Comprehensive plan for county is moving forward
By Greg Pearson STAFF WRITER

Turner

After being discussed for years, the county is taking its first steps toward developing a countywide comprehensive plan. Next month, a committee will begin reviewing proposals by outside firms interested in taking on the project. Many would probably agree that this plan, when adopted, will be a signature event for the county and the new county board because one of the primary objectives is to "identify the extent that Chesterfield County wants to grow."

"We have experienced rapid growth in the past that overwhelmed our ability to deal with it," said Planning Director Kirk Turner. "There are jurisdictions that ratcheted back their growth and were successful to the point that it wasn't healthy for their communities, so we want to make sure we don't make the same mistakes as those counties."

Mike Bacile, director of the purchasing department, confirmed that Jo Carol Mayton, who works in his office, will chair the committee (as a non-voting member) with county employees and "other stakeholders," but he declined to give further details.

"That information is not typically released," he explained. "The evaluation committee needs to operate independently to review the proposals. If the members were identified, it would increase the chance of outside influences."

Lisa Billings/Chesterfield Observer A countywide comprehensive plan would help address zoning issues for undeveloped and infill properties like this one on Midlothian Turnpike.

The 42-page RFP (request for proposal) was developed after discussing it with three planning firms who might be among those submitting bids. The county board will award the bid at its Dec. 17 meeting.

According to Assistant Planning Director Glenn Larson, a draft will be ready for public review in the spring of 2010 with help from a steering committee appointed by the board and comprised of the business community, citizens and county staff. The RFP specifies a minimum number of community meetings but few would be surprised if there are more. Larson called it "significant public education and participation."

Some of the area plans currently in place, such as the Upper Swift Creek Plan and the Courthouse Road Plan (from just south of Midlothian Turnpike to Hull Street Road), took years to be  approved. The comprehensive plan will incorporate 21 area plans and five countywide plans and address land use, including new urbanism, transportation,  public facilities, levels of service (for roads,  schools and other county services), economic development, water quality and the environment, green infrastructure and sustainability, energy conservation, housing, revitalization, design features and historic places, and how to implement the plan.

Besides holding at least two community meetings in each of the five magisterial districts, the selected firm will develop a Web site to update citizens and other interested parties. It will also facilitate at least four joint meetings with the board, school board and planning  commission and three public hearings during the revision process.

Several county leaders expect stakeholders in each of the existing plans to show up and fight for what they like in their current plans while proponents of change will seek modifications. In some instances, that may pit residents against the business community. Less than a year ago, for example, residents along Courthouse Road prevailed over some property owners by limiting the amount of land along that roadway for commercial uses.

The RFP limits reference to the "mass transit component," though the one sentence mention might call for a review of GRTC buses traveling Chesterfield roads. Chesterfield owns half of GRTC, but few routes enter the county except for commuter service to and from downtown. With four new members, this board has yet to voice its view on that issue.

Other potential minefields might include growth versus slow growth versus no growth; levels of service; and future school locations. The county has a bond referendum tentatively scheduled for 2012, and the sites and number of schools will be determined by a public facilities plan, available funding, land considerations and where growth is most likely to occur.

The firm will also have to "gauge the potential costs associated with possible new initiatives." That could include a tug-of-war over money for schools versus roads, or money for salaries for police officers and teachers versus other more tangible needs.

"The better the communication, the more likely the disagreement," said one county official who declined to be identified. "Chesterfield only has so many resources."

The firm is expected to have to walk gingerly among known preferences by supervisors, school board members and planning commissioners. That same county official predicted some of them "will be lobbying hard for their agendas."

The complete RFP is at www.chesterfield.gov/ManagementServices/Purchasing/BidRfps/rfp-9736-complete.pdf.