GENERAL COMMENTS SUMMARY II

General Comments

This section presents the 27 comments received from the public regarding various aspects of the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan since the original General Comments Manual was published in November 2008. These comments have been received through a variety of means including, but not limited to, direct mail, e-mail, and submissions to the County’s website for the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

While later sections of this document present more specific comments regarding the Draft 2026 Future Land Use Plan Map and Draft 2026 Major Thoroughfare Plan Map, the comments in this section are more general and have been organized by magisterial district.

In some cases, comments contained specific questions, which warranted an immediate response. Those responses made by staff are shown along with the respective comments. We would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all those who took the time to forward us their comments regarding the various parts of the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

240 2026 Comprehensive Plan General Comments – Part II – Fairfield

Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Mr. Emerson: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Davidson:

We are writing to you about a parcel of property that we currently own, I am responding to your October 9, 2008 letter regarding the which is located at 2104 Cool Lane, Richmond, Virginia 23223. The recommended designation of the Tax Parcel 800-726-1663 in the Draft Tax Parcel I.D. number for this property is 800-726-1663, and it is 2026 Comprehensive Plan. The property is generally located in the zoned R-4, one family residence district. northeast quadrant of Cool Lane and 21st Street in the Fairfield Magisterial District. Our reason for writing to you is because we are concerned about possible changes to this parcel's current land use designation. We As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of updating have recently contracted with Virginia Real Estate & Development to the County's existing 2010 Land Use Plan. Along with the proposed explore the various development possibilities of this property, and they Future Land Use maps, staff has posted all of the draft chapters on our in turn have contacted Ms. Rosemary Deemer-Planner 4, Mr. Roy website and continues to solicit input on the information. Props, as well as Mr. Livingston Lewis, all with Henrico County Planning. As noted in your letter, this property is being recommended for Suburban Residential 2 (SR2), which recommends single-family development with Per their phone conversations with these folks, it is our understanding a density of 2.4 - 3.4 units per acre in the Draft 2026 Comprehensive that according to the current Henrico County Comprehensive Plan Plan. This would be a change from the designation in the 2010 Land Use 2010, that this parcel's current land use designation is (UR), Urban Plan, which recommends Urban Residential (UR) with a density range of Residential. However in the Henrico County Comprehensive Plan 3.4-6.8 units/acre. The subject property is zoned R-4, One- Family 2026, this parcel's land use designation is slated to be changed to Residence District which allows a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. (SR2), Suburban Residential 2. In consideration of the recommended land use for this property, staff evaluated existing zoning and development trends in the area. The Because we would like to develop this parcel into a single family property abuts single-family uses with a density range consistent with the condominium, or townhouse community in the very near future, we recommended SR2 designation and believes single- family use would be sincerely feel that the highest and best use for this property would be to compatible with adjoining development. More intensive development maintain it's current land use designation of (UR), Urban Residential. could be evaluated via rezoning requests in the future. Other reasons that we feel this way are because the property across the street, to the South, an apartment complex is designated as multi- As the Planning Staff continues to work with the Board of Supervisors family residential, and to the West is an existing single-family and Planning Commission it is anticipated that a public hearing for public subdivision. The land to the north and east is a public school. comment will be held during the first several months of 2009. I encourage you to continue visiting the Planning Department's website for We understand that there have already been six public meetings updates on the Comprehensive Plan. You can find more information concerning the Comprehensive Plan 2026, and also that a window of about the Comprehensive Plan update at the following website:

Friday, May 15, 2009 241 opportunity still exists to make such a request to the Comprehensive http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm. Plan 2026. Our contact person(s) with Virginia Real Estate and Development are Mr. Rick Sanders, agent and Mr. Mike Pintz, Principal Thank you for taking the time to review the draft land use maps; we need Broker. They can be reached at either (804) 798-2440, or 1 (800) 550- input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If you have any 2440. Thank you for your attention to this matter. questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact Jean Moore, Assistant Director of Sincerely, Planning, at 501-4602. Ken and Sharon Davidson Sincerely, R. J. Emerson, Jr., AICP

NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 330 for more information.

Friday, May 15, 2009 242 Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Dear Mr. Emerson: Mr. Tingley:

We have reviewed the proposed 2026 Comprehensive Plan map and I am responding on behalf of Mr. Joe Emerson, Director of Planning, to request that the above captioned parcels (812-726-0522, 812-725- your March 18, 2009 email. You have requested a change in the Draft 4066, 811-725-7591) be designated in the 2026 Comprehensive Plan 2026 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map for properties located as "Multi-Family Residential.” along Cedar Fork Road.

Adjacent land uses make the property unsuitable for single family As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of updating residential: The adjacent property on the southwest is designated and the County’s Comprehensive Plan and at their public meeting on March developed as multi-family. The property on the east is designated 12, 2009, the Henrico County Planning Commission recommended the commercial and a portion of it is already developed as commercial. To Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors for the north is a swath of property owned in fee simple by Virginia Power adoption. Staff continues to compile comments and proposals for land that includes a major substation and overhead transmission lines. This use changes. The information included in your email has been added to gives an industrial feel to the area that negatively affects the the list of proposals for land use and textual changes to the Draft Plan. marketability and possible future value of single family homes. Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Department and the Board We have been marketing the subject property for sale for several years of Supervisors at an upcoming work session. The date for the work as single family residential. These adjacent features are the most often session has not yet been set so I encourage you to visit the Department's cited reasons for a lack of interest in the property and have significantly website at http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for contributed to the difficulty in marketing and selling the property as it is updates on the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates. currently zoned. Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive There is adequate access to the property. We have obtained the Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If necessary right of way to provide an entrance into the property along you have any questions or need additional information about the Old Cedar Fork Road directly into the property from Nine Mile Road. Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. Rezoning will provide adequate protections. Designation of a land use in the Comprehensive Plan is only a guide. As we work to make use of Sincerely, this property, any different use of the property will require that the Rosemary D. Deemer property be rezoned. At that time, we will work with the county to insure that adequate protections are in place to insure a high quality community on this site. We urge your favorable consideration of this request.

Sincerely, Clement “Kim” Tingley

Friday, May 15, 2009 243 Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Henrico County Planning Department: Mr. Adams:

I am writing on behalf of Windsor Business Park, located on East I am responding to your February 18, 2009 email. You have requested a Parham Road and Magellan Parkway. I have reviewed the 2026 change in the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Plan for the area that has been previously studied in for properties located in the Scott Road area. the “Scott Road, small area study” and would like to make the following comments. As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of updating the County’s Comprehensive Plan and at their public meeting on March Other than Windsor Business Park and Park Central, the 2026 Plan 12, 2009, the Henrico County Planning Commission recommended the proposes that all of the remaining land in the Scott Road area become Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors for an “Urban Mixed Use”. This corner of I-95 and I-295 represents the adoption. Staff continues to compile comments and proposals for land last large, undeveloped area in Henrico County for a large, economic use changes. The information included in your email has been added to development type, homerun project – (another White Oaks or Cap One the list of proposals for land use and textual changes to the Draft Plan. Headquarters). Don’t let Henrico County’s last corner for a big project turn into a cutesy, trendy, residential/retail area. It won’t be the job Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Department and the Board magnet or produce the commercial tax base that Henrico needs. of Supervisors at an upcomingwork session. The date for the work session has not yet been set so I encourage you to visit the Department's Additionally, Windsor Business Park and Park Central are both website at http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for Office/Showroom and Light Industrial Projects. Both projects have the updates on the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting docks, dumpsters, trucks, generators, etc. that are typical of this dates. product type. When our projects were undergoing our initial approval process 10 years ago, neighborhood groups lobbied vigorously to try Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive and minimize these (necessary) aspects of our projects. Those Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If concerns of nearby residential areas are understandable. Don’t inject you have any questions or need additional information about the more residential onto the other side of our parks into the area that is Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. currently slated in the 2010 Land Use Plan as more uses similar and compatible to Windsor Business Park and Park Central. Sincerely,

Please include these comments for consideration of the Planning Rosemary Deemer Commission and Board of Supervisors on this subject.

Sincerely,

Mitchell K. Adams Vice President, Windsor Business Park

Friday, May 15, 2009 244 2026 Comprehensive Plan General Comments – Part II – Three Chopt

Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Henrico County Planning: Dear Mr. Gunst:

Please consider amending the alignment of Concept Road #132. I am responding on behalf of Joe Emerson to your December 11, 2008 Attached is a plan which illustrates the proposed alternative alignment. letter regarding the alignment of Concept Road #132, generally located (See Appendix 4) west of Pouncey Tract Road and just north of Interstate 64. As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of updating the The alternative alignment is more efficient. Unlike the frontage road County's existing 2010 Major Thoroughfare Plan as part of the Draft 2026 (Bacova Drive) the alternative provides functional access on both sides Comprehensive Plan. Along with the proposed Major Thoroughfare Plan and creates more efficient land bays with better access. The alternate maps, staff has posted all of the draft chapters for the Draft 2026 alignment creates a more functional intersection at North Gayton Road Comprehensive Plan on our website and continues to solicit input on the with more useable corners and potentially reduces environmental information. impacts. The alternate alignment could be built as development occurs. The alternate alignment would be less likely to conflict with any future Planning staff is currently compiling comments and proposals for widening of I-64 or future interchange at North Gayton Road. Adoption changes to the draft Plan. Your request will be reviewed by staff in the of the alternative need not affect the North Gayton Road project. The Planning and Public Works Departments. I encourage you to visit the alternate alignment would accommodate future growth in eastern Planning Department's website for updates on the Comprehensive Plan. Goochland County. The alternate alignment will reduce traffic impacts Additionally, the Planning Commission has scheduled a public hearing to existing and future residences on Kain Road. regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan for January 22, 2009 at 6:00. You can find more information about the Comprehensive Plan update at Bob Gunst the following website: http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm. (for owners of parcel 735-767-9459 Smith & Shiner) Thank you for taking the time to review the draft maps; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If you have any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4427.

Sincerely, Seth D. Humphreys

NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 335 for more information.

Friday, May 15, 2009 245 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Henrico County Planning: The comments were submitted during the January 22, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing as part of the public record. Additionally, the The attached exhibits (See Appendix 4) are a revision to those comments are addressed in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of submitted December 12, 2008 at the Planning Commission work this document. See page 335 for more information. session. The proposed alignment has been relabeled to correctly identify the portion which is properly labeled Concept Road #204. The comments have also been revised. Again your consideration of this proposal is appreciated.

The alternate alignment will not conflict with potential future improvements such as the interchange at North Gayton Road & I-64 which is identified on the Transportation Plan including a widening of I- 64 to accommodate feeder lanes. Bacova Drive will ultimately conflict with these improvements.

Extension of the concept road and the I-64/North Gayton Road interchange will be critical to realization of any planned business or commercial growth along the I-64 corridor. Re-alignment of the concept road will have no effect on the current North Gayton Road Extension. The concept road would be constructed in conjunction with future development as it occurs. The alternative alignment is more efficient. Unlike the frontage road (Bacova Drive) the alternative alignment provides functional access on both sides and creates more efficient land bays with better access. The alternate alignment improves undeveloped property, vehicular access and will reduce traffic impacts on Kain Road. The alternate alignment provides a more logical and functional line from which to establish transitional land uses. Areas lying between the concept road and I-64 should be primarily business use and areas lying between the concept road and Kain Road or Pouncey Tract Road could be a transitional mix.

Bob Gunst (for owners of parcel 735-767-9459 Smith & Shiner)

Friday, May 15, 2009 246 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Henrico County Planning: The comments were submitted during the March 12, 2009 Planning Commission work session as part of the public record. Additionally, the The attached exhibit (See Appendix 4) reflects revisions proposed to comments are addressed in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of the Transportation component of the Proposed 2026 Comprehensive this document. See page 335 for more information. Land Use Plan. Specifically, alignment revisions are proposed to Concept Roads #132 & #204. Your consideration of this proposal is appreciated.

As proposed, the alternate alignment would not have any effect on the current North Gayton Road Project. The proposed alternative alignment will better facilitate and could significantly reduce cost to construct the future interchange at North Gayton Road & I-64. Extension of the Concept Road and future construction of an I-64/North Gayton Road interchange will be vital to realization of any planned business or commercial growth along this I-64 corridor. The alternate alignment improves access to undeveloped property in this corridor and will reduce traffic impacts on Kain Road which is predominantly residential in character. The acting director of Public Works said he would support the proposed alternative alignment for the reasons stated above.

Now is the time to incorporate this alternative alignment into the County's comprehensive plan. There is nothing to be gained by delaying. The alternative alignment is more efficient. Unlike the frontage road (Bacova Drive) the alternative alignment provides functional access on both sides and creates more efficient land bays with better access. The alternate alignment provides a more logical & functional line from which to establish transitional land uses. Areas lying between the Concept Road and I-64 should be primarily business use and areas lying between the Concept Road and Kain Road or Pouncey Tract Road could be a transitional mix.

Robert Gunst

Friday, May 15, 2009 247 Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Jean: Dear Mr. Cross:

Thanks for taking my call on Monday and for providing information This is to confirm that I have received your request and I am forwarding relative to 5351 Pouncey Tract Road. To confirm, I represent Dover this to staff to add to the Comp Plan comments to be reviewed. A work Baptist Association, the owner of the subject parcel. I have shared the session will be held but has not yet been scheduled with the Board of substance of our telecon with the Trustees of Dover and they have Supervisors. We anticipate this will be held in May or June. I will asked me to transmit this message to you. certainly contact you for more information if needed.

Dover is an association of Baptist churches located in metropolitan Sincerely, Richmond that, among other things, facilitates the commencement of Jean M. Moore, AICP new church works in its area. The subject parcel was acquired by a group that formed as Wynbrook Baptist Church to establish a new church on the subject site. The group worked hard for several years to raise funds and generate the interest necessary to achieve its purpose. To that end, it entered into agreements with surrounding property owners to access utilities and obtained POD approval from Henrico in 1999.

Despite its efforts, Wynbrook could not establish the critical mass necessary to construct the church it envisioned. As a result, the property was conveyed to Dover's Trustees who agreed to use its resources to commence a new ministry on the property, if possible. During its term of ownership, Dover has used its capabilities but has been unable to successfully accomplish this purpose. Wynbrook's conveyance to Dover anticipated that if Dover were unsuccessful in establishing a church, the land should be sold and the proceeds utilized for the religious purposes specified in the Dover/Wynbrook agreement.

Dover has learned that the Comprehensive Plan of Henrico is undergoing review and that the County is still accepting comments. It also understands that the proposed comp plan will designate its property for semi-public use. After extensive consideration, Dover has concluded that the subject parcel cannot be used for a new church. Consequently, in accordance with the terms of its agreement with the trustees of Wynbrook, Dover plans to sell the parcel and utilize

Friday, May 15, 2009 248 the proceeds as specified in the agreement.

Dover wishes to offer the property for sale to parties who would utilize it for purposes that would not conform to the current semi-public designation. For that reason, the Trustees ask that the use designation of this parcel be revised to the highest classification that can be permitted.

Please let me know what further information the Association can provide to you as you consider its request for modification of Henrico's Comprehensive Plan. Thanks for your assistance.

C. Felix Cross, III

Friday, May 15, 2009 249 2026 Comprehensive Plan General Comments – Part II – Tuckahoe

Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Hello, I am a Henrico County resident. I am concerned over what the Ms. Chase: County has planned in terms of green spaces. I feel like, every day when I drive home down Broad from Innsbrook through Short Pump I am responding to an email you sent to the Planning Department website the trees keep disappearing. More shopping. How much shopping can and Tuckahoe District Supervisor, Mrs. Patricia O’Bannon in January we possibly need, especially now when people are cutting back their 2009. Please accept my apologies for not replying sooner. In your email spending? Retail stores are going bankrupt or on the brink of you requested information on parks and green spaces in the County with bankruptcy? How about all those condos at Three Chopt and Broad - specific concerns related to West Broad Street. those weren't exactly targeted to families, and now how many 20 somethings will even qualify for a mortgage to buy one? It makes me West Broad Street is a designated arterial on the Major Thoroughfare want to move out to Goochland! Can you fill me in on any parks the Plan. These roadways are typically the highest traffic volume corridors county is planning on building in their 2026 plan? I'm quite sure I'd designed to accommodate long vehicle trips while providing necessary rather be spending my time breathing in fresh air generated from lots of access to adjacent land uses. Mixed-use, commercial, retail and office green trees, than charging a fancy outfit at Nordstrom that I couldn't uses have been the recommended future land uses along the W. Broad afford in the first place!!!!!!! Street corridor for some time. In an effort to provide enhanced green space and landscaping, the County has taken several steps. In addition I know I'm not the only person that feels this way. I hear the same to zoning ordinance landscaping regulations and the County’s Landscape conversation on a regular basis at work! Manual, online at http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/apps/lndmanual.pdf, the Board of Thanks and regards, Supervisors approved the West Broad Street Overlay District in 1996. Sandra Chase The district is generally comprised of the area on either side of West Broad Street from the West Broad Street/Interstate 64 interchange west to the Goochland County line. The West Broad Street Overlay District was created to reduce traffic congestion, avoid distracting visual clutter and preserve the aesthetic values of the district. All applications for development or redevelopment along West Broad Street, North Gayton Road, John Rolfe Parkway, Lauderdale Drive, and Pump, Three Chopt and Pouncey Tract Roads are required to have streetscape buffers a minimum of 35 feet in width that include enhanced landscaping. Major developments in the area (Short Pump Town Center, West Broad Village, Towne Center West) have included this additional vegetation in their development plans.

Since the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan is a broad and general guide

Friday, May 15, 2009 250 that provides county-wide recommendations, it does not identify specific locations for future county facilities such as parks and schools. Future planning documents, including a Public Facilities Handbook, will include such information and will be developed with the input and assistance of the Division of Recreation and Parks.

Thank you for taking the time to comment on the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If you have any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. For more information on recreation and parks planning, please contact the Division of Recreation and Parks at 501- 7275.

Sincerely, Rosemary D. Deemer

Friday, May 15, 2009 251 2026 Comprehensive Plan General Comments – Part II – Varina

Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Ms. Moore: Dear Ms. Goodwin:

Please help me by submitting the two attached documents to be On behalf of Mr. Emerson and myself, thank you for your thoughtful reviewed in this afternoon's joint work session regarding 2026 input. comments and submission. The work session this evening will provide a The documents are titled: 2026 Preservation Points and 2026 Historic forum for the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to discuss Resource Losses. (See Appendix 4.) The second is the simpler of the the content of the Comments Manual which documents over 520 two, the Preservation Points document is more in-depth. comments received from residents so far. In order to give ample time to prepare for the work session, the Comments Manual has been closed I realize you must be very busy today and appreciate your assistance and copies have already been sent to the Board of Supervisors and with this, as time is a concern. I would have sent these sooner but I am Planning Commission. Therefore, we are unable to include your a full-time at-home caregiver. I appreciate your time and consideration. submission for tonight's work session. We continue to receive Many thanks. comments, including yours, and these will be documented and forwarded to the Commission and Board as part of the preparation for public [ATTACHMENT] hearings. Attention: Henrico County Board of Supervisors, Henrico County Planning Commission, Mr. Emerson, and Planning Department Staff: The public hearings have not yet been set and your contact information will be added to the list of people to be notified for public meetings. I want I request that this letter be read by all of those reviewing to note that your previous comments regarding historic preservation and Comprehensive Planning input during the associated November 12th the TND draft recommendation for the area you mentioned have been meeting, and made public record. I write to request that the 2026 included in the Comment Manual and have been duly noted and Comprehensive Planning process be lengthened to include the reviewed. Based upon the direction from the Commission and the Board, creation of the historic preservation planning guidelines and planning staff will continue to draft changes to the Plan, and will implementation tools necessary to maintain and protect our county's commence to post the Comment Manual as well as these changes on existing valuable historic resources for the coming two decades. To the planning website. We anticipate this will be posted by the end of next date Henrico County employs no historic preservation ordinances that week, again depending on direction from the Board. can be used to actively protect the valuable assets that evidence our Thank you for your participation and input. county's rich heritage. Jean M. Moore My neighborhood worked together in 2005 and 2006 to show the Board Assistant Director of Planning of Supervisors, Planning Commission and Planning Department the need for an "Elective Historic Overlay District" in our small but historic area. At that time, county staff assured us, time and again, that this would be addressed (perhaps as a Special Strategy Area) during the

Friday, May 15, 2009 252 current Comprehensive Plan update. But when we reviewed the maps and text, we saw that an inappropriate new land use designation: TND, blanketed our neighborhood on the map. Our community is already set in a dense grid. TND suggested that retail and multi-story buildings with a mix of uses be interspersed with our tightly set residential homes. This is the exact opposite of what we have previously worked towards. It’s as though our prior work was not reviewed at all.

When I called to ask about the historic overlay that we and our neighbors had worked so hard on, I was told by Rosemary Deemer, that will not happen during this process. More letters were written, and petitions submitted. In what seems an afterthought, a sentence was included in a letter written by Mr. Emerson to a local citizens group Envision Henrico, saying Henrico would review the need for historic recognition of our neighborhood.

Neither we, nor our neighbors have ever been contacted directly, only receiving that information through the citizen's group, weeks later. The TND has since been changed, but the new designation still suggests a rise in our area's density, where we had made clear the need for character protection planning.

Within the Comprehensive Plan draft, in Chapter 6: Community Character, there is an example of a "Conservation Subdivision". In illustrating this planning technique, it is suggested that those developing property in Henrico review each parcel they plan to develop, as well as look for the views of sites or structures existing on adjacent parcels to seek potential view sheds to highlight in designing each project. This tool shows merit, but includes the preservation of only some of the features listed therein as "secondary conservation areas".

The "Site Layout and Building Organization" portion of Chapter 6 says: Because the placement of a building on the site can have a significant effect on the rural character, dwellings should be situated outside of scenic views from off-site streets or other public lands. The visibility of off-street parking should be minimized by placing parking areas to the side or rear of houses. Appropriate vegetative buffering should be employed to reduce the impact of development on views from off-site

Friday, May 15, 2009 253 roads. Although the text supports the protection of some of the "rural character'', the examples given to illustrate the four step process described in the Cluster/Conservation Subdivision Process Toolbox shown on draft pages 62-64 are in direct opposition to Historic Preservation guidelines employed elsewhere regionally and nationally.

The end results shown in steps 3 and four of the Cluster/ Conservation Subdivision Process (See Appendix 4) actually destroys the view shed from the "historic house and barn" shown in the top left corner. This could have been avoided by routing the three roadways differently, and by strategically placing the home sites shown in alternate locations. The added inroads in the example has been cut as closely as possible to the two historic structures, and is even placed inside of the tree row shown adjacent to that home, that could have been used as an effective buffer. These illustrations suggest that this is the advised method for siting such developments. It should not matter in the case shown who owns the two historic structures, the developer, or an outside entity- this is an example of how the historic character of property can be destroyed- not spared. This is not character protection.

I speak from experience, because Henrico has worked with a developer adjacent to our home to "market" our home as his selling point. The county even accepted the renaming of his project to include the name of our home, which has nothing to do with his property. We were not involved in the county's actions to support our homes heritage as that developer's marketing tool. Because my family's home in Henrico is listed on the Virginia and National Registries of Historic Places with a proviso our address not be made public, those Henrico actions will remove our right to privacy if proper changes are not made.

Attached is a long list of violations that have continued to occur on the seemingly abandoned subdivision site for over two years. The list evidences the hazards and blight that the developer's actions have brought into our otherwise tidy neighborhood. We have made reports to the county of these infractions as they have happened, and have been met with little or no response. Promised documents do not arrive, calls are not returned.

Friday, May 15, 2009 254 Based on the county's lack of support for our preservation efforts, and during our nomination process to the State and National Registers of Historic Places, I have undertaken extensive research into the overwhelmingly continual loss of historic sites and structures in Henrico during the last three decades. There is even a trend of moving buildings out of Henrico so that they can be preserved elsewhere.

As some of you may know, in 1975 Henrico employed Jeffrey Marshal O'Dell to undertake a survey of Henrico's "Historic Resources". In 1976, O'Dell's work was published and publicly sold by the county under the title "Inventory of Early Architecture and Historic and Archeological Sites, County of Henrico, Virginia.”

In 1975, O'Dell wrote in his introduction, "Since only about 1960, approximately 20% of the buildings in Henrico remaining to us from the period before the Civil War have been destroyed-- many of them simply out of needless neglect... the majority being demolished for sand and gravel operations, road expansion, or housing developments. Many of these places could have been saved without unreasonable hardship to the owners."

Thirty-two years have passed since the 1976 historic inventory was published, and little if anything has changed- other than the continually rising number of Historic Resources lost. Several formal county studies have been made researching Henrico's need for Historic Preservation planning tools and ordinances. Years of the Planning Department's time and attention, and unknown amounts of money have been spent, and still no historic preservation ordinances have yet to make it past our Board of Supervisors.

The VDHR and Henrico re-evaluated O'Dell's 1976 work in 1995, and Henrico did the same in 1998. In 2006, 'Vision 2026' partially listed properties lost of those originally counted in the 2010 Plan. At my last count in 2006, at least 162 of the original 183 resources in O'Dell's survey had been lost. How can this continue to happen?

VDHR representatives explained that as historic sites and structures are demolished, others (usually newer) are added to the list. By this

Friday, May 15, 2009 255 logic, Henrico will always have a nice long list of historic resources, perhaps not a list of the merit we once had, but a list high in number. It should be obvious that if response to the possibility of any extinction is only addressed by cataloging, instead of active preservation, the result will be nothing but a list.

But 162 of 183 is not the actual number of historic sites and structures lost as the result of this long repeated pattern of willful negligence. In 2006, the re-evaluations cited above also reviewed another list of properties Henrico has recognized as Historic Resources. As of 2006 the number of historic properties lost totaled 176.

Because no official review has been made public since that time, there is no way to tell how much higher the statistic has risen. This trend is obviously not declining, only regularly masked by the addition of newer and newer resources. Henrico County's Historic Preservation pattern has been to ignore what should be the nominally expanded rights of historic property owners. All of our neighboring counties and the City of Richmond have long utilized some active form of Historic Preservation planning, but Henrico only has a Historic Review Board, powerless other than to make suggestions.

“Keystones" and "rationales" used in comprehensive planning documents pay only lip service to historic preservation. Including text reflecting the desire to support "when possible", the need for preservation and character protection, has in my experience and that of many others, achieved no active end result, even when such properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This form of planning is not working, and needs to be addressed to reflect the merit historic properties add to our county's unique character. Without real tools to preserve such resources, the number of properties lost will only continue to rise. Henrico has the option, through creative use of the ordinance to protect existing historic resources, instead the same pattern of negligence continues.

Henrico has been given or purchased and restored 13 properties which are open to the public, and this fall, co-hosted a Historic Preservation Seminar. But what many homeowners interested in nominations to the

Friday, May 15, 2009 256 State & National Registers may not know, is that achieving inclusion on these lists affords those in Henrico no more preservation or protection from adjacent development than any regular homeowner.

There are written guidelines available via the VDHR and NPS, and both entities will advise Henrico on a site by site basis- if they are asked. But Henrico does not often involve either in planning decisions. Historic Restoration tax credits programs for qualifying owners is available to those owning properties listed at the state and National levels.

A 2007 VDHR study entitled "Prosperity through Preservation" shows that "Virginia's Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program benefits Virginia communities in multiple ways. Since its inception in 1997, the program has spurred private investment of approximately $1.5 billion in the rehabilitation of more than 1,200 landmark buildings. This investment in turn has generated an economic impact of nearly $1.6 billion in the Commonwealth and created more than 10,700 jobs and $444 million in associated wages and salaries."

Instead of repeatedly revisiting the county's self-made need to "regulate" historic properties, Henrico needs to create strong but simple guidelines and ordinances to address the encroachment of development adjacent to historic resources via the requirement of expanded setbacks, designed to preserve each site's character. The creation of strong buffering requirements is necessary to preserve the county's remaining historic view sheds. View shed analysis needs to be undertaken to identify areas vitally in need of preservation. These initial tools could be created through a review of planning methods employed across Virginia and other states rich in similar historic assets.

Henrico County representatives need to look up the definition of historic view shed. It is not the view “of” something warranting preservation, it's the view "from" historic property that first needs to be protected.

Under the current pattern, too much has been lost already. If Henrico continues to relinquish the preservation of our diminishing assets only to the judgment and actions of those developing adjacent parcels, little

Friday, May 15, 2009 257 context of our county's history will remain at all. At this time, and without the inclusion of completed formal studies of our county's historic assets, it is not appropriate to make any final decisions concerning the current draft of the 2026 Plan. What we have to lose in Henrico isn't just locally important; these are historic resources of national importance. Please do not continue to plan our county's future, even for the next eighteen years, without serious review and action to amend of this major oversight.

Sincerely, A. R. Goodwin

Friday, May 15, 2009 258 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Mr. Hazelett, Mr. Glover, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Kaechele, Mrs. O'Bannon, The comments were submitted during the January 22, 2009 Planning Mr. Donati: Commission public hearing as part of the public record.

Following please find the study I have prepared for you, designed to illustrate the recent history of Historic Preservation policy in Henrico County. (See Appendix 4.) This is sent with the hope that each of you will realize and act upon the dire need for active Historic Preservation Planning tools and studies to be made a part of the current 2026 Comprehensive Plan draft.

In 2002, The National Trust for Historic Preservation published A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Historic Places: Local Preservation Ordinances. The guide contains the following, and other helpful text illustrating how the U.S. Constitution upholds states' rights to create Historic Preservation Ordinances:

The authority to regulate private property through historic preservation and land-use laws is derived from the states' police powers. Virtually every state has delegated these powers to the local governments in their jurisdictions and empowered them to regulate development affecting historic sites. Local preservation ordinances vary widely, but they must all comply with five cardinal land-use principles: an ordinance must promote a valid public purpose. That is, it must in some way advance the public health, safety, morals or general welfare; an ordinance must not be so restrictive as to deprive a property owner of all reasonable economic use of his property; an ordinance must honor a citizen's constitutional right to "due process." In other words, fair hearings must be provided and rational procedures must be followed in an ordinance's administration; an ordinance must comply with relevant state laws; an ordinance must apply with equal force to everyone. That's called “equal protection of the law."

The text above begs many questions, among them: Without the inclusion of Historic Preservation tools, does Henrico's current Zoning Ordinance comply with the five cardinal land use principles shown above? Does it 'advance the general welfare' to continue the

Friday, May 15, 2009 259 Comprehensive Planning process without providing even minimal protection for our county's Historic Resources? Does the Zoning Ordinance provide 'equal protection under the law' to the owners of historic property? If development surrounding and on known historic property continues to remove the context of these Historic Resources through the loss of their view sheds, is that equal protection? As they are also under the Dillon Law, how have all of the counties surrounding Henrico (and the City of Richmond) addressed Historic Preservation?

So few of our county's historic structures and archaeological sites remain, especially in areas where adjacent development is still a possibility: it’s of prime importance that you, our county leaders, make a start by employing the creativity necessary to create some simple Historic Preservation "implementation tools” prior to any consideration of the adoption of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

The study on the following pages (See Appendix 4) lists Henrico Historic Resources lost, ending in 2006, and details several simple tools that could easily be adopted to help provide against further losses.

In Henrico, we have physical evidence remaining from over 300 years of history not just locally but nationally important history.

In 1975, Henrico County undertook a survey of our county's Historic Resources. The resulting survey was published in 1976, and again in 1978 under the title INVENTORY OF EARLY ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, COUNTY OF HENRICO. The survey gave background information on 183 sites and structures in Henrico County. By 1998 at least 85% of those resources no longer existed. In 1998, Henrico County published a new "Inventory of Early Architecture", again detailing 183 resources. How is this possible? 85% of the 1998 Inventory content was comprised of newly named sites and structures. As the evidences of our county's rich history continue to be lost, newer sites and structures are proclaimed 'historic'. By early 2006, 15% of the 183 newly named resources had also been lost. This pattern still continues.

Friday, May 15, 2009 260 Because no official review has been made public since 2006, there is no way to tell how much higher the statistic has risen; the 2008 totals are unknown. This trend is obviously not declining, only regularly masked by the addition of newer and newer resources. All of the counties surrounding Henrico (including the City of Richmond,) have created some form of active Historic Preservation planning.

I understand that the County is currently in the process of planning for the Historic Resources Inventory to be updated, which is a valuable step in the preservation process, but it is not appropriate to pass the current Comprehensive Plan draft without adopting actual active preservation tools.

How can this pattern of loss be arrested? Current 2026 Planning could immediately achieve an initial historic preservation effort through the creation of simple implementation tools. Henrico needs to create tools such as increased setback requirements to address new construction adjacent to properties on the State and National Registers of Historic Places and those properties listed as "Historic Resources" in Henrico County. Another tool immediately available is the creation of buffering requirements to address infill adjacent to known historic resources. These would both be quick and easy ways to preserve our county's few remaining historic view sheds.

With what little property there is left with developmental potential adjacent to historic resources in Henrico, these measures should not be difficult to implement. In light of the past pattern that has resulted in such a high number of recurring losses, such measures would certainly represent a positive start, and also show Henrico's appreciation of the historic resources remaining.

A little history -In 1988, the Henrico Planning Department Staff delivered a report entitled "Initiatives for Evaluating Historic Preservation Zoning in the County of Henrico, Virginia to the Planning Commission. This is one in a line of past studies undertaken in attempt to support preservation through the adoption of additions to the Zoning Ordinance. The introduction ends by detailing the result of the ten years work that spawned O'Dell's original survey.

Friday, May 15, 2009 261 The report states that five years after O'Dell was employed to catalog the county's historic assets, 'the Planning Commission recommended approval of the comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment by the Board of Supervisors, but in January, 1980, the Board voted to deny the ordinance. This action by the Supervisors resulted in indefinitely tabling the portions of the ordinance designed for historic preservation."

Revisited out of a desire to “revive the need to begin to explore regulations for the protection of the more important of the County's historic resources", the 1989 "Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance” met the same fate when the Board of Supervisors voted it down in 1994. Henrico County's Board of Supervisors have either voted against adopting preservation planning tools, or voted in favor of infill development on or adjacent to historic property in Henrico since that time. No specific ordinance pertaining to historic preservation has since been adopted.

A Citizen's Guide to Protecting Historic Places: Local Preservation Ordinances states ''The basic constitutionality of historic preservation ordinances was upheld in 1978 by the U.S. Supreme Court and has been reaffirmed several times since.” The Henrico County Planning Department and Planning Commissions have spent years preparing studies of, and supporting the need for, Historic Preservation. The study of losses and documents referenced herein show that preservation is necessary and legally possible in Henrico County. Without real tools to preserve them, the number of resources lost will only continue to rise. Henrico has the option, through creative use of the zoning ordinance to protect existing historic resources, instead- the same pattern of negligence continues.

2010-2026: All of Henrico's neighboring counties and the City of Richmond have long utilized some active form of Historic Preservation planning. In February of 1990 Henrico created the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee to market, promote, inform, celebrate, recognize, and develop guidelines pertaining to Historic Resources.

Guidelines called "Keystones" and "Rationales” used in comprehensive

Friday, May 15, 2009 262 planning documents pay only lip service to historic preservation. For example, there is text in the current 2010 Comprehensive Plan slating the desire to support, "when possible”, the need for preservation and historic character protection.

These guidelines have achieved little active end result, even when potentially affected properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic structures, archaeological sites, and known graveyards continue to disappear without due process or proper scholarly review. This form of 'planning' is not working, and needs to be addressed to reflect the merit that historic resources add to Henrico's unique history and character.

Henrico has been given or purchased and restored 13 historic properties, some of which are open to the public, and this fall the county co-hosted a Historic Preservation Seminar. But what many home-owners interested in nominations to the State & National Registers may not know, is that achieving inclusion on these lists affords those in Henrico no more preservation or protection from adjacent development than any residential homeowner.

A 2007 VDHR study entitled "Prosperity through Preservation" shows that "Virginia's Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Program benefits Virginia communities in multiple ways. Since its inception in 1997 the program has spurred private investment of approximately $1.5 billion in the rehabilitation of more than 1,200 landmark buildings. This investment in turn has generated an economic impact of nearly $1.6 billion in the Commonwealth and created more than 10,700 jobs and $4.144 million in associated wages and salaries." Preservation obviously bolsters Virginia's economy.

There are written guidelines available to address infill adjacent to Historic Resources via the VDHR and National Park Service. Also, Historic Restoration tax credit programs are available to qualifying owners of properties listed at the state and National levels. Both entities can advise Henrico on a site by site basis- it they are asked. Since these means have been proven successful in historic preservation efforts locally and nationally, could not Henrico County

Friday, May 15, 2009 263 evidence this in the Zoning Ordinance?

2026 example 'markets' historic view sheds: If Henrico continues to relinquish the preservation of our diminishing assets only to the judgment and actions of those developing properties containing or adjacent to historic resources, little context of our county's history will remain at all. A prime example of planning counter to best historic preservation practices, yet represented as such, can be found within the current Comprehensive Plan draft.

In Chapter 6: Community Character, there is an example of a "Conservation Subdivision". This is the only active preservation tool contained in the current 2026 Comprehensive Plan draft. In illustrating this planning technique, it is suggested that those developing property in Henrico review each parcel they plan to develop, as well as look for the views of sites or structures existing on adjacent parcels, to seek potential view sheds to highlight in designing such subdivisions.

This planning technique shows potential merit, but the illustration (See Appendix 4) includes the preservation of only some of the features listed below as "secondary conservation areas'.

The "Site Layout and Building Organization" section on page 51 of Chapter 6 states: "Because the placement of a building on the site can have a significant effect on the rural character, dwellings should be situated outside of scenic views from off-site streets or other public lands. The visibility of off-street parking should be minimized by placing parking areas to the side or rear of houses. Appropriate vegetative buffering should be employed to reduce the impact of development on views from off-site roads." Although the text given above supports the protection of some of the “rural character", the illustration (See Appendix 4) showing the final result of the design process for a Conservation Subdivision (draft pages 53-54) is in direct opposition to Historic Preservation guidelines employed to preserve historic properties and view sheds, regionally and nationally. The end results in steps 3 and 4 of the Cluster/ Conservation Subdivision Process shown actually destroy the viewshed from the “historic house and barn” shown in the top left corner of the illustrations.

Friday, May 15, 2009 264 This could have been avoided by routing the three roadways differently, and by strategically placing the home sites shown in alternate locations. The added inroads in the illustration have been cut as closely as possible to the two historic structures. The entry road is placed inside the tree row (shown adjacent to the home). These trees could have been used as an effective buffer.

These illustrations suggest that this is the advised method for siting such developments. It should not matter in the example shown, who owns the two historic structures; the developer, or an outside entity. It is not the view "of" something warranting preservation, but the view "from" historic property that first needs to be protected. The design outcome shown by Henrico County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan draft removes the historic context of the house, instead of providing view shed protection.

Henrico County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan needs to include Implementation Tools to arrest the loss of irreplaceable Historic View Sheds. Under the current pattern, too much has been lost already. If you choose to face the extinction of anything only by cataloging, instead of through active preservation, you'll end up with nothing but a list. A petition will be submitted to the Henrico County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, asking for the inclusion of Historic Preservation planning in Henrico County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan to arrest the continuing loss of the county's historic resources by: The creation of strong but simple ordinances and guidelines to address the encroachment of development adjacent to historic resources via the requirement of expanded setbacks, designed to preserve each site’s character; the creation of the strong buffering requirements necessary to preserve the county’s remaining historic view sheds. These initial tools could be created through a review of planning methods employed across Virginia and other states rich in similar historic assets and by conducting a complete view-shed analysis and formal survey of historic resources prior to adoption of the 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

What we have to lose in Henrico isn’t just locally valuable; many of

Friday, May 15, 2009 265 these are historic resources of national importance. Please do not continue to plan our county’s future, even for the next eighteen years, without serious review and action to amend this major oversight.

Thank you for your time and creativity in consideration of this serious matter.

Sincerely, A.R. Goodwin

Friday, May 15, 2009 266 Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Dear Mr. Donati: The submitted letter was provided in response to a presentation and group exercise undertaken at the September 15, 2008 Varina Town Hall Congratulations on the success of your September 15th Town Meeting, Meeting and submitted as part of the public record. an important step toward truly open public process in the development of Henrico's 2026 Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate your time and effort in facilitating this initial public overview of the 2026 Plan for Varina residents. It was exciting to see some 230 citizens so graciously provided the opportunity for involvement. We are eager to see how our input will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and look forward to furthering the discussion at your next Town Meeting.

The "work group" aspect of the September 15th Town Meeting was just what the Varina District needed, ensuring all participant ideas were brought forward and considered in context. Ultimately, each group openly voiced the points upon which they agreed. It was truly amazing to hear the same essential concerns for the future growth of Varina from so many groups. Such transparent, open public process is at the very heart of democracy.

Going forward, Varina residents are particularly interested in: Continued public inclusion in the planning process; Access to public comments submitted to date; and County response to the ideas that emerged from the work groups on September 15. Most notably, we are eager to see acknowledgement of the strong interest expressed in the protection of open space (through such strategies as PDR) as well as stronger local mechanisms for the preservation of our nationally treasured natural and historic resources.

We look forward to the opportunity for Varina residents to further continue dialog focused on the 2026 Plan, especially since the groups ran out of time on the 15th. Given the momentum you created with your Town Meeting, we would like to see monthly community meetings (well publicized and regularly scheduled) throughout the remainder of the 2026 planning process. As we have seen with the City of Richmond's Master Plan and in the seven "charrette" meetings for Tree Hill, regular community meetings about land use planning are considered best

Friday, May 15, 2009 267 practice and becoming the norm, both regionally and across the nation. Certainly Henrico County's 2026 Comprehensive Plan merits the very highest levels of transparency and public participation in the process.

From the groundswell of public interest established by your efforts on September 15th, we request you commit to continuing the government- citizen partnership that you have initiated. We believe, in fact, that such government-citizen dialog is the only way Henrico will remain a desirable destination for those of us who already reside here, as well as for future generations. In continuing to support the positive growth management strategies addressed by Varina residents, you will be creating a legacy that can be enjoyed and appreciated by millions into the next century.

In closing, we want to point out that it was probably not just a coincidence that on September 24th Governor Kaine chose a farm in Varina to announce results of a new study on the economic importance of the $79 billion farming and forestry industries in Virginia. One concern that the Governor voiced was the rapid loss of agriculture and forest land in Virginia--some 44,000 acres per year of forestland alone. Farm and forestland is not just vacant or undeveloped -- it is growing food and fiber and providing jobs. We hope you will allow the citizens of Varina to express this more fully at your next town meeting.

We look forward to working with you, to learning how citizen input is being incorporated into the 2026 Comprehensive Plan, and to continued discussion of these important matters. We will contact your office next week to follow up on these requests so that we can get back to our respective communities in a timely fashion. Please contact Charlie Finley at 648-0357 with any questions you may have.

Sincerely, Charlie Finley, Jane Koontz, Lynn Wilson and Bob Gary

Friday, May 15, 2009 268 Submittal Type: Fax Comment Response Dear Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: Dear Mr. Hopson:

We understand that on Wednesday, November 12th, you will be I am responding on behalf of the Henrico County Board of Supervisors, receiving a report on public comments regarding the draft 2026 Planning Commission, and Mr. Virgil Hazelett, County Manager, to your Comprehensive Plan, and that you may be considering setting a November 10, 2008 email concerning the Draft 2026 Comprehensive timetable for the Planning Commission hearing and Board of Plan Update. We appreciate your group’s continued interest and Supervisor hearing on the plan. Yet, we believe that outreach to the suggestions for improving the planning process. community and public input has been inadequate given the potential impact on landowners, taxpayers, neighborhoods, history and During the month of May 2008, the Planning Department held five (5) environment of the county. Therefore, on behalf of many Henrico Community Open Houses, all of which were advertised in the media and citizens, we request that the 2026 Comprehensive Plan timeline be notice letters inviting public participation were sent. The information was extended, allowing for more careful analysis of proposed changes and also made available on the Planning Department’s website. Specifically, the potential fiscal impact on taxpayers, and for more substantive all of the chapters of the Draft Plan, as well as the Open House citizen participation in shaping the future of our community. information, were posted online.

Your 2005 Citizen's Survey found that “citizen knowledge of the The Community Open Houses were attended by over 190 citizens. A Henrico County 2010 Land Use Plan was somewhat low. Overall, 71% Varina Town Hall Meeting drew another 200 citizens, 80 of whom stayed of the respondents said they were not familiar with it or had never to participate in an interactive planning exercise. The comments received heard of it.” Since then the county has not invested sufficient during these meetings have been incorporated in recommendations resources, time and creativity in informing and involving the community forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission and will in the update to the plan, falling short of practices implemented in be addressed in the next update of the Plan. In response to your other neighboring jurisdictions and best practices found elsewhere in the requests for further studies: state and nation. There have been very few opportunities to learn about the plan or to provide public input. At the same time, it appears from Fiscal Impact Analysis: One feature of the contract used to retain the the draft land use map that significant changes are being proposed as consultants assisting with the Plan Update was the development of a a result of input from large individual landowners and developers. Fiscal Impact Analysis. Such a modeling program will support the goal of the Draft 2026 Plan to have a balanced 70/30 split between residential In order for a comprehensive plan to create sustainable economic and non-residential revenues. This tool is currently under development value and to provide clarity and direction for all stakeholders, it must be but cannot be completed until the land uses have been established. Once shaped by a very open and inclusive public process. We suggest completed, the Fiscal Impact modeling program will help ensure the implementing a series of visioning or charrette-style meetings, such as maintenance of continued responsible growth in Henrico County. the one that was begun (but not completed) for the Varina District on September 15th. Proceeding with the required public hearings before Cost of Community Service Study: A Cost of Community Service Study the respective boards is no substitution for real public participation in (COCSS) is a smaller subset of the study of fiscal analysis. As stated by this crucial planning process. Neither the Planning Commission nor the the American Farmland Trust, these studies “provide a baseline of Board of Supervisors should hold hearings or consider the 2026 draft current information to help local officials and citizens make informed land

Friday, May 15, 2009 269 plan until a substantive level of public involvement is demonstrated. use and policy decisions. They do not, however, predict future costs or Since some 230 individuals participated in the Varina District meeting revenues or the impact of future growth.” Though they have been used on short notice, we have every reason to expect that Henrico citizens by over 125 communities across the United States, their use has not are eager, when invited, to come to the table. been proven to be effective in communities similar to Henrico in size and development. Because a Fiscal Impact Analysis is being completed as In addition to vastly improved public involvement in shaping the 2026 part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, undertaking a COCSS would Comprehensive Plan, Henrico County taxpayers need and deserve not be practical. more information on the plan's impacts in order to respond appropriately to it. The information needed includes: Buildout Analysis: Similar to your requested Buildout Analysis, the consultants retained by the County have prepared a Capacity Analysis, Fiscal Impact Analysis: What will be the cost of proposed changes to which illustrates possible scenarios for development in the County based taxpayers, particularly for transportation, water and sewer on land that may be available for possible future development. By infrastructure, as well as for the educational, public safety and comparing the physical geographic capacity of land under current land recreational facilities require? With respect to transportation, how many use regulation and policies to the estimated development demands, it is lane miles will be added, at what cost per lane mile added, and at what possible to identify areas for change and improvement in the Land Use cost to Henrico and the state? Chapter (Chapter 5) of the Plan. This analysis examines the capacity of land in the County under both current zoning and the 2010 Future Land Cost of Community Service Study: Significant additional residential Use Plan. The Capacity Analysis has been available for review and development is proposed and since residential development typically comment on the Comprehensive Plan website since June 2005. A costs more in services than it pays in taxes, a cost of community revised Capacity Analysis will be completed once a Future Land Use service study showing the infrastructure costs (capital and operating Map has been adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. costs and public facilities) for each primary use (agricultural, residential, retail, office, industrial) over time is warranted. Traffic Analysis: Transportation modeling is a tool used to identify deficiencies in both the existing and anticipated future road network in Buildout Analysis: Total estimated build-out of residential units and the County. As part of the Plan Update, a County Transportation model commercial square footage proposed under the draft 2026 plan for was developed. The existing regional travel demand model was refined comparison to buildout under the 2010 plan and under 2010 zoning to include the County’s Draft 2026 land uses and anticipated road (including PODs and Rezonings approved to date). improvements in order to evaluate the adequacy of the Major Thoroughfare Plan network under different growth scenarios. The model Traffic Analysis: Analysis of the transportation performance of the results will allow the County to prioritize needs and allocate funding proposed plan, particularly in view of limited public resources for allocations accordingly. transportation. A specific analysis is needed of choke-points created by the limited east-west arterial routes, particularly between Route 5 and I- Vacant and Underutilized Land Study: Through the previously mentioned 64, given the substantial commuter traffic to jobs in the city and Capacity Analysis, vacant and under-utilized land has been identified for western side of the county. future development potential. In addition, the Planning and Economic Focus Areas Chapter (Chapter 7) identifies over 25 sites as Prime Vacant and Underutilized Land Study: The current 2026 draft mapping Economic Development Areas. These areas include both vacant and of vacant and residential acreage fails to account for land that is previously developed land. Given the importance of these prime

Friday, May 15, 2009 270 currently paved or considered "grayfield" and underdeveloped — land locations to business development and the County’s need to sustain which could accommodate greater density in a walkable, mixed-use business growth, identification of Prime Economic Development Sites environment. With this information the county can calculate how much provides valuable information for future land use decisions. new growth could be accommodated on existing "grayfield" land while improving and reinvesting in existing communities. Agricultural Land and Economy: It was determined, at the November 12, 2008 Board of Supervisors work session on the Draft 2026 Agricultural Land and Economy: Given rising shipping costs due to Comprehensive Plan, that pursuing PDR designations is not a priority energy prices and increased demand for fresh, local food, and given issue for the County at this time; however, the County continues to that agriculture is the top economic sector in Virginia, consideration promote the preservation of rural and agricultural land by means of the should be given to investment in our agricultural land and agricultural Rural Residential/Prime Agricultural land use designation. Its intention is economy. The county should analyze and consider a planning scenario to promote a continuation of historic and rural land use patterns including that uses zoning, purchase of development rights, sale of conservation farms and pasture land. easement tax credits, and value-added agriculture to preserve agricultural lands in the county, which will enhance landowner value Rationale for changes in Land Used Designations from 2010: In while saving public infrastructure costs. comparing land use designations between the current 2010 Future Land Use Plan and the Draft 2026 Future Land Use Plan, there have not been Rationale for Changes in Land Use Designations from 2010: substantial changes. There have been several notable changes Significant changes are being proposed for large parcels of land. including several areas in the Varina District, such as the Varina Farm Information on the rationale for the proposed changes and the entity or area and the area along Wilton Parkway. Additionally, a significant individual that requested each change should be provided to the public. amount of land was changed from Rural Residential to other residential categories in the western portion of the Tuckahoe District and the Viewshed Analysis: Henrico County, particularly the Varina District, is northwestern portion of the Three Chopt District. County-wide, there was uniquely rich in historical and natural resources. A viewshed analysis, a change of just over 4% in land converted from Rural Residential and shown in aerial and perspective photos or modeled in 3-D, can show Prime Agricultural to some other designation. Most of these changes stakeholders the visual impact of the 2026 proposal. represent the current development pattern in the area or directly reflect the wishes of the property owners. Completion of Historical Inventory: Without a current, complete inventory of Henrico's historic resources, the plan will fail to consider Viewshed Analysis: A viewshed analysis can be an important tool in the impact of proposed changes on valuable resources, including loss determining the visual impact a specific development may have on or diminishment through inappropriate development. To our surrounding terrain. A 3-D modeled viewshed analysis of Henrico County knowledge, an historic district has not been nominated since 1987, and in its entirety, at 244 square miles, would be cost prohibitive and would Henrico often does not observe NPS guidelines for development have limited applicability on land use decision-making; however, in the adjacent to historic structures. Prior to completion of the plan, these Planning and Economic Focus Area Chapter (Chapter 7), certain areas resources need to be inventoried and incorporated in alternative of the County have been identified for further study. Areas where views scenarios. Successful historic preservation plays a key role in creating are already identified for protection include Osborne Turnpike and New desirable and economically successful communities, as well as jump Market Road and future studies of these areas could recommend starting neighborhood revitalizations. protection measures and policies that would effectively preserve the natural appearance of the views along these corridors.

Friday, May 15, 2009 271 Updated Growth Assumptions: The draft plan assumes that 73% of new housing will continue to be single family homes and assumes Completion of Historical Inventory: A complete inventory of historic growth out to the edges of the county, but with changing demographics resources is an important task which will require a great deal of time and (fewer families with children and more retirees, empty nesters, and effort to complete and is not feasible as part of the Comprehensive Plan singles), higher long-term energy prices, and a slower economy, the Update; however, because staff recognizes the value of this information, rate of suburban growth in rural areas may slow and the demand for a recommendation has been made to update the Inventory of Early single family houses on large lots will fall, while the demand for Architecture and Historic Sites document. As a recommendation of the attached, multifamily and senior housing will increase. Recreation, Parks, Open Space and Cultural Resources Chapter (Chapter 9), it is intended to be part of the Plan’s implementation process. In closing, we respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to consider this request at your November 12 work Updated Growth Assumptions: County staff is continuously updating session on the 2026 plan. Several of us will be in attendance and look population and housing data in order to assess the needs of Henrico forward to hearing from you, either November 12 or as soon as County residents. While a Comprehensive Plan is a guide to promote possible. To facilitate communications with us, please respond to responsible development, recommendations of the Plan must take into Envision Henrico at [email protected]. account current demographic changes and development needs and trends. The current draft of the Comprehensive Plan is reflective of the Thank you, existing population and housing data and will be reassessed as new data Ken Hopson and trends become available.

I hope this information has been helpful in relaying to you the on-going and impending efforts related to the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update. On Thursday, December 11, 2008 there will be a Planning Commission Work Session on the Plan Update at 6:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Glen Echo Building at 3810 Nine Mile Road. While this is not a meeting for public input, the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission, and you may wish to hear the presentation. Public input will be taken at a future public hearing.

Please feel free to contact me or Jean Moore of my staff, at 501-4229, should you have additional questions. Again, thank you for your interest in the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update.

Sincerely, R. Joseph Emerson, Jr., AICP

Friday, May 15, 2009 272 Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Ms. Deemer: Dear Mr. Waldbauer:

Per my voice mail this warehouse property (4801 S. Laburnum I am responding to your February 5, 2009 email concerning a future land Avenue) has been engulfed by the White Oak Village shopping center use designation proposal you had regarding the Draft 2026 and effectively shares an entrance with it. Given that the Comprehensive Plan. comprehensive plan is under review it would seem that some serious thought should go into this particular corner. The "highest and best As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of reviewing use" is clearly now retail but it is currently zoned PMD (I may have comments received during the public hearing held by the Planning wrong initial but very rare.) Seems like this property should be Commission on January 22, 2009. Planning staff is currently compiling reviewed. Also of note, the current owner will be selling the property in comments and proposals for land use changes and your suggestion has the next few months because they recently announced they are been added to the list of proposals for land use and textual changes to relocating to SC. Developers and retailers alike will force the issue and the Draft Plan. Your request will be reviewed by the Planning it seems wasteful to not address the issues now. Commission at an upcoming work session. The date for the work session has not yet been set so I encourage you to visit the Department's Thank you for your consideration, website at http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for Pete Waldbauer updates on the Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates.

Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If you have any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488.

Sincerely, Rosemary Deemer

NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 339 for more information.

Friday, May 15, 2009 273 Submittal Type: Fax Comment Response Gentlemen: Dear Mr. Tyler:

I am the owner by deed of the property (on Strath Road). I want to sell I am responding to your February 9, 2009 facsimile regarding the this property and have been trying to do so for over a year, by applying removal of a concept road on the County's Major Thoroughfare Plan. for a variance. My Realtor, Lestra B. Waldrop of Long and Foster and I found during this process that my property is encumbered by a As you may know, the County is in the process of updating our "concept road" which goes through one end of the parcel. I had a viable Comprehensive and Major Thoroughfare Plans and the Planning contract on the property but the Purchaser asked to be released from Department is currently reviewing comments received during a public the contract once he found that a concept road was in place. hearing held by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2009. The information included in your fax has been added to the list of proposals This concept road goes from Strath Road to Buffin Road, which I do for land use, transportation and textual changes to the Draft Plan. not see as being a viable roadway now or in the future. It is what I would call a "road to nowhere". I do not believe that this road will ever Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at an become a viable, usable road. The roads it connects are not heavily upcoming work session. The date for the work session has not yet been traveled nor would they ever be main arteries in the County's road set so I encourage you to visit the Department's website at http://www system. co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for updates on the Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates. I am sending you both this letter and the appropriate maps and papers (See Appendix 4) regarding the property so that you will be able to Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive make a reasonable decision to rescind this concept road from the Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If County Master Plan. you have any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. If you need further information or have questions concerning this matter, please contact me at 864/539-9388 or you may contact my Sincerely, Realtor, Mrs. Waldrop, at 804/350-0944. Thank you for your attention Rosemary D. Deemer and cooperation in this matter. NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the Joseph Demetrius Tyler “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 346 for more information.

Friday, May 15, 2009 274 Submittal Type: Memo Comment Response Henrico County Planning Department and Planning Commission: Dear Mrs. Wilson:

Questions and Concerns Regarding Proposed 2026 Comprehensive I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you and the members of your Plan organization who met with several members of the Planning Department on December 18, 2008. We value the input you have provided to our Envision Henrico request for extension, expanded outreach and Department and the Planning Commission and appreciate the information asks the right questions and remains a legitimate request opportunity to provide you with insight into the Plan's development. While for information by citizens. The response of the Director of Planning the meeting provided an opportunity for staff to discuss some of the fails to address the core request for an opportunity for the public to issues your organization has identified, there were other concerns explore the underlying assumptions, to consider alternative scenarios submitted in memos from Mr. Stewart Schwartz and Mrs. Jane Koontz and to participate in charette-like roundtables. See my comments that staff was not able to address during the meeting. Staff has had an responding to the Director of Planning's letter. opportunity to review the memos and, working with our consultants McBride Dale Clarion (MDC), has prepared a response to those items See my updated review of the Demand and Capacity Analysis. Even if not fully addressed during the meeting. I hope that you will find this we assume their population and job projections are correct, they have information helpful as you continue to evaluate and comment on the Draft probably allocated too much new land for development. We need to Plan. find out from the staff, the meeting minutes or some other source which scenario they used to develop the 2026 Draft map and where The reviewer (Mr. Schwartz) of the Demand and Capacity Analyses they decided to allocate the growth. The map of the Broad Street questions numerous assumptions made by the County and the corridor from the west end of Richmond to Short Pump shows 1440 consultants in the creation of the documents leading to the population acres of parking lots and just 110 acres of buildings. and employment forecasts. Several assumptions made by Mr. Schwartz refer to development patterns seen in Northern Virginia. Henrico County Significant changes from the 2010 Plan map to the 2026 Draft Plan believes the basis of these assumptions is unfounded as the map include: development trends in Northern Virginia differ from those in the Changes vast areas of Prime Ag to PA + RR (underlying zoning is A-1; Richmond Metropolitan Area. Greater demand for multi-family housing 1 acre lots in both cases), but we don't have to change this vision of units and higher floor-to-area-ratios (FARs) in Northern Virginia are real agriculture. Changes some areas of RR to RR+PA. Changes an partially based on the increased land values in the area. Increased RR area to SR1 just east of I-295. housing costs and the ability to finance parking structures are a direct result of these increased land values. Henrico County promotes a wide What is the density of SMX? And why were SMX areas added around variety of land use densities, which can be seen through the increased 295 at the James? Why SMX in two areas near Wilton? (Assuming an use of mixed-use districts, which allow for increased density flexibility. interchange will be built?) A UMU next to the approved Tree Hill Farm TND (was UMU on 2010 plan); TND replaced office. What are the two Mr. Schwartz's comments make reference to a national trend for TND's - one huge one by 895 (changed from SR 1) and one in Varina? household statistics whereby only one in four households will have Another large TND added just east of 295 and south of Williamsburg children in the future. While this national trend may be a valid assumption Road. Problem of interchange commercial planned by 295/5 when combining all localities in the country, it would not be prudent for

Friday, May 15, 2009 275 interchange and 895/5 area. Henrico County to assume a national trend applies to its' population forecasts without first analyzing local trends in household composition. Transportation: We still need to see their draft transportation plan The County does analyze and provide population estimates, including chapter. Their transportation needs estimate is based on their 2026 household size, on an annual basis. The trend seen locally in Henrico demand for units and where they allocate that development. By County has been for a higher number of family households containing avoiding infill areas they create a demand for new infrastructure in rural children as compared to the country as a whole. This is partly due to the areas. Need to look at widths and definitions of the roadways (did they award winning school system and high quality of life, which can be redesignate any of the existing roads?) Shows interchange to be built enjoyed by all the citizens of the County, and help to attract economic for Wilton and one for the new SMX development and for the TND east development projects providing quality employment opportunities. of 295; shows too many roads in the PA rural area; shows a major road National and Virginia trends which were once showing decreased along the James connecting the TND's. Route 5 intersection household sizes due to fewer children in family households (those improvements may be incompatible with the scenic corridor; does not referenced by Mr. Schwartz) are now exhibiting an upswing and identify potential transit corridors like Williamsburg Road. stabilization as households become multi-generational, due in part to rising housing costs. Although national trends offer a good point of Rural Solutions: We need to identify our strategy and policy comparison, and were used in the initial Demand Analysis via regional recommendations for protecting the rural areas in the Varina District. projections and Woods and Poole projections, the unique circumstances The biggest problem is that the land is zoned for development. The and trends in Henrico County were found to provide valid basis for the Valley Conservation Council list of tools for preservation is all- population and employment forecasting conducted as part of the encompassing. We need to discuss property rights, Randall Arendt, planning effort. MDC believes the comparison to Northern Virginia and sewer package plants, investing in local agriculture, and other options. the DC region are unfounded as Henrico is in a different market and displays different characteristics and trends than the DC/Northern Review of the Demand and Capacity Analyses: The demand and Virginia Region. capacity analyses prompt some of the most significant issues with the draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. An accumulation of assumptions In response to the concerns that the Demand and Capacity Analyses results in the potential to allot too much land for development and to focus too much on growth, it would be irresponsible of the County to consume more land than is necessary. assume a lower population demand based solely on convenience or a desire to have less land developed. The population forecasts are not only DEMAND ESTIMATES - Population Growth Estimates: The population used for the determination of future land uses, but are also used to growth assumption does not appear to be unreasonable and they project future needs, and budgets for all County services as part of a selected one of two slowing growth rate trends. However, they selected coordinated and comprehensive plan. As such, using a forecast in the a scenario proposed by the staff that did not slow the growth rate as higher end of the range actually allows the County to continue its much as the original one picked by the consultants. The consultant's nationally recognized fiscal responsibility of providing services for all slow trend reduced the growth rate to 1.01 percent by year 14 and .76 residents. It is a conservative budgetary policy for the County to percent by year 19, but the staff scenario didn't go to 1.08 percent until anticipate a greater number of future residents thereby ensuring a year 24 and .90 in year 29. provision of services in the instance where the forecasted number of future residents does not materialize. Population in Group Homes: They did not account for the aging population and kept the assumed population in group homes such as In addition, Mr. Schwartz's review of the Demand and Capacity Analyses

Friday, May 15, 2009 276 assisted living at 1.96%. Group homes would use less land and this was based on data which was provided as context but was not the sole assumption will result in higher demand for other types of housing. determining factor in the creation of the Draft Future Land Use Plan. The Demand Analysis establishes a theoretical growth rate based on trends Demand for Various Housing Types: They assume 66% of households and provides a possible future demand for new housing. This is an in single-family houses, just 7% in townhouses, and just 27% in exercise conducted for "planning purposes" to prepare the County for a multifamily housing. This does not make sense in view of the aging of possible future. It does not represent a policy decision of the County to the baby boom and the demand analysis by Professor Chris Nelson of either promote growth or restrict it. Virginia Tech (now at University of Utah) who finds that households with children will be less than 1/4 of all households in the U.S. by 2020. The Capacity Analysis specifically states that it presents possible This number of townhomes is far less than we have been seeing with scenarios and does not represent policy other than regulations which new development in northern Virginia. The result is a projection of were in place at the time of its creation in the later part of 2004. The higher single family home demand and an assumption that more land Capacity Analysis was an assessment of the current zoning (November will be needed. Their final projection of residential demand is: 51,563 2004) and 2010 Land Use Plan policy. The Analysis was designed to total new housing units; 31,919 single family (3,609 of these as evaluate the potential build-out capacity for the County under those attached or townhouse units) and 9,584 multifamily units. existing policies to aid in decision-making about the revised Draft Future Land Use Plan. The assessment made by Mr. Schwartz that the capacity Our Estimate of the Amount of Land Needed for Residential under their exceeds the demand is partially incorrect as Table 9 in the Capacity Housing Demand Assumptions: Using the 4 units per acre (gross Analysis clearly shows deficits in each of the scenarios in comparison to average) standard required under the HB3202 Urban Development the Demand Analysis. Areas the total number of units would require just 12,891 acres. Applying a more accurate estimate of units per acre for each housing The consultant team (MDC) created an interim technical step while type (note: these are my applied numbers and different from the zoning developing the Plan to coordinate the Transportation, Utility and Land and planning densities found in later charts; this was just an estimate): Use models. This interim step was designed to test the impact of the Using 3 units per acre for the single family: 9,103 acres; Using 7 units proposed 2026 Land Use Plan on the demand for services, public per acre for TH: 515 acres; Using 15 units per acre for Multifamily: facilities, impact on roads and needed improvements, and allocate the 1,306 acres; TOTAL would be: 10,924 acres (this would be NET acres estimated 20 years of growth to the proposed land use pattern. The and not include roads and open space) result was a 20 year growth scenario based on real local trends and availability of land and services rather than a build-out of the County. Due Future Employment Estimates: They appear to project higher jobs per to its extensively detailed nature, this information was not published but it household than is assumed in the DC region. .78 jobs per capita with was used by the planning team to adjust and refine the land use 2.39 persons per household would equate to 1.89 jobs per household recommendations, and the transportation and utility improvements. which is higher than the DC region's assumption of 1.6 jobs per household. For office employment they assume 330 square feet per The Future Land Use Plan proposed for the 2026 Plan was crafted based employee which appears higher than current assumptions elsewhere on information from the Capacity Analysis, Demand Analysis to create on the amount of square feet allocated to each employee. They ran two capacity for more than 20 years of growth and general land use planning scenarios for total non-residential development demand — knowledge by county officials, and refined based on public input, 122,640,388 in 2026 Scenario One (based on Woods and Poole modeling of service provision, and land use efficiency and local population projections) compared to 130,488,262 in 2026 Scenario development trends.

Friday, May 15, 2009 277 Two (based on the county's assumptions). Mr. Schwartz's memo repeatedly mentions the desire for further development in the form of infill development to occur in the western CAPACITY ESTIMATES- Assumptions for Potential Development portion of the County. The Plan does encourage infill growth. Area: Included agricultural lands, residential acreage and vacant land Recognizing the on-going demand for development in the western portion (they also assume 1,418 already built single family homes are on the of the County, the Plan proactively redesignated areas from SR1 to SR2 residential land). Assumes 5,635 square feet as the minimum lot size and other higher densities. Other areas such as Innsbrook and infill set by the county. Discloses that they did not measure parking lots and properties in the northwest have been recommended for mixed-use and other partially developed land as available for future development. The higher density as well. The Plan also recognizes while infill is possible in allocations for development are the basis for the transportation and these areas, it should be noted that greatly increased densities in certain other infrastructure needs, and may explain why they add roads out in developed areas will also put a burden on County services and the prime agricultural areas. Their gross estimate is 73,550 acres of infrastructure. The services and infrastructure currently in place in these available PDA. They subtract estimates for roads and environmental areas have been designed to support existing densities and would have constraints (23,984 acres). Note that they show that less land for roads to be greatly expanded to sufficiently serve significant increases beyond is needed for areas with 1 acre parcels than the larger parcels that will those densities. We believe the Plan incorporates both infill while be developed. recognizing expansion in more rural areas will be necessary. In recognizing growth in the eastern portion, areas recommended for higher It is not clear why they show fewer natural constraints along the James density accounts for only 7% which we find reasonable. as compared to the Chickahominy including the area along the James on both sides of 295. Large portions of the agricultural land have from Additional comments in the reviewed documents refer to potential road 11-31% to 32-56% constraints. County staff did not let them exclude improvements in the County and between the County and neighboring steep slope land at all (because no county regulations currently apply localities. It should be noted the County was one of the first in the state to to steep slopes). They are allowing for significant movement of earth implement the new 527 regulations created by VDOT to review and complete remaking of the contours of the land. They protect development projects along state roadways. The County has and will wetlands within floodplains but take out 50% of the wetlands that are continue to work with VDOT and neighboring localities on improving the outside of floodplains, arguing that these can developed and mitigated. regional transportation network. Specific to the County, the need for future roads in the rural area of the County was requested to be further Scenario I - Existing Zoning applied to PDA's: The floor area ratio for reviewed by staff. During the development of the Draft Plan, a model was office development is way too low (FAR of just .25 or for business created to link the recommended land use and their affiliated impact on district zoning of just .15 to 2) compared to the office development in traffic generation and the creation of the 2026 Major Thoroughfare Plan northern Virginia. This means more land consumed for each office (MTP) element. As mentioned, the focus of growth in the eastern portion building. They apply the following densities under current zoning: 9 of the County is between Rocketts Landing and Wilton on the James. units per acre for residential town house, 14.52 for R-5, 7.74 for R-5A The conceptual roads would be put in place upon development. (TH) and 12 for multifamily. See the full chart. Remaining roads shown on the MTP are a result of the zoning allowance for development of one housing unit per acre. The placement of these Total available capacity is estimated to be: 61,999 units (51,993 single roads on the Draft MTP ensures that, if development at the allowed family, 4,365 townhouse, 5703 multifamily). They show a large excess densities does occur in these areas, there would be an adequate of units compared to the need, especially in single- family and shortage transportation network to support it.

Friday, May 15, 2009 278 of multifamily. At 4 units per acre under HB3202 then 15,522 acres would be needed, but the capacity estimate is based on all of the PDA There were several items in the reviewed documents that the County has land. Non-residential capacity is estimated to be 59,987,869 square already addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and feet. Board of Supervisors, including provisions for a bicycle component. The revised Draft Plan has been available for review on the Plan's website Scenario 2A and 2B (low and high scenarios under 2010 plan and at local libraries since December 5, 2008. Additionally, information densities) - They reserve just 25% of the prime agricultural area for on widths and definitions of roadways has been available in the prime agriculture and let 75% go to residential. Estimates take out land Transportation Chapter (Chapter 10) and on the Draft Major needed for roads and environmental constraints. Scenario 2A has 1 Thoroughfare Plan Map since their original posting in August 2006. house per 10 acres in rural residential but Scenario 2B has 1 house per 1 acre in rural residential, higher urban residential and multifamily The decision to incorporate the Prime Agricultural and Rural Residential planned densities, and mixed use and urban mixed use density of land use categories into one combined category was made at the 19.80 units per acre. Their estimate is that the 2010 Comprehensive beginning of the planning process for the Draft 2026 Plan. As the Plan Scenario 2A (low) allows 20,726 units and Scenario 2B: 59,965 densities for development were the same (no less than 1 unit per acre), units (both are less than the 2004 zoning). There are too few units and would therefore be modeled identically under the Demand and under 2A. There are too many single family units under 2B (17,350 Capacity Analyses, it was decided that they would be integrated into one extra) and shortages of both townhomes and multifamily housing. land use category. These shortages are probably even larger given the failure to account for changing demographics and demand. Non-residential capacity is Mr. Schwartz's memo points out several instances where land use 93,569,607 square feet under Scenario 2A and 97,169,555 under 2B. designations have changed between the adopted 2010 Plan and the Draft 2026 Plan. The Draft 2026 Plan attempts to direct growth and There is a phenomenal surplus of commercial/industrial land measured development for the next 20 years while also recognizing the in square footage of development: development that has occurred since the adoption of the 2010 Plan. Capacity Scenario 1 = 59,964,368; Surplus = 22,197,980; Percentage Several areas have been designated Urban Mixed-Use, Suburban Mixed- of Extra Capacity = 37% Use and Traditional Neighborhood Development based on review of Capacity Scenario 2A = 93,569,607; Surplus = 55803,219; Percentage existing conditions, planned future infrastructure and in some instances, of Extra Capacity = 59.6% requests from the property owners. Information on the proposed Capacity Scenario 2B = 97,169,555; Surplus = 59,403,167; Percentage densities of these categories has been available in previous draft of Extra Capacity = 61% documents and on the Plan website since August 2006. It should be noted that several areas identified in Mr. Schwartz's memo as having This surplus of commercial and industrial land will cause new non- certain land use designations have been changed. Updated maps with residential development to waste land, take land that could be used for revised designations were made available to the public in September residential and will push more growth into rural areas. 2008.

Final Observations: The population and job forecasts may each be a Finally, as the public comment process is still open, with public hearings little bit high, but if we accept the forecasts themselves, there are still anticipated before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, other assumptions which result in too high an estimate of needed land. expanded public outreach has been determined to be satisfactory. They do not adjust for changing demographics and call for too many

Friday, May 15, 2009 279 single family detached units and not enough townhouses, multifamily The Planning Department appreciated the opportunity to meet with your and assisted-living group homes. Their assessment of Potential organization and discuss the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. As the Development Area completely excludes parking lots and other partially Planning Commission moves forward with additional opportunities for developed areas including large areas needing revitalization. Using this public input, we look forward to your continued involvement in the land would mean less need to push development into rural areas. The process. Should you have additional questions, please feel free to PDA does not exclude steep slopes (per request of the staff) and contact me or Jean Moore, Assistant Director of Planning, at 501-4229. allows development on 50% of the wetlands outside floodplains. Sincerely, In the scenarios for 2004 zoning, 2010 Plan low and 2010 Plan high, R. J. Emerson, Jr., AICP they show a large excess of units compared to the need under the 2004 zoning, far too few units compared to the capacity under the 2010 Plan low and a surplus of units under the 2010 Plan high. There is a very large surplus of commercial and industrial square footage in their allocations. Using their projections of number of units and applying the HB3202 UDA standard of 4 units per acre (gross average) the amount of land needed would be: 12,891 acres for residential development.

We don't know which capacity scenario they used to meet the estimate of 2026 demand and we don't know how they arrived at where they would allocate the residential and commercial demand. We also don't know how many acres of parking lot and underdeveloped land are available to absorb the demand. If we reduce the land allocated to non- residential, use the parking lots, increase the townhouse and multifamily, and apply the UDA standard of 4 units per acre, then it is likely that far less new land will have to be allocated for development.

We feel that too much new land is allocated for development in Varina at unneeded densities - especially in Prime Agricultural areas. The map of Broad Street corridor shows 1,440 acres of parking lots, just 110 acres of buildings, and still much partially developed land. Infill development in western Henrico would take care of much new growth, allowing more rural land in Varina to remain rural.

Question: Which capacity scenario did the planning staff use when forecasting the rate of growth in population — the consultant's or another scenario? What process did the planning staff use to designate the locations in Henrico County where new residential and commercial growth is allocated?

Friday, May 15, 2009 280 Demographic trends indicate an aging population, many living in group homes, and households with fewer children, therefore more demand for town houses and multifamily housing. Since demand for single- family units will be diminished, less land will be needed for residential development. Your 2026 projections indicate 66% of households will live in single-family housing (which does not coincide with other expert demographic forecasts).

Colors for land-use categories have changed from the first draft versions of the 2026 plan to the current version — from less density to greater density, Several of these tracts of land appear to be located where the largest landowners in Varina hold property. Question: Did any landowners or developers request changes in land-use categories resulting in greater density for their land (ultimately translating into more favorable selling prices when this land is zoned)?

Transportation: We are concerned about the failure to include bicycle, pedestrian and public transit accommodations in 2026 transportation plans. The estimate for 2026 transportation needs is based on inflated demand for residential and commercial units. Too many roadways are forecast in rural areas. If infill areas were used for new growth, fewer new roadways would be needed in rural areas. What measures has the County taken to plan for traffic "choke points” and bottlenecks where major roadways enter and exit the City of Richmond from Henrico County roads, which will be exacerbated when new developments occur as forecast?

Stewart Schwartz and Jane Koontz Envision Henrico

Friday, May 15, 2009 281 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan - Citizen Concerns Summarized by The information from Envision Henrico was submitted at the March 12, Envision Henrico 2009 Planning Commission work session and submitted as part of the public record. A response was provided by the Director of Planning Consider All Taxpayers during the meeting (Please see the verbatim minutes available on the Department’s website), as well as during on-going meetings with Issue: Increased costs of community services in eastern Henrico will Envision Henrico group. mean increased taxes for citizens throughout Henrico County. What are the Costs of Community Services for the residential sector in Henrico County? What is the fiscal impact of projected new growth and development in the Draft 2026 Plan on a per annum basis for the next 10 years? Taxpayers in existing communities will pay major portions of the long-range costs, yet not realize benefits in their neighborhoods since resources will be directed to new developments. Cost of Community Services studies throughout the nation have proven that for every dollar collected in revenue from the residential sector, local governments spend more than a dollar to provide community services; for every dollar collected in revenue from farmland, forests, and open space, local governments spend much less than a dollar to provide services. All county taxpayers will benefit from the "infrastructure avoided" if farmland, forests, and open space remain undeveloped.

Action: Henrico County should conduct a Cost of Community Services Study to determine the actual costs of new growth by sector (residential, commercial, office/service, industrial, farmland, forests, and open space). A COCS study would assist the county in planning for protection of its many valuable natural and cultural resources in addition to assisting in projecting tax impacts of the costs of growth upon existing communities when the county considers rezoning cases.

Issue: Taxpayers have no public obligation to increase the profitability of private land for large landowners or developers. For example, Varina Farm's land use category was changed from Prime Agriculture to Suburban Mixed Use at the request of the landowner. The extensive river frontage, environmental and historic resources of the farm warrant public input prior to such a significant alteration to the land use plan. Dense development at this site would produce leapfrog growth.

Friday, May 15, 2009 282 Action: Planning for Draft 2026 Land Use categories should be neutral, unbiased, and beyond the influence of large landowners, developers, lobbyists, and special interest. Changes made at the request of entities seeking profitable transactions assisted by the county should be revisited.

Action: Density and the new mixed-use land categories should be located in areas near the city boundaries where infrastructure already exists, not located miles away from existing infrastructure.

Action: Historic and environmental resources should be protected and conserved wherever these sites are located, with adequate peripheral space surrounding these sites.

Action: A resource inventory (i.e. green infrastructure process using GIS technology) should be developed and used by planners to pinpoint and protect the county's valuable cultural and environmental assets, especially when planning for future land use and when re-zonings are requested.

Issue: Citizens are being taxed without representation by a pro- business, developer-friendly local government. The democratic process is impaired in Henrico County. Large landowners and developers have ready access to county supervisors, while small landowners and neighborhoods struggle to be heard and often do not receive return telephone cells.

Action: County supervisors should be accessible to the citizens who elect them as public servants, citizens who pay their salaries. Telephone calls from constituents should receive responses within 48 hours, either by the supervisor or by his or her staff surrogate. Meetings requested by constituents should be scheduled within a two- week time frame as needed.

Update Capacity Analysis and Demand Estimate

Issue: Given the dramatic and recent changes in the economy the

Friday, May 15, 2009 283 Draft 2026 Plan appears to up-plan more land than is needed, overestimating the need for single family dwellings as well as for new commercial space while concurrently underestimating the County's capacity to absorb growth using revitalization and infill strategies. Rather than concentrating residential and commercial growth in desirable areas, unnecessarily up-planning open space fosters sprawl by inviting widely spaced new construction.

Action: Revise the Draft 2026 Plan based on current and relevant projected Demand data.

Plan for Transportation and Mobility Choices

Issue: Traffic congestion, "choke points and bottlenecks" near the City of Richmond are already frequently voiced concerns for Henrico residents. As proposed, the Draft 2026 plan exacerbates this problem with continued build-out.

Action: Before the Draft 2026 plan advances, Henrico citizens should have the opportunity to consider and comment upon projections for increased traffic along Route 5 as a result of the proposed build-out; needed road modifications, new roads, and interchanges; alternate transportation opportunities; and expected funding sources for such modifications.

Action: The Draft 2026 Major Thoroughfare Plan should include planning for bus rapid transit dedicated lanes to solve congested “choke points" near the city, expanding bus rapid transit coverage out to Highway 295 to include Route 5 through Varina, Route 60 to the Richmond International Airport and through Sandston, Mechanicsville Turnpike, Route 1, Staples Mill Road, West Broad Street, and Patterson Avenue to Goochland County. Transit will encourage good commercial and residential growth through more efficient access and egress in addition to reducing air pollution throughout the region.

Action: The Draft Major Thoroughfare Plan should include Park and Ride lots located at strategic sites in outlying areas for automobiles.

Friday, May 15, 2009 284 Issue: Henrico County lags nationally and regionally in its commitment to bike and pedestrian travel. Recognize that in an economy and environment overwhelmed by unstable oil prices and implications of reliance on oil, that bike/ped can serve to actually have a not immodest impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and reliance on single occupant vehicle trips for a significant portion of daily trips if actively planned for and accommodated (which have significant economic impacts, both for individuals and the locality in terms of infrastructure demand). A bike/ped amendment to the Draft 2026 is an important beginning, but residents would like to see a much stronger investment in advancing the bike/ped agenda, to include such actions enumerated below:

Action: Join other localities and the Virginia Department of Transportation in implementing the Richmond Metropolitan Organization's Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2004). Active support of this plan and with other such collaborative efforts will help to ensure mobility choices throughout the County and region, creating a viable network of bike and pedestrian routes and paths connecting neighborhoods and communities.

Action: Provide protections, signage and maintenance for Interstate bike routes 1 and 76 in Henrico County and make provisions to connect Route 76 to the Virginia Capital Trail. Action: Complete the Henrico portion of the Capital to Capital Bike trail promptly, already underway through James City and Charles City Counties.

Action: Establish a Bike/Ped Advisory Committee to advise County staff on the need for and construction of trails and sidewalks and consideration of on-road bike accommodations; to promote connectivity among neighborhoods, business and employment centers, public spaces such as schools and parks, and to neighboring localities; and to encourage adoption of healthy lifestyles and use of transportation alternatives in Henrico County.

Conserve Open Space and Prime Agriculture

Friday, May 15, 2009 285 Issue: Citizens of Henrico value open space and want it protected: 82% of residents support further restricting or managing new development in rural areas according to the county-commissioned survey conducted by McBride Dale Clarion. The survey reports clear-cut support for preserving sensitive environmental areas. 72% of citizens rated land use as "very important”; 59% rated the county's residential growth as excessive, and just under half thought the minimum lot size in rural areas should be increased. The latest draft of the Draft 2026 Land Use Plan includes some language acknowledging the value of open space, but the accompanying land use map flouts both the plan and the citizens' desires.

Action: The land use plan should reinstate the Prime Agricultural designation, abandoning its plan to marry the title with "Rural Residential" in a move that invites further construction of open space.

Action: The more than 1000 acres known as Varina Farms should remain Prime Agricultural and not be relabeled Suburban Mixed Use as this not only flies in the face of Henrico citizens’ desires, but contradicts the land use plan's assertion that so-called hopscotch development should be avoided.

Action: Properties in the James River Corridor (between Osborne Turnpike and the James River) fall in the environmentally sensitive Chesapeake Bay watershed and should not be relabeled Urban Mixed Use, Suburban Mixed Use, or Traditional Neighborhood Development as to do so would encourage construction on this open space, in direct opposition to citizen desires.

Action: All changes in land use designations should be made with due consideration of constituents' desires, rather than the perceived emphasis on increasing individual property owners' profit.

Action: The Board of Supervisors should convene a task force comprised of citizens, staff and state agency personnel to identify potentially viable practices for conserving open space and agricultural lands in Henrico County. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), Trade Development Rights (TDR), conservation easements, and other

Friday, May 15, 2009 286 land conservation tools should be explored. The Varina Town Hall meeting (September 2008) demonstrated a strong community interest in seeing the County pursue such options.

Issue: The Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan fails to acknowledge the current role and the future potential of the County's agriculture and silviculture industries in the local and regional economies.

Action: Amend the Draft 2026 Plan to include plans for promoting agriculture and forest industries in Henrico County, particularly emphasizing the importance of encouraging sustainable farming and agri-tourism.

Protect and Capitalize on Rivers and Wetlands

Issue: In the capacity analysis the Draft 2026 plan assumes that steep slope lands will be included in the built area. Development on steep slopes is known to result in soil erosion and storm water runoff, directly impacting water quality.

Action: Henrico County should not only remove this assumption from the capacity analysis but it should join with other Virginia localities in enacting steep slope ordinances that prohibit this destructive practice.

Issue: The capacity analysis assumes development on 50% of wetlands outside of floodplain, yet Chapter 8 of the Draft 2026 plan clearly states the importance and benefits of wetlands and the County's own survey report "clear cut support" for preserving sensitive environmental areas.

Action: Remove wetlands outside of the floodplain from the built area assumed in the Capacity Analysis, in the Draft 2026 Land Use Plan, and in any applicable zoning ordinances. Furthermore, to be consistent with language in Chapter 8, the County should move to protect these vulnerable wetlands with appropriate ordinances.

Issue: The Draft 2026 plan unnecessarily designates the entire Elko Tract as Planned Industry. The Elko Tract is home to a unique swamp

Friday, May 15, 2009 287 community and several rare plant species, well documented by scientists and the commonwealth.

Action: Remove the Planned Industry designation from some 650 acres of the Elko tract south of Portugee Road. The upland hydrology is vital to the health of threatened plant species.

Action: Henrico County should work with the Commonwealth of Virginia to protect the Swamp Pink habitat and the larger swamp community as the White Oak Swamp Natural Area Preserve.

Action: In the interest of full disclosure, the Henrico County Industrial Development Authority and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership should ensure that all industrial prospects are fully informed early in negotiation about the ecological sensitivities of the tract and of public and state concern for this area.

Issue: The James and Chickahominy Rivers border Henrico County. The Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan does not contain any mechanism for protecting these resources or for capitalizing upon their potential for the benefit of Henrico citizens. These two environmentally and historically important rivers remain largely unspoiled, with miles of natural river front and considerable potential for historical and ecological tourism.

Action: Designate the James and Chickahominy Rivers as special focus areas, and mobilize citizen groups for each river to explore the river's status and potential as a natural, economic and recreational resource. Cooperate with neighboring localities in this endeavor.

Action: Protect riverfronts with large green buffers and require a minimum 2000 feet setback from the riverfronts for future construction. Encourage the establishment of passive riverfront parks with limited public access points to rivers.

Protect and Capitalize on Historic Resources

Issue: The Draft 2026 Plan and Land Use Designation Maps do not

Friday, May 15, 2009 288 support the recognition, protection, and promotion of economic investment in Henrico's valuable historic lands and structures and the part they played in the founding of America. What are the impacts of the Draft 2026 plan on irreplaceable historic resources? While the language of the Plan indicates a focus on preservation of historic resources, the current land use designations on the supporting map will result in the loss of historic battlefield acreage, view sheds, neighborhoods, and structures. Where are the protections for this historically unique part of the world? Henrico is charged with the stewardship of a wealth of valuable historic lands, structures, and cultural resources. Areas with far less historic significance have realized considerable economic gain in the restoration of historic resources and promotion of historic tourism. If this opportunity is lost, Henrico will stand out in America and abroad as the county without the foresight to preserve, promote and profit from irreplaceable historic landmarks.

Action: Adopt a Historic Preservation Ordinance and Architectural Review Board to allow for proper protection of our finite and dwindling historic and cultural resources.

Action: Strengthen language in the Plan to encourage the protection of established neighborhoods and historic properties and include land use designations on the supporting maps that are appropriate to meet the language. In at least one case, the land use designation of Office Services is shown for a historic neighborhood/residential area that includes a National Register property.

Action: Protect Route 5 as a Scenic Byway. Restore the residential land use designation to Route 5 at the 295 interchange. This designation was changed to Commercial Arterial at the request of the developer, but against the wishes of Henrico citizens.

Ensure Greater Citizen Role in Henrico Planning

Issue: Henrico citizens have played little role in shaping the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. Neighboring communities, both large (City of Richmond) and small (New Kent, Charles City) began their

Friday, May 15, 2009 289 comprehensive planning process by following best practices: asking the community what it wants and then developing the plan based on the community vision. Rather than springing from a community vision, the Draft 2026 plan appears to have been produced in segments, largely by consultants and planning staff — a top down rather then a bottom up process. Even when citizen wants and needs are solicited by surveys, they seem to be ignored. As a result, the Draft 2026 Plan fails to adequately reflect the desires or the priorities of Henrico's citizens. Given Henrico County's record of excellence in so many aspects of government, it is reasonable for its citizens to expect nothing less than excellence in its public processes as well.

Action: Our elected officials must remedy this critical flaw and establish a vehicle for substantive community involvement in the revision of the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and all future planning processes.

Action: The Board of Supervisors should establish a broad-based task force to examine best practices for encouraging and employing citizen involvement in local government, and to subsequently identify and incorporate such practices throughout comprehensive planning and other planning processes that affect quality of life in Henrico County.

Action: The Board of Supervisors should establish a regular and continuing practice of soliciting and responding to community input, especially with respect to how Henrico citizens want their tax dollars spent; what citizens believe is important to the future of Henrico; how to preserve open space; how to preserve the irreplaceable historic and cultural resources of the first footprint of America; and how to preserve existing neighborhoods and communities.

Action: Henrico County should provide for regular and continuing opportunity for public discourse, encouraging citizen dialog and bringing a diversity of ideas to light.

Friday, May 15, 2009 290 Submittal Type: Fax Comment Response Henrico County Planning Department and Planning Commission: Dear Mr. Nelson:

Please consider these concerns and include them in your thinking as I am responding to your February 10, 2009 facsimile about several you review citizen input for the proposed 2026 Comprehensive Plan. issues of concern you had regarding the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan.

We need a Historical Preservation Ordinance. Currently historic As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of reviewing preservation is a concept not a reality. Except for the goodwill of comments received during the public hearing held by the Planning property owners we are without recourse to preserve our historic sites Commission on January 22, 2009. Planning staff is currently compiling and buildings. comments and proposals for land use changes. Your public comments, along with the information included in your fax, have been added to the We need additional open space: Three specific sites should be list of proposals for land use and textual changes to the Draft Plan. included in the 2026 plan (See Appendix 4): Almond Creek Park to include the Clarke-Palmore House and land extending to the corner of Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at an New Osborne Turnpike, the abandoned Bickerstaff Road and the land upcoming work session. The date for the work session has not yet been along the creek to the rear of the Clarke-Palmore property. This set so I encourage you to visit the Department's website at expansion is needed to protect the site from in-fill -intensive growth http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for updates on the which will adversely impact the future of the Clarke-Palmore property. Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates. The Almond Creek Park site was approved on the original open space bond in 1976 and never acted upon; Turkey Island Creek south of Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Route #5 to its intersection with the James River to include the 1771 Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If flood marker. This is one of the most historic markers in America due you have any questions or need additional information about the to its age etc; and Runnymede — 1000 acres owned by Henrico Co. Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. located on Willis Church Road needs to be turned over to the Recreation and Parks Department to insure future use as a Sincerely, conservation park related to Malvern Hill, Glendale and the Civil War. Rosemary D. Deemer We are on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the civil war and need to act now — to afford protection to this site. NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See pages 347 - No density without amenities: Open space requirements are listed for 349 for more information. TND Development @ 30 percent. This requirement needs to be added to UMU and SMX Development as well. Our citizens need open space to add to the quality of lifestyle in a high density development. As land is developed citizens should not be relegated to recreating themselves in the streets. Neighborhoods need to include open space as an amenity to add value and opportunity for citizens to enjoy a quality life style. I suggest at least 30 percent be required as open space in these

Friday, May 15, 2009 291 three designated areas: TND, UMU, and SMX.

No big box designation for any area along the Route #5 corridor: We do not want CA commercial arterial for this corridor. Such a designation would ruin years of work and planning to create a corridor for tourism, historic preservation and rural vistas. We only want commercial development to serve local residential and tourist needs along the Route #5 corridor. Put the big box destination development somewhere else.

Henry Nelson

Friday, May 15, 2009 292 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Henrico County Planning Department and Planning Commission: The information was submitted during the March 12, 2009 Planning Commission work session as part of the public record. Additionally, the From the residents of the Henrico neighborhood bordered by Nine Mile comments are addressed in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of Rd, Laburnum Ave, East Richmond Rd, and Dabbs House Rd with this document. See page 337 for more information. property currently zoned R3. Please consider this memorandum as our acknowledgement and request to have the proposed "office services" Iand use designation indicated on the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan for our residential neighborhood changed to reflect the current and appropriate R3 residential use of this land.

This request also is supported by the fact that the property owners initiated and sponsored the original downzoning of the properties from M1C back to the more appropriate R3. Proper procedure was followed and the board was unanimous in supporting the downzoning. The understanding was that the land use plans would follow suit and change to reflect current zoning. The surrounding areas are zoned for residential use. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Thomas Sandidge Jr, Rick Feher, Evangeline Windsor, Richard McNeil, Alastair Turner

Friday, May 15, 2009 293 Submittal Type: Memo Comment Response Henrico County Planning Department and Planning Commission: The submitted letter was provided to staff at the September 15, 2008 Varina Town Hall Meeting. Additionally, the comments are addressed in Request to consider designating Elko/White Oak Swamp as the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 343 Conservation Area for more information.

DCR conducted a biological inventory of the Elko Tract in 1989 as part of the Commonwealth's assessment of the property. DCR determined the area south of Portugee Road qualified as a State Natural Area Preserve. During this project DCR staff identified the following natural heritage resources: (See Appendix 4).The area was first noted for its botanical significance in the 1930's when visited by renowned botanist M.L. Fernald.

In November 1990 DCR Director and the Attorney General's Office signed a property transfer agreement for land south of Portugee Road that would have transferred the land to DCR, and dedicated it as a State Natural Area Preserve. The Dedication and transfer was not finalized.

1996-97 The Administration considered but chose not to place conservation restrictions on the land south of Portugee Road before the Elko Tract was transferred to Henrico County. In 1997, DCR Natural Heritage staff assisted Virginia Power in locating the new powerline into the White Oak Plant, and avoiding impacts to any rare species.

October 9, 1998 James River Association, Varina Environmental Group, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, and Richmond Audubon Council met with Secretary Woodley on the conservation of lands south of Portugee Road, and discussion of the exchange of DCR's 40 acres for a 92 acre parcel south of Portugee Road.

November 2, 1998 DCR met with Henrico County Staff (Harvey Hinson, Deputy County Manager and Robert Thompson, Director of Public Works) to discuss DCR concerns and proposed swap of 40 acres for the 92 acre tract and Natural Area Preserve Dedication of all

Friday, May 15, 2009 294 land south of the road. DCR supports permanent protection of all land south of the road, with the exception of that needed for a water tower or utility easements, and a 92 acre set aside. The area south of the road contains significant wetland habitats and important upland recharge areas for the groundwater fed wetlands. Mr. Hinson said he liked the idea, and that it sounded like a real win-win proposal and that he would get back to DCR.

January 1999 — The General Assembly, at the request of Delegate Dillard required Henrico County to sell Elko tract land at fair market value to assure the Commonwealth is being appropriately compensated. At Delegate Dillard's request, DCR staff took House Appropriations and Senate Finance staff on a field trip to Elko, as Delegate Dillard and staff expressed concern that the natural area property at Elko be protected.

April 2000 – Henrico County held a meeting with natural resource agencies and conservation groups. The county expressed hopes of reaching a compromise solution with all parties to protect lands south of Portugee Road, gain agreement on the County’s plan for development north of the road, and the county expressed an interest in talking to DCR about the proposed swap of DCR’s tract for the 92 acre tract.

March 2002 – Army Corps of Engineers is in final stages of issuing the permit for wetland impact at the development, and has asked if DCR still wants to see all land south of Portugee Road protected. Permit not issued as of 2008.

Dec 2006 – Secretary of Natural Resources Preston Bryant and DCR staff meet with County Administrator and staff. Understanding is reached that the County will discuss protection of land south of Portugee Road and that it is important a key 92 acre tract be retained for potential future development. DCR agrees to draft protection agreement and resource management plan.

2007 – VA Department of General Services, Attorney General’s Office, Secretary of Natural Resources and DCR all agree on protection of

Friday, May 15, 2009 295 lands south of Portugee Road, excluding a 92 acre development tract is in the commonwealth’s best interest.

July 2007 – DCR prepares a draft resource management plan for area and hand delivers to the County along with a draft Natural Area Preserve Deed of Dedication. (See Appendix 4.)

January 2008 – County Administrator Hazelett writes Tom Smith (See Appendix 4) at DCR and states that the county believes the “real property in question is adequately protected… “and the proposed dedication would be of no benefit to Henrico County.

January 2008 – Secretary Bryant responds to Mr. Hazelett (See Appendix 4) in writing that the 650 acres south of Portugee Road is not under any form of permanent protection and hopes that the County will reconsider decision to work with the Commonwealth toward permanent protection.

August 2008 – No response from Henrico County to date.

Submitted by, Lynn Wilson

Friday, May 15, 2009 296 Submittal Type: Fax Comment Response Mr. Emerson: Dear Mr. Sweet:

Per my conversation with Benjamin Sehl, I would like to request a I am responding to your March 5, 2009 facsimile in which you have review of the Comp Plan for the property at 1727 Mary Street. requested a change in the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map for property located along Mary Street. Sincerely, P.D. Sweet As you are aware, the Planning Department is in the process of updating the County’s Comprehensive Plan and at their public meeting on March 12, 2009, the Henrico County Planning Commission recommended the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. Staff continues to compile comments and proposals for land use changes. The information included in your facsimile has been added to the list of proposals for land use and textual changes to the Draft Plan.

Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors at an upcoming work session. The date for the work session has not yet been set so I encourage you to visit the Department's website at http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for updates on the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates.

Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If you have any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488.

Sincerely, Rosemary D. Deemer

NOTE: Additional comments regarding this request can be found in the “Proposal for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 350 for more information.

Friday, May 15, 2009 297 Submittal Type: E-mail Comment Response Mr. Emerson: The comments regarding this request are addressed in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of this document. See page 342 for more I am writing concerning GPIN # 843-701-2778, 25 acres on Portugee information. Road. Principals in this company have owned this property for 25+/- years. We envisioned the said property to be zoned R3 residential or possible office use if the market developed. There is no requirement for office or warehouse use at this time. I strongly recommend that the property be designated for residential use.

It appears this site would be best suited for housing to give support to the industrial nearby for the following reasons: The site is bordered by residential property to the west that runs all the way to Popular Springs Road in an established community; To the south across the rail track also is residentially zoned property; to the east is a creek with a conservation area to buffer our site from the White Oak Industrial Site; across Portugee Road to the north of the site is a sewage pump station and limited land outside of the creek and conservation area for development. In the summer of 2006 we had Townes Engineers develop a plan to rezone this site to R-3 after talking with county staff who supported this use; this site is in a rural area of industrial and residential not conducive to office use without support of restaurants and retail around it. A use of warehouse may lend support to the White Oak Industrial Park; however there is an abundance of this land that is better suited for that available now. It may be that office or residential would work for your plan.

We look forward to your comments and the development of the 2026 Land Use Plan.

Sincerely, Gene Rilee Cheryl Grimes

Friday, May 15, 2009 298 Submittal Type: Petition Comment Response Planning Department: This petition was unintentionally not included in the General Comments Manual published in November 2008. Additional comments regarding Because I/We cannot go to the Varina Open House Meeting, on this request can be found in the “Proposals for Revisions II” section of Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, at Ward Elementary School I have this document. See page 341 for more information. reviewed the Land-Use Designation change that the 2026 Plan draft suggests for our Marion Hill area, from the current designation Suburban Residential 1 (SR1) to the proposed, new Suburban Residential 2 (SR2) designation. I understand that the Henrico County Planning Department defines the new suggested Land-Use Designation for our area, as:

Areas limited to detached single-family residential uses. Typical suburban development patterns/styles with curvilinear roadways are present and common in these areas and should be supported and developed further. Emphasis should be placed on interconnection of roadways and sidewalks. There are 2 categories of Suburban Residential which vary by density. Suburban Residential 2 (SR2) – density should not exceed 3.4 units per acre.

I do not support the proposed change from SR1 to SR2, and I would like this document to be counted among the exit-surveys from the Open House meeting to represent my opinion. I believe our neighborhood should remain as currently given, SR1.

Joseph H. Bogdan, Beverly G. Bogdan, Charles A. Guard, III, L. Scott Liles, Richard Ustinich, Stephanie Ustinich, Louise Turner, Nelson O. Worsham, Sandra S. Worsham, Shirley Smither, Enis A. Guillen, Ellen Gaddy, Joseph M. Gaddy, David Olcefski, Barbara Olcefski, Dorothy F. Alexander, Minor L. Gilmore, Jr., Tina M. McNamee, Michael, P. McNamee, Floyd Burnette, Joyce Hubbard, Sue T. Mayes, Heath W. Mayes, Jamie C. Powers, William Poole, Mary Beth Poole, Jean M. Young, Kathy Wallace

Friday, May 15, 2009 299 2026 Comprehensive Plan General Comments – Part II – No District Assigned

Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Joe, The submitted letter was provided in response to a presentation given to the Henrico Business Council of the Greater Richmond Chamber on Attached is the support resolution the Henrico Business Council of the January 21, 2009 by the Henrico County Planning Department and Greater Richmond Chamber passed regarding the comp plan update. I submitted as part of the public record. apologize for not having this support resolution available for you before your last work meeting with the Planning District. I do have it officially signed by the chair of the Henrico Business Council. I plan to send copies of the resolution to the Board of Supervisors, Virgil Hazelett, your office, and the Planning Commission. Please let me know if there are others that we should share it with. I realize the resolution is rather general. If there are sections of the update that you feel would be imperative for the business community to voice stronger support for, please let me know and I can bring it to the council's attention.

WHEREAS, The Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan has been developed in accordance with the Code of Virginia mandating Henrico County to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan for the physical development of land within its jurisdiction to serve as a guide for the development of the county for the next twenty years; and WHEREAS, The draft Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan incorporates adopted elements of the county's 2010 Land Use Plan, 2010 Major Thoroughfare Plan, and the 2015 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan into one guiding document; and WHEREAS, Henrico County surveyed its residents in 2005 to support the development of the goals and objectives of the updated plan and undertook a thoughtful and deliberate examination of existing facilities, utilities, land use and assessed its current transportation network to determine how its infrastructure can best support future trends and land uses; and WHEREAS, As demographic trends in Henrico County project the county's population to reach nearly 394,000 by 2026 and as employment in the county is increasing at a greater rate than the growth of population, it is imperative Henrico County identify local areas for employment generating uses to ensure new and growing

Friday, May 15, 2009 300 employment opportunities throughout the county and maintain a healthy economic balance of residences, businesses and offices to provide the proper tax base to keep the county fiscally sound and maintain a high quality of life; and WHEREAS, Henrico County embraces the addition of new land use designations including urban mixed use; suburban mixed use; and traditional neighborhood development based on a grid of interconnecting streets and a mix of housing types with supporting commercial, office, and other sites as a viable tool to effectively manage growth and encourage a diverse mixture of development to support the tax base of the county; and WHEREAS, Henrico County recognizes the vital importance of redevelopment and reinvestment in older neighborhoods and areas that offer unique economic opportunities to meet the needs for retail services, employment, the promotion of small businesses; and WHEREAS, The Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan supports future infrastructure and transportation plans for the county and incorporates design guidelines and standards which enhance, promote and protect a high-quality community identity and reflect the changing needs of the county; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Henrico Business Council of the Greater Richmond Chamber hereby expresses its strong support of the Henrico County Vision 2026 Comprehensive Plan and urges the Henrico County Planning Commission to recommend approval of the plan to the Henrico County Board of Supervisors; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Henrico Business Council of the Greater Richmond Chamber hereby strongly urges the Henrico County Board of Supervisors to formally adopt the plan to maintain balanced growth, fiscal health, and anticipate the need for public facilities and utilities in coordination with growth.

Michelle Gluck, Chair Henrico Business Council

Friday, May 15, 2009 301 Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Dear Ms. Jones: Dear Mr. Wakeland:

The Home Building Association of Richmond (HBAR) appreciates the I am responding on behalf of Mrs. Bonnie-Leigh Jones, Chairman, opportunity to offer these comments concerning Henrico County's Henrico County Planning Commission, to your March 5, 2009 letter proposed 2026 Comprehensive Plan now being reviewed and updated. regarding several issues of concern the Home Builders Association of Our comments are limited to those areas of the plan affecting the Richmond (HBAR) presented regarding the Draft 2026 Comprehensive housing industry. Plan.

As each of you know, the comprehensive plan is not designed to be Your request was provided to the Planning Commission and reviewed at law. It is a guide by which a community determines how growth should a recent work session. The policies and recommendations found within occur. It is not iron-clad or set in stone. It is a flexible document and the Plan are general in nature, as the Plan is a guide, and would not should be treated as such. HBAR believes this document has good preclude the topics HBAR raised in the letter. The Planning Commission flexibility, particularly concerning diversity of housing styles and types. and staff believe it would be more appropriate to evaluate the merit of the HBAR considers the proposal a good comprehensive plan. comments on a case- by-case basis during the development phase.

HBAR does, however, have several suggestions for the commission to The Henrico County Planning Commission, at their public meeting on consider when reviewing this plan. The document states in Chapter 5 March 12, 2009, recommended the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan to under “Keystone Policies” in residential development, that “large, single- the Board of Supervisors for adoption. Your letter will be forwarded to family homes are desirable.” In 2007, a National Association of Home the Board of Supervisors and reviewed at an upcoming work session. Builders survey showed that the average size single-family new home The date for the work session has not yet been set, therefore, I in America was 2,476 square feet. Henrico’s average new home size is encourage you to visit the Department's website at similar to the national figure. In Henrico County, depending on location, http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for updates on the lot size and several other factors, that home would not sell for less than Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates. $350,000. Just one year later the average home nationwide has shrunk to about 2,200 square feet. Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. The nation's economic recession has caused a change in buying habits Please contact Rosemary Deemer on my staff, at 501-4488, if you have for America's home buyer. People today want smaller homes on any questions or need additional information about the Comprehensive smaller lot sizes that will cost less money and require less maintenance Plan Update process, than the “McMansions” the public demanded through the first half of this decade. Henrico County should prepare to adapt to that mentality Sincerely, in approving residential development for the future. HBAR believes R. Joseph Emerson, Jr., AICP Henrico County should consider clarifying the phrase “large, single- family home'' in the plan. The national trends being revealed about consumers' new desires in new homes suggests the county should target its average new single-family detached housing be built in the

Friday, May 15, 2009 302 range of 1,800 to 2,200 square feet, with a target price of $225,000 to $275,000. Trends are showing that the home priced at $300,000 and higher is no longer selling. The county must think smaller in its vision of future new home communities, be they SR, UR or MRM, in order to insure future residential growth. For purposes of the comprehensive plan, perhaps a note in the plan will suffice that says "large, single- family homes are to be considered smaller today than in the recent past.”

Cluster development is a form of development long overdue in the Richmond area. HBAR is pleased to see the proposed plan include a section in Chapter 6 on cluster development. We would, however, like to see cluster development included as a possibility in all residential development, not just for rural areas. It can be used effectively when historic structures or environmentally-sensitive features do not exist on a property. HBAR would also ask that the commission consider allowing a density bonus where the gross density of the subdivision does not exceed the permitted density of the zoning district where the land is located unless 50 percent (instead of 70 percent) of the site is preserved. In most areas of the county, rural land is more expensive once developed than urban land because of the developer's cost to provide facilities to the rural property. To restrict development on 70 percent of the land in order to receive a density bonus could discourage a developer from considering a project and unintentionally restrict a landowner's ability to sell their land for development purposes. A 50 percent restriction would allow the developer the opportunity to provide more housing in a pattern that can be designed to provide ample amounts of open space while not detracting from the environmental quality or rural feel of the area.

Community character is very important in creating a county that will attract economic development and the accompanying growth. But builders need to be given freedom to create that character, to create the variety in housing types and sizes mentioned in Chapter 6. In the past the county has placed difficult architectural restrictions on how builders can design their homes. HBAR believes the county should remove architectural demands it places on builders and work with them to provide well-designed homes that do not become homogenous.

Friday, May 15, 2009 303 HBAR would ask the commission, in Chapter 6 under “Building Design and Character" for residential development, to change the last sentence in that section to read, “Residential builders are encouraged to provide semi-private spaces, such as covered porches for single- family attached and detached housing and balconies for multi-family dwellings, in all residential structures." A builder should not be required to put porches or balconies on their homes. The county can encourage this amenity, but as the home's creator it should be the builder's choice.

Many residents on the eastern side of Henrico County use septic systems in lieu of sewer service. Ideally, sewer service is preferred but without expensive funding sewer lines cannot be laid and service cannot be provided. In the older homes that make up a large percentage of housing in eastern Henrico, builders used what are known as "conventional” septic systems that were inefficient and highly ineffective for use in anything but the best soils. Today, however, there are alternative on-site septic systems that use improved technology to produce completely clean effluent and can be used in even moderate soils very effectively. The Virginia Department of Health has been reviewing and approving use of these alternative on-site septic systems since 1982.

The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation this session that prohibits localities from forbidding use of alternative on-site septic systems that have been approved by the Department of Health in areas where sewer service is not available. The law, if signed by Gov. Kaine, should go into effect once regulations are in place to regulate licensing and installation of these systems, which should be by the end of 2009. Because of this new law, the county will no longer be able to prohibit septic systems where sewer service is not available. The county can mandate (if it has not already) that any septic system used in the county be approved for use by the Department of Health. As long as the county must issue millions of dollars in general obligation bonds to pay for installation of sewer lines, septic systems that can produce clean effluent should not be discouraged. It’s a less expensive and environmentally clean and safe way to provide sewer service for development. Under "Natural Resource Policies” in Chapter 8, HBAR would ask the commission to strike item 11, “Discourage on-site septic

Friday, May 15, 2009 304 systems, which may adversely impact the water quality of aquifers or State Waters.”

A strong component of the proposed plan is encouraging developers to place stub streets in their designs to allow connectivity through neighborhoods. While HBAR has no policy officially opposing connectivity of this type, it advises the county to carefully consider how much connectivity is incorporated into development plans. The Commonwealth Transportation Board has recently approved new Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR) for new development that includes mandatory connectivity through neighborhoods. However Henrico County maintains its own road system and is exempt from the new regulations. Therefore, connectivity is not a requirement for the county to provide.

At public hearings across Virginia for the new regulations this past summer the public opposed the SSAR connectivity requirement vociferously, with many people asking VDOT to reconsider the requirement because they did not want main thoroughfare traffic driving through their neighborhoods. Residents tend to have several complaints about connectivity. They say commuters using secondary streets tend not to follow posted speed limits, particularly during morning and evening commutes, and put children in danger while walking to schools and school bus stops in the morning or playing in front yards during the evenings. They say the traffic causes damage to their streets prematurely, which would most likely increase the county's cost of maintenance for neighborhood streets. They believe, and local Realtor associations confirm, that their home values decrease because of the road damage and the loss of community feel caused by the additional traffic. In addition, studies have been done across the country that suggest traffic in subdivisions that connect two main thoroughfares increases by up to 15 percent when connectivity is put in place.

Developers work with engineers to design their projects keeping families in mind. Families with children purchase new homes in single- family detached housing subdivisions far more than any other category of buyer. The developer works hard to provide amenities such as

Friday, May 15, 2009 305 parks, open space, community recreation facilities and more to make their projects as family-friendly as possible. Connectivity is considered by many to be a family-unfriendly component of subdivision design.

HBAR would ask the commission to consider changing language under item 4 of "General Development Policies” in Chapter 5 to say, "Work with development to consider providing interconnectivity with existing and future developments through the use of stub streets.”

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Henrico County 2026 Comprehensive Plan. If you have any questions about our comments, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for hearing our concerns, and for your service to Henrico County.

Sincerely, C. Warren Wakeland

Friday, May 15, 2009 306 Submittal Type: Mail Comment Response Dear Mr. Emerson: Dear Mr. Gibbons:

I would like to provide the following comments related to the Draft 2026 I am responding on behalf of Mr. Joe Emerson to your February 10, 2009 Comprehensive Plan. The first relates to the open space elements of letter about several issues of concern you had regarding the Draft 2026 the plan. The current draft should be amended to include the proposed Comprehensive Plan. future development of the County Park system as described in the adopted open space plan. There also should be included details related As you are aware, the County is in the process of updating our to a greenway and trails plan that would meet the objective of reducing Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Department is currently reviewing traffic on the County roadways and making the community and comments received during a public hearing held by the Planning neighborhoods more conducive to walking and biking. Commission on January 22, 2009. Planning staff is compiling comments and proposals and your ideas, as identified in your letter, have been The proposed development that has been approved for the Wilton added to the list of proposals for land use, transportation and textual Property and Tree Hill Farm will occupy a large portion of the James changes to the Draft Plan. River frontage in the first few miles downstream from Richmond. A large park should be planned between the two developments. It could Your request will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at an include the Warwick Park site which was on the early park plans and upcoming work session. The date for the work session has not yet been received a $210,000 grant from the Commission of Outdoor set so I encourage you to visit the Department's website at Recreation. The County failed to act on the acquisition of land and the http://www.co.henrico.va.us/planning/2026plan.htm for updates on the grant was revoked by the Commission. The need for this land is great Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan and future meeting dates. now and will be even more important, if the proposed development is implemented. Thank you for taking the time to review the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan; we need input such as yours for the process to work as intended. If The second important amendment should be included in the Draft Plan you have any questions or need additional information about the relates to the County's designated Scenic Byways. The Virginia Scenic Comprehensive Plan Update process, please contact me at 501-4488. Road program was the result of General Assembly action in 1966. Route 5 was designated in 1975 from the Capitol in Richmond to the Sincerely, Capitol in Williamsburg. It is the oldest road in the Country and before it Rosemary D. Deemer was a road it was an Indian trail. It linked the New Market in Richmond with the settlement in Williamsburg. The Virginia Department of Transportation for many years has protected the curvilinear character of the road its vegetative edge.

The proposed Draft Henrico County Comprehensive Plan includes Rt.5 (New Market Road) and River Road as a special focus area. It suggests that special studies may be needed to protect the resources. It includes a tool box which calls for an inventory, but the inventory of

Friday, May 15, 2009 307 existing conditions does not include scenic or other landscape qualities which would be needed to protect the Country Road character of the corridor. It calls for four lane construction along most of its length. The draft plan also introduces a variety of business, commercial and other types of development along its course. The plan calls for a new road parallel to the river connecting the Wilton and Tree Hill Farm developments with a junction with Route 5. The proposed connection is in the middle of the most impressive viewshed of the City of Richmond as you enter from the East.

Chapter 7 in its description of the Route 5 and the River Road corridors indicates that "a visual inventory of the features to be preserved could be conducted". These corridors have all ready been identified and formally designated by the Commonwealth as scenic. The draft plan should read that "a visual inventory MUST OR WILL be conducted" and should call for a protective overlay ordinance and unique landscape applications be directed to protect the corridor along Route 5 and River Road/Route 6 in the western part of the County. Route 5 is and can be made an even more attractive tourist experience and thus more economically valuable to Henrico and the jurisdictions along its route if the rural and historic character is maintained. If the Draft Plan's proposed development turns it into a Broad Street, Route 1, Mechanicsville Turnpike or Williamsburg Road, visitors to the area will use Interstate 64 bypassing the County and the businesses and other attractions which make it valuable to residents of the County.

Before the draft plan is finalized specific recommendations should be included that relate to the preparation of specific inventories and studies to maintain the County Road character and values of the existing and future Virginia Byways in the County. The first step would be to include scenic and landscape features in the tool box. The final approved Comprehensive Plan should include statements and strategies that confirm the recognized scenic values of the byways and clearly commit to the protection of the important viewsheds, and the scenic and historic resources along the road. The inventory and development of the specific protection mechanisms should be done with citizen input and landscape resource and design professionals who can provide the expertise to define the solutions that will provide

Friday, May 15, 2009 308 the necessary conservation and recognition.

Sincerely, Richard G. Gibbons

Friday, May 15, 2009 309 Submittal Type: Public Comment Comment Response Henrico County Planning Commission: The comments were submitted during the January 22, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing as part of the public record. Please consider the following resolution, adopted by the City of Richmond, for inclusion in the Draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. (See Appendix 4)

Champe Burnley

Friday, May 15, 2009 310 Submittal Type: Petition Comment Response Planning Department: This petition was unintentionally not included in the General Comments Manual published in November 2008. Additional comments regarding We, the undersigned citizens of Henrico County, find the process this request can be found in the “Planning Commission Public Hearing” designed for citizen involvement with the 2026 Comprehensive Plan to section of this document. See page 312 for more information. be inadequate. As residents committed to the quality of life of our community, we urge the Board of Supervisors to provide for a transparent, open public process in which we, the citizens, help shape the future growth and development of our community. This amended citizen involvement process should be completed prior to the Plan’s submission to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for approval. The 2026 Comprehensive Plan is far too important a tool to implement without broad public participation in planning for our future.

Jean and John Binns, Pat Johnson, Alan Thomas, Mark Davis, Will Gray, Shirley McHanny, Yates Roberts, Tony Owen Helen Johnson, Ken Hopson, James Baker, Bland Goddin, Barbara and Frank Smith, Nelson Riggle, Jakob Helmbolt, Ellen Snyder, Nelda Snyder, Lynn and Irvine Wilson, Stewart Goodwin, Victor Kleiner, Cindy Halterman, Barbara and Richard Walters, Ashley Goodwin, Bobbi Baker, Jeanette Schneck, George C. Talley, Jr., Stephen Lyon, Jeanne McNeil, Robert V. Gary, Henry Nelson, Barbara Talley, Stacy Brutus, Carol Slater, Ruth Radzisauskas, Stevan Thady, Jane Koontz, William Hicks, John Montgomery, Richard and Jean Gibbons, William Lundy, Albert Stoneman, Meade Welch, Charlie Finley

Friday, May 15, 2009 311