|
10-17-2007 WS
STAFFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES October 17, 2007
Members Present: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes, and Di Peppe
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Schulte, Schultis, Hornung, and Hamock
Declarations of Disqualification
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. SUB2600178; Aquia Overlook, Section 3 Revised, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A revised preliminary subdivision plan for Section 3 with 36 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural and A-2, Rural Residential, consisting of 102 acres located on the north side of Decatur Road across from Indian View Court on Assessor's Parcels 31-13D, 15A and 16 within the Griffis-Widewater Election District. (Time Limit: November 27, 2007) (Deferred to October 17, 2007 Work Session)
Mr. Cook stated it looked as though the applicant was not present to discuss Aquia Overlook.
Mrs. Kirby asked if staff had spoken with the applicant.
Mr. Harvey stated the applicant was aware of the time when the item was deferred.
Mrs. Kirby stated the applicant may have been waiting for a decision from the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Harvey stated Board voted at the meeting held October 16, 2007 to hold another Public Hearing on November 20, 2007.
Mr. Cook asked that staff notify the applicant and inform them the Commission would consider and vote on the item at the November 7, 2007 meeting.
Mr. Harvey stated he would let the applicant know.
2.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment -
3. RC2700296; Reclassification - Stafford Town Station - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural Zoning District and B-1, Convenience Commercial Zoning District to P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 38-29, 38-29A, 38-121, 38-121A, 38-122, 38-122A and 38-124 consisting of 562.58 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway approximately 300 feet south of American Legion Road and Eskimo Hill Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial use which would allow a variety of industrial manufacturing and office uses. The Rural Residential designation would allow development of three (3) acre lots for single family residential use. The Resource Protection designation would require stream protection buffers along all streams that exhibit perennial flow characteristics. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a complete listing of permitted uses in the P-TND Zoning District. (Time Limit: November 13, 2007) (Deferred to October 17, 2007 Work Session)
Mr. Cook stated items 2 and 3 could be presented together.
Debrarae Karnes, Leming & Healy, stated the Commission met last week on October 11, 2007 and there were recommendations for changes to the proffers by the Planning Commission. She stated the changes had been made by Leming & Healy and were updated as of October 17, 2007. She stated the revisions had been provided to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cook asked Ms. Karnes to review each change. He stated he was very disappointed with pages 11 and 12 and there was also a typo on page 11.
Ms. Karnes stated there was a sentence taken out and would be corrected. She stated the applicant agreed that 10% of all of the non-age restricted dwelling units constructed on the property would be designed as work force housing. She stated some of the work force housing would be designed as a carriage house and the others would be townhouses.
Mrs. Kirby stated that was not what was originally stated.
Ms. Karnes stated the townhouses were always there.
Mrs. Kirby stated she thought it would all be carriage houses.
Mr. Cook stated before the regular meeting make sure that issue had been cleared up.
Mrs. Kirby stated on page 1 of the new proffers it states “if and only if Stafford County designates this area as an Urban Development Area in accordance with House Bill 32-02 the gross density will be four dwelling units per acre and the minimum FIRB 0.4”. She asked if these would increase the total number of lots.
Ms. Karnes stated that would apply only in the event the County request this be designated as an Urban Development Area.
Mrs. Kirby asked if designated as an Urban Development Area would the applicant use more then the 1,740 units.
Ms. Karnes stated yes.
Mrs. Kirby asked what the number would be.
Ms. Karnes stated it would be over 2,000. She stated after conversations with staff this item was put in. She stated the applicant only seeks to build 1,740 units.
Mrs. Kirby stated that should be no problem and the applicant should state they would not build more then 1,740 units.
Ms. Karnes stated the applicant would make that change. She stated on page 1 there was a technical correction to the Neighborhood Design Standards (NDS) dated October 11, 2007 and that would be proffered. She stated on page 7, in response to Mrs. Carlone request, letter H, had taken out the clause to make traffic improvements consistent with the transportation study and it had been put back in with the additional words “at a minimum” because there are more improvements being completed then the traffic study required.
Mr. Cook suggested changing “H” to “I” and “I” to “J”.
Ms. Karnes stated she would review the issue on page 11 and on page 17 the language was added stating the meeting room shall be designed to hold a maximum of 150 people and shall contain a temporary platform/ stage.
Mr. Di Peppe stated it should read a minimum of 150 people.
Ms. Karnes stated page 22, Boots Program number 15, Mr. Scott Horan requested two changes be made, it previously stated a maximum of 5 lots and has been changed to read “Stafford Town Station would dedicate 5 lots to the Boots Program” and a paragraph has been added designating the schedule of 1 lot per every 250 dwelling units. She stated on page 24 the school proffers have been changed to show an educational facility site versus an elementary school site, and the school asked that Storm Water Management (SWM) facilities provided. She stated pursuant to the request the lot was to be conveyed when the four hundredth unit building permit was issued or at the written request of the School Board, which ever was later. She stated on page 26 there were provisions on universal design which was a technique which allows occupants to age in their homes and if they become disabled the design would accommodate a wheelchair.
Mrs. Kirby asked if that would be an option.
Ms. Karnes stated for non-age restricted homes the developer was installing reinforcements in each home in the event grab bars should need to be put in at a later time. She stated in 25% of the age restricted homes a number of enhancements to make life easier for the aging population would be installed. She stated the items were itemized on page 27 and some of the features within the Universal Design Houses would include lever handles on handles and faucets, grab bars in the bathrooms, 36 inches wide exterior doors, and a number of other improvements. She stated the applicant provided a separate proffer for the remainder of 75% of age restricted housing on page 28 and it provided in addition to the framing for grab bars the developer offer options for the installation of universal design.
Mr. Rhodes asked if page 27 should state a minimum of 25 %.
Ms. Karnes stated that was correct.
Mr. Rhodes stated there was a mistake on the bottom of page 28, the sixth line from the bottom a word was misspelled.
Mrs. Karnes stated she would have it corrected but wanted to show the Planning Commission what Stafford Town Station was willing to do. She stated, in her opinion, the options for universal design provides something that was not on the market currently and benefits the entire community.
Mrs. Kirby asked about a statement on old page 3. She asked if she died would her granddaughter be allowed to live there.
Ms. Karnes stated no due to federal law and the property would then have to be sold.
Mrs. Kirby stated on page 11, the application for water and sewer, it was her understanding that it would be phased in and the $5,000,000 would be paid within one year provided both the preliminary subdivision plan and an application for water and sewer for the development were approved.
Ms. Karnes stated for the entire property or any portion thereof and depends on what portion the plan was submitted for.
Mrs. Kirby stated that was not a sure thing for the county to say it was for the entire property at the discretion of the applicant rather then the county.
Mr. Karnes stated no matter how small a portion submitted the county would still be entitled to $5,000,000 the first year.
Mr. Di Peppe asked what would happen if the applicant does not get submitted within a year.
Ms. Karnes referenced the first paragraph on page 11 which stated the applicant agrees to submit a complete application for preliminary subdivision plan for all or part of the site within 180 days of approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Di Peppe asked if this was contingent on a construction plan as well and what if the construction plan was not in. He asked what the recourse was for the money then.
Ms. Karnes stated if it should take longer then a year, everything would start happening when the approval was issued.
Mr. Di Peppe
stated he
liked the universal design with the list that came from the
Mr. Leming stated the old language has been there through each meeting.
Mr. Di Peppe stated he wished he had an opportunity to read the document again if he was expected to vote.
Mr. Leming stated he was trying to be responsive to changes from the last meeting. He stated either it was right or not.
Mr. Pitzel stated he wanted to make sure all prior language was the same and reread the proffers with new language.
Mr. Leming stated he wanted to show the Commission the changes and if there were mistakes the applicant and the Commission could go back to the original language. He stated he was trying to address changes.
Mrs. Kirby stated the Commission would not know if the language was the same because they had not read it.
Mr. Leming assured the Commission that old language was the same with the exception of the highlighted changes.
Mrs. Carlone stated the applicant was told before not to get documents to the Commission members the night of the meetings. She stated they would need to be received before hand for review.
Mr. Leming stated the only changes made since the mail-out was the section Mr. Di Peppe was working on.
Ms. Karnes stated on page 11 there was one word deleted and should read “the applicant agrees that 10% of all non-age restricted dwelling units constructed on the property, some of which may be signed as carriage house units, shall be established and marketed for sale as work force
homes”. She stated that was in response to the Commissions request to state specific minimum and the applicant had done that.
Mrs. Kirby asked if on page 12 where it states the applicant agrees to submit a complete application for a preliminary subdivision plan for all or part of the site, she asked to specify part.
Ms. Karnes stated it was page 11 of the new proffers and asked the developer to respond.
Rob Gollahan stated whatever plans are turned in triggers the start of the project and that was when the $25,000,000 advance begins was paid.
Mrs. Kirby asked under the Airport Impacts she asked for a change from the word owner to builder.
Ms. Karnes stated the applicant will make an adjustment to the wording.
Mrs. Kirby stated Clyde Hamrick from VDOT stated in every TRC the driveway slope should be 10%.
Mr. Gollahan stated the applicant can change back to 10% which was more grading and a bigger footprint.
Mr. Harvey clarified that a lot of discussion in TRC tends to revolve around rural subdivision and in this case this development would be an urban environment with block grading and typically the lots would be brought to street grade. He stated normally there are not problems with driveway slopes in curb and gutter subdivisions.
Mr. Di Peppe confirmed that the payments are triggered by three things, the preliminary plan gets approved all or part, construction plan for all or part, and approval of the application for water and sewer.
Mr. Gollahan stated there are full cash proffers of $50,000,000 or more and once the jobs starts was when the payment would be started. He stated the applicant has 180 days to get the preliminary plan turned in.
Mr. Harvey stated the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the applicant submit a construction plan and a final plat in order to keep vesting of the preliminary plan the developer was required to submit within one year of each to avoid losing the vesting.
Mr. Di Peppe asked one year from when.
Mr. Harvey stated from the time the Planning Commission approves the preliminary plan. He explained after submittal of a preliminary plan it goes to TRC, it would then be reviewed by all county agencies and VDOT, if there were any issues to be resolved the design engineer would submit to the Planning Department, and this process could take a few months between the time the plan was submitted and when it goes to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Di Peppe asked 3 or 4 months.
Mr. Harvey stated yes, it would depend on the extent and the complexity of the project.
Mr. Di Peppe stated after the preliminary plan was approved the applicant could start the construction plan phase within 1 year. He asked if the construction plan was 3 to 4 month process.
Mr. Harvey stated normally it takes longer for a construction plan and there are many factors involved because of the detailed engineering. He stated he tells most applicants the preliminary plan takes about 6 months, then the construction plans takes about 1 year, and the final plat depends on the developer’s timetable until they are ready to record lots.
Mr. Di Peppe asked if the first payment would be 1 year from then.
Mr. Gollahan stated at the construction approval.
Ms. Karnes stated monies would start being paid out at the point when the construction plan was approved.
Mr. Cook stated within one year of submission of the preliminary plan.
Ms. Karnes stated $5,000,000 due and payable within 1 year of approval of the rezoning.
Mr. Cook stated it takes a vote from the Commission to accept changes on proffers and if the Commission was working off of the old proffers from it would have been no problem.
Mr. Di Peppe stated he thought the Commissioners should have 5 days to review the new documentation.
Mr. Mitchell
made a
motion to accept the proffers received at the October 17, 2007 meeting
with changes in red line. Mr.
Mr. Cook stated if the Commission accepts the proffers it would be with the modifications requested
Mr. Mitchell stated that was correct.
Mrs. Kirby stated she did not know what the changes were yet since she did not have time to read the revised proffers.
Mr. Cook stated the motion had been made and seconded to accept the proffers received at this meeting with modifications. The motion failed 3-4 (Mrs. Carlone, Mrs. Kirby, Mr. Pitzel, and Mr. Di Peppe were opposed).
Mr. Cook stated this item would be deferred to the November 7, 2007 Work Session.
ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
1. Reverse Frontage
James Stepowany stated this was a request for Mrs. Carlone regarding development that would be fronting major highways. He stated the original Ordinance O04-13 went to the Board in 2004 and was deferred back to the Planning Commission, remaining in unfinished business for numerous months.
Mrs. Kirby stated when there was any number of homes along a busy road there would be a problem and safety concerns.
Mrs. Carlone stated there had been two subdivision built on to bad roads.
Mr. Stepowany stated he understood the concerns and staff recommends the Ordinance only apply to major subdivisions.
Mrs. Kirby asked how many lots that would be.
Mr. Stepowany stated 5 or more lots.
Mrs. Kirby stated that would be fine.
Mrs. Carlone agreed and stated there should be a stipulation for four lots or less to have shared driveways.
Mr. Stepowany stated a request could be made to mandate two lots to have a shared driveway. He stated there was a provision now available for shared driveways.
Mr. Harvey stated that could be possible and stated the situation would need to be looked at. He stated it would also apply to major arterial roads and the Commission should consider what type of roads to apply reverse frontage.
Mrs. Carlone asked why all roads could not be considered.
Mr. Stepowany stated he could call the Office of Transportation and ask what the roads are classified by Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). He named many roads that could be listed because of the danger on curvy roads.
Mrs. Carlone asked if this could be clarified at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Stepowany stated he would look into shared driveways.
Mr. Harvey stated there would need to be a discussion of minor subdivision and the use of shared driveways. He stated shared driveways are currently mainly applied to major subdivisions and are specified to be shown on a construction plan to get approval. He stated the minor subdivisions are not getting an engineered design plan and would need to discuss more how that would happen.
Mr. Pitzel stated the reason this ordinance did not continue and gave an example as to why it did not pass.
Mr. Harvey stated VDOT was developing an Access Management Program that looks at how to approve entrances on state roads.
Mr. Cook stated this should be kept in committee.
Mrs. Carlone stated this Ordinance would be needed in the county.
Mr. Stepowany stated he would address concerns and bring back to the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Kirby stated that Mrs. Carlone and she get so involved because they see this all the time in Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Mrs. Kirby made a motion to hold in committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
2. Key Maps – GIS Disks
Mr. Stepowany stated surveyors were required to provide a GIS disk or pay a fee. He stated the disks were asked to be requested at the beginning of the application process and there were no submission requirements so it was placed in the content of the application. He stated there was also a request for a key map to be on the map when recorded. He stated all applications have been updated. He stated the GIS Disk and Key Maps are now listed as submission requirements and no longer need to be listed as the content of the plat.
Mr. Pitzel stated the content in 22-87 of the Subdivision Ordinance and asked if there were items beside 12 and 13 in the paragraph.
Mr. Stepowany stated correct.
Mr. Pitzel stated all requirements for all format would not be on the form.
Mr. Stepowany stated correct.
Mr. Di Peppe asked if the wording should be changed.
Mr. Stepowany stated he would request that this item go to public hearing as written.
Mr. Cook made a motion to send to the full commission and make a recommendation to send to public hearing. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM.
|
|
Send this to a friend |