" IN CHESTERFIELD COUNTY WHEREAS, the Fifth Annual "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day" was conducted in a number of Chesterfield County dental offices and schools on February 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, numerous children's dental health outreach activities and education will take place in Chesterfield. County Schools throughout February 2008; and WHEREAS, through the joint efforts of the Southside Dental Society; the Virginia Department of Health, Division of Dentistry; the Medical College of Virginia School of Dentistry; the Alliance of the Southside Dental Society; local dentist and dental healthcare providers who volunteer their time,- and the school district of Chesterfield County, this program was established to foster. the improvement of children's dental health; and WHEREAS, these dental. volunteers have provided educational materials and programs and' stress the importance of regular dental examinations; daily brushing and flossing; proper nutrition; sealants and the use of mouth guards during athletic activities; and WHEREAS, several local dental offices volunteered their services on "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day," to provide treatment and education to local underprivileged children,. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, this 13th day of February 2008, publicly recognizes February 1, 2008 as "Give Kids a Smile! Access to Dental Care Day" and February 2008 as "National Children's Dental Health Month" in Chesterfield County, and expresses gratitude, on behalf of all Chesterfield County residents, and commends- those organizations responsible for their proactive approach to dental health and also commends Dr. Samuel W. Galstan, Dr. C. Sharone Ward, and Dr. Frank Farrington, for helping to protect our children's dental health. ~~-~~~~~ CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ;E;,o BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ~ Page 1 of 1 I~' ~ AGENDA D„~~N~A~ Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 16.A. Subject: Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to Parts of The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan, Northern Area Plan, Midlothian Area Community Plan, and the Route 360 Corridor Plan Relating to the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Hold a Public Hearing to .review and consider the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan. Summary of Information: At a Planning Commission meeting on December 18, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Commission's version of the proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan (revised 12/18/07) and denial of the staff version of the plan (revised 11/5/07). The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan amendment, once adopted, will guide future development within the Plan geography in a comprehensive manner that embodies the principles of the Introduction of the Plan by: fostering an orderly development pattern; encouraging a greater variety of residential types; promoting economic development opportunities; protecting important resources; encouraging healthy neighborhoods through appropriate land use transitions; and providing a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system. Preparers Kirkland A. Turner Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Director of Planning ^ No # (~®€~~~~ THE PAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan (Proposed) A proposed amendment to parts of The PowhitelRoute 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985), the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986), the Midlothian Area Community Plan (adopted in 1989), and the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995). Status of This Proposed Amendment The Chesterfield County Planning Department is updating the comprehensive plan for the northern area of the county. Eleven area plans originally adopted between 1985 and 1998 will be updated through this planning process. The planning area geography is approximately 50 square miles. When this update process started in 2004, the original intent was to develop one plan for the entire northern area. However, due to the size and diversity of the northern part of Chesterfield County, the area is now divided into four area plans. The first of these plans to be undertaken is the proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan. Version: Proposed plan amendment recommended by the Planning Commission as of December 18, 2007. A minor correction to the density of the Brandon neighborhood was made after this date from Residential 2.0 units/acre or less to Residential 4.0 units/acre or less to reflect built density outside of the Resource Protection Area. This is a proposed amendment to replace parts of: The PowhitelRoute 288 Development Area Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on October 9, 1985; the Northern Area Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on August 13, 1986; the Midlothian Area Community Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on April 12, 1989; and the Route 360 Corridor Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 1995. This proposed plan is anticipated to go through numerous reviews and revisions before adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Anticipated Additional Plan Review Steps: • Board of Supervisors public hearing(s) and final disposition The supporting documents referenced in this plan will not be published in the Plan for Chesten-eld, but will be available through other sources. For more information on the status ofthe-proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan, see the Planning Department website at www.chesterfield.gov/plan or contact project manager Steven Haasch at haaschs(c~chesterfield.gov or 804/796-7192. Note: This section will be removed from the plan upon adoption Draft 12-18-07 1 12/18/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD NOrthern COUrthOUSe ROad COmmUnlfy Plan Summary of Key .Findings and Recommendations • Importance of the Courthouse Road Corridor: The proposed plan recognizes Courthouse Road as a principal transportation corridor for the entire northern part of Chesterfield County. It acknowledges the economic development and transportation benefits of effectively guiding the future development of many vacant and underutilized properties along the corridor, and promotes greater flexibility in any future development of these properties by recommending a mix of office and higher density residential uses. • Moody Tract Conservation Easement: The proposed plan recognizes the conservation easement on the Moody tract by recommending the land use category "Privately Held Open Space" on that property. • Encourage a Residential Variety: The proposed plan seeks a greater residential variety through the recommendations of the land use plan map; and by supporting the Affordable Housing Task Force's efforts as well as the Residential Development Amendments Project. • Promote Economic Development Opportunities: The proposed plan amendment promotes economic development by recommending and protecting areas designated for employment-generating uses. • Encourage Healthy Neighborhoods: The proposed plan encourages healthy neighborhoods through land use transitions from higher to lower intensity uses, and by supporting compatibility between new and existing neighborhoods. • Subdivision and Utilities Ordinance: The proposed plan recommends the adoption of amendments to the Subdivision and .Utilities Ordinances requiring the mandatory use of public water and wastewater systems. • Transportation: The proposed plan identifies transportation needs and recommends modifications to the county's Thoroughfare Plan. I. Introduction The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan will amend portions of several comprehensive plans. These plans are: The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985); the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986); the Midlothian Area Community Plan (adopted in 1989); and the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995). Planning Area Boundaries (see Boundary Map) In general, the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan boundaries are: Falling Creek and the Genito Woods neighborhood to the west; Pocoshock Creek, Adkins. Road, and the neighborhoods of Pocoshock Heights and Bexley West to the east; the rear boundary of properties fronting Midlothian Turnpike to the north; and the rear boundary of properties fronting Hull Street Road and Gregory's Pond to the south. The Plan geography includes the following neighborhoods: Adkins Ridge, Amber Forest, Arrowhead, Ashington at Stonehenge, Ashley Woods, Ashley Woods East, Beechwood Farm, Brandon, Brandywine Forest, Briarcliff, Bridlewood Forest, Castle Glen, Central Heights, Chestnut Hills, Courthouse Acres, Dakins Landing, Eaglewood, Exbury, Finchley, Forest Acres, Heatheridge, Hylton Park, Kin-Rey, Lake Crystal Farms, Loch Braemar, Loch Haven, Logan Trace, Mansfield Crossing, Mansfield Landing, Monacan Hills, Oak Hill, Pleasant Ridge, Poplar Creek, Providence Creek, Reams Run, Ridgefield, Runnymede, Shenandoah Hills, Smoketree, Smoketree Ridge, Smoketree South, Smoketree Woods, Solar II, Spirea, St. James Woods, Stonecrop, Stonehenge, Stonehenge Draft 12-18-07 2 12/18/07 ~~~'~~°~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Commons, Stonehenge Hills, Stonehenge Mews, Stonehenge-Amesbury, Sunny Dell Acres, Thomas Howell Property, Wagstaff, Wedgewood, Westbury, and Willesden at Stonehenge. Draft 12-18-07 3 12/18/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan How this Plan Works Chesterfield County's comprehensive plan, The Plan ForChestenreld, is used by citizens, staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as a guide for decisions affecting the county, including, but not limited to, those regarding future land use, transportation networks and zoning actions. However, the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan represents only one part of the county's comprehensive plan. It is one of about twenty area, corridor and village plans, each of which focuses on managing and directing the future pattern of development within a specific geography of the county, taking .into account the unique development pattern and development history of the area. As any plan geography is but one part of the larger community of Chesterfield County, the needs of a specific area must be considered within the context of the needs of the county as a whole. Other components of The Plan For Chesten`ield are countywide plans, vvhich address issues. and needs on a countywide basis. These include: the Thoroughfare Plan, the Water Quality Protection Plan, the Public Facilities Plan, the Bikeway Plan and the Riverfront Plan. Background Analysis The Planning Department, in conjunction with other county departments, assessed existing conditions and development trends within the planning area. The results were summarized and shared with public officials and interested citizens throughout early phases of the plan development process. These and other assessments and analyses serve as the basis for the-Goals and Recommendations of this plan, and are available for review as supporting documents, A through C: • Supporting Document A -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Existing Conditions and Issues • Supporting Document B -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Land Use Analysis -Residential, Office, Commercial and Industrial • Supporting Document C -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Transportation Options II. A Plan for Action The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan recognizes Courthouse Road as a principal transportation corridor for the entire northern portion of Chesterfield County. Economic development and transportation benefits will be the result of effectively guiding the future development of many vacant and underutilized properties along the corridor. In addition,' this amendment-will promote greaterflexibility inany future development along the corridor by recommending a mix of office and higher density residential uses. The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan will help guide future development in ways that balance the interests of Chesterfield County's current and future residents, landowners, businesses and development community. Specifically, the Code of Virginia defines the primary purpose of the comprehensive plan as follows: To guide and accomplish a "coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development" of county lands "which will, in accordance with°present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare" of county citizens. Draft 12-18-07 5 12/18/07 ~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan The Northem Courthouse Road Community Plan makes no attempt to determine the current orshort- term marketability of any one parcel for any one use. Rather, it attempts to anticipate future needs for broad categories of uses throughout the planning area for the next twenty years. In addition, the Northem Courthouse Road Community Plan does not rezone land, but serves as a guide for making decisions relative to future rezoning applications. Finally, the plan attempts to suggest the proper relationship of land uses to one another and to the wider community. Market forces (availability and price of land, location, character and age of competing businesses, site specific characteristics such as topography and visibility from roads, accessibility to roads, area demographics, etc.) will determine the desirability of a specific use on one parcel over another, as well as the timing for developing such use, based on the principle of'highest and best use'. The zoning process will determine the appropriateness of such use on a case-by-case basis by applying principles of desirable land use development patterns embodied in the comprehensive plan. To these ends, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have incorporated into Land Use Plan amendments guidelines that promote development patterns which facilitate the orderly, harmonious, predictable and efficient use of the county's resources. These guidelines, as they apply to specific plan areas of the county, are embodied in the goals and recommendations of adopted plan amendments. Draft 12-18-07 ( 12/18/07 ~~~~~ THE P~,4N FoR CHESTERFIELD ~ Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Goals and Recommendations -Land Use Land Use Goal 1: Encourage orderly development patterns. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of fostering an orderly and generally predictable pattern of development as found in The Plan for Cheste~eld. Recommendation A. Flexible Development: Use the Office/Residential Mixed Use category as shown on the Land Use Plan map to encourage a greater flexibility of uses. Courthouse Road is a major arterial roadway situated between two major commercial and employment-generating corridors, Midlothian Turnpike and Hull Street Road. In addition, the area is serviced by, and has access to, a variety of existing public facilities. Furthermore, developments immediately outside of the geography are planned for significant employment centers. However, the uses along this section of Courthouse Road reflect a mix. of agricultural and large-acre single family developments. Many of these properties could provide housing and some professional and administrative services to citizens within, and outside of, this geography. Land Use Goal 2: Encourage a greater variety of residential types. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of providing for a variety of residential areas, thereby allowing residents a choice of neighborhoods and living environments found in The Plan for Chesten-eld. Recommendations A. Housing Types: Encourage a variety of housing types. Currently, the housing choices in the geography are characterized by single family detached homes in subdivisions. The Plan for Chesten`ield calls for the provision of a variety of residential areas allowing residents a choice of neighborhood and living environments. One way this can be carried out is through the Office/Residential Mixed Use category, which allows a range of housing densities and types. B. Residential Development Amendments Project: As part of the Planning Department's on-going Residential Development Amendments project, consider various clustering and conservation-subdivision options as possible new Zoning Ordinance residential categories. The Planning Department has embarked on a project to update the residential portion of the .county's zoning ordinance. Considering additional development options as part of the Residential Development Amendments project will offer opportunities to develop neighborhoods of unique character and sensitivity to the environment, while allowing residential development to occur at densities suggested by the comprehensive plan. C. Workforce Housing: As part of its ongoing efforts to address workforce housing issues Draft 12-18-07 '7 12/18/07 ~~~ . THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan throughout the county, -the Chesterfield County Workforce Housing Task Force should develop affordable housing strategies that will help meet the needs of all current and future residents in the Northern Courthouse Road Community planning area. The Code of Virginia requires that comprehensive plans address affordable housing. The county has established the Workforce Housing Task Force to review this issue and make recommendations to address this need. The Code of Virginia calls for the comprehensive plan to recognize affordable housing as an economic and quality-of-life issue. To meet the intent of state. law, the comprehensive plan strives to identify sufficient locations, and consistent criteria; for the provision of diverse housing opportunities to provide housing prospects for all segments of the county's population. Land Use Goal 3: Promote economic development opportunities. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of sustaining a healthy economy through an effective economic development approach that is designed to improve the standard of living and quality of life for Chesterfield County citizens as found in The Plan for Chestenfeld. To this end-The Plan forChestenreld encourages the identification arid protection of key sites for future industrial and commercial uses. New residential development should be discouraged in these areas. Recommendations A. Employment Generating Uses: Discourage residential development from locations the plan recommends for employment generating uses. Employment generating uses produce tax revenues, which defray the costs of providing services to county residents. In addition, such uses providejobs both within the county and close to residential areas, thereby reducing commuting distances, travel time, air and water pollution and travel expenses. Residential uses are accommodated in more appropriate locations as suggested in the Land Use Plan map. Land Use Goal 4: Protect important resources. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of protecting the environment and enhancing the county's quality of life by recommending .planning and design that preserves environmental functions and protects important environmental resources as found in The Plan for Chestenreld. Recommendation A. Conservation/Recreation Corridors: Identify conservationlrecreation corridors. The planning area has several stream valleys with resource protection areas (RPAs), much of which is currently protected from intense development by county, state and federal regulations. These regulations are designed to preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, wildlife habitat and floodplains. In addition, such corridors provide visual and distance separation between lower density residential and higher density residential and non-residential development. Land Use Goal 5: Encourage healthy neighborhoods. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of encouraging the county's established Draft 12-18-07 g 12/18/07 ~~~~ THE. PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan neighborhoods and commercial areas to remain healthy as found in The Plan for ChesterFeld. Recommendations A. Provide Land Use Transitions: Encourage land use transitions between higher density residential, office, commercial and/orindustrial rezoning that have the potential to encroach upon existing and/or planned lower density residential areas. A hierarchy of land uses, from more-to-less intense uses, provides the best protection to residential neighborhoods. Other protections (such as existing ordinance requirements for buffers, setbacks, landscaping, and design standards which reduce nuisances such as noise, and light, etc.) are supplemental mitigation to the primary separation provided by physical separation between incompatible uses. Therefore, transitional uses contribute to the overall appearance and livability of the community. B. Residential Compatibility: Continue to use the zoning process to encourage new residential subdivisions with sole access through an existing or planned subdivision to meet or exceed the average lot size of, and have a density equal to or less than, the existing subdivision. New subdivisions developing within the study area increase the availability of housing in this part of the county. However, such residential development should be designed to protect existing neighborhoods and enhance the larger community, especially where there is an existing development pattern that is less dense than the allowed density of the new subdivision. The county has limited statutory ability to demand less dense development in these locations. Land Use Goal 6: Require the mandatory use of the public water and wastewater systems. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of promoting a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve existing and future development as found in The Plan for Chestenreld. Recommendation A. Subdivision and Utilities Ordinances: Considerordinancesmendments to require mandatory connection to the public water and wastewater systems. Use of the pubic water and wastewater systems will allow a flexibility of development that would not otherwise be possible. This flexibility could include residential development of a wider range of densities and configurations than would be possible without public water and sewer. Draft 12-18-07 9 12/18/07 , ~ ~, THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Goals and Recommendations -Transportation Transportation Goal: Provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system. The county Thoroughfare Plan, which was originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1989, identifies right-of-way classifications of existing roads, and right-of-way classifications and general alignments of future roads. As development occurs in the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, in other areas of the county, and in the region, road improvements will be needed in this area to accommodate increasing traffic volumes and reduce congestion. Recommendations A. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, as shown on the attached map, to delete the Southlake BoulevardlBranchwayRnad Connector. This proposed road would have connected Southlake Boulevard with Courthouse Road at the Edenberry Drive intersection. Due to existing development that precludes making this connection, staff recommends deletion of this proposed Collector Road. B. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, as shown on the attached map, to make the future extension of Suncrest Drive to Courthouse Road. the "through" movement, with the Paulbrook Drive extension intersecting Suncrest Drive from the west. The current Thoroughfare Plan shows the Paulbrook Drive extension being the. "through" movement to Courthouse. Road. Making Suncrest Drive the through movement will better accommodate through-traffic, and traffic generated by the proposed land uses in this part of the Plan area. C. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, as shown on the attached map, to delete the proposed Collector Road through the Moody Tract, connecting Grove Road with Courthouse Road at the existing Southlake Boulevard intersection. This modification is in conjunction with the designation of the Moody Tract as "Privately Held Open Space." D. Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to conform to the Thoroughfare Plan with respect to the construction of road improvements and the dedication of right-of-way. E. Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to include mitigation of their traffic impacts by providing road improvements and controlling the number of direct accesses fo major arterial and collector roads. F. As improvements are provided on roads identified in the county's Bikeway Plan, continue to consider incorporating bicycle facilities. Limitations and Opportunities In the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, existing development limits the opportunities to plan for additional new roads. The limited potential for new roads in this area of the county will make it necessary for existing roads to carry the majority of traffic generated by future development. Without improvements, some of these roadways will become congested. Several of the major roads in the Plan area are already at capacity. Sections of Courthouse Road currently carry from 35,000 to 51,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and are at or near capacity. Reams Road (11,900 vpd), Providence Road (7,700 vpd), and the two-lane section of Lucks Lane west of Draft 12-18-07 lp 12/18/07 ~~ .~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Spirea Road (1.0,600 vpd) are all at capacity. Traffic volumes on Providence Road and Reams Road have remained relatively unchanged in recent years. However, traffic volumes on these roads and on Courthouse Road and Lucks Lane can be expected to increase in the future as development within the Plan area and the surrounding region occurs. The section of Courthouse Road in the Plan area was recently widened to four and six lanes. The Courthouse Road project also made improvements to Lucks Lane, and to Providence Road at its intersection with Courthouse Road. There are two other projects in or near the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area that are included in the county's current Secondary Six Year Construction Plans: 1. Reams Road -turn lane additions at various locations from Adkins Road to Wadsworth Drive. 2. Courthouse Road at Hull Street Road -construction of a southbound right turn lane to provide dual right turn lanes on Courthouse Road. Construction dates for these projects are yet to be determined. Staff has estimated that it could cost approximately $3 billion countywide to upgrade existing roads, excluding freeways, to accommodate the increased traffic resulting from build-out. Approximately $88 million of those road costs would be in the Plan area. Based on current VDOT revenue forecasts, the county anticipates receiving an average of only about $27 million per year in the coming years, countywide, to improve both Primary and Secondary roads. The prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Even if the county were to receive $27 million a year for the next 50 years, there would be an anticipated shortfall of approximately $1.6 billion. A shortfall in funding for road improvements is not unique to Chesterfield County. It is impacting other localities around the state, and around the country. Several potential options .have been considered for supplementing the road. improvement funds received from the state. These options are outlined in the Supporting Document C -Northern Courthouse Road Amendment: Transportation Options. Due to existing roadside development along Reams Road and Providence Road, it is unlikely that major improvements to these roads will be possible. Other than possible shoulder improvements or the addition ofturn lanes at intersections, the existing two-lane roads will have to accommodate any future traffic volume increases. There are numerous small parcels along Courthouse Road that are currently developed as single- family homes. Each of these parcels has direct driveway access to Courthouse Road, with access spacings. of from 80 to 300 feet. The proposed Plan recommends these parcels for "Office/Residential Mixed Use", and allows for the conversion of these existing residences to office uses with appropriate exceptions to bulk requirements to accommodate adequate parking. Redevelopment to this Land Use may result in slightly higher traffic generation per parcel, with substandard access spacing. However, the recommended land use will result. in a relatively low density of development on each individual parcel, and there is the possibility of aggregation of parcels to achieve better access spacing. There are also numerous parcels along and in the vicinity of Berrand Road that are recommended in the Plan for "Office". More specifically, the Plan calls for Office development in this area to consist of professional and administrative offices ofone-story, residential in character, and requires that all parcels must be aggregated in order to be developed. Berrand Road currently provides access for less than 20 single-family homes, and intersects Courthouse Road at a crossover that is Draft 12-18-07 11 12/18/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan approximately 480 feet south of the traffic signal at Reams Road. This access spacing is inadequate for any redevelopment that could generate high volumes of traffic. Redevelopment in this area should include closing the Berrand crossover or restricting turns, or providing a new access to Courthouse Road to align with the Reams Road traffic signal. The Plan also recommends "Office" for the southeast quadrant of the Courthouse Road/Reams Road intersection. Access for these parcels to Courthouse Road should not align with the existing crossover at Berrand Road, which has inadequate spacing from the Reams Road intersection to allow for signalization. In addition, the potential access spacing for these parcels from Courthouse Road along Reams Road is insufficient to allow for full access. Access to Reams Road should be limited to right-turns-in and right-turns-out only, with a raised median on Reams Road from Courthouse Road beyond the access. The Plan also recommends "Office" for the northeast quadrant of the Courthouse Road/Reams Road intersection. There are no crossovers on Courthouse Road adjacent to these parcels. Therefore, access to Courthouse Road will be limited to should be limited to right-turns-in and right- turns-out only. Along Reams Road, the close proximity of the Reykin Drive intersection to Courthouse Road will not allow for providing adequate access. These parcels should have no direct access to Reams Road. Sidewalks Pedestrian access in the Plan area should be encouraged. Sidewalks have recently been constructed in the Smoketree subdivision along sections of Smoketree Drive, Gordon School Road, and Spirea Road. Funding priorities for sidewalk construction in the Plan area will be given to (1) Smoketree Drive, from the current terminus of the sidewalk at the community pool to Courthouse Road, and to (2) Spirea Road, from Mountain Laurel Drive to Lucks Lane. Bikeway Plan The Board of Supervisors adopted the county's Bikeway Plan in 1989. The purpose of the Bikeway Plan is "to designate a coordinated system of bike facilities to connect county and State parks with other high bike traffic generators such as schools." The Bikeway Plan is not intended to designate roads that are appropriate for bicycle travel, but to identify routes where bikeway facilities should be provided in conjunction with future road improvement projects. In the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, Courthouse Road, Lucks Lane, Southlake Boulevard, and Providence Road east of Courthouse Road are designated in the Bikeway Plan as part of the "bikeway network". Bike facilities have already been provided in conjunction with road improvement projects in the Plan area. In accordance with the Bikeway Plan, staff will consider including additional bike facilities along these roads in conjunction with future road improvements. Public Transportation The Chesterfield County Coordinated Transportation Program, Access Chesterfield, provides transportation services for any Chesterfield County resident who is disabled, or over age 60, or who meets federal income guidelines regarding poverty levels. Transportation providers are contracted by the Chesterfield County Access Chesterfield program to provide transportation service within the Chesterfield County, Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell and Colonial Heights metropolitan areas. The program offers advance reservations for ride sharing with other passengers. North of the Plan area, the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) provides service between the Chesterfield Towne Center area and downtown Richmond. Draft 12-18-07 12 12/18/07 ~~~~'~.c3 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan GRTC also recently began service on the "Hull Street Commonwealth 20 Express" which provides express service to downtown Richmond utilizing the Powhite Parkway. RideFinders provides numerous transit programs and services in the Richmond region, including organizing vanpools in response to commuters' requests. RideFinders also provides a matching service to assist commuters in organizing carpools. Draft 12-18-07 13 12/18/07 ~~~~ ~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Land Use Categories (See accompanying Land Use Plan Map) Suggested densities of residential development include all property suggested for such densities regardless of any development limitations that may exist or maybe anticipated (such as planned roads or other public facilities, environmental or topographical features, areas suggested on the plan for conservation/recreation, etc.) Residential (1.5 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Residential (2.0 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Residential (2.5 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Note 8 on the Land Use Plan map: No direct access to Courthouse Road. Residential (4.0 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Office/Residential Mixed Use: Professional and administrative offices and residential developments of varying densities. Supporting retail and service uses would be appropriate when part of a mixed use center of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: R (various), O-2) Note 1 on the Land Use Plan map: Areas north of Falling Creek and south of Southlake Boulevard should be limited to 6.0 units per acre or less. Note 2 on the Land Use Plan map: Allow the conversion of existing residences to office uses with appropriate exceptions to bulk requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate adequate parking. General Note: Smaller properties within this geography should be aggregated together under a unified plan of development, rather than being re-zoned in a piecemeal fashion wherever and whenever possible. General Note: Additional multifamily development should be discouraged in this plan geography. Residential-townhouse uses may be more appropriate. General Note: Development adjacent to properties owned by places of worship should be of aless-intensive and appropriate use than may otherwise be generally permitted in this category. General Note: Office development within this plan category's geography should not exceed 15 percent of the total acreage recommended for this land use. General Note: Office development should be of a design compatible with existing and planned neighborhoods. General Note: Buildings within this category should have a height not greater than three (3) stories or 45 feet Draft 12-18-07 14 12/18/07 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Office: Professional and administrative offices. Retail and service uses that serve primarily office developments would be appropriate when part of a mixed use project of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development and when located interior to the project. (Equivalent zoning classification: O-2) Note 3 on the Land Use Plan map: Professional and administrative offices; one story; residential in character; if you have an existing two-story building, it will be allowed. All parcels must be aggregated in this area in orderto be developed. Note 4 on the Land Use Plan map: Professional and administrative offices; one story; residential in character; if you have an existing two-story building, it will be allowed. All parcels must be aggregated in this area in orderto be developed. Note 5 on the Land Use Plan map: Professional and administrative offices; one story; residential in character; if you have an existing two-story building, it will be allowed. All parcels must be aggregated in this area in orderto be developed. Redevelopment in this area should include closing the Berrand crossover or restricting turns, or providing a new access to Courthouse Road to align with the Reams Road traffic signal. If aggregation not achieved, the initial development will be responsible for providing the road improvements listed above. Note 6 on the Land Use Plan map: Professional and administrative offices; one story; residential in character; if you have an existing two-story building, it will be allowed. All parcels must be aggregated in this area in orderto be developed. Redevelopment in this area should include closing the Berrand crossover or restricting turns, or providing a new access to Courthouse Road to align with the Reams Road traffic signal. If aggregation not achieved, the initial development will be responsible for providing the road improvements listed above. Neighborhood -Mixed Use: Neighborhood-scale commercial uses, including shopping centers and service uses, that serve neighborhood-wide trade areas, as well as professional and administrative offices and residential developments, of varying densities. (Equivalent zoning classifications: R (various), O-2, C-2) General Note: Additional residential zoning and development, including apartments, townhouses and condominiums, is not appropriate in areas recommended for this land use category. General Note: Smaller properties within this geography should be aggregated together under a unified plan of development, rather than being re-zoned in a piecemeal fashion wherever and whenever possible. Community Mixed Use: Community scale commercial uses, including shopping centers, service and office uses that serve community-wide trade areas. Residential uses of various types and densities may be appropriate if part of a larger mixed-use project and the design is integrated with other uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-3) General Note: Additional residential zoning and development, including apartments, townhouses and condominiums, is not appropriate in areas recommended for this land use category. General Business Mixed Use: General commercial uses including, but not limited to, automobile-oriented uses and light industrial uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-5) Draft 12-18-07 15 12/18/07 ~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Light Industrial: Offices, warehouses and light industrial uses, including research and development uses and light manufacturing dependent upon raw materials first processed elsewhere. Moderate industrial uses may be appropriate when designed, located and/or oriented to ensure compatibility with less intense uses, and where appropriate access and transitions are provided. Retail and service uses that serve primarily surrounding permitted industrial uses may be appropriate when part of a larger development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: I-1, I-2) Note 7 on the Land Use Plan map: No direct access to Courthouse Road. Public: Significant publicly owned properties (county, state and federal), including schools, parks, cemeteries and other public facilities, as well as publicly owned vacant land. Should such land be redeveloped for other uses, the appropriate uses would be those that are compatible with surrounding existing or anticipated development, as reflected by existing land uses, zoning, and/or the recommended land uses on the adopted comprehensive plan. Conservation/Recreation: Lands adjacent to water bodies with perennial flow that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts which may cause significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Recommended land uses are those in conformance with the'environmental provisions of the Chesterfield County Code. Where appropriate, some areas may be suitable for limited pedestrian, bicycle trails, or for other passive recreation activities. The boundaries of the conservation/recreation areas depicted on the plan are generalized and should be confirmed by the Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality. Privately Held Open Space: Properties held either under easement or legally-binding contract: Draft 12-18-07 16 12/18/07 ~~~ c c~ »~ .~ E E 0 U a c~ 0 a~ 0 0 U a~ s o! 2 0 J W W H W 2 U ~' O LL Z a w H ~ ~ O C ~ N ~ 0! d N ~A (O ~ ~ a g r o"o `o `v z r r 2 z •~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ N 4i ~ ~ ~ ~ 67 W N V C = ~ ~ ~ Ql a ~ ~y ~ ~ = ~ x a~ ~ a N x ~ d Q ~io N s_ ~ N ~ ~ m ~ m a~ Z v v ~ v y J ~ g w e .~ ~ W O ~ ~ ~v .- K! O h~ O C ~l ~ v ' ~ `~ .~ vi d = r- N m Q'' O O Z V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N O V_ ~ O is w io Z m ~n z 4 O 2 Z O~ ~ M 7, N ', ~~ O Z ~ S ~ !C ~ ~ - m ~ (n ~ cA ar v ~f ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ t7 m , m LL O ~ _ ~ ,o ~ 'O c.~ ~~~~~ a ~. a o~ t ~ a, ~ ~ c t o .~ m Q - ~ Of ~ a ~ =~ ~~ ~ '~ ao~g a a ~8 ~o`T :; tp N N ~ m Q ~~ ~?vR aa~a ~~.m ~ C ~ ~ ~e~ ~p ~ ' y ~ _f xear~ • ~ ° N ~ = ~z C9g~$ b O o N ~ 'X ~ N p N d ~ `~ m.,~ ~~°¢~ N N CV ' O ~~ O N O d RS y e~bB~_ P' ~ g fit[ ,nN ~{ ~~ ~ ~ r- C.1 ~- ~ p ~ .~ ~ ~ Si ~ 6 a.-~ VVV ~ ~ ~ v ~ a ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ c ~ ~ „y m. t~~~" ~ ~ ~ m O ~i O ~ ~ m ~ o ~~~` ~ ~ E s ~ W z ~ O U D U ~ ~ ~ ~ ii ~ ~ o a;;;~s rn g %y° ~ppS ~ I I I I ~ ® gR°iM t ~ . • e ae K XRfifu ti 0 N ti 0 r N O THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Northern Courthouse Road .Community Plan (Proposed) A proposed amendment to parts of The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985), the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986), the Midlothian Area Community Plan (adopted in 1989), and the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995). Status of This Proposed Amendment The Chesterfield County Planning Department is updating the comprehensive plan for the northern area of the county. Eleven area plans originally adopted between 1985 and 1998 will be updated through this planning process. The planning area geography is approximately 50 square miles. When this update process started in 2004, the original intent was to develop one plan for the entire northern area. However, due to the size and diversity of the northern part of Chesterfield County, the area is now divided into four area plans. The first of these plans to be undertaken is the proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan. Version: Proposed plan amendment recommended by the Planning Department as of November 5, 2007. This is a proposed amendment to replace parts of: The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on October 9, 1985; the Northern Area Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on August 13, 1986; the Midlothian Area Community Plan, adopted by the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors on April 12, 1989; and the Route 360 CorridorP/an, adopted by the Board of Supervisors on May 10, 1995. This proposed plan is anticipated to go through numerous reviews and revisions. before adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Anticipated Additional Plan Review Steps: • Board of Supervisors public hearing(s) and final disposition The supporting documents referenced in this plan will not be published in the Plan for Chesterfield, but will be available through other sources. For more information on the status of the proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan, see the Planning Department website at www.chesterfield.gov/plan or contact project manager Steven Haasch at haaschs(ci)chesterfield.gov or 804/796-7192. Note: This section will be removed from the plan upon adoption Draft 11-5-07 ] 11 /5/07 ~.~ ~ ~ ~. THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD ~ Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations • Importance of the Courthouse Road Corridor: The proposed plan recognizes Courthouse Road as a principal transportation corridor for the entire northern part of Chesterfield County. It acknowledges the economic development and transportation benefits of effectively guiding the future development of many vacant and underutilized properties along the corridor, and promotes greater flexibility in any future development of these properties by recommending a mix of office and higher density residential uses. • Moody Tract Conservation Easement: The proposed plan recognizes the conservation easement on the Moody tract by recommending Conservation/Recreation land uses. However, should the easement be removed from the property, the appropriate land use should be Community Mixed Use north of the planned Collector Road and Office/Residential Mixed Use south of the planned road. • Encourage a Residential Variety: The proposed plan seeks a greater residential variety through the recommendations of the land use plan map, and by supporting the Affordable Housing Task Force's efforts as well as the Residential Development Amendments Project. • Promote Economic Development Opportunities: The proposed plan amendment promotes economic development by recommending and protecting areas designated for employment-generating uses. • Encourage Healthy Neighborhoods: The proposed plan encourages healthy neighborhoods through land use transitions from higher to lower intensity uses, and by supporting compatibility between new and existing neighborhoods. • Subdivision and Utilities Ordinance: The proposed plan recommends the adoption of amendments to the Subdivision and Utilities Ordinances requiring the mandatory use of public water and wastewater systems. • Transportation: The proposed plan identifies transportation needs and recommends modifications to the county's Thoroughfare Plan. I. Introduction The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan will amend portions of several comprehensive plans. These plans are: The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985); the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986); the Midlothian Area Community Plan (adopted in 1989); and the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995). Planning Area Boundaries (see Boundary Map) In general, the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan boundaries are: Falling Creek and the Genito Woods neighborhood to the west; Pocoshock Creek, Adkins Road, and the neighborhoods of Pocoshock Heights and Bexley West to the east; the rear boundary of properties fronting Midlothian Turnpike to the north; and the rear boundary of properties fronting Hull Street Road and Gregory's Pond to the south. The Plan geography includes the following neighborhoods: Adkins Ridge, Amber Forest, Arrowhead, Ashington at Stonehenge, Ashley Woods, Ashley Woods East, Beechwood Farm, Brandon, Brandywine Forest, Briarcliff, Bridlewood Forest, Castle Glen, Central Heights, Chestnut Hills, Courthouse Acres, Dakins Landing, Eaglewood, Exbury, Finchley, Forest Acres, Heatheridge, Hylton Park, Kin-Rey, Lake Crystal Farms, Loch Braemar, Loch Haven, Logan Trace, Mansfield Crossing, Mansfield Landing, Monacan Hills, Oak Hill, Pleasant Ridge, Poplar Creek, Providence Creek, Reams Run, Ridgefield, Runnymede, Shenandoah Hills, Smoketree, Smoketree Ridge, Smoketree South, Draft 11-5-07 2 11 /5/07 ~ ~ ®~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Smoketree Woods, Solar II, Spirea, St. James Woods, Stonecrop, Stonehenge, Stonehenge Commons, Stonehenge Hills, Stonehenge Mews, Stonehenge-Amesbury, Sunny Dell Acres, Thomas Howell Property, Wagstaff, Wedgewood, Westbury, and Willesden at Stonehenge. Draft 11-5-07 3 11/5/07 (,~®,°~~,~,~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Draft 11-5-07 Roads -~'`~~ ~~~ 1 Study Area Bou n~ Source: Chester(eld County GIS date. Septemher 2005 4 11 /5/07 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan K ca Existing Land Use (as of 12!31105) ppid~cthia~ TnP , "'- W ~ C . 1 -h ,~` f ~~~ elf ~ ~ ,, t}* \ f „~j \, S OC l ~ ~ t ~' n7 -t 1~ ~~.~• ~ t ~4> >~ ~~~~ ,~ ~ " " ~i ~~ 1~ - ~~~ ~i~ ti '' 1 I! ~` ' + ~ Pocoshock n it ~ ~,f' ~~ t` ~ trl S U (t 4_~~ L! ~~,` 1 ~ :Heights ~ a ~, % t .~ ~. _ - ~, 1 r ,,,1~ _ _ - . r i ~~ ~ _ ' ~~~ ~/ ~ 1' i ~ , .~ + •4' ; M -r- ~~- " ~t ~ ` ~ `~ ;~ ~' ,~ ~ , --~ 1ri~_ r. ~ r, n~Y ~J C ~ i ~•.~i y ~ ~:~ c,~, -~ g ~. - ~ z ~ ~;~ ~ ' ~~~~; 'P~, ~-- tl ti 1 ~ _ . ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ M1 de ry ~ ' " " _ r .;`.-~' '_~~~I t _,.~ # ". ~ ~`, a ,Bexley S" ~~ '~, . ~ t ~~ L,_ ¢ Legend o 900 t,6oo a,6oo s.a~eet ~ '; . ~. Rio ~:.~~ Places of Worship ~ G@111f0~ ~~~ ~ '~ ' ~q . -- .. Major Roads Multi-Family N UVoods ~~ ~t ,,`Stt~t~la Streets office ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~- ^i Parcels -Retail Commercial e Utility -Service Commercial 0 PUbticlSemi-Public ~ IndUStflal this is en ArcView GIS map created M the Chesterfield County Planning Depatmenl. Land use categories ere __ _ ~ Single Family Vacant/Minimel Im rovement generalized and should be confirmed with the Chesterlleld P County Planning Department. Pieces of warship, and Sin le Fami Sub Water ~ properties owned by places of warship were identified 9 ly ~ ~ - through a query of assessor data. June 2006 Draft 11-5-07 5 11 /5/07 ~, ~ ®~ ~+~ THE PAN FoR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan How this Plan Works Chesterfield County's comprehensive plan, The Plan ForChesten-eld, is used by citizens, staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as a guide for. decisions affecting the county, including, but not limited to, those regarding future land use, transportation networks and zoning actions. However, the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan represents only one part of the county's comprehensive plan. It is one of about twenty area; corridor and village plans, each of which focuses on managing and directing the future pattern of development within a specific geography of the county; taking into account the unique development pattern and development history of the area. As any plan geography is but one part of the larger community of Chesterfield County, the needs of a specific area must be considered within the context of the needs of the county as a whole. Other components of The Plan For Chesten`ield are countywide plans, which address issues and needs on a countywide basis. These include: the Thoroughfare Plan, the Water Quality Protection Plan, the Public Facilities Plan, the Bikeway Plan and the Riverfront Plan. Background Analysis The Planning Department, in conjunction with other county departments, assessed existing conditions and development trends within the planning area. The results were summarized arid shared with public officials and interested citizens throughout early phases of the plan development process. These and other assessments and analyses serve as the basis for the Goals and Recommendations ofthis plan, and are available for review as supporting documents, A through C. • Supporting Document A -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Existing Conditions and Issues • Supporting Document B -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Land Use Analysis -Residential, OfFce; Commercial and Industrial • Supporting Document C -Northern Courthouse Road Plan: Transportation Options II. A Plan for Action The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan recognizes Courthouse Road as a principal transportation corridor for the entire northern portion of Chesterfield County. Economic development and transportation benefits will be the result of effectively guiding the future development of many vacant and underutilized properties along the corridor. In addition, this amendment will promote greater flexibility in any future development along the corridor by recommending a mix of office and higher density residential uses. The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan will help guide future development in ways that balance the interests of Chesterfield County's current and future residents, landowners, businesses and development community. Specifically, the Code of Virginia defines the primary purpose of the comprehensive plan as follows: To guide and accomplish a "coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development" of county lands "which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare" of county citizens. The Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan makes no attempt to determine the current or short- term marketability of any one parcel for any one use. Rather, it attempts to anticipate future needs for broad categories of uses throughout the planning area for the next twenty years. I n addition, the Northern Draft 11-5-07 6 11 /5/07 ~ ~ ®~ ~ THE PLAN FoR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Courthouse Road Communify Plan does not rezone land, but serves as a guide for making decisions relative to future rezoning applications. Finally, the plan attempts to suggest the proper relationship of land uses to one another and to the wider community. Market forces (availability and price of land, location, character and age of competing businesses, site specific characteristics such as topography and visibility from roads, accessibility to roads, area demographics, etc.) will determine the desirability of a specific use on one parcel over another, as well as the timing for developing such use, based on the principle of `highest and best use'. The zoning process will determine the appropriateness of such use on a case-by-case basis by applying principles of desirable land use development patterns embodied in the comprehensive plan. To these ends, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have incorporated into Land Use Plan amendments guidelines that promote development patterns which facilitate the orderly, harmonious, predictable and efficient use of the county's resources. These guidelines, as they apply to specific plan areas of the county, are embodied in the goals and recommendations of adopted plan amendments. Draft 11-5-07 '7 11/5/07 ~~®~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD NOrtliern COUrthOUSe ROad COmmUnlty Plan Goals and Recommendations -Land Use Land Use Goal 1: Encourage orderly development patterns. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of fostering an orderly and generally predictable pattern of development as found in The Plan for Chesterfield. Recommendation A. Flexible Development: Use the OfficelResidential Mixed Use category as shown on the Land Use Plan map to encourage a greater flexibility of uses. Courthouse Road is a major arterial roadway situated between two major commercial and employment-generating corridors, Midlothian Turnpike and Hull Street Road. In addition, the area is serviced by, and has access to, a variety of existing public facilities. Furthermore, developments immediately outside of the geography are planned for significant employment centers. However, the uses along this section of Courthouse Road reflect a mix of agricultural and large-acre single family developments. Many of these properties could provide housing and some professional and administrative services to citizens within, and outside of, this geography. Land Use Goal 2: Encourage a greater variety of residential types. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of providing for a variety of residential areas, thereby allowing residents a choice of neighborhoods and living environments found in The Plan for Chesfe~e/d. Recommendations A. Housing Types: Encourage a variety of housing types. Currently, the housing choices in the geography are characterized by single family detached homes in subdivisions. The Plan for Chesfen`ield calls for the provision of a variety of residential areas allowing residents a choice of neighborhood and living environments. One way this can be carried out is through the Office/Residential Mixed Use category, which allows a range of housing densities and. types. B. Residential Development Amendments Project: As part of the Planning Department's on-going Residential Development Amendments project, consider various clustering and conservation-subdivision options as possible new Zoning Ordinance residential categories. The Planning Department has embarked on a project to update the residential portion of the county's zoning ordinance. Considering additional development options as part of the Residential Development Amendments project will offer opportunities to develop neighborhoods of unique character and sensitivity to the environment, while allowing residential development to occur at densities suggested by the comprehensive plan. C. Workforce Housing: As part of its ongoing efforts to address workforce housing issues throughout the county, the Chesten`ield County Workforce Housing Task Force should develop affordable housing strategies that will help meet the needs of all current and future residents in the Northern Courthouse Road Community planning area. Draft 11-5-07 g 11 /5/07 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern COUrthOUSe. Road COmmUnlty Plan The Code of Virginia requires that comprehensive plans address affordable housing. The county has established the Workforce Housing Task Force to review this issue and make recommendations to address this need. The Code of Virginia calls for the comprehensive plan to recognize affordable housing as an economic and quality-of-life issue. To meet the intent of state law, the comprehensive plan strives to identify sufficient locations, and consistent criteria, for the provision of diverse housing opportunities to provide housing prospects for all segments. of the county's population. Land Use Goal 3: Promote economic development opportunities. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of sustaining a healthy economy through an effective economic development approach that is designed to improve the standard of living, and quality of life for Chesterfield County citizens as found in The Plan for Chesterfield. To this end' The Plan for Cheste~eld encourages the identification and protection of key sites for future industrial and commercial uses. New residential development should be discouraged in these areas. Recommendations A. Employment Generating Uses: Discourage residential development from locations the plan recommends for employment generating uses. Employment generating uses produce tax revenues, which defray the costs of providing services to county residents. In addition, such uses provide jobs both within the county and close to residential areas; thereby reducing commuting,distances, travel time, air and water pollution and travel expenses. Residential uses are accommodated in more appropriate locations as suggested in the Land Use Plan map. Land Use Goal 4: Protect important resources. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of protecting the environment and enhancing the county's quality of life by recommending planning.. and design that preserves environmental functions and protects important environmental resources as found in The Plan for Chesterfield. Recommendation A. Conservation/Recreation Corridors: Identify conservation/recreation corridors. The planning area has several stream valleys with resource protection areas (RPAs), much of which is currently protected from intense development by county; state and federal regulations. These regulations are designed to preserve environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, wildlife habitat and floodplains. In addition, such corridors provide visual and distance separation between lower density residential and higher- density residential and non-residential development. Land Use Goal 5: Encourage healthy neighborhoods. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of encouraging the county's established neighborhoods and commercial areas to remain healthy as found in The Plan for Chesterfield. Recommendations Draft 11-5-07 9 11 /5/07 ~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan A. Provide Land Use Transitions: Encourage land use transitions between higher density residential, office, commercial and/orindustrial rezoning that have the potential to encroach upon existing and/or planned lower density residential areas. A hierarchy of land uses, from more-to-less intense uses, provides the best protection to residential neighborhoods. Other protections (such as existing ordinance requirements for buffers, setbacks, landscaping, and design standards which reduce nuisances such as noise, and light, etc.) are supplemental mitigation to the primary separation provided by physical separation between incompatible uses. Therefore, transitional uses contribute to the overall appearance and livability of the community. B. Residential Compatibility: Continue to use the zoning process to encourage new residential subdivisions with sole access through an existing or planned subdivision to meet or exceed the average lot size of, and have a density equal to or less than, the existing subdivision. New subdivisions developing within the study area increase the availability of housing in this part of the county. However, such residential development should be designed to protect existing neighborhoods and enhance the larger community, especially where there is an existing development pattern that is less dense than the allowed density of the new subdivision. The county has limited statutory ability to demand less dense development in these locations. Land Use Goal 6: Require the mandatory use of the public water and wastewater systems. This plan amendment carries forward the principle of promoting a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve existing and future development as found in The Plan for Chestenreld. Recommendation G. Subdivision and Utilities Ordinances: Considerordinancearnendments to require mandatory connection to the public water and wastewater systems. Use of the pubic water and wastewater systems will allow a flexibility of development that would not otherwise be possible. This flexibility could include residential development of a wider range of densities and configurations than would be possible without public water and sewer. Draft 11-5-07 10 11 /5/07 ®!~®~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Goals and Recommendations -Transportation Transportation Goal: Provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system. The county Thoroughfare Plan, which was originally adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1989, identifies right-of-way classifications of existing roads, and right-of-way classifications and general alignments of future roads. As development occurs in the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, in other areas of the county, and in the region, road improvements will be needed in this area to accommodate increasing traffic volumes and reduce congestion. Recommendations A. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, to delete the Southlake Boulevard/Branchway Road Connector. This proposed road would have connected Southlake Boulevard with Courthouse Road at the Edenberry Drive intersection. Due to existing development that precludes making this connection, staff recommends deletion of this proposed Collector Road. 8. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, to make the future extension of Suncrest Drive to Courthouse Road the "through" movement, with the Paulbrook Drive extension intersecting Suncrest Drive from the wesf. The current Thoroughfare Plan shows the Paulbrook Drive extension being the "through"movement to Courthouse Road. Making Suncrest Drive the through movement will better accommodate through-traffic, and traffic generated by the proposed land uses in this part of the Plan area. C. Approve a modification to the Adopted Thoroughfare Plan, to delete the proposed Collector Road through the Moody Tract, connecting Grove Road with Courthouse Road at the existing Southlake Boulevard intersection. This modification is in conjunction with the designation of the Moody Tract as "ConservationlRecreation" (see Note 6 in "Land Use Categories). D. Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to conform to the Thoroughfare Plan with respect to the construction of road improvements and the dedication ofright-of--way. E. Continue zoning and development review practices to encourage development proposals to include mitigation of their traffic impacts by providing road improvements and controlling the number of direct accesses to major arterial and collector roads. F. As improvements are provided on roads identified in the county's Bikeway Plan, continue to consider incorporating bicycle facilities. Limitations and Opportunities In the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, existing development limits the opportunities to plan for additional new roads. The limited potential for new roads in this area of the county will make it necessary for existing roads to carry the majority of traffic generated by future development. Without improvements, some of these roadways will become congested. Several of the major roads in the Plan area are already at capacity. Sections of Courthouse Road currently carry from 35,000 to 51,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and are at or near capacity. Reams Road (11,900 vpd), Providence Road (7,700 vpd), and the two-lane section of Lucks Lane west of Draft 11-5-07 11 11/5/07 ~s~®~ ~~ THE PAN FoR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Spirea Road (10,600 vpd) are all of capacity. Traffic volumes on Providence Road and Reams Road have remained relatively unchanged in recent years. However, .traffic volumes on these roads and on Courthouse Road and Lucks Lane can be expected. to increase in the future as development within the Plan area and the surrounding region occurs. The section of Courthouse Road in the Plan area was recently widened to four and six lanes. The Courthouse Road project also made improvements to Lucks Lane; and to Providence Road at its intersection with Courthouse Road. There are two other projects in or near the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area that are included in the county's current Secondary Six Year Construction Plans: Reams Road -turn lane additions at various locations from Adkins Road to Wadsworth Drive. 2. Courthouse Road at Hull Street Road -construction of a southbound right turn lane to provide dual right turn lanes on Courthouse Road. Staff has estimated that it could cost approximately $3 billion countywide to upgrade existing roads, excluding freeways, to accommodate the increased traffic resulting from build-out of the county. Approximately $88 million of those road costs would be in the Plan area. Based on current VDOT revenue forecasts, the county anticipates receiving an average of only about $14 million per year in the coming years, countywide, to improve both Primary and Secondary roads. The prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Even if the county were to receive $14 million a year for the next 50 years, there would be an anticipated shortfall of approximately $2.3 billion. A shortfall in funding for road improvements is not unique to Chesterfield County. It is impacting other localities around the state; and around the country. Several potential options have been considered for. supplementing the road improvement funds received from the state. These'options are outlined in the Supporting Document C -Northern Courthouse Road Amendment: Transportation Options. Due to existing roadside development along Reams Road and Providence Road, it is unlikely that major improvements to these roads will be possible. Other than possible shoulder improvements or the addition of turn lanes at intersections, the existingtwo-lane roads will have to accommodate any future traffic volume increases. There are numerous small parcels along Courthouse Road that are currently developed as single- family homes. Each of these parcels has direct driveway access to Courthouse Road, with access spacings of from 80 to 300 feet. The proposed Plan recommends these parcels for "Office/Residential Mixed Use", and allows for the conversion of these existing residences to office uses with appropriate exceptions to bulk requirements to accommodate adequate parking. Redevelopment to this Land Use may result in slightly higher traffic generation per parcel, with substandard access spacing. However, the recommended land use will result in a relatively- low density of development on each individual parcel, and there is the possibility of aggregation of parcels to achieve better access spacing. There are also numerous parcels along and in the vicinity of Berrand Road that are recommended in the Plan for "Office/Residential Mixed Use". Berrand Road currently provides access for less than 20 single-family homes, and intersects Courthouse Road at a crossover that is approximately 480 feet south of the traffic signal at Reams Road. This ,access spacing is inadequate for any redevelopment that could generate high volumes of traffic. Redevelopment in this area should include closing the Berrand crossover or restricting turns, or providing anew access to Courthouse Road to align with the Reams Road traffic signal. Draft 11-5-07 12 11 /5/07 ~.~ Q' ~ +~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan The Plan also recommends "Neighborhood Mixed Use" for the southeast quadrant of the Courthouse Road/Reams Road intersection. Access for these parcels to Courthouse Road should not align with the existing crossover at Berrand Road, which has inadequate spacing from the Reams Road intersection to allow for signalization. In addition, the potential access spacing for these parcels from Courthouse Road along Reams Road is insufficient to allow for full access. Access to Reams Road should be limited to right-turns-in grid right-turns-out only, with a raised median on Reams Road from Courthouse Road beyond the access. The Plan also recommends "Neighborhood Mixed Use" for the northeast quadrant of the Courthouse Road/Reams Road intersection. There are no crossovers on Courthouse Road adjacent to these parcels. Therefore, access to Courthouse Road should be limited to right-turns-in and right-turns-out only. Along Reams Road, the close proximity of the Reykin Drive intersection to Courthouse Road will not allow for providing adequate access. These parcels should have no direct access to Reams Road. The Plan recommends "Residential: 4.0 dwellings/acre or less" for the southeast quadrant of the Courthouse Road/Dakins Drive intersection. Due to the limited frontage along Courthouse Road between the Powhite Parkway interchange and Dakins Drive, there should be no direct access to Courthouse Road (see Note 7 in "Land Use Categories"). Sidewalks Pedestrian access in the Plan area should be encouraged. Sidewalks have recently. been constructed in the Smoketree subdivision along sections of Smoketree Drive, Gordon School Road, and Spirea Road. Funding priorities for sidewalk construction in the Plan area will be given to (1) Smoketree Drive, from the current terminus of the sidewalk at the community pool to Courthouse Road, and to (2) Spirea Road, from Mountain Laurel Drive to Lucks Lane. Bikeway Plan The Board of Supervisors adopted the county's Bikeway Plan in 1989. The purpose of the Bikeway Plan is "to designate a coordinated system of bike facilities to connect county and State parks with other high bike traffic generators such as schools." The Bikeway Plan is not intended to designate roads that are appropriate for bicycle travel, but to identify routes where bikeway facilities should be provided in conjunction with future road improvement projects. In the Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan area, Courthouse Road, Lucks Lane, Southlake Boulevard, and Providence Road east of Courthouse Road are designated in the Bikeway Plan as part of the "bikeway network". Bike facilities have already been provided in conjunction with road improvement projects in the Plan area. In accordance with the Bikeway Plan, staff will consider including additional bike facilities along these roads in conjunction with future road improvements. Public Transportation The Chesterfield County Coordinated Transportation Program, Access Chesterfield, provides transportation services for any Chesterfield County resident who is disabled, or over age 60, or who meets federal income guidelines regarding poverty levels. Transportation providers are contracted by the Chesterfield County Access ChesterFeld program to provide transportation service within the Chesterfield County, Richmond,. Petersburg, Hopewell and Colonial Heights metropolitan areas. The program offers advance reservations for ride sharing with other passengers. North of the Plan area, the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) provides service between the Chesterfield Towne Center area and downtown Richmond. Draft 11-5-07 13 11/5/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan GRTC also recently began service on the "Hull Street Commonwealth 20 Express" which provides express service to downtown Richmond utilizing the Powhite Parkway. RideFinders provides numerous transit programs and services in the Richmond region, including organizing vanpools in response to commuters' requests. RideFinders also provides a matching service to assist commuters in organizing carpools. Draft 11-5-07 14 11/5/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Land Use Categories (See accompanying Land Use Plan Map) Suggested densities of residential development include all property suggested for such densities regardless of any development limitations that may exist or may be anticipated (such as planned roads or other public facilities, environmental or topographical features, areas suggested on the plan for conservation/recreation, etc.) Residential (1.5 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Residential (2.0 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Residential (2.5 or less dwellings per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Residential (4.0 or less dwellings. per acre): Residences, places of worship, schools, parks and other similar public and semi-public facilities. Note 7 on the Land Use Plan map: No direct access to Courthouse Road. Office/Residential Mixed Use: Professional and administrative offices and residential developments of varying densities. Supporting retail and service uses would be appropriate when part of a mixed use center of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: R (various), O-2) Note 1 on the Land Use Plan map: Areas north of Falling Creek and south of Powhite Parkway should be limited to 10.0 units per acre or less. Note 2 on the Land Use Plan map: Areas north of Powhite Parkway and south of Fire Station 20 should be limited to 6.0 units per acre or less. Note 3 on the Land Use Plan map: Areas north of Fire Station 20 should be limited to 10.0 units per acre or less. Note 4 on the Land Use Plan map: Allow the conversion of existing residences to office uses with appropriate exceptions to bulk requirements in the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate adequate parking. General Note: Smaller properties within this geography should be aggregated together under a unified plan of development, rather than being re-zoned in a piecemeal fashion wherever and whenever possible. General Note: Office development should be of a design compatible with existing and planned neighborhoods. Office: Professional and administrative offices. Retail and service uses that serve primarily office developments would be appropriate when part of a mixed use project of aggregated acreage under a unified plan of development and when located interior to the project. (Equivalent zoning classification: O-2) Draft 11-5-07 15 11 /5/07 ~~~~33 THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan Neighborhood Mixed Use: Neighborhood-scale commercial uses, including shopping centers and service uses, that serve neighborhood-wide trade areas, as vvell as professional and administrative offices and residential developments. of varying densities. (Equivalent zoning classifications: R (various), O-2, C-2) General Note: Additional residential zoning and development, including apartments, townhouses and condominiums, is not appropriate in areas recommended for this land use category. General Note: Smaller properties within this geography should be aggregated together under a unified plan of development, rather than being re-zoned in a piecemeal fashion wherever and whenever possible. Community Mixed Use: Community scale commercial uses, including shopping centers, service and office uses that serve community-wide trade areas. Residential uses of various types and densities may be appropriate if part of a larger mixed-use project and the design is integrated with other uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-3) General Note: Additional residential zoning and development, including apartments, townhouses and condominiums, is not appropriate in areas recommended for this land use category. General Business Mixed. Use: General commercial uses including, but not limited to, automobile-oriented uses and light industrial uses. (Equivalent zoning classification: C-5) Light Industrial: Offices, warehouses and light industrial uses; including research and development uses and light manufacturing dependent upon raw materials first processed elsewhere. Moderate industrial uses may be appropriate when designed, located and/or oriented to ensure compatibility with less intense uses, and where appropriate access and transitions are provided. Retail and service uses that serve. primarily surrounding permitted industrial uses may be appropriate when part of a larger development. (Equivalent zoning classifications: I-1, I-2) _ Note 5 on the Land Use Plan map: No direct access to Courthouse Road. Public: Significant publicly owned properties (county, state and federal), including schools, parks, cemeteries and other public facilities, as well as publicly owned vacant land. Should such land be redeveloped for other uses, the appropriate uses would be those that are compatible with surrounding existing or anticipated development, as reflected by existing land uses, zoning, and/or the recommended land uses on the adopted comprehensive plan. Conservation/Recreation: Lands adjacent to water bodies with perennial flow that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts which may cause significant degradation to the quality of state waters. Recommended land uses are those in conformance with the environmental provisions of the Chesterfield County Code. Where appropriate, some areas may be suitable for limited pedestrian, bicycle trails, or for other passive recreation activities. The boundaries of the conservation/recreation areas depicted on the plan are generalized and should be confirmed by the Chesterfield County Office of Water Quality. Note 6 on the Land Use Plan map: If the conservation easement is removed from this property, and the property is developed, a 70-foot collector road should be constructed through the property connecting Grove Road with Courthouse Road, and aligning with Draft 11-5-07 16 11 /5/07 ~~~~~~ THE PLAN FOR CHESTERFIELD Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan the Courthouse Road/Southlake Boulevard intersection, with the recommended land uses being Community Mixed Use north of the planned roadway, and Office/Residential Mixed Use south of the planned road. Draft 11-5-07 1'7 11/5/07 ~~®~a~J c c_o w', ~c E 0 U a c~ 0 m y O O U m t 0 Z J W w H w U O LL Z a w ~~;o O = ~ ~ ~ 41 ~ M ~. HLL 2r3 o,P t~ ~ 0 0 0 O p p m ~°~ ~ a ~ ~P~~ o ~''` ` ~ ,i~o{ cOV cOO ~ pmp}} QmQ11 ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ k L ~u' 16 ~ ~o ~nr-c.~rN g ~ ~ N aai cp H ~ ~ ~ ~ S'f~ ^I ~e~ce O m c m ,.m ~ m ~ y m~ .o a; ~ ~~ b~ ~. O V f/~ c~c ~ cv cri o ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~; 0 0 8 ~ a w ~ omu, ~t ~ ~pp ~ a . Z ~ G 9 t6 l0 IC z t9 N Z Z L i m ~~ Z~ d ~.' C ~. ~ C ~; S G~ C ~ ~ a s •a m a m m m ~~ ~~~ m ~ Q Q a a m ~ e _ ~~„~ O ~ ~ ,~ ~ .~ .e c m ~ m m o o E' m _ a.~ ~ u ~ m ai N a~ N'~a~ m o ~ ~ a o~t ~ ~ ~ U U ~ m`- ~;~~~ d m ~' ~' ~333~~~~11 Q C1 ~ (.) l7 ~ ~ U111.,....JJ1 ~ a~ >6~y~ ~ ~ ~ x.6903 r. 0 ti 0 N 0 ~~®,~~~ Northern Courthouse Road Plan 9/30/05 Northern Courthouse Road Plan Appendix of Supporting Documents Supporting Document A: Northern Courthouse Road Plan -Existing Conditions & Issues (pages 2-21) Supporting Document B: Northern Courthouse Road Plan -Land Use Analysis - Residential, Office, Commercial and Industrial (pages 22-33) Supporting Document C: Northern Courthouse Road Plan -Transportation Options (page 34) ®~~~~~ Supporting Document A Northern Courthouse Road Plan ~s/so/o5~ Existing Conditions and Issues A. Plan Boundaries (Map A) In general, the study area boundaries are: Falling Creek and the Genito Woods neighborhood to the west; Pocoshock Creek, Adkins Road, and the neighborhoods of Pocoshock Heights and Bexley West to the. east; the rear boundary of properties fronting Midlothian Turnpike to the north; and the rear boundary of properties fronting Hull Street Road and Gregory's Pond to the south. B. Magisterial Districts The proposed Northern Courthouse Road Plan lies within the Clover Hill Magisterial District (about 77 percent of the study area geography), within the Matoaca Magisterial District (about 13 percent of the study area geography), and within the Midlothian Magisterial District (about nine percent of the study area geography). C. Plan Status (Map B) The study area of this Plan amendment includes portions of The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985), the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986), and a small portion of the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995) and the Midlothian Area Community P/an (adopted 1989). The geography of the Plan amendment is approximately 8.5 square miles in area, comprising approximately two percent of the land area of the county. D. Existing Zoning and Land Use Patterns (Maps C & D) Existing zoning and land use patterns within the study area reflect predominantly a mix of residential and agricultural zoning and uses. Most of the area's commercial zoning and uses are located near the intersections of Courthouse Road with Hull Street Road, Midlothian Turnpike, and Lucks Lane. The Powhite Parkway, alimited-access highway, provides the major east/west vehicular access, linking the study area to the rest of the county to the east and west, as well as the City of Richmond. Courthouse Road itself is a major north/south arterial that links the study area to the central, eastern and northern parts of the county. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 2 ~~®~~~ Supporting Document A As suggested in Table 1, as of 12/31/04, approximately 68 percent of the study area was zoned residentially, of which 22 percent was vacant or minimally improved. Agricultural zoning accounted for approximately 31 percent of the study area, of which 28 percent was vacant or minimally improved. Office, commercial and industrial zoning accounted for about 3.5 percent of the area, of which 36 percent was vacant or minimally improved. The study area includes existing and planned residential neighborhoods of varying ages and character, including: single family residences (including mobile homes) on acreage parcels; single family residences in subdivisions; and multi-family dwellings (see Table 3). An examination of 2004 land use data suggests that there were, at the end of December 2004, about 6,318 residences in the study area. The 2004 land use database also suggests that there currently exists enough land zoned for residential use within the study area to allow the development of an additional 487 residences, or an increase of eight percent. The current adopted Plans suggest that zoning for an additional 784 residences would be appropriate, for a potential total of about 7,514 residences in the study area at build-out (an increase over the 2004 number of residences of about 19 percent). Significant public/semi-public uses within the study area include: Rockwood Park; Monacan High School and Athletic Complex; Gordon, Providence and Reams Road Elementary Schools; and Courthouse Fire Station and Manchester Volunteer Rescue Squad. Other semi-public uses include area churches, private schools and a golf course. E. Demographic Information The following information is taken from 2000 County's land use database for 2004 (throug with additional information on population and assessment records and studies. Census data and Chesterfield h December 31, 2004), together housing gathered from county 1. Population A review of Chesterfield County's land use database for 2004 suggests that the number of people living in the study area increased between 1995 and 2004, from approximately 14,420 to approximately 17,050, or an increase of about 18 percent (see Table 4). Estimates of countywide population growth for the same period indicate that the county population grew by about 20 percent. Comparing these figures suggests that the study area population grew at a rate 11% slower than that of the county as a whole. Nearly all of this population growth has occurred in single family subdivisions. The study Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents ~~®we~~ Supporting Document A area population estimate represents approximately 5.9 percent of the county's estimated total population for 2004. Given that the study area includes approximately 1:8 percent of the area of the county, the population density is greater than that for the county as a whole. However, it should be noted that the study- area is Located in an infill area of the county, and has more development than an `average' area of the county. 2. Household Income The 2000 Census estimated household income for census tracts that are in the study area geography at approximately $64,893, or approximately 111 percent that of the county average of $58,537. The average per capita income within the study area, as estimated by the 2000 Census, was $27,564, or 109 percent of the county figure of $25,286. 3. Housing The study area has a mix of older and newer neighborhoods and a mix of housing types. Table 3 gives a summary of housing types within the study area geography. The average assessment of single family residences in 2004 was $156,140, compared to a county average of $159,482. Of such housing, about 91 percent was estimated to be owner occupied, compared to a county average estimate of 89 percent. The average age of residences was estimated to be about 21 years, compared to a county average of 23 years. The study area contained 673 single family dwellings that are assessed at $100,000 or less in 2004. This represents 11 percent.of the area's total single family homes, and 3.7 percent of the countywide total for housing assessed $100,000 or less. 4. Residential Development Patterns (Map D & E) Residential development within the study area is characterized primarily by single family residences in subdivisions, single family residences on acreage parcels, and by multi-family complexes. The following generally summarizes residential development within the study area: • Single family residences in subdivisions include a mix of older and newer neighborhoods. • Single family residences on acreage parcels front Courthouse Road, Reams Road, Providence Road and Lucks Lane, all major arterial Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 4 Supporting Document A roadways. • There is currently one multi-family complex in the study area, with another recently approved but not yet developed. ,Both complexes are sited along Courthouse Road. F. Economic Information i. Commercial Development. Pattern (Map D) Commercial uses within the study area consist primarily of businesses on parcels that front on or near Midlothian Turnpike, with the Southport Industrial Park being a major light industrial development in the northern end of the study area. A significant neighborhood-scale commercial node exists near the intersection of Courthouse Road and Lucks Lane. The study area contains 100,237 square feet of commercial development, representing 0.5 percent of the county's total square footage. The study area contains 253,337 square feet of office development, representing 3.3 percent of the county's total square footage. The study area contains 824,204 square feet of industrial development, representing 2.4 percent of the county's total square footage. 2. Employment and ]obs In the second quarter of 2003, approximately 3,551 jobs existed in the study area geography, with the majority of these located in the Southport Industrial Park. This figure is below that of 2002, when 3,588 jobs existed in the study area, a decline of one percent. 3. Tax Revenue It is difficult to obtain information about tax revenue generated for specific geographies of the county. Specifically, county assessment records indicate that land and improvements within the study area account for.approximately 5.3 percent of total assessed value countywide. As-noted herein, the population of the study area is approximately 5.8 percent of countywide population estimates.. These estimates suggest that the study area generates slightly less per capita real estate tax revenue than that generated countywide. A further analysis of real estate assessment records su99ests that the study Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 5 ~~®;,~~~ Supporting Document A area contains approximately 1.7 percent of the county's assessed value for all office, commercial, and industrial developments. As noted herein, the study area contains two percent of the county's land area and 5.8 percent of its population. G. Environmental Features (Map F) The study area is drained by Falling Creek and Pocoshock Creek and their tributaries, which stretch for over 22 miles throughout the geo.g:raphy. The complex of streams and wetlands in the geography provide wildlife habitat, support aquatic life, serve as a recreational resource and add to the aesthetics of the study area. -The tributary streams also have floodplains and Resource Protection Areas (RPAs) adjacent to them (approximately nine percent of the studyarea). `The floodplains and RPAs protect streams by filtering out pollutants in storm water runoff. These areas are identified in the Water Quality Protection Plan as environmentally sensitive features, and land uses and activities within them are limited by county ordinance. The study area is generally characterized by flat to gently rolling topography typical of the Piedmont region. However, some significant slopes exist along Falling Creek and other tributaries. H. Utilities (see Map G) Public Water and Wastewater Service The study area is well served by an extensive water distribution and wastewater collection system. Most undeveloped sites are .within close proximity to an existing line, and others may require a short extension. Generally, water pressure and line capacity will be adequate for most domestic and fire flow demands. Some types of development and/or specific site conditions may necessitate the need for system improvements and/or interconnection of lines. While all residential areas are served by the public water system, the original sections of some of the older neighborhoods, such as Stonehenge, Arrowhead, Wedgewood, Runnymede, and Lake Crystal Farms, do not have public wastewater service .available. The Utilities Department does not have funds available to extend utilities into areas of existing development. If the majority of property owners in a given area request service, and are willing to pay an equal share of the project cost, the Board of Supervisors may consider creation of an ~~assessment district". Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 6 ~~~~~'~ Supporting Document A Extensions of water and wastewater lines to serve new development are considered the responsibility of the developer. The Utilities Department will address system capacity and reliability issues by replacing and upgrading facilities as becomes necessary. No projects are currently planned for this area. I. Fire Service (see Map H) There is one fire station (Station 20) within. the study area. Additionally, the area is served by Wagstaff Fire Station, and two volunteer .rescue squads; Forest View and Manchester. (see The Public Facilities Plan adopted in 2004) ~. SChOOIS (see Map H) The study area lies within the Gordon, Providence, Reams Road, Evergreen and Watkins Elementary School zones; the Midlothian; Providence and Bailey Bridge Middle School zones; and the Monacan, Midlothian and Manchester High School zones. (see The Public Facilities Plan adopted in 2004) K. Libraries (see Map H) The study area is primarily served by the La Prade Library, with the Midlothian Library being relatively close by as well. Anew library is called for between 2002-07 to be located in the Reams Road/Lucks Lane/Courthouse Road area. (see The Public Facilities Plan adopted in 2004) L. Parks and Recreation (see Map H) As noted herein, Rockwood Park, aregional-scale park, is located within -the study area. (see Parks and Recreation Master Plan and The Public Facilities Plan adopted in 2004) M. Transportation The study area is served by ahighly-developed road network. Powhite Parkway provides major east/west vehicular access, linking the study area with the rest of the county to the east and west, as well as the City of Richmond. Courthouse Road,. a major arterial, provides a major north/south route that links the northern end of the county with central and eastern Chesterfield. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 7 ~~J®~~~~ Supporting Document A N. Development Constraints Residential zoning and development patterns suggest the desirability of the study area as a place to live, work and raise families. This area of the county will continue to grow as a residential community, providing housing for jobs and services located both within and outside of the geography. The following have been tentatively identified as potential development constraints: Residential neighborhoods in proximity to .existing/potential commercial sites should be protected from encroachment, noise, traffic and other impacts by non-residential uses. Conversely, areas with potential for development of services and employment-generating uses should be reserved for future economic development. Some areas, especially certain parcels fronting the east line of Courthouse Road, are zoned for residential use, but may present opportunities for non-residential use. Many of the streams and all of the floodplains in the study area are protected through the Chesapeake Bay Preservation-and Floodplain Management Ordinances. Additionally, floodplains, RPAs and wetlands are further protected through a requirement in the county's Subdivision Ordinance fora 25-foot setback between those environmental features and structures. Similarly, wetlands are protected through both State and Federal .regulations. Any development that takes place must conform to the .existing environmental regulations and policies. Residential properties fronting Courthouse Road within the study area usually have individual access drives. Any development, other than what currently exists; may need to consolidate some of these access points onto Courthouse Road in order to improve the safety and efficiency of the roadway. O. Development Potential (see Map I) As noted herein, the study area offers potential for additional residential, commercial and industrial development. The following have been tentatively identified as possible assets for further development within the study area: Opportunities exist through the Plan amendment process to apply sound planning principles to guide future development in ways that manage growth, provide economic development opportunities, shape the Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 8 ~~®~~4. Supporting Document A character of the community, protect resources, and promote healthy neighborhoods. • There are over 1,341 acres of agricultural zoned land, of which 421 acres are vacant or underutilized. Over half of this agricultural zoning is along Courthouse Road, a major arterial. (See Table 1 & 2) • The study area is located in an area of the county that has excellent access to jobs, services, recreation and housing. In addition, the area is well served by existing pubic infrastructure including parks, fire service, police service, schools; water and wastewater systems, and roads. • Areas to the west of the- study area are planned to be major employment centers. These centers will put additional demand on the area to provide housing and supporting services for these new jobs. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 9 ~®®~~1~ ._.. Supporting Document A Table i - Northern Courthouse Road Plan - Zoning & Development ' ' ~a as ~ ' ~ c ~ c a~ ~ ~ 0 3 a ~ ,C L ~ 0 3 , L~ L V V N Q o o U ~~ ;' Q O ~> ra ~ 9~~ Agricultural 1,341 28 0.8 r .:, 920 421 46 Residential 3,268 68 3.9 ;: , ~`~ 3,097 171 6 Office, Commercial, 169 4 0.6 ~° 131 38 29 Industrial __ . , .. ti - _ Y TOTAL 4,778 100 1.8 '~?r °: 4,,128 630 13 Data taken from 2004 Development Potential Database Note: this data is a reflection of base zoning only and does not factor uses that may be permitted through CUPD (such as commercial uses on residential property, etc.) Table 2 - Northern Courthouse Road Plan - Zoning & Development -Courthouse Frontage Parcels ~a r°- : ~ Q o ~ c ~ c ~ ~ ~ g~ g~ '~ ~ ~ c o ~a a c o ~a a p ~ v o ~ o ~ - ~ V ov vtd~ Q u o~~ o> N Q Q > N w Agricultural 469 64 10 `_~~;`- .286 183 39 Residential 237 32 5 „'~,_-,v 224 13 5 Office, Commercial, 28 4 0.6 28 0.3 1 Industrial . - ~ ~ _.~ TOTAL 734 100 15 ~"~ 538 196 27 Data taken rrom zuu4 ueveiopmen~ Notentiai uataoase Note: this data is a reflection of base zoning only and does not factor uses that may be permitted through CUPD (such as commercial uses on residential property, etc.) Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 10 ~~®,~~d5 Supporting Document A Table 3 -Northern Courthouse Road Plan -Housing Types and Percentages (Note: the study area represents approximately 2% of the county) a , '{y 3 d ~ O~ Gl w O N = ~ w O H= = 3 ~+ ~ O H C~ = ~~ 3 O ~. _~ L ~ ~a O o = *+ ~cn O i` = O~ ~v a~ O o O O '- ~ ~v 3~ Single family residences on acreage parcels and in 6,186 98 82 6.8 subdivisions Single family residences in mobile home parks 0 0 2 0 Multi-family residences in apartment complexes, 132 2 16 0.8 condominiums, and townhouse subdivisions TOTAL 6,318 100 100 5.7 Data taken trom Z0~4 ueveiopment Notentiai uataoase Table 4 -Northern Courthouse Road Plan -Estimated Population Change 1995-2004 Area 1995 2004 % Change Study Area 14,420 17,050 18.2 Chesterfield County 242,700 291,000 19.9 Data Taken tram zoo4 ueveiopment Notentiai uataoase Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting .Documents 11 ~~®~~~C~ N .--~ C Q~ U O O c 0 Q a ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ s ~ ` 'Q _~..~i ~ ti~~~ ~t ~ ~~. 1 rx ` .,, ~ i ' ~ yr 1 ;Z ~ 47`~ ~ fr r ~. ~ t f~~ ~ u _, <~ ,''~~ r -` ' C~J" : . ~ } ~ ~ ;< ;. ` . ,~~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ q ~- .~ ~ z r "- f t ~ . ~ ~ y ~ 1~ . ,;~-- Q --, ~; z:=. C~ Z B 0 e A ,,~' i ~ -` i - ~'c r~'- ~. `i#, ~~4 .~ _ - - ~~~ t~ ~;c~, -. _ '~ `J ~ ° a ( k~` ;~ 1~. ~ ~ C~ V : , ty r i ,I T I'1 f . r J r ~ .~. ~ ~ ,r. ~~ .. t d .__ , . , ' ~` . ~ a ~ ~OF; '~ ._.. r ,C• ..c - ~z: ~I ~, lA . - ~ -- __- __ - 0 0 Vi fi m V N C N 7 U O p1 ^O^ 1.1. 1..1. ~~/~/~ V/ c r~ a 0 N 0 O U c t 0 Z ~~®~~~ M .--i U O p1 C U 0 C O Q W 0. f0 a N C J ~J L V ~C ~ iJ ~ v O ~~ n a a, m c ~ c o ~ ~- a ~ ~ ~; ~ o o ~ ° a a ~ ~ d d 'o o ?n e- ??~ a L Y~ ~ ~ ~S -°~~~ ~~~PF88 LL ~~~~ v v h It h h~~~~ !Y 3! S! JI[ t E E 'E 'E6 'd 'OS o 0 o a m o e e y s ^ ^ I ^ ® n J~nIGIGI®I li ~ ~ ii O Pm ~ 4 co O G ~ o W `j ~ i ~ ~ a~ r r '! a io U n ~ " F t S4 ~ ~ -g ~ ~ c o o a d o p ~ m ~ ar ~' ~ ~ ~ ° '~ u m ~ ~ o a z ~} c c U ~ m b ~ m .~ ~1 ~ m t t >> V ~ I~S .a ~ ~ P ~ u Li '~ '~ ~ ~ 8 N O LL ~ 3 .] ~ ~ ~ C LL O O ~ LL ^ ~ `u- ~. I~fQ O v1 N N 3 _ 3 Q. a ~ d~ N L U ~ w ~ ~~ a a~ ~ H Q ~U lq ~ t m O Z ~~~~~~ Q C N U O c 0 Q .o I C c~ d. r_T~ 1~ 3 a ~ r ~ c ~ ~ ~N U ar L C ri ~:~s ~ r_r f, ~ ~ / ~, o ~,~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~, ,. o ~ ~~~ 1 r " :~ _ t _ _. ~; t oll 0 m N fl C U 0 C i _~~ r ~ _ Ire ~.-~ r - - - ~ ~ ~~ ~`~ _ _-. ~' r iT~ ~'~,li ~F ._~ i - - - ~, Y '~ . 4 ~~ +~ ~1~ ~, ~: ~ ,, ~ -,, ~ , ~ ~ ~ ,~xr ~ ~ ~7 s' ~ ~, t,> ~ _ t0 _.,- a s ~ ice; f ~. ~ ,. f m ~ - ~" "~ i ' ~ - ~~~ ~ u f~ ~ O yy ~. _ _~ ~ _ ,, II ~ C ~ x ~ ,-! i , ` 1J _ O .~ t ~ `~ `-~-z, ~ `~ - ~ t r. ~ /~) 4 ., I V •`~ C L -' ~~ ~~ O Z ~~,Q~~~ ~~ z m' n f0 O V III ~ III ~ ~~ ~RS ~1 .R1 N M ~l'i ~ hi ~ ~~ C+I N Q1 `s ~ S rri n _ r1 r1 r1 ~ ri n• n• n' 'n• n• n• n• ~ ci f ~ ` ( ~ r, Q c a~ U O O ~1c i Q ~o I C ~ Q. ~ ~ a t J 3 ~ U o ~Vl ~~ ~L cl6~S1 V Qj ~ ~ ~ m a S (n T .o V n~ rn ~ -^ -^ ~ f 8 ~ s m i __~, p p o o O r p ~ (l -~ t ~ w u~ ~ _ o 'O 5 ~} ~ f~ C75 t75 ~ ~ ~ (~ C V m C1 0 J C N O r 0 V }` a ~,~ c a~ E U O p1 C O a ~. 7 C a ~a 0 a a~ 0 O U c L 0 z ~~~~~~ A) ~ ~~L 1 (~ ~~ 0 d. m ~ ~- ~ ~ E o u i ~ , co ~ ~ ~, S ~ m `n' rn ~ 3 ~ fY A cn ply ~ y ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ m O v a _ i Ul ~ .~/ Ll~ ~ ~ i7i ,7l C ® ~ i n L ~ ~~' '~`.I V ~ ~ ~ ~ t O w c m E 0 ~1c 0 Q W SY c a~ E U O 01 C O fl. ~. (1) C f0 a r~ 0 a~ 0 s 0 U c L L z (~~®~~2 w c m U O c Q a~ Na ~' LL L ~ ~ C 7 ~ U ~ c a L O L L ~~ y = ~ W LL t W a ~, ~~ III. m m n i k A y ~i b V l v v ~f) rl] fr1 ~f ~ . ,. _! I __u N m ~ Q ~ o m 0 •~~~L O O v Np O 3 to i_i C u U s rl ~~ c U O D p1 C O Q fl. C tQ a r~ 0 ai 0 s 7 O U c L z Q »~ c a~ 0 O O~ .~ a a f m a m m ~ VJ ~ I9 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q a w T y. ~y1uu~ y f_I ~ M ~ ~ ~ Y~ U1 i ~ n l J ~ - N 7 7 Al m• ~ ~ s ~ LL LL ~ o_ n p i i i I d •y`~t 8 Y71 73 R '~ 9 f9 C V 9 0 V1 V/ ~rr ^L W U O p1 C O ~. ~. N C a r~ 0 a~ 0 s 0 U c L L 0 z ~~~~~~ a, C N 3 = ~ ~ Om LLL O ~ N a 3 0 ~ ~ O .. p O ~ o O d L ~ `T ~ ~ m 9 Of ~ ~h ~ y ~ y "' o ~ a ~ O d ~ a m ~ o ~ o ; a z ~ ~ I~ ~ iii ~ = O V rn rn LL" rL ns ~ ~, _ ~ LL 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "! ~ C U m Z 2 ti J f ~ cv c~ ~ ~ lr ra r ~ V M+ ~ i ~~/ ~.I ~ ~ y ~. L- ^^ ,, W - a ;~ ;,' ~a a ,t'~ i- c 37 l ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~`' f + }~ ~ ms °~. ~p~'~ ' ~'t'~ra,F 's o ~-. 1 -' ~ w~{~~1_ f j~'~7 -r fT' ff..TT 111 " . TD ~' ~ 7 yl 1- ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ii ~? 1 1~ i ~ J ~ i~ ~ I r. ~ 1 J~ 1 ~ ti ~ ~r r ~ ~, ~ ~ T z+ . ` s 1 ^ r+ Y 4 I 't ~ I ~h ' ~ I '-s -hY ~ w-~ r -~. ~ i r ~ ti \ ~+ ~ .l."r L ~ nt.- L~i .. ~ d ~' ~ ~ ~' '~~ ~ ` ~ ' I ~' C r ~ ~ •-l ~ f ~ mo, f _} , .-y~L__ ~ ~. ~ D J ~ ~ I ~ll~ l ~~ t i - t.` ~ { ~ ~ .I ~ 1r [ i j'~ i L O ~ ~ fr O ~ ,~ U ~ _ ,, c L ~ d ! RRR L ~ Z ~~ ~~~~ Supporting Document A Map I Northern Courthouse Road Plan ~- : ~ '~ Major Commercial Developments -- t~~~, ~} ~-. ~. _ - - ,1_- . - _ _ - _. .. _~, - "~ ' C esterfiel~d Johnstpn.Willisl ` ~ T e..Center~*Hospital ~ _ 4- ~ ~' a -- ~ - ~ r _, __ ©~ ~ ~p ;~~~ Q ,~, , ~ fl ~ .Southport '~ ~ -r ~ ~~ ,, _ - _: Q ~ ~~- `" J I ' ustrial Park' O 4, ~ ',office.Park j ~ ~! "~~ ` The;Grove~-;~'` ~ t'r~ r, `The Arpor-etu --~°--`-°`..850,000 sq -~,:_ r -` ce Park ,..,- J ~ r ~ ~ 1~ t ~~ -~ ,commercial--~ ~ ~ ~ E `~` ~~ ~ a 1s ~ ~ i . ~, ~ ~ n~t ,~ ,. ~' _ r ~ _ i ~ _ z 1 '~' - .F` r 7. ~ ~, t 1~, 4 ~ d` ~ ~~ _ ante ~-o'mte ~` t ~ ~~~, '~' -~~ `/' ~ St. Francis` ,, 3: n s ft `• 1 q ~ . •. j, Hospital ~~--~..~fice om rcial T ~~ •,,, } r,y ~ T r ! i- ~: fi00~0@`sq-ft--~- ~ ~ .~ ~ - t ,~offlce ~ Watecfo • . `~ti " oa Lake r F 12~millio sgift Indu trial Park r-r ~ , ``mot ~ officelind stNal ' ~ ~ ~, ,~ - ' t _ , ` r ;~ , ~J) 5 `~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~' 1. ~ - ~ ~ j Q .3-~ ~~~~~ ___ ~, ; , , a +~ `- Warbro Road ~` - ° ~ ,.-~'"~C} ~ ~-_ `~°' %~ "~~- Industrial'Park 5-` ~ ~ ~~ ~, , (. ~' r ~ ~ ~ I' ~ ~. F.. - , A ~ ~ ~ .~-~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~•~ O ,a t ~ 4,. I':J Legend 3(p - + .~ • Potential Commercial Development 4 ~ ~,~~ ~ ri~`' ~ ~, ~ ~ t \ t _.~ 4 Existing Shopping Center ~ ' ~~ . _' ._. ~ t:! a -~~- ~~ k ~_,~ ` Development Radius Swift Creek Village ~ a ~ "" ommercial ~~' ~1 Mile increments _ ~ ~ ># I ~~' ' ~- r ' '`~ w _ _ ~_ ~y--= - - - ~ ~' , `~_ __, ~ _ vuw uc. vnwam ucw vuw uy <unuiy uaJC aiw ucn wyicNnc~ ucaa. rauyaua ww Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 2~ l~®®~~6 Supporting Document 8 Northern Courthouse Road Plan Land Use Analysis Residential, Office, Commercial & Industrial (8/30/05) A. Purpose of Analysis This analysis attempts to anticipate the need for residential, office, commercial and industrial Land within the study area based on potential market demand and community-wide land use planning .practices. Specifically, real estate professionals often analyze potential uses for property based on the principle of ~~highest and best use", a term often defined as 'the legal use of a parcel of land which, when capitalized,. will generate the greatest net present value of income'. Implied in the term is the notion that market forces.: (supply, demand, competition, etc.) can best determine how land should be used. However, °highest and best use" is only one principle applicable to a land use analysis. Another, equally important principle is ~~most appropriate use" which, borrowing .from the Code of Virginia, might be defined as ~a coordinated, ad_ justed and harmonious development of .lands within a jurisdiction which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, ,safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of that jurisdiction's citizens'. Consideration of both principles is appropriate in a land use plan analysis. This analysis makes no attempt to determine the current or short-term marketability of any one parcel for any one use. Rather, it attempts to anticipate future needs for broad categories of land uses throughout the study area over time. In addition, this analysis does not attempt to suggest the specific relationships of these uses to one another within the study area, or within the. wider community. These relationships are best determined by means of a Comprehensive P/an amendment. Private market forces (availability and price of land, location, character and age of competing businesses, site-specific characteristics such as topography and visibility from roads, etc.) would decide the desirability of a specific use on one parcel over another, as well as the timing for developing such use, based on the principle of `highest and best. use'. The zoning process would determine the appropriateness of such use on a case-by-case basis by applying the guidelines for desirable land use development patterns as outlined in the Plan. - Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 21 Supporting Document 8 Demand for additional, or differently located, land in any zoning classification or land use category is influenced by many factors, some of which are hard to quantify or predict. In addition, limitations on the types and quality of readily available data, together with differing opinions on the significance of this data and how best to analyze, interpret and use it, further complicate the task of predicting future land use needs. For these reasons, this analysis must be viewed as one of many tools used to craft a land use plan amendment for the Northern Courthouse Road Plan study area. B. Study Area Boundaries and Existing Conditions (Map 1) In general, the study area boundaries are: Falling Creek and the Genito Woods neighborhood to the west; Pocoshock Creek, Adkins Road,. and the neighborhoods of Pocoshock Heights and Bexley West to the east; the rear boundary of properties fronting Midlothian Turnpike to the north; and the rear. boundary of properties fronting Hull Street Road and Gregory's Pond to the south. The Plan geography is approximately 8.5 square miles in area, comprising approximately two percent of the land area- of the county. The study area of this Plan amendment includes portions of The Powhite/Route 288 Development Area Plan (adopted in 1985), the Northern Area Plan (adopted in 1986), and a small portion of the Route 360 Corridor Plan (adopted in 1995) and the Midlothian Area Community Plan (adopted 1989). Existing zoning and land use patterns within the study area reflect a mix of residential and agricultural zoning and uses, with retail commercial, office and industrial zoning and uses at the intersection of Lucks Lane and Courthouse Road and near the northern edge of the study area where it approaches Midlothian Turnpike. Powhite Parkway provides the major east/west access, linking the study area to the western end of the county as well as the City of Richmond. Courthouse Road is the major north/south access, joining the study area to the northwestern parts of the county, as well as the central and eastern areas of Chesterfield. C. Summary of Findings A review of zoning, subdivision and site plan activity between 1994 and June 1, 2005 suggests that the demand for new development within the study area is primarily for various types of residential, and to a lesser extent industrial and commercial, uses. The study area has experienced a population growth rate between January Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 22 ®(~~~,~. Supporting Document 8 1994 and December 31, 2004 that is about two percent less than the countywide average. The area's demand for retail and other commercial uses generally appears to be satisfied by shopping centers and other commercial establishments within, and outside of, the study area. However, future residential growth in the area may warrant additional commercial space. Extensive employment center uses are planned to the west of the study area along the Charter Colony Parkway/Route 288/Powhite Parkway area. These outside development factors .will have an impact on the demand for land use within the study area, primarily in the form of residential demand, with some office to provide personal services to surrounding residential and non- residential developments. In most instances, viable residential neighborhoods within the study area are located in proximity to existing or potential office, commercial and industrial sites. Commercial, office and industrial zoning activity should be guided in a manner that protects these neighborhoods. D. Zoning Activity within the Study Area between 1994 and dune i, 2005 (Map 2) Analysis of past zoning activity is one way to anticipate future demand for residential, office, commercial and industrial zoning and land uses within the study area. Specifically, land is typically rezoned with an expectation on the part of the owner/developer, that it can be developed in the future for uses within the new zoning category. Approximately 72 percent of the study area is zoned for a category other than agricultural. This is over the county average of 42 percent, indicating the study area is more developed than the county overall. The following table summarizes zoning activity within the study area between 1994 and June 1, 2005: T e of Zonin Activit Acrea e Rezonin s from A ricultural to Residential classifications 321 acres Rezonin s from A ricultural to Commercial/Office classifications 4 acres Rezonin s from A ricultural to Industrial classifications 4 acres Rezonin s from Commercial/Office to Industrial classifications 1 acre Rezonin s from Commercial/Office to Residential classifications 10 acres Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 23 ~~Oa ~9 Supporting Document B Zoning activity within the study area since .1994 has increased the inventory. of residentially-zoned land, followed by a slight increase in industrial-zoned land. The following table summarizes net zoning gains/losses within the study area between 1994 and June 1, 2005: Zoning Classification Net Change Residential +331~acres Industrial +5 acres Commercial/Office -7 acres Agricultural -329 acres Data for zoning compiled from Chesterfield County GIS data for 5/1/05 Note: this data is a reflection of base zoning only and does not factor uses that may be permitted through CUPD (such as commercial uses on residential property, etc.) The following table summarizes the breakdown of zoning acreage and land usage within the study area as of December 31, 2004: a ~a ~a o ~ c ' ~ c ~ ~ c a~ ~ c as ~ ~ ~ ' u c N ~ a o o ~ a qua a>~ a o>~ Agricultural 1,341 28 920 421 31 Residential 3,268 68 ~' :3 3,097 171 5 Office 27 1 19 8 30 Commercial 64 1 53 11 17 Industrial 78 2 59 19 24 ,~~ 3., ; TOTAL 4,778 100 r.=~. 4,148 630 13 2004 Development Potential Database Note: this data is a reflection of base zoning only and does not factor uses that may be permitted through CUPD (such as commercial uses on residential property, etc.) Data for land use compile from Chesterfield County Planning Department Land Use Database for 2004 (12/31/04) Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 24 ~~~~~~ Supporting Document 8 ZONING ACTIVITY -CONCLUSIONS Based upon zoning activity over the last decade, there is a demand for residentially-zoned land. Current zoning activity, as judged by zoning cases within the Plan geography currently pending before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, suggests that the demand for residentially-zoned land will continue in the coming years. E. Residential Development Activity within the Study Area 1995 to 2004 (Map 3) Another way to anticipate future demand for residential, office, commercial and industrial zoning and land uses is to examine development activity in recent years. The influx of new families into the area and the development of new housing units in subdivisions suggest a demand for residential land uses. Tracking population growth in and around the study area can also suggest future demand for housing, jobs, services and retail trade. The following table estimates population growth rates between 1995 and 2004: Area 1995 2004 % Change Study Area 14,420 17,051, 18 Chesterfield County 242,700 291,000 20 Data for population compiled from estimates in the Chesterfield County Planning Department Jana use aataoase ror ~uu4 (12/31/04) As indicated by this table, the study area's population growth rate, from 1995 to 2004, is estimated to be two percent less than the countywide population growth rate for the same period. Residential development within the study area is characterized primarily by single-family residences in subdivisions, by residences on acreage parcels, and by residential units in multi-family complexes. i. Single Family A review of Chesterfield County GIS data between 1995 and 2004 reveals an increase of 958 single-family residences (in single family subdivisions and on acreage parcels) within the study area during this time period, from 5,228 residences to 6,186 residences, or an increase of about 18 percent. A similar review for the entire county during this time period for single family residences reveals a countywide increase of about 24 percent. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 25 ~®~~~~ Supporting Document 8 According to The Chesterfield County Residential Report (July 2004), the study area had an inventory of about 336 undeveloped lots in recorded and tentatively approved subdivisions (approximately five percent of all lots within the study area). For the same year, the county as a whole had an inventory of 24,777 such lots (approximately 24 percent of all lots within the county). 2. Multi-Family, Condominium & Townhouse A review of Chesterfield County GIS data from 1995 to 2004 reveals no increase in the number of multi-family, condominium and/or townhouse residences within the study area during this time period. i4 similar review of the entire county during this time period for multi-family, condominium and/or townhouse residences reveals a countywide increase of 34 percent. However, a TASCON project was approved in 2004, but is as yet undeveloped, that will add approximately 160 condominiums to the area. According to The Chesterfield County Residential Report (July 2004), the study area had no undeveloped units in multi-family, condominium and townhouse developments:. -For the same period, the county as a whole had an inventory of 3,728 undeveloped units (19 percent. of all multi-family, condominium, and townhouse units within the county). RESIDENTIAL DEMAND -CONCLUSIONS The biggest demand for new housing within the study area has been single family housing in subdivisions, based on zoning, residential construction, and subdivision activity since 1995. Only around five percent of the study area's residentially-zoned land is still vacant or minimally-improved. Furthermore, the study has much less multi-family housing than the county average. In addition, the Courthouse Road corridor is situated between three major existing and planned commercial nodes (Midlothian Turnpike, Hull Street Road, and Charter Colony Parkway), and could therefore support a higher density of residential development along its frontage within the study area. F. Office, Commercial & Industrial Development Activity within the Study Area Between 1995 and 2004 (Map 3) 1. Office Development In recent decades, major office zoning and development activity (office park use) has occurred in the northern .portions of the county, along Midlothian Turnpike and the Powhite Parkway corridor. In addition, many- properties Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 26 ~~®~~~ Supporting Document 8 zoned for such use a decade or more ago have yet to begin developing. However, with the recent completion of improvements to Route 288, it is anticipated that such development will occur just outside of the study area. A review of construction activity between 1995 and 2004 suggests that approximately 13,710 square feet of office space has been developed within the study area, or about 0.9 percent of such space developed countywide for the same time period. OFFICE DEMAND -CONCLUSIONS There are currently eight acres of office-zoned land that is currently vacant or minimally-improved. Office demand within the study-area will most likely continue as specialized offices supporting other uses, such as retail ,and industrial development, and supporting the needs of area residents for personal and professional services. 2. Commercial Development Commercial development patterns within the study area are primarily characterized by commercial zoning and uses along the northern edge of the geography (near Midlothian Turnpike), and at the intersection of Lucks Lane and Courthouse Road. A review of construction activity between 1995 and 2004 suggests that approximately 38,461 square feet of commercial space has been developed within the study area, or about 0.6 percent of such space developed countywide for the same time period. a. Commercial -Shopping Centers (Map 4) The study area contains one neighborhood-scale shopping. center. In addition, the study area is within the service radius of six convenience centers, 17 neighborhood centers, 10 community centers, five. power centers, and one super regional center. Overall, these shopping centers are healthy, with low vacancy rates and well-maintained .parking and landscaped areas. Exceptions are the shopping centers at the intersection of Route 360 and Courthouse Road (Rockwood Plaza, Rockwood Square. and Oxbridge Square), which have had difficulty in recent years in maintaining a healthy mix of commercial uses. Because the study area is situated between two heavily-developed commercial corridors (Route 60 .and Route 360), most of the study area's current and future need for shopping centers will most likely be provided by Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 27 ~®®~~~ Supporting Document 8 shopping centers and other types of commercial establishments located outside of the study area. b. Commercial -Freestanding In addition to existing and planned shopping centers, commercial development within the study area is characterized by freestanding commercial uses near Route 60 (Midlothian Turnpike). Included among these uses are: small retail and convenience stores; contractor's offices, shops and storage yards; motor vehicle repair; personal services; a nursery, among other uses. About half of these uses (by acreage) have developed since 1994. Since a large number of freestanding commercial uses currently exist along Midlothian Turnpike and Hull Street Road, the demand for additional freestanding commercial space should be relatively low in the study area. COMMERCIAL DEMAND -CONCLUSIONS Commercial zoning and development activity, both within and outside of the study area, appears to be healthy, with little vacancy in area shopping centers (with the exception of those centers at Route 360 and Courthouse Road) and some newer freestanding businesses. There are currently 11 acres of vacant or minimally-improved commercial zoned -land. The study area is primarily served by retail opportunities that lie outside of, but in close proximity to, the geography. Thus, future demand for commercial services should be provided by areas outside of the study area. The development potential of existing commercially-zoned land within the study area would be affected by physical constraints such as parcel size and configuration, access, visibility, and by environmental constraints such as floodplains and wetlands. Also, market forces such as location, supply, demand and competition would influence the commercial viability of existing zoned sites as well as any lands that the Plan might suggest are appropriate for such uses based on established zoning and land use analysis guidelines. The Plan should account for these factors and suggest appropriate, alternate sites for commercial zoning and land use, suggesting more land for commercial development than might develop based. on market demand alone. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 28 ~~~~~~ Supporting Document 8 3. Industrial Development Most industrial zoning and land uses within the study area are located near Midlothian Turnpike in the northern end of the geography. Southport Industrial Park is the major industrial development in the area. Between 1995 and 2004, approximately 54,585 square feet of industrial space has been developed within the study area. INDUSTRIAL DEMAND -CONCLUSIONS The study area has experienced moderate industrial development over the past decade, with nearly all of this occurring along Midlothian Turnpike. There currently exists approximately 19 acres of industrial-zoned land that is vacant or minimally-improved. Future industrial development will most likely continue to locate in the vicinity of Midlothian Turnpike on the study area's northern edge. Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 29 ~~Q~~~ Supporting Document 8 Map 1 Roads Study Area Boundary Source: Chesterfield County 61S data. Septemher 2[105 Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 30 ~®®~~~~ M m w c a~ U O O c 0 Q N C. a \V ~, ~~ 'a UN L L a ~- .~-~~ m O m N 11 B m i~ N ~ O ~ ~i ii T fC ui rl r+ r, r+ w ;~~ ri r- rn ~ r i - ff1 rl a, i `i i `i i 1 ~ tl i l R' fl' R' f1' R' R' R' O n i I '~ ~ _ 1 1: i _ ~ a -_a 8 '`1 J ~ _ ~ ~ - ti ~ I ~ 4~z ' l i -, 1 is ~ r ~~I ~ -_ ` ` 1 ,.._1 T ~ -~ ~r 1~ I - _ _ ~ ~ . - ~ -1--` _ ,, ~ .~ ~ r , . ~ ~ t ~ ~ I ~ - ~ N 0 0 O v N V C V ^c W U O a a c r~ a -~ r~ 0 a~ 0 O U c L a~ t 0 z ~®Q~~~ N M ro c a~ E U O O c 0 Q M fl. _~ Q. ~,/~ I.L d w ~ ~ fl t = ~ ~ ~ E V ~- a s a}i ~p a J N ~ 'v1 C Y7 _ ~ ~ ~ v ~Z 7 ~ ~~' ~ h ~ c m e6 ~ ~ r tl? ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ E o Q s ~ ~ ii ~ 8 co 0 A a o ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ "y m o U z ~ cs 8 l ~v u. O m ~ Q o ~ ,n _ ~ ~n ~ ~ V 4 ~ 5 O a ~ cn l yr l 7-' i'n ~ v u 1 O~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ +~ c a~ E U O ~1 C O Q O. C a -o r~ 0 GC a~ 0 O U L a~ t 0 z ~~0~~~ m c a~ E U O c 0 Q ~' f$ C 7 a ~ V a, a~ a o °' L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ +~~+ d T O Q ~ ~^ a 5 V1 L].I O ~ G L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a.,a' e 1~ p ~i ~„~ ~ r ~ Of V O.. ~ e N w .~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ L ~n ,~ ~~ ,~ y ai ~ ~ ui m m ni ui _ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ `o ~ ~. v z~~ ~ ~ a c v ~ ~~~-~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . o ~ ® 0 0 0 o ~ ~ ~.n p~~~ ~d ~~ a - ., ,, -,, . ~ - ,`~. M M ~~(^}T Om ~ ~ c _ 1) ILL 'Li ~J ~ 1L °o ~ #y o m iu d uFi c~ ~ E O o ~~ 00 a^ a o V r-, ~° ~~> ~ rv gb ~~ c a~ E U O C L ~. a c a r~ 0 a~ 0 7 O U c t 0 Z ~~®r~~~ Supporting Document C Northern Courthouse Road Amendment Transportation Options Maintenance and construction of Chesterfield County's road system is the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has been inadequate to address existing needs, and the prospects for additional state funding are uncertain at best. Alternate funding sources continue to be investigated to address the shortfall between road needs and available funding. Several options have been considered for supplementing the state road funding. The following options are available to supplement state and local funding but would not be sufficient to address all of the county's needs. Options include, but are not limited to: • Use of Cash Proffers for Road Debt Service: The 2004... General Assembly established local authority to use cash proffer revenues for the repayment of bonds. Discussions with rating agencies indicate unfavorable bond ratings on cashproffer backed debt due to the uncertain long-term reliance on this revenue stream. • General Obligation Bonds for Roads: Voters overwhelmingly approved the issuance of $40 million in general obligation bonds for roads in the 2004 referendum.. No bond projects were in the plan area. Bonds are repaid from locall~penerated revenues. Additional referenda on general obligation bonds could be used in the future to fund road improvement projects. However,.the county's available debt has- been allocated through 2011, and there is no capacity to issue additional debt until that time. Reprioritization ofLocal Capital Improvement Funding Sources for Road Projects: The Board of Supervisors annuall,~pts a Capital Im~rovement~Program (CIP) allocating funding sources to many competing needs such as schools, public safety, humanservices and general county improvements. Road funding has been primarily considered a state responsibility, and has not kept pace with current needs. A reprioritization in the CIP of available resources could shift funding from these noted areas to road projects, in essence supplementing state funding. has been collected for roads countywide. Cash Proffer funds for road improvements must be spent in the area of the county where they are generated. Since 1990, approximatelX those funds have been. spent fixing roads in that area of the count Northern Courthouse Road Plan Supporting Documents 34 ~~~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study From Lucks Lane.to Route 60 Chesterfield County The report is based upon the reported accidents within this: section during the latest three-year reporting period, 1 April 2003 through.: 31 .March 2006,. Please be reminded that VDOT utilizes the DMV accident reporting. system, which requires an accident to accrue a# least $1,000 in property damage or a personal injury to be reported. Minor accidents will not make this threshold. There were 250 accidents within this 2.53 mile section. which produces an overall accident rate of 246.accidents per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (HMVMT). This rate is higher than the typical rate for similar. six lane primary roadways, which are 179 accidents per HMVMT. There were 75 injury accidents, in which 117 persons were injured which produces an injury rate of 115 injuries per HMVMT as opposed #o the state average of 85 HMVMT. The three fatal accidents produce a death .rate of 2.96 fatalities per HMVMT, also higher than the statewide average of 0.4 deaths per HMVMT. The mos# likely reason for the higher accident rate is the number of signalized intersections. The overwhelming majority of the accidents occurring within this section took place at, or within 500 feet of a signal. Accident Summary Length in Miles 2.53 Fatal Accidents 3 Persons Killed 3 Injury Accidents 75 Persons Injured 117 Property Damage Accidents 172 Amount of Property Damage 1,130,628 VDOT 2006 Study 1 Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 2 The complete list of accidents is arranged by milepoint on the following: Five signals are located within this. section, not including Route 60. As can be seen from the spreadsheet, the majority of accidents were located at or within the operational areas of the signals. Of the 250 accidents, only 75 were beyond a 500 foot radius of a signal. The typical accident type at traffic signals are rear- end collisions. On a multi-lane facility, such as Route .653, sideswipes (same direction) are also expected. Rear-ends accidents at signals occur due to simple driver attention, .following too closely or the lead driver stopping unexpectedly in response to a signal change. Sideswipes occur as drivers attempt to switch lanes to find more favorable passage. Theoretically, angle collisions are eliminated at signals, but this is completely dependent upon driver obedience to the signal. ihdication. There is a growing trend toward drivers failing to obey the signal, sometimes deliberately. 35 30 ~ 25 ~ 20 ;* .~ 15 a: 10 5 0 . . Accidents by Time of Day ~ ~ ' o -'o- o 0 ' ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. o o. o 0 0 0 0, o ,. . 0. O 0~0 O O O O ~O' O O O .O O A O t0 O-.0~ O. O O- O 0~ ;, p`^ iy N~ ~ M' <I'-~`' N ~' ~.~.. ' n, OD . O>' O .+"' ^:N' M Y ~ ' ~>.`~'t0' 1'~ -.;:^OD - ' Of . , O.. ; r '' N . M ,.: ~: . N ~,- rte. r ..~ . r ~ : r a, r r. N . M N . m .~ - , ,,, . .. _y ~, ... Time - r ~ An interesting point in the analysis is the time of day when the accidents occurred. As shown above', an overwhelming percentage of accidents take place in the afternoon. Typically, the number of accidents is closely aligned with the traffic volume. Throughout the day the volume fluctuates, with higher peaks in the rush hours, between 7:00 - 9:00 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM. The number of accidents in the PM are beyond the proportion of traffic volume. Another anomaly is the direction of travel, with 40% of the accidents involving northbound traffic, and 60% southbound. VDOT 2006 Study 2 ~®®~'~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 3 Intersection Lucks Lane (milepoint 13.98 -14.09 Accident Summary Lucks Lane Rear-end 11 Angle 7 Sideswipe, same direction 2 Fixed object in road 2 Fixed object off road 4 Non-collision 1 Total 27 Twenty-seven accidents occurred at Lucks Lane in total, including one fatality. The fatality occurred as the result of an elderly driver, traveling northbound, then suddenly crossing the median and striking oncoming two southbound vehicles. It is possible that the driver was experiencing a medical emergency prior to the crash. Six of the seven angle collisions were related to the Minit Mart convenience store located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection: The driveway is located within the right turn lane serving the intersection. Drivers attempted to pull out from the store and were struck by southbound Courthouse Road drivers. Most of accidents took place in raining conditions, indicating a possible problem with drainage or a polished road surface. Please refer to, the collision diagram below: Intersection ChervlAnn (milepoint 14.05 - 14.25 This intersection has been the subject of several signal studies requested by area residents, but the volume of outbound traffic fails to meet minimum threshold volumes. CherylAnn serves a larger residential area including Heatheridge, Crystal Farms and Briarcliff and interconnects with Dakins and Reams Roads. If possible, this area could benefitfrom a more convenient VDOT 2006 Study 3 Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 4 access to Courthouse Road, perhaps by extending Lucks Lane or Smoketree to the east. Twelve accidents, including seven angle collisions were reported, and are shown on the attached collision diagram: As can be seen, no clear accident pattern exists. There were two angles involving northbound and westbound- left turns, two southbound and westbound left turns, and one northbound and westbound right turn. A pedestrian fatality took place at this crossover as a local woman coming back from a store, attempted to -cross Courthouse in the dark was struck by a northbound vehicle. Intersection Smoketree (milepoint 14.68 - 14.88) With 49 accidents, this location had the highest number of accidents within the study section. This is possibly due to a -long horizontal curve or related to the lane reduction, which lies to the south of the intersection. Accident Summary -Smoketree Rear-end 39 Angle 5 Sideswipe, same direction 3 Fixed object off road 1 Deer 1 Total 49 Intersection Berrand Road (milepoint 15.08) This minor intersection lies just to the south and within the operational area of Reams Road. Rear-end collisions assigned to Berrand are spill backs from the stopped northbound movement at Reams. There was a single angle accident involving a northbound left-turner entering Berrand and a speeding southbound VDOT 2006 Study 4 ®~~~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 5 driver. Accidents are .few at this intersection due to the minor #raffic volume Berrand currently carries. Intersection sight distance is restricted for the outbound Berrand driver by the long horizontal curve and high embankments flanking the .intersection on both sides. On the northwest quadrants, the intersection sight distance is reduced further by an advertising sign in front of the medical office. Although the sign is on private property, the office should not be allowed to impede safe movements at the intersection. On the southwest quadrant the embankments and dense vegetation reduce sight distance to the oncoming northbound driver. Intersection Reams Road (milepoint 15.09 - 15.29) This intersection lies within a long horizontal curve which -reduces stopping sight distance and visibility to #lie signal heads. However, sight distance is within standards, and the signals can be detected far enough away to react in time to the indication. Four rear-end accidents were on the southbound approach, where the sight distance is more restricted. Seven rear-end accidents were northbound. The number of rear-end accidents (17) is not inordinately high for a signalized intersection, but the number of angle collisions is very unusual. The angle pattern involves southbound left turns from Courthouse onto Reams, impacted by northbound through drivers on Courthouse. This signal does not allow left turns to be made if the northbound movement has a green indication. This means that one of the drivers were at fault. Of the thirteen angle accidents, eight were clearly identified as the northbound driver disregarding the red signal, one was the southbound left turner's fault and two were disputed. Please see the attached collision diagram to review the accident pattern. VDOT 2006 Study 5 ~~®~rJ~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 6 Accident .Summary -Reams Rear-end 17 Angle 13 Sideswipe, same direction 1 Fixed object off road 3 Other Animal (dog) 1 Total 35 The signal timings were reviewed and equipment inspected, but there were no timing or mechanical problems which could explain the high angle accident pattern. Although the accident pattern does not support an immediate need, in the future the outside eastbound acceptance lane on Reams Road should be extended. Currently, the southbound double left tum from Courthouse Road must execute an immediate merge maneuver after making the turn. This results in an under- utilization of the outside left turn lane and could potentially result in sideswipe accidents on Reams Road. Intersection Edenberrv (milepoint 15.74 - 15.94) Of the signalized intersections, Edenberry had the. fewest overall .number of accidents within the study area. The types and number of accidents are to be expected. VDOT 2006 Study 6 ~~~~,~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 7 Accident Summary - Edenberry Rear-end 6 Angie 3 Sideswipe, same direction 2 Fixed object off road 1 Fixed object in road 1 Non collision 1 Total 14 Intersection Southlake (milepoint 16.01 -19.21) This intersection experienced 21 accidents within the study period, which includes ten angle collisions... One of the angle collisions resulted in a fatality. There were no hardware or timing problems with the signal equipment; the accidents occurred as the result of the drivers' failure to obey the signal. All but one of the angle accidents were attributed to the Courthouse Road driver. The pattern of accidents is plotted on the attached collision diagram. As can be seen, the majority of rear-end accidents took place in the northbound lane, a cluster of five approaching the intersection. Two more rear-end accidents were north of the intersection, as the result of stopping or slowing vehicles beyond Southlake. The angle collisions were split in three different quadrants. There are no counter-measures suggested, as the accidents were attributable to simple driver error or disregarding the signal indication. VDOT 2006 Study 7 ~~~r~~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 8 Accident Summary - Southlake Rear-end 9 Angle 10 Sideswipe, same direction 1 Fixed object off road 1 Tota! 21 Intersection Busv Streetllnternational Drive See the attached collision diagram. This intersection was examined previously at the request of someone who worked in an office building on. Busy Street. Following an acciden#, he made the observation that a right turn followed by a U- turn downstream was faster and safer than attempting a direct left turn to enter Courthouse. The collision diagram and directional count bears this out. Accident Summary Busy/ln#ernational Rear-end 2 Angle 9 Total 14 Direct left turns from the sidestreet onto a six lane road can be very difficult as gaps in both sides of Courthouse Road are infrequent except during low volume periods. It is far easier to make a right turn, enter the southbound stream and make a U-turn at the next crossover to the south. .There are no accidents recorded at that crossover. Each. conflicting direction can be navigated sequentially, rather than simultaneously. Indirect left turns are made at the Busy VDOT 2006 Study 8 Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 9 Street crossover by patrons exiting the Town Crossing :Shopping Center immediately to the north of this intersection. Intersection Towne Crossing Shopping Center This shopping center is located at the crossover 300 feet to the south of Route 60. The shopping center's driveways are within the operational area of the intersec#ion of Midlothian... Queues from the signal .routinely back up through the northbound driveways. There is a pattern of angle collisions from southbound left turns struck by .northbound through drivers. Some attempted to weave through the queue of traffic and were struck in an open lane. (See collision diagram) The eastern shopping center driveway currently lacks a Stop sign.. Summary and findinos This section of Courthouse Road has an accident rate that is higher than the statewide average for this .type of facility. The higher rate may be at#ributable to the number of signalized intersections within the section, :where the majority of accidents took place. Minor concentrations of accidents took place at some of the unsignalized crossovers, notably CherylAnn, Busy/International, and Towne Crossing shopping center: The signalized intersections .of Lucks Lane, Smoketree, Reams Road and Southlake had an inordinate number of accidents. The signal equipment was checked and the timings were found to be acceptable. A number of rear-end collisions are expected at signals, however the number of angle collisions, in which a driver disregards a red indication, is not. Red light running is being seen with greater frequency, .negating the assumed safety benefits of traffic signalization. I found the signage, pavement markings and geometry throughout the route to be in good or very good condition. The overwhelming contributing factor in the accidents is simple human error. As such, the findings focus more on human factors that influence the higher accident rate, not on physical or signing changes. It is more beneficial to simplify the drivers' task, minimizing the disruptions to flow and reducing decision and conflict points through the route. These are concerns which can be applied in the long term. VDOT 2006 Study 9 ~~®~ ~~ Courthouse Road Corridor Study Page 10 Minimize the number of future signals and. crossovers. Given the accident concentrations throughout the corridor were centered ,around the signalized intersections with lesser concentrations at unsignalized crossovers, it is essential to limit the number of future signals and crossovers to help maintain as safe and efficient corridor as possible.. Where a potential site may create a need for trafi~c signals it is vital that the spacing from adjacent intersections promotes good progression through the section. Maintain better corner- clearance at signalized intersections by keeping commercial entrances and o#her intersections outside of the operational areas. As exhibited in the Lucks Lane. collision diagram, poor comer. clearance can result in an inordinate number of accidents relative to the traffic volume experienced at the driveway. Promote use of indirect left turns by utilizing downstream crossovers for U-turn maneuvers. As shown in #lie Busy Streetllnternational Drive diagram,- indirect left turns can be far more efi•ICient and safe than direct left. turns. Keeping the downstream crossovers unrestricted is critical. In future developments, rather than creating a new crossovers, upstream and downstream crossovers may be improved to enhance channelized "U-Turn Only" movements. Establish a connection to better serve the residential areas to the southeast of Reams Road, preferably at an existing signal. This area contains Heatheridge, Runnymede; Breechwood Farm and Forest Acres Subdivisions, but has no signalized points of access in enter Courthouse Road. `These subdivisions are served via Cherylann and Dakins Roads, intersections which continue to be points of concern. In the long run, an extension of Lucks Lane or Smoketree. may help alleviate past access problems into and out of #his area. VDOT 2006 Study 10 ~~~~ ~~ a~ ~ N ~ rcjs ~ N ~ O O Q ~ '~ ~ O ~ fV to ~ O O ~ to o O eo ~ 00 C'f M O ~ > ~ pp O N n N O ~ N ~ ~p e- a ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ O ~j ~ ~4 ~~ ~tlj ~0 ~0~~ G n ~ a ~ N ~ N ~ ~ C ~ a' ~ O > O O A ~j N p~ Q C e- V f V _ ~O '- ~ ' Q ~ N ~ ^ •~ 00 O O lY ~ • ~ O N O O ~n O ~! O CD p 0 Q ~ ' ~! fh O~ N O ~ O INA i ~Cl °i~ O Q ~N ~ O ~ N _~ ~f i a O d i r U N ~ b ~ p ?) 1 i N N i ~ ~( C.- C C ~ •N 1 r C ~ •~ O '7 O N N ~ U ~ ~ 7 J .___~ Q~ C fC c0 M ~ ~ ~' ~`` .Y O ~ ~ ~ ~..~ ~ M J _~ ~ ~iS _N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"' •O 0 ,~ Q~ V ~ ~ _ ~U U n v M N o~ M a g 0 O O r r ~ ~ ~ °O O ~ N ~ ~ O o U ~ O O O (~ ~ N ('~ ~ O > N 7 ~ ~ ~ r C_ N ~ ~ ~ y C _~ d ~ O ~ r ~ O M ~ O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N r O Q Q C .~{ ~ O Q f V 02S N ~ ~ f") o O~ p O ~~ ~ ?~ N y ~ N ao etS~ ~ ^ _~ ~U :- U o n L J ~ s U p 0 ~o vo ~ N N En OD ~ N Q' O F a O fV ~ ~ C`M N ~ 0 M T O ~., Q Q N~ O ~ O ~ N p~ ~ ~ N p~ N p~ ~ ~ d (0 N fQ ~ d U o U o U o U VDOT 2006 Study 11 ~~~a ~~.. <. ~o °^ o 0 o T N 0 oU ,n o $ o N ~ N ~ ~ v Z ~~ op ~ ~ ~ p ~ N ~ N o U d oU 0 ~o ~~ ~~ 0 p N ~ O ~ o- N 0 0 U M p N O r N o ~ o~ N ~ ~, ~+ U c U ~~ r N 'J ~ ~ 0 ,/ / `~ ~° Y ~ o 1 0 ('7 p O V ~ a O N ~ ~ m f0 i~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ C o o ~ N ~ o N _ O ~ N A d _ o U ~ ~ U N . C. 1 O ..O O ~~ 00 N ~ O ~ dv .~ ~ awo i ~a;'=, o p ~' o ~" O ° `~ o N o p T sf o ~ ^ oN N d O N [O N ~ p a ~ .. U r o ~ ,~ °ts N ~ o U c c ~~ ~~ ~~ = O c~~UU ~ c7 ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ 0 ~ U~~U 3 O U a M N v a g VDOT 2006 Study 12 ~~~~~~~ 0 O N O N O ~ ~ V! O ~ N N ~ O ~ O g O ~ ~ O ~ ~- N ® o t0 ~ to M ~ N ~ O Vf d'tn~~ V' r ~o ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ °~N~ has v UoU~~m - 'bU L 1 I N I I ~ I ~ i ~ ~ I 1 f t ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ I a ~ ~ o O O _ O ctl O ~ ~ ~ ~C N O O N ~ ~ ~ ~ ny O U 0 N ~ ~ ~~ o~ ~. ~.-- o N cOM ~ 4 O N d O O T O U N ~- ~ ~ ~ O N 4 U o~ ~ '-~ co ors o 0 0 2 ~ ~p O N -- j N _ 00 O N ~ O C') p ~ '7 ~ GO et ~ O ~ r O O ~ O ~ .y M ^ ~ M p N O pOp >>N N O O O M N N 7 N~ ~Q r O O ,~. A'S ~ O .: ~ " O ~ N ~ O 'l7 O ~ . ~ T L v y N~ c~U ~~ oaf p ott `' r' o U .- c o ~ O ~ o oo ~ ~ ~°~ o 0 0 r~ + v ~ ~ ~ ~ y t N M ~ O O O M j j N ~ N T 'R' O N > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!S ' N O oty .- N ,~'~. CS U ~ r ~ ~ O to N . .~ r O(~.•- g Q .~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o 0 N ~ M ~ N ~ N o U o ~ 4 ~ o o U N J LL Q ~~ m 0 N E N Q' N E ti c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~o~~U ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ S © ~ V ~ p U N rn _~ a VDOT 2006 Study 13 ~~~~ I I N O O N O r O N ~ O ~` V' r M O p O O ry N ~ ~~ O M p N aS O O r '~ In o° ~~ °~ t7 N T N O ~ rn O~~[7 p o ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ 00 N Q ~ ~ ~ 7 r ~ Q ~ N d~ r ~ ~ ~ N a S U N ~ O r N r T a ~ O r ~ N t0 O O O ~"J ~ N O N ~ U ~ ~ ,~ ~ r O 00 N O N ~ N r Nad O °~ N ~od oU d N O N ~ (V '- rU N .- o N r r M ~ O O ` C J ~ p N ~ I ~ - I I I j I ~ O t I i ~ j o I ~ I i O _ _ O Nc`7 ~ ON I ~ M N M ~ O -r O N I t I ~ Qc~ m O M O T N ~ ~ I I N O ~' N~ Nod _ oOp ~'O ~ ~ r Med ~ ~ =O ~~ f` N ON OO N fa ~ N (~ ~ I L N - ~ r ~ U N ~ ~ oi ~ ~ n I i ~ I ~ o VDOT 2006 Study .~ O O cb ~ t0 O7 o O N J Q LL Q II a fD d Y m r 5 Y f~ E ~ s c .-. ~ r• 0 O ~ ~ ~ U ~Mot$~ O ~ ~ ~ .N~ ~~ ~ Q ~ ~ V ~ ~ U 0 U O rn 0 N c0 a 14 ~~®~:~~ 7+ H m C O C ~ C ~ ~ C O ~ ~ AU M 3 '~ C ~ m O '~ ,~ ~ ~ V ~' ~ L o U r O U VDOT 2006 Study i I I '~ ' I :I IN "I I ~ lap I l~~l ~ O ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ I I I l I I ~- ~n o o N p~ N (h O pp O N ?y C7 ~ O rn 0 N 0 C`7 ffl a N O Q ~O H O C>' t~ a 0 N I _~ "y N ~~! N I v o ~ U I ~ ~. I ~ o o ~ _ I ~t ~ N - ~ O O N A . M C~ r ~ N O o U ~ T o U N ~ O r O N ~ Q ~ 'b ~ ~ a ~ O Op O M Z' `c~ U M °o S'~ ~ c°• i 0 et °o /- ~ N h ~ O O to ~ a N ~ T N N ch p O s'~• @. ~ N ~ t0 u~ O Q' a ~ O ~ ~ ~• ~ ~ N ~ ~ _~ ~ O O T oU ~~ oo cvQ ~ N M nj ~ oO M d 3 O c`~ w - (7 ~ N ~ v °o r- U M ~ ° o ~, o O f 7 ~ ~ ~ N ~ r o ~ ~ c ~ U °- Z' ,n 'cc 0 N O o ~ °~ 0 N ~ ~ O, c`~U o ~ o U I j I I I l I I I l aN ~ ~ l i ~ ~ ~ I I o ~^ I ~ N O I I o~l I oU O C O .~ C 15 ~~~~~~ 1 ?m 7 O1 C .N N O U Q~ E vii c ~ o ~ o c~~U p 3 ~ a~ o I~ `C .N ~ N VDU O M ~ 00 ~ O O ~ O N O rn ~ N ` oU I^ N a g I ~ I I I I I I I I co 00 Iv I ~ o j~°o I vvMi I '~ I °o I$~ I N p n O A O ~ N 0 ~ i N ~ oU ~ O ~ O ~ O 00 ~ a2S I N I _~ I ~ I I U_ I M I I two I ~ I 3 Q' a~ 0 0 H N u ~ . ~ o O N ~ ~ N Q n O ~ N r 0 O °a r S U t0 g T rn O o O N ~, N ~ utS o ~ 'O ~ 0 0 0 ~ o U fp O O N ~ N O o ~' ~ r ~- U O O ~ ~ N o~ ~ ~ a8 ~ M ° U o C~ o ~ N ~' ~ N N r ~ I I I I I I I I I I I COI I I g ~ j I o 0 ~ I N °~ I I N ~ I _d oU N l0 W Q~ C .N N O U c VDOT 2006 Study 16 ~~~e ~~ iX/ tI ; .t ~~ C®I~M~N~VEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RICHMOND DISTR#CT 243o PINE FOREST bRIVE DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COLON#AL HEIGHTS, VA 23834 COMMtSS10NER virginiadot.org May 16, 2007 Mr. R. J. McCracken Transportation Director County of Chesterfield Past Office Box 40 Chesterfield, Virginia 23832 REFERENCE: Courthouse Road Community Ptan Chesterfield County, Virginia Dear John: pIR~0~0~ 't Pt,~y~tNOD~' ° A review of the proposed Courthouse Road Community Plan was conducted by the Richmond District staff. Comments were generated by both the Transportation Planning Section and the Traffic Engineering Section. A summary of the review follows: 1. The proposal clearly identifies both existing and proposed land uses. The proposal recognizes that continued development in the plan area, and surrounding areas, will result in increased traffic volumes. Six (6) land use goals are identified, all noting that they are "carrying forward" principles previously identified. While there is no specific tabulation of the Land use differences between the existing Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, it appears that the proposed plan amendment does not propose significant land use changes that would change anticipated transportation impacts. 2. The existing transportation network and proposed changes to the network are clearly identified. Transportation goals include three{3) recommended modifcations {A-C) from previous plans. VDOT has no objection to these recommended modifications. 3. Transportation goals also include three (3) continued recommendations (D-F). VDOT supports these recommendations. 4. The plan identifies limitations and opportunities. Capacity limitations aze identified for significant roadways. within the plan azea. Future volumes are not identified, nor is there a plan specific performance/needs assessment included. Specific VDOT Comments 1/2007 Mr. R. 3. McCracken Transportation Director May 16, 2007 Page Two recommendations far transportation improvement projects are not included; generic county wide needs are identified and limited funding opportunities are noted. Limitations are noted for. Reams and Providence Roads. Specific recommendations from the recently completed safety study of the Courthouse Road Corridor are as follows: a. CherylAnn Intersection - As this intersection will likely riot meet signalization warrants, it is recommended to extend Lucks Lane or Smoketree to the east to allow additional interconnectivity. b. Berrand Road Intersection -Improve restricted sight. distance for the outbound Benrand driver. This would involve moving of an advertising sign (on private property) and reduction of the existing embankments. c. Reams Road Intersection -Extend existing receiving lane on Reams Road from southbound Courthouse Road. 5. VDOT supports the opportunities that are recognized and noted in the plan, e.g.: a. Possible aggregation of parcels to achieve better access~spacing. b. Possible closure of the Berrand crossover/restricting turnsiproviding new access to align with Reams Road signal. c. Possible median on Reams Road limiting access to right-in/right-out for the southeast quadrant. d. Limiting access to parcels nearby to critical intersections. e. Encouragement of pedestrian access. f. Consideration of bike facilities. g. Noting of public transportation services. Additional Recommendations: • Minimize the number of future signals. • Reduce the size of the unsignalized crossovers. The existing crossovers are too large (too much pavement to accommodate the design vehicle). • Close the existing crossover 0.3 miles north of Lucks Lane. Close the existing crossover at Keybridge Court and Berrand Road. • Maintain better .comer clearance at signalized intersections by keeping commercial entrances and other intersections outside of the operations areas of the signalized intersections. • Promote the use of indirect left turns by utilizing downstream crossovers for u-turn movements. ~~®~~~ VDOT Comments 1/2007 2 Mr. R. J. McCracken Transportation Director May 16, 2007 Page Three Establish a cannectian to better serve the residential areas to the southeast of Reams Road, preferably at an existing signal. This area contains Heatheridge, Runnymede, Breechwood Farm and Forest Acres subdivisions but has no direct access to Courthouse Road. These subdivisions are served via CherylAnn and Dakins Road, intersections which continue to be points of concern. This may be addressed with the extension of Lucks Lane or Smoketree. If you need any additional information regarding this review, please: feel free to contact me at the Chesterfield Residency, 3301 Specks Drive, Midlothian, Virginia 23112, via telephone at (844) 674-2800, or via email at dale.totten(a,vdot.virginia.gov. Sincerely, aIe .Tone , .E. Residency Administrator CC: Cheste~eld County Planning Commission Members Westerfield County Board of Supervisors ~'Mr. Kirk Turner, Chesterfield County Planning. Department Mr. Travis A. Brideweh, Central Region. Operations,' Traffic Engineezing Mr. Mark E. Riblett, E.E., Richmond District Transportation Planning Mr. Boris M. Solomonov, P.E., Land Use Manager, Chesterfield Residency ~~ VDOT Comments 1/2007 3 . Courthouse Road Safety Study From 300' north of Hull Street to I50' south of Lucks Lane Chesterfield County November 1, 2007 This report covers the reported accidents during the latest three-year available reporting period, July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007. The intersection of Courthouse and Lucks was covered in the December 2006 safety study. Accidents within the functional area of the intersection of Courthouse and Hull Street is excluded from'the totals however are included in the collision diagram for reference. VDOT uses the DMV accident reporting system, which requires an accident to have at least $1,000 in property damage, personal injury or fatality to be reported. The available accident reports from D1VIV and onward to VDOT is usually two months behind the present date. For Courthouse Road there were 160 accidents within this 2.2 mile section which produces an overall crash rate of 195 accidents per hundred million vehicle miles traveled (HMVMT). The crash rate for similar roads used for comparison is found in the VDOT's 2004 Summary of Crash Data publication, "primary four-lane divided, no control of access," is 107 HMVMT. This is for state-wide primary roads in Virginia totaling 2005.35 miles. The published VDOT accident rate data available for secondary routes is pmited. The only published secondary road crash rata Is the category "Crash summary by d/sirlct - secondary made - Richmond Dlst-Ict " Thls rate Is 266 crashes per HMVA9T. This calculation !s for all 8,543.5 tulles of secondary roads In the Richmond D-strlcL !t also combines all secondary roads (e.g., from a two lane dIR road to a s/x la»e divided road} with widely varying ADT that could be from 50 to over 30,000 vehlc/es a day. The category "primary four-larre divided no control of access" wes used Instead given the functfon of Courthouse Road. Given the limited published crash rate data for secondary roads we researched similar secondary roads in Virginia and found the following roads/sections and calculated rates: VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~~~~~~ Crash Rate Comparison -Route 653 (Courthouse Road) Versus Similar Secondary Roads Statewide C rt Route ~ , T i i* qp~ Crash Rate s"' our y # -Lanes erm n Crash In'u Fatal' Chesterfield 653 4 Routes 3601720 33-36 195 79 1.223 Fairfax 620 4 Routes 645E/852 403 199 70 ~ 1.29 Fairfax 620 4 Routes 652/123 35-40 188 83 0.00 Fairfax 620 4 Routes 7082/3570 35-43 93 47 0.00 Fairfax 620 4 -Routes 35701845W 285` 68 25 0.00 Fairfax 645 4 Routes 6381643 29-35 174 112 0.00 Fairfax 644 4 Routes 1193/4131 40-47 120 71 2.11 Fairfax 644 4 Routes 638/5237 28-39 198 130 2.69 Pr. Wi{liam 784 4 Routes 1801/1826 30-35 302 181 6.27 Stafford 610 4 Routes 1264/1208 20-32 166 66 2.56 Loudoun 625 4 Routes 634/640 46 253 $4 0.00 Chestefield 653 6 Routes 869/2770 31-39 246 115 2.96 Fairfax 620 6 Routes 3847!3294 73 233 124 0.00 Fairfax 644 6 Routes 7891613 28-37 267 124 0.00 Pr. William 840. 6 Routes 849/2004 19-40 259 116 1.79 Pr. William 2000 6 Routes 640/1781 26-34 366 185 0.00 " Termini approximate -most locations do not include intersection functional areas of routes listed. "' In thousands. '""' Crash rates expressed in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. injury/ fatality rates expressed in persons injured/killed per 100 milUon vehicle miles traveled. For Courthouse Road there were 4l injury accidents, in which 65 persons were injured which produces an injury rate of 79 injuries per HMVMT. There was one fatal accident which produced a death rate of 1.223 fatalities per HMVMT (For comparisons to other similar roads see the above table.) VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~~~~~. 2~ Accident Summary Courthouse Road Length in Miles 2.2 Fatal Accidents 1 Persons Killed 1 Injury Accidents 41 Persons Injured 65 Property Damage Accidents 118 Amount of Property Damage $793;500 Total Accidents 160 (See the Excel spreadsheet for a complete list of accidents.) Accidents by Time of Day 30 .13 2b m 20 ~ 15 10 a s 0 b r !~ ~ a us m 1. oe OI i3 N N Y3 ~~~~~~~~pp1~.~~pp~~~~~$~~~gg~~~~gr~ p ~ O O O O O O O O !+ N iMi ~~ 1q t0 Ir OD Cs N N N N O S O r r r r r r r r r r Time VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~~ 3, 300' Radius Rt. 360 and Rt. 653 Intersection ~Frou3,MP .11.660 to MP 11.77 Accident Summary - Rt. 360 and Rt. 653 Rear-end 29 Angle I4 Sideswipe, sanne direction 3 Sideswipe, opposite direction 1 Fixed object off road 1 Total 48 Forty-eight accidents occurred within a 300' radius of the intersection of Rt. 360 and Rt. 653. Seventeen rear end type accidents occurred southbound on Rt. 653. These accidents are not included in the Accident Summary for total accidents: within the body of this report and are not considered in the calculation of crash rates but are included in the Excel spreadsheet of individual accidents and a collision diagram is provided. Intersection Rt. 679 (MP 12.92) (No.~ignall Accident Summary - Rt. 679/Rockwood Park Total 0 VDOT Comments 1/2007 4 - Intersection Rt. b79 AMP 12.250L(Sgnal~ Accident Summary - Rt. 679 Rear-end 11 Angle 2 Total 13 Intersection Rt. 2211 Seacliff Lane (MP 12.760~No signal) Accident Summary - Rt. 2211 Angle 1 Total 1 Intersection Rt, 2331 Sunset Hills Ih. (MP 12.93Z(IVo signal Accident Summary - Rt. 2331 Total d VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~J® rd~~ ,s Intersection Rt. 678 Providence Rd, (MP 13.05? ~,Signal~ Accident Summary - Rt. 578 Rear-end 11 Angie 11 Sideswi~; same .direction 1 Fixed object off road 3 Total , 25 Intersection 1487 Warrior Trl. (MP 13.10~(No signal) AccidenYSummary -- Rt. 1487 Total 0 Intersection Rt. 767 Academy Dr, AMP 13.13 o si~al~ Accident Summary - Rt. 757 Rear-end 1 Total 1 VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~J~~,6 Intersection Ramp FromlTo Rt. 76 (MPi3:28ZSignal~ Accident Summary -Ramp From/To Rt 76 . Rear-end 12 Angle 10 Sideswipe, opposite direction 1 Fixed object offroad 1 Total 24 Intersection Ramp From/To Rt. 76 ~MP13.531(Signat) Accident Summary -Ramp FromfTo Rt. 76 Rear-end 3 Angle 6 Fixed object off road 1 Total 10 Intersection Rt. 688 Dakins Dr. (MP 13.77 (No signal) Accident Summary - Rt. 688 Rear-end ` 1 Angle 9 Fixed object off road 2 Total 12 VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~~a ~~ 7 Intersection Rt. 1471:Pennway Dr. fMP 13.811 ~No sig n~al) Accident Summary - Rt. 1471 Total 0 " Summary and findings Four traffic signals are located within the study section, not including Hull, Street. As noted in the tables for the signalized intersections the majority of the accidents are located within the functional area of signals and are the "rear end" type. Rear-end. type accidents are common at traffic signals as the signals are causing motorists to stop. There is a project in the design stages on Courthouse Road SB as it approaches Hull Street. (UPC 67967} Hopefully this will enhance safety and operations there. We should explore the removal of the existing traffic signal at Route 679. This signal is served mainly for the Rockwood Park. There have been 13 accidents in the study period. The other existing signals can-provide adequate gaps for this traffic and the police could control the intersection during. special events. A channelized island for right turns is mcommended for Providence WB to Courthouse NB. The signal has to be modified along with this unprovement. This will improve the operations and make a more efficient signal operation. An additional through lane is recommended for Caurthouse NB upstream $00-1000' of the .signal at Providence. The. purpose is for motorists desiring. to go NB on Powhite can use this lane. The traffic signal has to be modified as we1L The:existing NB right turn lane should be extended southward to become the through lane: A new right turn lane should be added to accommodate right turns onto Providence, This improvement ,will improve operations and make a more efficient signal operation. VDOT Comments 1/2007 8 n O O M ~O O .-~ b~ w O b O .~ a +~r' M QQ~ t~0 U~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a U °~ rx ---- M GG ~ f-- -~ ~i W t-~4- 0 0 ~ ~~~~ ~ o o ~-+ ~-+ cr, ~ ~ a~ ° ~ ~a U d A ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ :b ~ b ~ ~ ~ tC A ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ dd~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~. o w Hwa ,., ~ o ~ g a r a VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~~~ ~~ Accidents -Intersection of Rt. 36fl cuid Rt: 653 Accident Study - 300' Radius of Intersection (Pram Nip 11.660 to MP 11.910 Period of Study Ju~r 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 ChesterHeid County Nortti'bouad Rt. 6S3 8onthbonad Rt. b83 Acddent Type -Rear End (12) ~ Accident Type -Rear End (17} ~ ~ o -0aar asm o~-la~as !!n Oaa~~ ~ae~ osoao> >sao o4si-os lns y caaaloo cOnooo casls~ t'l capaoo Aanra9oo «.-0a~oo ~.wsmoo oa.124B 1~ 084x-07 194a 8944 1908 /ill-1948 1749 OSr2!-07.1648 a~1Wr GDi140D 041N6/000 C-0 52800 ~ C-0a1800 `?f 0-0 S1~G GOa1SOD C-0t750D ,~ QSJ17.09 ~Y28 9.8.00 il20 12-t2-0B iB10 Yi3l l1-07-08 it~8 ~ i C-0x2000 C-D aaaoo CU a4ooo R-W 51,780 GUS1009 - G0f~00 R-w ai4oo m-loos 0700 0S0a48 la+o o5+7a49 te27 lzaae 195 ! i! , S~a~ ,oe~.o7~,~+s cwua2ooo R-w t2ooo cwal2oo c.o:1409 caslao9 2 aasazso ca s+4so 0+o7-9e nss c~ aieoo Accident Type -Angle (8) Accident Type -Angle (6) oa o7-l e4s ~1a a m~,~/ oslao7 ~ ,~.,i~! ~ i p ~ ( ~ ~ ' {YY {i~~-L~~{Y{{{Y\{{YYY~L7~i\Y{{{{\{{YY{YY\Y{{r YAI\{YYY{YS..{..YY• Y{Y\Y\Y. Y~w 0/-2848 1420 t9-05 7044 ~s98 0919 Oa•1807 5410 ao~ amoo a co e27a9 • c4o an99 a-w aooo oaao47 sass o9•iaal less ~ ~' owal.a9,zea wa7, -051s19 co alsoo c.o p7s9o co s~5o5 c+o Swoo 09.24-08 7547 1 1412 CO 52000 GD Sa280 Horthbonad Rt. bsa 8onthboassd ttt. b83 Accident Type -Fixed object - off road (1} AccidentType -Sideswipe -same direction (3} 9a-sl.Se ,m ! J~ ,az4.a5 loco ol~~; ,,eao o•o c-o aasoo Accident Type - Sideswipe -opposite direction (1~ o!-aloe oaa R-7Y 52800 VDOT Comments 1/2007 10 0 0 ~r 0 ti b~ w 0 b .~ a ~~ va ~® ~~ ~v ~~ 1r1 ~ U ,~ VDOT Comments 1/2007 0 ~~~~~ ~~~.~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a s ~ a 4 ~ o ~i ~ N O s z~ ~~~ ~~~~ s ~~ ~~ a b 0 U O a 0 o ~o M M llj ~~ .~ ¢A ~ ~ b ~~ /~i '~j 'Gj ^rC, V ~ jQy~~' W v c'~ s~ ~ ~, ~ ~ o Hwa~a ¢~ ~~.~~~ 11 O O M ~' O N '~~ U~ O O v G. ~~ ~ c~ b ..~ ~ ~ N N ~ y ~ AG q ~ U O ~ ~.+ VDOT Comments 1/2007. M~ ~A ~ ~' .- g f- 0 L N N 0 co 0 0 ,-+ o o r-+ r-+ o ~ I ~ ~ ~' ~ b U '~ Q ~ ~ b 0~ y ~ Cd ..i •~ VI Q Q ~ '' ~ ~ ~' c~ c'~ ~,, O ~' pp Cq ~ f~, ~ O F W ~~"~ 4 ~--1 , 12 . n O O M O 'dam f!4 O .b O .~ rQ~ V W wl O ~ fA ~ is d ~ V~ ti VDOT Comments 1/2007 M 0 0 0 N N 0 O '~ N •-+ ~ y .~+ '~ •U Q~ Q b ~ '~ ~ b ~ ~ O p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N w ., ~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ a ~~~~~2 13 Accidents -Intersection of Rt. 653 end Rt. 678 Period. of Study -July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 Chesterfield County Northbonad Rt. 683 (2- Arxident Type -Rear End 1i;11:41.3P3s c.n 6t1ro ao a5ro Acddent Type -Angle (6) iy;y a~,ooa~ o+aaae ~s~6O ~ ao tiooao V co 600 ca a ~~a4oe~ ~ c.o ssooo c.o t~oo~' Q6.+5.05 +er ~~- ca cmoo Acddent Type -Fixed object -off road (1) 'oo- as ra°° ~~ aw t+.soo VDOT Comments 1/2007 t~nthbonnQ Rt. 6S3 (9) Acc[dent Type -Rear End 1 osaaos_ atop a-w so ca azooo 1 41-1P4S3l~ ~1 '~" aoRSro r~-waooo ~~~ 1MO of~soe taro R•W it00D C:O 611ro Oh70-06 lTCd 1120 t0 WE7500 C:D 65000 fl.05.06 t~3 C%bit00ro Accident Type -Angle (5) oersos u5s ~~oa~ ~aaoO •~e Wr p*r 64~5oD + ~P..3605......... sen!!~.4~4 ............... two ~-- ao servo ~O co tuoao ++aaoe ~uSO -,i, ao s~roo Accident Type - Sideswfpe -same direction (1) 11>~~ c,o =~,ioo ~ Accident Type -Fixed object - off road (2) ~ t new c~o amro 14 N 0 O M ti' O n '~~ O . ~, a ~~ ~r ~a ~o M V .mayy trl ~ U ,~' r- a M lf1 ~_ q~ tl 0 0 ~r r, oooor+~ m b ~ .U Q Q '~ ~ 't7 ' 'd ~ .~ . ~" 4r b .~, ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ A '! U ~ ~ U d ~ U d ~ ~ ^ i.+ Q F~" ~ ~ ~ ''~ O H w a .~ ~a ~ ~ r a ~~~~~~ VDO7 Comments 1j2007 15 ~' a 0 1 .~ (.• ~a v~ bW ~ ~ M ~ IA ,ix ~ Ua 0 v ~. O O M m d' O .~ .b a 0 .~ a, N z w 4a VDOT Comments 1/2007 +'I M N 0 0 ri ~ .-,~M~ N o o .-~ ~ ,-~ ~ q a~ a~ ~ U Q Q a~ a~ ~ ~3 .~ ccc~v~ }O., .U b ,'y U ~ (~ P.1 QU' ¢ ~ Q, ~ ~+ ++ ~' a°~ a. o ~ gg Hwa~ar~a 16 Accidents -intersection of Rt. 653 and Ramp From NB Rt. 76 and Ramp To NB Rt. 76 Period of Study -July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 Chesterfield County Northbound Rt. 663 Accident Type -Rear End (2) 1-08 o716O c-0 Soo oeolas^ CL-Other i170p BoutLbonad Rt. 663 Accident Type -Rear End (10) oe-t , O 1zae~ o~or R•w SzSOO c-0 51500 1ana417x1 ~ oe-leas 12ao c-o 52.soo co also Z1.10.OS 1840 1 R-W L0000 C-0 54500 OS28-06 1701 12-0808 /010 c-0 51500 c-o Ssooo 0-07 os5s oa~aa7 1so0 ao seooo c-0 85000 Accident Type -Angle (9) O ~O R 08.18-080718 0 1 1 _• R•W 88000 R•W 511000 1Y ~ 1057 O . C-089000 GD 88100 11 ~~~ 1 O C-0 810000 C-0 81800D -0e 10800 R-W Slosoo Accident Type =Faced object -off road (1) o ~-o ~ 56000 1 Accident Type -Sideswipe -opposite direction (1) ,~ c-n al~aoo Accident Type -Angie (1) Og08.07 1153 O C•D 85500 ,.-...~_ LLD ~ ~ a:A ryiJ VDOT Comments 1/2007 17 ~o n s" § ~ F ~ ~~ ~~ a ~' U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~8 M ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ V 0 x 1 ~. ~ ~ ~~~s ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ a ti a o oocvcvao~ b 8 as .~ ~ ~c~~ ~, b~~~~~A m a~a¢W~a o ~~o ~~~ ~~~Q ~~®~~~ VDOT Comments 1/2007 18 O O M ~ 'O ~ i 1 i ti ti i VJ w 0 8 i ~' ~ ;, ~ F s -- --~ b~ :~ a~~ V a a ----- ~ ~ ~ 1 VDOT Comments 1/2007 8 ~. . ~~ n ~i, ~~~~ N N ~oor~erc~`~ ~A ~b ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~A~ m ~Q ~ ~ a ~~~~ o ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ 19 r. ra k,. ~„ r- } iF~ ~ u `t~ .ic' ~~ y~y '-I~ r ~~ '~ ~--- VDOT Comments 1/2007 f ~~ ~' ~+' ~. lx Ji may: ~~~ ~ ~~ l7af~,7 1~`~yf ref tirP -~ ~ t~ ~' +r ~~ ~~~ E~ ' '~ ~ is ^ '4 TS ~ y~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~~~ ~~®~~ 20 8 R 8 S g R ~ ~ ~ "' l o gl ; I ¢ I 4 a v g ~ ~ 9 ~ 7 ~ B E ~ ., . CC Z g s s~ R~ p i~ al a $I ~ F a ~ ~ o a -- ~ E J: o ~' a ,V .c. 4 f7 N ~ Y~ ~ A o 8 8 d I N .- 4i o S~ 8 bf. - p- A l l ~ ~ ~ ~ .C m V 10 Oi a ~ ° ° ° a;,~~~~~I~SIa . ; 4 ° o ¢~~~~ aa ~ ,; r ;n a c ~ ~ a b c a tl . FT . F ~ >. F . O O O p ~ y 8 a~ 6 ^~ 6 . ti v B s R p :a R• O '~ ~ a, ~ S S v 8 ~ a ~' ~ E 8 3I ». ~I ~ gl M .~ gl BI p ~ gl i ' c 0 y E 4 LMn. ; n ~ 0 ~ N .~ ~ ~ .~. Z ~ r, ~ `~ ."~.. C (C ~ ~ C ~ ~r a e M a a e 'g m a 8' c I I I Vl C; 7 C ~D ~ 4 Q r,. ~ 4 ~ G "~ ~ J ~ u l ~ .c v ' c > > ~ ~ ~ R o s « a , , 5 '~ a V a e ~ c c y~ /: v e ~ F . F H ~ ~ F ~ ~ O .J ~~~ ~`~ ~ VDOT Comments 1/2007 21 O 0 M s~. 0 v a m w O '~ O .~ 0. i~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ o ~ ... a~ a~i ~ w .~ +' U VDOT Comments 1/2007 0 '~ m g ~ ~ ~ n ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ ~ o a ~ x ~ ~ s ~ s m 8 ga~~~~ N N n y s° s ~ m8 ~~ N ~ J 0 Q~i s~ ~Q o U ~ o ~~~„ 0 4 3 x a 0 0 a O O O M M ¢ Q a~i ai ~ '~ ~ ~ p v;~o~•~•cOa ~ ~ ~ ~r7 U U ~ Q ~ y ~ c~ iO ~n ~ ~n a ~ .~ E°c~a ~aci¢ ~~®~~~ 22 a M a~ ~ ~' o~ U *i b ~ ,.., N ~N ~ q U ~"' as 0 0 M ~D c., .~ ~t O -~ c,., O '~ O .~ a i VDOT Comments 1/2007 n~ Q: 8 .n g r m o .~ O a7 0 ~~ .~ w U RS N N 0 0 0 0 m v ~ ~ u ¢ Q x ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ ~ . ~o ~~~ ~TS~ ~'~ ; C] p c~ ~ m ~ m f~. O .~ H La a ~ c ~ ¢ 23 0 0 M c, x O 'G O .ti O .~ 0. ~~ ~ ~ O ~+ ~a b~ M V V1 ~r ~ ~ ,~ ~ U ,~ z ~. 0 0 0 ~o ,~ ,n ~n N O O ~- N -~ &4 «~ G ~ O ,~ 'O ~U U ¢ Q a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ cU O -~ U (Vj ~ ¢ N ~ .~ .~ Hr~a ~aa¢ VDOT Comments 1/2007 24 G ° ~: ~, .~. U 1i -~. g' Si ~" Q Ni O § O O o ~ °{ d ~• ~ ~ ~ O ~ 8 8 & R p 8 ~ V Lv ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ . QU I NI ~ ~ (/} iY ~ Q Q N VV t ~ ~ ~~ 1 4 ~~ ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o o _ ~ .b ~ m ryt~ O r O o p V ~ 8 11~~ IV ~p t~ N .~. pmc H ~i O y q$ ~ }~ O o ~ 8 ~ .po [Y ~ ~ ~ ~ g N (y t~ ~ tYi R q y 4 « c N tt O ~ `^ N ~a O q w fV q ~J M » M O Y ~ .. ~ . n o ~ ~ w a, O in ~G 4 ~j tl q '~ ry e~ / q C ~ 1 / l ~ Try ~ 1 n 0o c ~c ~ cv x~ r; b a -~ a ~ ~ ~ • ~ c x^ 1 ~ J o ~ '' q ._.: o N G ~ `n O y ' g a ~; ~ ~ 8 t y Vi 7 ~ 1fl ~ ~ ~ O ~ 4 ti i r !; C ~ ~j ' Ri W d V p ~ U i 'C y ~ ~r ~ ~ Ci y E" FI ro O ~, ~ ~ ~ F~ ~ 8 ' ('-~i rir LI ~, ~ ~ {tpO ryM~ ~, ~ V ~ ~ O 'L7 ~ UI '~ Ti v g ' ~ I O '~ < ~+ tl ~ ~ ~ o Z < "' ~ ~ `~ ~' 4 4 4 ~ C ~ a ~ 0. `, G ~' ~ ~ U ~ U < U C o V R VDOT Comments 1/2007 25 0 0 M ~. '~ ~i' O "~ w O '~ O .~ a ~ti ~ ~ o ++ U p: ~ o :«: " ~. ~ ~ y to 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~: Q~ M VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~_ o w ~ 4 a 0 0 ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ U Q Q ~ ' ~J ~' to ~ ~ ~ ~~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . v ~ ~ ~ ~ o. Q ¢ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ V ~ O O F ~ ~ .~ a ~ a a c ~~~ ~~ ~ 26 d r 0 r ~ 6 8 ~ .` 4 v u .F' a a" C ~ E ~ ~ U ~ s a ~y V ~ N ~j~ • N O U M • ~ •. e ~ H ~ Y ~ ~ n u U o a' `, a 1 ~ o a. ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~p ~ . n ~ d O s ~~ ~ ~ v w $A- ~' $ d S ~ O O <v ;N ao ~j w c E u C <. ^_ c ~ 3 ~ ~ v ~ w y7 ~ a G'~i '~:~ 5 ~ V ~ y C VJ T~ FJ 7 d < ~ ~ c ~ g ;' ~ ~ ~ 7,9' ~ ~ R~9 ..u. VDOT Comments 1/2007 27 ti a 0 ~. w ~H a a o ~ U ~ ba ,~ ~~ ~~ ~ '° ~a a 0 .., w as ~i 0 0 c~ :. 0 .~ -~ 0 0 .~ a CCI Z 0 ~. y~ ~D R; 0 ~n 0 ri ~' ..; ~ M ~ N p p ...a r-+ ,--i ~ ~ ~ Cv ,~ '~ v ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -7 V! U ¢ U Cp eZ' ~ ¢ Imo' +~ O C." O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ° .~ ia ~a a F . r VDOT Comments 1/2007 ~~"~ O -1 ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~~ ~ ~• ~ ~~ i y o;q J 3I o~ J ~ o$ J o o J ~ o IJ < 4 ~ ~ 2' b C. F O 7 a Q ~ F, F G O ~ Z 7 x 7 I ~ ~ o ~ _ g^ A ~ ~ 8 - ~ I i 4 g 0 u ~ v p a rc 1 4 rc Q o 9 c 4 (/J < u ~ u u. < z c ~c n rv z E ~~ ~ _ ~ O ~ ~" O ~~ V 'C y c c '^,, ~ ^ u " o a. __--~ p ~. a z°o N ~ ~ V .. N c .» = v 0 O "> A~' o 7 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ S .. ~ ~ x ~ H ~ ~I ~ $ I I Ii f ~ , ai a < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ 4 ~ . U C ~ U ab ~ b a L c F pp,, T ' r ~ ~; ~ ~ o ~ o o s ~ ~ No ~ ~ ~ C~~ o G ~ g ° ~ g - ~ ~ ~ S o S g T g o ~ ~ y ~ a 4 ~ g ~ ~ ~ . 8 < ~ R la o ~ $I ~ ~ ~ al a ¢ ~I a • G < U x < Id 'aft"J €.9~~...CJ VDOT Comments 1/2007 29 0 0 M, 7 L .f O '` ~.t W Q /e~ V b ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~a fir d P n ~ ~ { p.~ ~g ~4 - ~~pp ~? V 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~ y (y ~ N ~ R '~ d a c5 ~1 - - -------------- ~ ~ P P w e q ~* - ~' ------ n ~ ~ a ~ ~ -------• -- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ 4 M 19 V x VDOT Comments 1/2007 C '~ ~ ~ u ~' ~ ~ r,) ^u1' U ~ a 0 O tt1 ^1 y G ~ v ~ a Q G oc r 6: ~ '^ C p b ~ ~ 'U ~ Q U U y ¢ y C p ~ CO 61 ~ f~ C~ y ~ y L1 C ~. o ~ ~°-r°.~ ~aa< o~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~. ~A ~ ~ v ~~. M ~~ °'`~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. 4 Y on U O+ °' vo - ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r' oa~,xsx ~~ e n n 6 4` ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~y~C'ios ~ ~ ~ a. "[ ~ ~ T. s= n ~~ ~~ o0o a-a fi09T 80-8-[[ ~- N ~ i 0-- 9-- 55EI 50-9 ~B ~~ ~ ~ $~ Wi!-1 DVYI 9-5 0661 5B-5-Z 5I [-d[ ~ ~ a59' u-a ere[ as-aa-s ,~~ zs 99- ra u ~ „ gala ~ ~ ~ '~j~ s vm ° V ~ ~~ ~~ Z-7-06 ]B19 ~ ~ ~~J _~ ,. 11-2~i-9411 B~ BOB t- A-T 090 Oil - - Wa' 9-7 0 B4tl 19.60.0 1 W VDOT Comments 1/2007 m C g ~~ ~~ J d L l ~~~.~~~' 31 a $ C 9 ~! oy° ; 5 ~ 7 > a _ a ! a J ^z - ~ . ~k-'~5,: E ._, b ~l { ~ ?_ Y 4 _ -~? ~3. s a - a S ~~c»~~ >~~ J - 3 a - z°5- -a" x - e 8 '- .. ;, 4a § 3~ ~s' u -G _~ - - 4 - S p '^' i ~ i ~ s m i ~u9;A~w6~d @3T~~~w~w4wt3wgw8»..~w24wgcw+~.oowbwSw y ~rSU o: O=OJ~r;~~z3n `OSACi~2;~J~1u» Cr. v~sd -.d.ti:u iu a ? - 8 R b 3 g»dw ' a~~ ~°»°~° l u! Oo~u~L O =t m v 'C ~ rq 9. Q 8g,sS k25 ~+~ 8 F, , al n ~~ a ~ 4 m'. ry4 Q 4 a u5 L ~. U U ry ti P Z 6 ?I 4 Y g8 Q O ~ ~L w$w~ ~w~'wbwyy~~ a sly ~3c7 :~ a ;; dud d~~ u ~ u ~ u ~S J ~ u ~ c S - - ~. V T.1 'l:' ~ d~i.0 VDOT Comments 1/2007 32 I~'ot•theiv Courthouse Road Co[~munih~ Plan Additional Accident Inforn~ation September 2fl07 Accidents un°olvuis Student-age Drivers at the Courthouse RoadlSi>soketree Drive uatersection Accident data for this intersection was obtauied .for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. fiom the Police Department's GIS database. Actt-al Collision Reports have NOT been "pulled" from the Police Record Room. Ovei• that tluee-year period, there were S3 accidents at or «~ithui 400 feet of this uitersection: 1. 38 (72%) were reareild accidents 2. 6 (11 %) were angle accidents 3. 4 ( 8%) were side-swipes 4. 5 ( 9%) were collisioiu with ani.tnals or other objects High School age drivers (16, 17, or 18) a-ere nivolved u~ 14 of the 53 accidents {26°io). High School age drivers (16, 17, or 18) u-ere "at fault" ui 9 of the 53 accidents { 17°fo). The offenses chareed in those 9 accidents were: i. Followuto Too Close (6 accidents] 2. Improper Tiun {1 accident) 3. Avoiding Other Vehicle (1 accident) 4. Failure to Maintaui Control{1 accident) The Day and Tune for the 9 accidents where High School age drivers were "at fault" were: Thursday 01/01!2004 .12:50 AM Tuesday 09/28!2004 9:38 AM Friday 02!11!2005 4:25 PM Tuesday 10!04!2005 2:24 PM Tuesday 12!20/2005 2:01 PM Thursday OSl17~'2006 4:56 PM Friday 10!27!2006 8:00 PM Monday 12l04r`2006 11:51 AM Tln-rsday 12/141'2006 5:44 PM It is impossible to deteinune. even with the Collision Reports, how many of these nuie accidents involved teenage drivers traveluig to or from Monacaia High School..I-iowever, it is apparent that teenage drivers traveluig to or fiom the High School are not causing a i~~jority of the accidents at the u~tersectiou. ~~~a~~~ Teenage Accident Data 9/2007 l 1Tottheiv Courthouse Road t:ouzmun3t~~ PIAu Additional Accident Infonna#ion September 200 i Page 2 Reportable ~~Ts, Non-Reportable accidents The Coruity's accident. database. includes ALL accidents that are reported To tiie Police. The accidents are classified as "Reportable" or "Non-Reportable." A "Non-Reportable" accident is a Honor collision in which no one is uijtued. and ui wluch the damage is estunated by the Police Officer to be under ~ 1000. ~'I30T does not uichtde "Non-Reportable" accidents ui their data collection. To pro~7ide an estimate of how many accidents in tl~e County Police Department's da#abase are minor "Non-Reportable" accidents, data was obtauned for the section of Courthouse Road beh~reen Reams Road and Smoketree Drive, uicluding the two uitersections. Data ~n~as obtained for 2004. 2005, and 2006. In that tlu~ee-year period, a total of 116 accidents were reported along this section of Cotu#house Road. Of those: 92 X79°fo) were categorized as "Reportable" 24 {21 °10) ~~ ere categorized as "Non-Reportable" ~~~~~~ Teenage Accident Data 9/2007 2 Busy Street Extension Pros and Cons Chesterfield County Transportation Department November 2007 Background The county's current Thoroughfare Plan proposes a "Loop ,Road" through the Moody .Tract, connecting Murray Olds Drive with Courthouse Road at the signalized Southlake Boulevard intersection. Staff s proposed Northern Courthouse Road Community Plan designates the Moody Tract as "Recreation/Conservation", and recommends, if the property should develop at some point, that the "Loop Road" be constructed as a 70-foot Collector Road. If the property never develops, the Collector Road will never be constructed. This report addresses the Pros and Cons of extending Busy Street from its current terminus west of Courthouse Road to Murray Olds Drive, as a replacement for the Moody Tract "Loop Road". Busy Street Extension Study 11/2007 ~~®~~°`~ 1 "Pros" of Extending Busy Street • As with the Thoroughfare Plan's Moody Tract "Loop Road", an extension of Busy Street would provide an alternate .route around the Midlothian Turnpike/Courthouse Road intersection, which is congested during many hours of the day, and not just during peak travel hours. • The Busy Street Extension would intersect Grove Road at a right angle, providing a good alignment for through traffic to continue to and from Murray Olds Drive. • Only about 390 feet of road would have to be constructed to extend Busy Street to Grove Road at Murray Olds Drive. About 2,460 feet of the road has already been constructed. • Improved access to the Grove Road area would potentially provide an incentive for redevelopment. • The Busy Street Extension would connect to Midlothian Turnpike, via Murray Olds Drive, at an existing signalized intersection. "Cons" of Extending Busy Street • The Busy Street/Courthouse Road intersection would most likely warrant signalization. The intersection is only 980 feet south of Midlothian Turnpike, and 1,380 feet north of Southlake Boulevard. Both of these distances are far short of VDOT's recommended desirable signal spacing of 2,640 feet for an Urban Principal Arterial. • VDOT's Courthouse Road corridor Safety Study determined that the majority of accidents take place at signalized intersections. The first recommendation in the Safety Study was to "Minimize the number of future signals and crossovers." The extension of Busy Street would add another signalized intersection on Courthouse Road. • The existing left turn lane on Courthouse Road at Busy Street is 160 feet long. Increasing the volume of traffic making this northbound left turn would require extending this left turn lane, and possibly providing dual left turn lanes. Extending this lane would require closing the adjacent crossover to the south. • Extending Busy Street would require condemnation of one parcel along Grove Road. Due to the narrow width of this parcel, the extension would require use of the entire parcel, with no possibility of redevelopment, unless the parcel was aggregated with adjacent parcels. As a result, the extension would most likely have to be accomplished as a public project, rather than in conjunction with redevelopment. • The existing section of Busy Street west of Courthouse Road was not planned or designed to Busy Street Extension Study 11/2007 ~~2~ be a major road, carrying a high volume of traffic. The pavement design, set-backs, and access spacings are not compatible with upgrading of the road to a Collector Road classification. Staff Recommendation Due primarily to the close proximity of the Courthouse Road/Busy Street intersection with Midlothian Turnpike; and the probable signalization of the Courthouse Road/Busy Street intersection if Busy Street is extended to serve as a "Loop Road, it is Staff's recommendation that an extension of Busy Street not be added to the county's Thoroughfare Plan. ~~~, Busy Street Extension Study 11/2007 3 /~ ~ _ j r~ ~~~ '~ ~i~~~~ Ynm-Commnnit News a er Srnce 1995 Y PP P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virf:inia 23l 13 • Phone: (R04) j45-7100 • Fax: (SO4) 7~J4-3269 • Email: news(~chesterfieldobserveecom • Internet: server.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT ~~- ~ ~ J~o~ ~, do ~, y~~ V ~~. ` ~~ ~~~ \~~~~J~ ~ Sao. ~~~ ~~`~ ~ Chesterfield County N. Courthouse Rd 1/5 Page + 3" Board of Supervisors The Observer, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER ~- " "TAKENOTICB _' ~ ~ ~ Take notice that the Boazd'. of Supervisors i.of Chesterfield County, Virginia, at an adjourned meeting on Februazy 13, 2008` begginning", aY 6:30 p.m. in the County: . Public Meeting Room, at the Chesterfield . _. _ v _ _._._-_ - _._ , -~, $510.00 This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 01/30/2008 & 02/06/2008 Sworn to and subscribed before me this L,p ~ day of ~e , ,n '/ ,Zoos. Legal Affiant Jo Lupo, Notary Public My commission expires: November 30, 2010 Commission I.D. 7040138 (SEAL) -~ ~.,-~ THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. ,}~RY, p~ •Administration Building, Rt.:10 and Lori ititersectton, Affice/Residential Mixed Road>°' Chesterfield; Vuginra':will hold a -' Use ~=recommendation ~ foi` the ,western pu heazing;where.persons may;appeaz - quadrants ofahe`'Reams']toad/Courthouse .and present'Yheir views concerning: " `" ~ Road intersection, a` recommendation Hof .. ' '- The Northern Courthouse > Road ° ` " .Conservation/Recreation for. the Moody: Traci with a' note calling for Community Community Plan, an-amendmen~'to Thei..: " P hite/R e288D n l m l ,Mixed.. Use north` of thetpladned i•oadwa~~"y ` R d ' i . ow o t eve entAreaP op an, and -Office/ esi ential Mixed Jse south= 'the,•Northern-Aiea Plan,'the Midlothian-:: 'of"the pla"nned`:Yoad-should the easement3 Area Community,:]?lan,. and• the Route be= removed.: from the..property;;=.Office/~ 360 Corridor Plan, and'the -'Ihoroughfaze Resid'ential`.Mixed Use recommendation Plan>-pazts of The Plan For Chesterfield,. as " ' for' .properties .:along the west ~ line ` "of • the Plan relates to Courthouse°Road and Courthouse . Road south of'Edenberrg 'the surrounding-area ;of the County The,. ;. Drive( :.extending the':.-Office/Residential:: Nort}fern":Gourthouse=.Road'Community ,; Mized'Use designarion to rnclude'••areas• Plan.:aiea is: generally bounded: by-the,- ~ north of Cherylann`Road up to.Kewbridge rear°.of properties~fronting.on Midlothian, Court. to ;allow•,eausting strdctures? o: lie.; Turnpike to.theporfh the";eaz of properties ~: .converted to,office uses; :extending; the . fronting on`Hull"Street: Road to tfie south; .Office/ResidentiahMixed;Use desigiation° Adkins Road;" pocoshock Creek and" the ,• . ,along the south line of Lucks Lane just wesf western border' of :the.:. neighborhoods ; : ~ of the`intersection with Courthouse'.Road; - of'Bexley, West; and'Pocoshock`'Heights' „the':removal'b£the Erivately-Held ';Open-. to' they easy ,and 4he ~eastern° border of^ + . : Space ;>': designation ;higher resi3entialr Fallirg `Creek:and the_,neighborhood of'." ' density::for..Office/Residential Mixed"Use`; Geriito_Woods to the west: •The'Noi•thertt `_: _areas norfih ;of°;Courthouse °Road- Fire Courthouse .Road Community; ]?lan,' if Stations and _`south:of Powhite •Parkway;% 3adopted by thi: Boazd Hof Supervisors; will and the construction ofa 70=foot•Collector" become part of The Plan For Chesterfield, .: h ` C m h n Road through ;the Moody Tracf connectingg " R ` - t o untys co pre e e sive plan. ;T1ie Plan Grove oad .with Southlake Boulevazd For Chesterfield is usedby County citizens, should the"easement be removed from=the staff, +ahe '~Plannuig ".Commission" and property. " Boazd`of Supervisors as a"guide forfutiire deusiois affecting"the• County including, ~hnt'iint`-lirritoil i.}n "~ilacicinne ~rno~rrlina. . ;;Once the :Northern: Cou in'..1986),;the Midlothian Area; Community '- Plan (adopted in,1989) and the Route 360 - Corridor Plan, (adopted; in`1995):; The ` f o The hearirCg is `held at a public. facility ; ' maj rityo thePlanazeaiscontaigedwtthm _ ' h Cl v H ll'M r l ~ desrgned to:be accessible to person s-with t 'An ue o "' o er t e i agiste fa District; with a of disabili ies y persons with sti ns'. q '+ small. portion , the 7?lan area (south of ~' : on 1}ie accessiliility, of •the faciltty ot~need ' Lucks Lane and north`of Ederiberty Drive)'. ~ ." for ,tea§onable accommodations should. located in the Matoaca;and' Midlothian- contact)anice Blakley, Clerk to the`Board~ ~ Magisterial Districts ~~ '~z ~ _ at~748-1200. 'Persons,needing rote;preter: ` "` "~ ~ . ''' - ~ i ` services:for the'deafmust_riotifythe,Clerk. The : .Plan does not rezone .:. ~ larid but to the;Board no-later than,Friday,=February ". 'suggests Ordinance amendinerits and '" , 8 2008 other-actions.;.The ]?IanningCommissiori_4' - has rrecommended :-a draft -plan;: with , the, following key ;elements." Major •' °transitional:_.=uses~betitieen Courthouse', Road,.- and•'sfrroundmg, neighborhoods;' open space :designation .'for the• jyloody .Tract, entrance'.to;Smoketree :Drive and - Mansfield Lakes: iequi=ing; aggregation, of` pazcels'at the: intersection of Reams and,. Courthouse..Roads discouraging new multi-family development; -allowing the conversion of 'pioperfies -along "the' east side of Courthouse, Road°6etween Dakins ; Drive and . Cherylanti ':Road to `office ' use: with, appropriate exceptions to`.bulk requirements ~in the Zoning Qriinance " o accommodate."adequate .parking; 'and:' nniting.the ariiount of office develo~~ppment 0 15 percent of the.azearecommended for )ffice/Residential Mixed Use Othetinajor '~ ecommendations`_ rnddde:: encouraging :: ew residential zomng'with `sole. access 'irough an existin~g or planned subdivision :, ~ meet, or •exceed •the average lotsize of, ; id have a densityequal to or less'than; the'.." usting subdivision, encouraging a vaziety,,. housing° types; .support of-workforce ea, corridors adoption ' water and' ' ` wart fn the _c_ -- td the ^"•throu h"~ L~~r"V `'o~ouse lbrook' Driv~ .movement,-with the. ou extension being ahe" gh".movement to Courthouse Road, . (3) deleting' the , roposed Collector . lethrough thelvloodyTract; eonnecting~ ~e Road: with'Courthouse'Road at•the mg Southlake Boulevard intersection: ` Planning '` Department' "has " emended a version that. differs from `~ haft recommended. by..the a?lanning, nission. ~., Differences` .:include: a imendahon `for Neighborhood i Uses -for;.the•:easfern quadrants e: Reams . ioad/Courthouse_ ..Road ~~- CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ~ ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 2 h~,N,p ~ AGENDA Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: ~s.B. Subject: Public Hearing on Road Impact Fees County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: ~ -~~~ Board Action Requested: (1) Adopt Amendment to Comprehensive Plan to add attached "Road Improvement Plan" (2 ) Adopt impact fee ordinance . Summary of Information: On January 9, 2008, this Board held a public hearing to consider a proposed impact fee program, including a draft impact fee ordinance. Staff proposed that the ordinance 1) create impact fees for residential development only, 2) establish a $5,820 impact fee per residential lot payable at the time of the issuance of a building permit, 3) apply the impact fee solely to property already zoned residential but not yet subdivided, 4) exempt cash proffer and CDA lots from the impact fee program, and 5) exempt "work-force housing"(less than $200,000 assessed value) and family subdivisions from impact fees. Based on comments from Board members at the January 9 public hearing, staff has listed the County's top priority road projects to be built with impact fees (attached "Priority County Road Projects") and has specified in the attached Comprehensive Plan amendment that impact fees should be used to fund these priority road projects. The Board did not close the public hearing on the impact fee program and continued the public hearing to this meeting. The original impact fee Preparers Steven L. Micas Title: County Attorney 0425:77860.1 (76653.1; 77193.1; 77192.1; 77177.1; 77176.1) Attachments: ~ Yes ~ No # CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ordinance discussed with the prior Board is attached as Ordinance A. An amended ordinance reflecting all of the changes discussed above is attached as Ordinance B. Staff recommends that the Board amend the Comprehensive Plan to add the attached "Road Improvement Plan" and then adopt Ordinance B. ~~®~~~ Chesterfield County Impact Fee Program Road Improvement Plan First Adopted by the Board of Supervisors [date] ~~~~~~ 0425:76653.1 Chesterfield County Impact Fee Program Road.Improvement Plan Pursuant to Article 8, Chapter 22 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, (Va.Code §§15.2-2317 - 2327), the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors has adopted an impact fee program to pay, in part, the cost of transportation improvements necessitated by certain residential development. As part of the impact fee program, the Comprehensive Plan of the County must be amended to add a "Road Improvement Plan". The Road Improvement Plan consists of a listing of transportation improvements necessitated by 20 years of development, based on the County's current growth projections. The listing is created by utilizing the County's Thoroughfare Plan and a computer-based transportation model (TP+). The listing of projected transportation improvements and a map showing such projected improvements are included below and constitute the Impact Fee Road Improvement Program. The schedule for the construction of road improvements using impact fees is the same schedule currently used for the construction of road improvements using cash proffer funds. The Transportation Department will review, on a quarterly basis, the impact fees that are collected by the County. When sufficient funds have been collected and/or future collections are anticipated in a timely manner to fund improvements, the Transportation Department will request the Board of Supervisors to make appropriations of the fees and give approval to proceed with improvements designated on the attached "Priority County Road Projects". The Transportation Department currently prefers approximately $500,000 to be collected before it will proceed with road design and right of way acquisition. The Transportation Department will usually need $1 million or more in order to construct a viable transportation project. The Transportation Department will also consider supplementing VDOT funding on a project with impact fees if the fees will allow the project to be constructed. 0425:76653.1 ~ ~ ~ ~'~ _ ~, ~ ~ _n ~ M N N ~ II II II II ~' a ~ d ~ ~ }~ v v v v v Q~ m a ~- ~, Q~~QU o io ~ ~ ~s~~s3Sz U ~ F' v- ~IIIIII I~ J L ~~ ~= -- ~ - o F-- ~. .~_ t .~ • ~ r _-- ~ 1` ~ i~~~ ~ lrl 1 ti l1i t [I © y ; ~ ~~ ~ s, G ~ ~ ~ + J ~ ~ I L , } ,J~_ r~~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'r ~ ~~~ r U ~ T ,. .~ ` ' ~ ~j /~ ~ Jff~ 5y ~ 'f ~^v` Ii ~ Ir ~.~ ~yC, - • ~` r ~ ~. k~ ~~ ~ 4 .~~ ~ `~ ~ 4~-^` ~~J Q ~~ ~~ - J ,~ ~ ~. I~~' ~~~a~+~~ IMPACT FEE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN ROAD FROM 288 POWHITE PARKWAY ALVERSER DRIVE MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE ARCH ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE ASHBROOK PARKWAY ASHLAKE PKWY BAILEY BRIDGE ROAD DEER RUN BALDWIN CREEK ROAD HULL STREET ROAD BEACH ROAD NASH ROAD BEACH ROAD NASH ROAD BEACH ROAD BUNDLE ROAD BELMONT ROAD WFiITEPINE ROAD BERMUDA HUNDRED ROA[ ENON CHURCH. ROAD BEULAH ROAD SALEM CHURCH ROAD BEULAH ROAD KINGSLAND ROAD BEULAH ROAD HOPKINS ROAD BOULDERS BLVD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE BUFORD ROAD FOREST HILL AVENUE CENTERPOINTE PARKWAY OLD HUNDRED ROAD CENTRALIA ROAD ROUTE 10 CENTRALIA ROAD CHALKLEY ROAD CHALKLEY ROAD CENTRALIA ROAD CHARTER COLONY PKWY GENITO ROAD CHESTER ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS CHESTER ROAD NORMANDALE CHESTER ROAD CENTRALIA ROAD CHESTER ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD COURTHOUSE ROADEXT CRANBECK ROAD EASTFAIR DRIVE ELKHARDT ROAD ENON CHURCH ROAD ENON CHURCH ROAD EW ARTERIAL EW ARTERIAL EW ARTERIAL FOREST HILL AVENUE GENITO ROAD GENITO ROAD GENITO ROAD GENITO ROAD HAPPY HILL ROAD HARROWGATE ROAD HARROWGATE ROAD HICKORY ROAD HOPKINS ROAD TO ROUTE 10 HUGUENOT ROAD REAMS ROAD OTTERDALE ROAD CLAYPOINTE ROAD ASHLAKE PARKWAY ROUTE 10 WOODLAND POND SECOND BRANCH JESSUP ROAD ALLIED ROAD HOPKINS ROAD SALEM CHURCH ROAD. MEADOWDALE BLVD JAHNKE ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE 288 CHALKLEY ROAD CHESTER ROAD ROUTE 10 POWHITE PARKWAY NORMANDALE CENTRALIA ROAD RR R/W RR R/W ROUTE 10 REAMS ROAD HULL STREET ROAD HULL STREET ROAD GENITO ROAD GENITO ROAD 288 288 ROUTE 10 ROUTE 10 SALEM CHURCH ROAD ROBIOUS ROAD KOGER CENTER BLVD NASH ROAD WOODPECKER ROAD PROVIDENCE ROAD HULL STREET ROAD RUFFIN MILL ROAD POINT ROCKS ROAD POINT ROCKS ROAD ROUTE 10 MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE OTTERDALE ROAD OTTERDALE ROAD DRY BRIDGE ROAD DRY BRIDGE ROAD OLD HUNDRED ROAD HUGUENOT ROAD COUNTY LINE WOOLRIDGE ROAD BRANDERMILL PARKWAY BRANDERMILL PARKWA` CHARTER COLONY PKWY CHARTER COLONY PKW HULL STREET ROAD HULL STREET ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD HARROWGATE ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS ROUTE 10 HAPPY HILL ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS EAST WEST FREEWAY NORTH SOUTH FREEWA MATOACA ROAD CHIPPENHAM PKWY BEULAH ROAD WIDEN TO # LANES 6 4 4 2 2 4 6 2 2 4 2&4 6 2 4 6 4&6 4&8 2 4 2 8 4 8 6 4 8 6 8 6 2 4 4 4 4 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 6 6 4 4 2 ®®a~o~a+.,e HOPKINS ROAD HOPKINS ROAD HUGUENOT ROAD HUGUENOT ROAD HULL STREET ROAD HULL STREET ROAD HULL STREET ROAD HULL STREET ROAD JAHNKE ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS JESSUP ROAD KINGSLAND ROAD KINGSLAND ROAD KINGSLAND ROAD EXT LEWIS ROAD LEWIS ROAD LUCKS LANE MATOACA ROAD MEADOWDALE BLVD MEADOWVILLE ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE MT. HERMON ROAD EXT NASH ROAD NASH ROAD NEW ROAD NEWBY'S BRIDGE ROAD NEWBY'S BRIDGE ROAD NEWBY'S BRIDGE ROAD NORTH SOUTH ARTERIAL NORTH SOUTH ARTERIAL OLD BERMUDA HUNDRED OLD BON AIR ROAD OLD BUCKINGHAM ROAD OLD CENTRALIA ROAD OLD HUNDRED ROAD OLD LANE OLD STAGE ROAD OSBORNE ROAD OTTERDALE ROAD PICKETT AVENUE PINETTA DRIVE POCOSHOCK BLVD POWHITE PARKWAY PROVIDENCE ROAD QUALLA ROAD QUALLA ROAD REAMS ROAD RIVER ROAD RIVER ROAD ROBIOUS ROAD ROBIOUS ROAD BEULAH ROAD CHIPPENHAM PKWY ROBIOUS ROAD ROBIOUS ROAD COUNTY LINE (WEST) OTTERDALE ROAD WOODLAKE PKWY 288 BUFORD ROAD COUNTY LINE (NORTH) BELMONT ROAD HOPKINS ROAD ROUTE 10 ROUTE 10 CARVER HEIGHTS ROUTE 10 288 RIVER ROAD HOPKINS ROAD ROUTE 10 COUNTY LINE WOOLRIDGE ROAD OLD LANE COUNTY LINE (NORTH) COUNTY LINE KOGER CENTER BLVD POWHITE PARKWAY WOODLAKE PKWY SPRING RUN ROAD COUNTY LINE CHIPPENHAM PKWY COUNTY LINE (SOUTH) ROUTE 10 CHESTER ROAD HOPKINS ROAD BELMONT ROAD RR R/W CARVER HEIGHTS COURTHOUSE ROAD HICKORY ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS I-295 WOOLRIDGE ROAD BOULDERS BLVD NORTH SOUTH ARTERIA DUVAL ROAD BEACH ROAD EASTFAIR DRIVE WINTERPOCK ROAD EASTFAIR DRIVE WOOLRIDGE ROAD OLD HUNDRED ROAD HULL STREET ROAD COGBILL ROAD COGBILL ROAD BELMONT ROAD QUALLA ROAD 288 DUVAL ROAD SKINOUARTER ROAD SKINQUARTER ROAD HULL STREET ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS ROUTE 10 ROBIOUS ROAD BUFORD ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE ALVERSER DRIVE CHESTER ROAD ROUTE 10 NEW ROAD DRY BRIDGE ROAD HOPKINS ROAD CHESTER ROAD ROUTE 10 WARE BOTTOM SPRING ROUTE 10 JEFFERSON DAVIS 288 MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE RIVER ROAD COUNTY LINE (SOUTH) MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE BUFORD ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE HULL STREET ROAD COURTHOUSE ROAD CHIPPENHAM PKWY MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE COURTHOUSE ROAD 288 COURTHOUSE ROAD 288 COURTHOUSE ROAD HICKORY ROAD MATOACA ROAD. HUGUENOT ROAD HUGUENOT ROAD SPRING RUN ROAD HULL STREET ROAD COUNTY LINE (EAST) NORTH -SOUTH FREEWAY COUNTY LINE MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE 4 2 6 6 6 8 8 4&6 8 2&4 4 2 4 2 4 4&6 2 4 6 6 4 4 2 4. 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 2&4 2&4 2 6 6 ~~~~~~ ROUTE 10 CHIPPENHAM PKWY WHITEPINE ROAD 6 ROUTE 10 WHITEPINE ROAD CHALKLEY ROAD 8 ROUTE 10 CHALKLEY ROAD ECOFF ROAD 6 ROUTE 10 ECOFF ROAD COUNTY LINE (EAST) 8 RR R/W EAST WEST FREEWAY LEWIS ROAD 6 RUFFIN MILL ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS CONTINENTAL BLVD 6 RUFFIN MILL ROAD CONTINENTAL BLVD ENON CHURCH ROAD 2 SALEM CHURCH ROAD BEULAH ROAD CENTRALIA ROAD- 4 SALISBURY ROAD WINTERPOCK ROAD ROBIOUS ROAD 2 SPRING RUN ROAD QUALLA ROAD HENSLEY ROAD 2 TURNER ROAD HULL STREET ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE 6 TURNER ROAD HULL STREET ROAD WALMSLEY BOULEVARD 8 TURNER ROAD WALMSLEY BOULEVARD BELMONT ROAD . 6 WALMSLEY BOULEVARD HULL STREET ROAD COUNTY LINE 4 WHITE PINE ROAD ROUTE 10 BELMONT ROAD 6 WINTERFIELD ROAD MIDLOTHIAN„TURNPIKE SALISBURY ROAD 4 WINTERFIELD ROAD SALISBURY ROAD COUNTY LINE 2 WINTERPOCK ROAD HULL STREET ROAD SPRINGFORD 2 WOODPECKER ROAD EASTFAIR DRIVE EAST. WEST FREEWAY 4 WOODPECKER ROAD NORTH SOUTH FREEWA LAKEVIEW 2 WOODSEDGE ROAD JEFFERSON DAVIS ASHTON CREEK 4 WOOLRIDGE ROAD MIDLOTHIAN TURNPIKE 288 6 & 8 WOOLRIDGE ROAD 288 POWHITE PARKWAY 6 & 8 ~~®~~~ Priority County Road Projects This list represents priority projects that should be selected to receive impact fee funding Project Name Centralia Road - Nott Lane to Chester Road, widen to three lanes Hull Street Road (Route 360) -Route 288 to Genito Road, widen to six lanes Hull Street Road (Route 360) - Woodlake to Winterpock Road, widen to eight lanes I-295 / Meadowville Road -Interchange Midlothian Turnpike (Route 60) -Old Buckingham Road to Courthouse Road, widen to six lanes Newbys Bridge Road -Falling Creek to Hagood, reconstruction Providence Road -Courthouse Road to Hicks Road, reconstruction Reams Road -Courthouse Road to Adkins, reconstruction Route 288 /Chester Road -Add loop to interchange W Hundred Road (Route 10)' - I-95 to Ware Bottom Springs, widen to six lanes ~~~0.~~~ ORDINANCE A AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE.XVII TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO FUND AND RECAPTURE THE COST OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the Count~o Chesterfield. 1997, as amended, is amended by adding the following: Chapter 9 FINANCE AND TAXATION 000 ARTICLE XVII. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Section 9-250. Establishing a system of impact fees. Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2322, the county hereby establishes a system of impact fees to fund reasonable road improvements benefiting new residential development. In accordance with Code of Virginia §15.2-2320, one or more impact fee service areas shall be designated by amendment to the county's comprehensive land use plan. Such plan amendment may designate the entire county as one impact fee service area. Section 9-251. When impact fees determined and collected. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2323, the amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development shall be determined no later than final subdivision or site plan approval. (b) Pursuant to Code of Virginia , § 15.2-2323, the impact fee shall be collected for each residential lot or housing unit of the time a building permit is issued for such lot or housing unit. (c) No building permit shall be issued for a lot or housing unit on which an impact fee has been imposed unless the owner of the lot or housing unit, or his agent, has (i) paid the applicable impact fee or (ii) has executed an agreement provided by the county and secured by a bond or a letter of credit approved by the county, to pay the impact fee, in equal installments, over a period of no more than 3 years. If payments are made in installments pursuant to subsection (c) (ii), interest on the unpaid portion shall accrue interest at the rate. specified in § 9-6 of this Code. (d) The calculation of an impact .fee may be appealed by the owner or his agent to the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the director of planning within 60 days of the calculation of the impact fee amount by the county. The owner or agent shall submit the substantive basis for his appeal to the director of 0425:77176.1 ~ ~ ~ a~ ~~ planning within 60 days of filing a notice of appeal. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed in accordance with state law. Section 9-252. Determination of the amount of the impact fee. a) The impact fee for a development shall be determined by dividing (i) the projected road improvement costs within the impact fee service area in which the development is located by (ii) the number of projected housing units within the impact fee service area when such area is fully developed. This calculation shall be based on the number of trips generated by each such housing unit. The projected road improvement costs for each impact fee service area shall be calculated in accordance with the county's road improvement plan as specified in Code of Virginia § 15.2-2321. b) The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project whether by condition of zoning of other written commitment to the county. The county shall. also calculate and credit against the -impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will benefit the development, (ii) new development will. contribute to the cost of existing roads, and ('iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impacts fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. c) The schedule of impact fees is: Use Impact Fee Residential $5,820 Commerical $ 0 Industrial $ 0 d) Any lot or housing unit which is subject to a transportation cash proffer or to increased taxes, assessments or fees for road improvements pursuant to a community development authority or a transportation service district, shall not be subject to the payment of impact fees. Section 9-254. Updating road improvement plan and amending impact fees. In accordance with Code of Virginia § 15.2- 2325, the Board of Supervisors shall update the impact fee road improvement plan at least every two years. The impact fee schedule shall be amended to reflect substantial changes in the road improvement plan. Any impact fees not yet paid at the time of the amendment to the impact fee schedule shall be assessed at the applicable amended amount. ~~<YA~~~ 0425:77176.1 Section 9-255. Use of impact fees. A separate road improvement account shall be established for each impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the appropriate account. Each account shall bear interest which shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for such impact fee service area. Section 9-256. Refunds. The county shall refund any impact fee in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2327. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0425:77176. ] ~ ~ ®P`~ ORDINANCE A AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XVII TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO FUND AND RECAPTURE THE COST OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997, as amended, is amended by adding the following: Chapter 9 FINANCE AND TAXATION 000 ARTICLE XVII. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Section 9-250. Establishing a system of impact fees. Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2322, the county hereby establishes a system of impact fees to fund reasonable road improvements benefiting new residential development. In accordance with Code of Virginia §15.2-2320, one or more impact fee service areas shall be designated by amendment to the county's comprehensive land use plan. Such plan amendment may designate the entire county as one impact fee service area. Section 9-251. When impact fees determined and collected. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2323, the amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development shall be determined no later than final subdivision or site plan approval. (b) Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2323, the impact fee shall be collected for each residential lot or housing unit at the time a building permit is issued for such lot or housing unit. (c) No building permit shall be issued for a lot or housing unit on which an impact fee has been imposed unless the owner of the lot or housing unit, or his agent, has (i) paid the applicable impact fee or (ii) has executed an agreement provided by the county and secured by a bond or a letter of credit approved by the county, to pay the impact fee, in equal installments, over a period of no more than 3 years. If payments are made in installments pursuant to subsection (c) (ii), interest on the unpaid portion shall accrue interest at the rate specified in § 9-6 of this Code. (d) The calculation of an impact fee may be appealed by the owner or his agent to the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the director of planning within 60 days of the calculation ofthe-impact fee amount by the county. The owner or agent shall submit .the substantive basis for his appeal to the director of 0425:77176.1 ~~®~~~ planning within 60 days of filing a notice of appeal. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed in accordance with state law. Section 9-252. Determination of the amount of the impact fee. a) The impact fee for a development shall be determined by dividing (i) the projected road improvement costs within the impact fee service area in which the development is located by (ii) the number of projected housing units within the impact fee service area when such area is fully developed. This calculation shall be based on the number of trips generated by each such housing unit. The projected road improvement costs for each impact fee service area shall be calculated in accordance with the county's road improvement plan as specified in Code of Virginia § 15.2-2321. b) The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project whether by condition of zoning of other written commitment to the county. The county shall also calculate and credit against the .impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will benefit the development, (ii) new development will contribute to the cost of existing roads, and (iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impacts fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. c) The schedule of impact fees is: Use Impact Fee Residential $5,820 Commerical $ 0 Industrial $ 0 d) Any lot or housing unit which is subject to a transportation cash proffer or to increased taxes, assessments or fees for road improvements pursuant to a community development authority or a transportation service district, shall not be subject to the payment of impact fees. Section 9-254. Updating road improvement plan and amending impact fees. In accordance with Code of Virginia § 15.2- 2325, the Board of Supervisors shall update the impact fee road improvement plan at least every two. years. The impact fee schedule shall be amended to reflect substantial changes in the road improvement plan. Any impact fees not yet paid at the time of the amendment to the impact fee schedule shall be assessed at the applicable amended amount. ~~~~~~ 0425:77176.1 Section 9-255. Use of impact fees. A separate road improvement. account shall be established for each impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the appropriate account. Each account shall bear interest which shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for such impact fee-service area. Section 9-256. Refunds. The county shall refund any impact fee in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2327. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. ~~~~~~~ 0425:77176.1 ORDINANCE B AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1997, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XVII TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE CODE RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO FUND AND RECAPTURE THE COST OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield County: (1) That the Code of the County o Chester geld, 1997, as amended, is amended by adding the following: Chapter 9 FINANCE AND TAXATION 000 ARTICLE XVII. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Section 9-250. Establishing a system of impact fees. Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2322, the county hereby establishes a system of impact fees to fund reasonable road improvements benefiting new residential development. In accordance with Code of Virginia § 15.2-2320, one or more impact fee service areas shall be designated by amendment to the county's comprehensive land use plan. Such plan amendment may designate the entire county as one impact fee service area. Section 9-251. When impact fees determined and' collected. (a) Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2323, the amount of impact fees to be imposed on a specific development shall be determined no later-than final subdivision or site plan approval. No impact fee shall be imposed on a lot that has been created as part of a family subdivision in accordance with § 17-2 of this Code. (b) Pursuant to Code of Virginia § 15.2-2323, the impact fee shall be collected for each residential lot or housing unit at the time a building permit is issued for such lot or housing unit. (c) No building permit shall be issued for a lot or housing unit on which an impact fee has been imposed unless the owner of the lot or housing. unit, or his agent, has (i) paid the applicable impact fee or (ii) has executed an agreement provided by the county and secured by a bond or a letter of credit approved by the county, to pay the impact fee, in equal installments, over a period of no more than 3 years. If payments are made in installments pursuant to subsection (c) (ii), interest on the unpaid portion shall accrue interest at the rate specified in § 9-6 of this Code. (d) The calculation of an impact fee may be appealed by the owner or his agent to the Chesterfield County Board of Zoning Appeals. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the 0425:77177.1 director of planning within 60 days of the calculation of the impact fee amount by the county. The owner or agent shall submit the substantive basis for his appeal to the director of planning within 60 days of filing a notice of appeal. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be appealed in accordance with state law. Section 9-252. Determination of the amount of the impact fee. a) The impact fee for a development shall be determined by dividing (i) the projected road improvement costs within the impact fee service area in which the development is located by (ii) the number of projected housing units within the impact fee service area when such area is fully developed. This calculation shall be based on the number of trips generated by each such housing unit. The projected road improvement costs for each impact fee service area shall be calculated in accordance with the county's road improvement plan as specified in Code of Virginia §15.2-2321. b) The value of any dedication, contribution or construction from the developer for off-site road or other transportation improvements benefiting the impact fee service area shall be treated as a credit against the impact fees imposed on the developer's project whether by condition of zoning of other written commitment to the county. The county shall .also calculate and credit against .the impact fees the extent to which (i) other developments have already contributed to the cost of existing roads which will benefit the development, (ii) new development will contribute to the cost of existing roads, and (iii) new development will contribute to the cost of road improvements in the future other than through impacts fees, including any special taxing districts, special assessments, or community development authorities. c) The schedule of impact fees is: Use Impact Fee Residential $5,820 Commerical $0 Industrial $0 d) Any lot or housing unit which is subject to a transportation cash proffer or to increased taxes, assessments or fees for road improvements pursuant to a community development authority or a transportation service district, shall not be subject to the payment of impact fees. e) If the total assessed value of a lot and a dwelling constructed on that lot by anon-profit organization is less than $200,000, the lot shall not be subject to the payment of an impact fee. Section 9-254. Updating road improvement plan and amending impact fees. In accordance with Code of Virginia § 15.2- 2325, the Board of Supervisors shall update the impact fee road improvement plan at least every two years. The impact fee schedule shall be amended to reflect substantial changes in the road improvement plan. Any impact fees not yet. ~p~~~~~ 0425:77177.1 paid at the time of the amendment to the impact fee schedule shall be assessed at the applicable amended amount. Section 9-255. Use of impact fees. A separate road improvement account shall be established for each impact fee service area and all funds collected through impact fees shall be deposited in the appropriate account. Each account shall bear interest which shall become funds of the account. The expenditure of funds from the account shall be only for road improvements benefiting the impact fee service area as set out in the road improvement plan for such impact fee service area. Section 9-256. Refunds. The county shall refund any impact fee in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2327. (2) That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption. 0425:77177.1 -!, -:~ ~. .._.. ri~> ~..._ k,. i ~ 1 0 W o t { 1 ~~~~~ •''~ ~ ~`~~~~ your Communit News a er Since 1995 y nn P.O. Box 1616. Midlothian. Vireinia 23113 • Phone: (R04) i45-75(H) • Fax: (8(>4) 74A-3269 • Email: ncwsC~chestcrfieldobserveccom • Internet: erawr~~m~e®nserver.aim Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors • -~ ab ~ J~ ~ ~ G~ ~o ~ ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT ~ ~`~~~° ~°~~~~y° v~~ kSJQ a°. oar Descri tion Ad Size Impact Fees 1 col x 11" $453.75 The Observer, Inc. Publisher of ~eaaL PUBLIC NOTICE Take notice that the Board of Supervisors of-' Chesterfield County,. Virginia, at a regulaz scheduled meeting on February--13, 2008 at 6;30 p.m. in the County.Public Meeting Room at the Chesterfield Adttiinistration Building, Rt. l0 and'Lori Road, Ciiesferfield; ~Vuginia,;will hold a public heaiing:wheie 1 personsaffected may appeaz.and'pr'esenti' -their views to consider: ~ _ An ordinance to_aznend•the-Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1997,:as amended, by~adding~sections'9=250-through 9-256 relating to a ,transpportation :Impact ,'Fee ' ("IF") system to fund and recapture the cost . ofprovidingreasoriableroadimproyements: ~. Also to be considered are changes o.the County's- "Comprehensive 'Plan ("CP°)' relating to' the IF-program'and ~adoption~ ,' o£an Imppact Fee Road Iinprovements'Plan' ("IFRIP"). ~' The .amount, of, the proposed 1 dF'.is.,$5,820 per residential `dwelling unit:; The legal~~authoriig for~.enactment of.the IF `is found in Article 8; Chaptei 22 of Tide 15:2 of ahe~Code of Virginia: ;and more ~particulazly in Va: Code § 15:2-2319:_" _, CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia; on the following date(s): 01/30/2008 & 02/06/2008 My commission expires: November 30, 2010 Commission I.D. 7040138 (SEAL) ~' 'L ~ r: =5;~ "~' I= 'U ~~ ~.T~ AY~ ~~~z+ v;: - -;:a-:~r..~,-; THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~p+h day of ~~j , 2008. YUQYI~I "comprehensive Plan Amend_ ent/Impact " o dI :f adopted y , ~e'Bi'-ard of Supervisors "Board"); the IFRIP. will become- part ~f the CP, which does not rezone. land >ut is used as a guide foi future land use ind transportation decisions. -Tlie 1FRIP shows road improvements that could be :onstructed as pazt of the.IF system. The F service area to be designated within he CP is comprised of the entire County. he IFRIP is based on a needs assessment hat. concludes that a number of -loads nayy need fo be constructed, unproved nd/or expanded -based on projected new levelopment, for the next 20 years. A fisting of transportation improvements is vailable in the complete needs assessment tudy. The assumptions which form the asis of the -study include the • County's urrent ggrrowth projections; the .County's horoughfaze Plan, a projection of Road mproyement costs and acomputer-based 'P+ transportation model. The study'is vailable to •be examined and copied ~at fie Transportation Dept during. normal usiness hours. mendmenti . he proposed ordinance would establ IF ,system to ,fund reasonable ro nprovements benefiting new resident evelopment and provide for IF servi •eas through-the CP which may indu fie entire County as a single IF servi ea. It would provide that the imppact fi be calculated foi a specific developme i later than~final subdivision or site pl ~proval; (2) be paid prior to issuance building permit unless the owner h ovided a bond or a letter of credit; ~ may be appealed to the Boazd of Zonis ape. s. It would establish a method f termining the IP amount and appropria edits in accordance with state law It all Auld require: (I) that the Board upda IFRIP and fee schedule at least every firs, (2) that a separate road improveme~ :ount be established for funds collecte ~m eack IF service azea, and (3) th, rinds of IF be paid per state law e ordinance and information concernin IF aze available for examination at th insp.: Deppt, 9800 Gov't Center Pazkwa~ esferfield, VA, and- at the Count ministrator's Office (Room 505) at th esterfield County Admin. Bldg, during •malbusiness hours. hearing is held at a public facility iggnned to be accessible to persons with ibilities.- Any persons with questions the accessibility of the facility or need reasonable accommodations should tact Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Boazd, '48-1200. Persons needing interpreter ices for the deaf must notify the Clerk ater than Friday, February 8, 2008. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ., ~~"'""'~`°~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1 of 1 _ _ AGENDA ~~RCIN}A Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 16.C. Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider the Leasing of County Property at James River High School County Administrator's Comments: County Administrator: Board Action Requested:' Approve the leasing of county property at James River High School to New Cingular Wireless. Summary of Information: On November 9, 2005 the Board authorized Cingular to apply for conditional use for construction of a communications tower at James River High School. On January 9, 2008 the conditional use was granted. An existing light pole at the football field will be replaced with a structure capable of supporting the lights and communications antenna. The lease will be for five years at $12,000 per year, with three five-year renewal terms. A public hearing is required to lease county property. Approval is recommended. District: Midlothian Preparers John W. Harmon Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Right of Way Manager ^ No # ~~~~'~~~ VICINITY SKETCH PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE LEASING OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT JAMES RIVER HIGH SCHOOL tea'' -~ ~ -t~` c~ m a¢ <~~o a•S' % ~ ~ oad~ Cs ~I~1 ~ ~ s ~~ ~N p~ ~ Oltr r4~~ ~ p~~ -a ~ ` O ~~ ~~, c~ ~ u` ~\V ~ ~ ,~ R1~ ~ ~' ~~a5 20 t~iv~'~ro x ~ TER ~ ~Qe~°~s ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ r y~ RQ Proposed Leased Area ~~ r ~ oy ~ o~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~Q G~ 0 J ~ ~J ~,~~ 4` ~ ~ Q ~ .~ P ~~~ ~ ~~L ~ ~ 5 F~~ Z~~ O~ ~ O V ~ fi ~ ~~ ~ ~ O . ~ h ~~ ~ ~L+ 4~ '9 ~~ x z fi '~{4 4,,~ N Chesterfield County Department of Utilities W ~ ~~~- E r S I I~cl egraK 665b7 >pet ~,T~~..Y0..0~~ PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER LOCATION EXHIBIT A 07SN0354 -1 (~ ~ ~ a;D "~L'7 }cu+ C•~mmnnitv:Ynrs~ttyerSimv 1995 B(7. Jicn 161h, :4lidhghian, ~'irgu»u? 111:3 • tficaxr: i°«(!a1 _`+44-?ilA.I • Fax: itilFil?44-33t+1 • rinuuL' nrw~a(n`7rhaaicH~altluhsrrcer.a,m • Intcmrc ww-w.clxsteriitl~rhr,~n;ecam, ADVERTISING Ai?~'iDAWT Client Description .Ad Sirc Cost (per issuel Chesterfield County James River High I col x 2" 5`10.QU Right Of Way -flu Ubscrver, Inc. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER 'Chis is tp certify that the. attached Icgal native wa„t published by Chesterfield Obsen~er in the county pf Chesterfield, state pf Virginia, on the following dates}: 02~06i?OOS TAKE ~O I'ICE: `~ •ln~, un sthruut) T ztioy, •• Swam to and subscribed befpre me this ~p~ day of ~t 6.3Q p m qr as con thcrea(ttr ~8 mdy ~ ~' ~h'e=_kcnrd:_;thc~_NoarJ"nf:5upervtsGrf qi , {?hrsCrrfcltl (.c1:t01\ at tt> rc~ ular mcrii~g pla« 3n the Un~rd R.+nm' of Ch trr(te~td '`~ ~~,, L,~ (~ar L.~ ~ilUc~.. COUnty ~ uginu: wt(1 cotntdir thr lra>;ing i""! ."'.' . Of <,auntl_proper:y nt Jurn~s Ritrr,Hig LJ `S:h'rail.lfdHili+~nrn.RR•rrRnad,_. Ins'nrnatiun...ic};atdinw the; Fn 1.;cr4 lease tn- on Itlc iif ~ the nt*1tr'. od ~;`. theRight of 1ti`aT~-lfnnahei to C1,cs(ttfielsl,: ~~ 4 ot:my Vnc,tnia.~and ma}'..hc obtalneA hY , ~~'Irntc~estrllai~tic+bn r,cnlhchvui~vl~; ` a~?6 n"n, nnd~:~fl,Tns rl+inda~ th~tri,gh~' legal Af6anl Jpalli ' l.t p0, OtHCy PUbI1C Fridsi,•_ , M_ycommissianexpires: November 3U,2UlU C'pmmission LD. 740135 (SI:AI~I r~PQ ~~pNV~f-~ a d ' .~ ~.0= .O L ~~ ~~~ QRY P Trrrs rs ~vo~r t~ Bir..r_. PLF:rtisr~ p~~v r~ROi.~r ri`vorCE. -rrr:~~r v~rl. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: February 13, 2008 Item Number: 18. Subject: .Adjournment and Notice of Next Scheduled Meeting Supervisors County Administrator's Comments: of the Board of County Administrator: Board Action Requested: Summary of Information: Motion of adjournment and notice of the Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on February 27, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Preparers Janice Blakley Attachments: ^ Yes Title: Clerk to the Board ® No